Preview #8: Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation Reaction, 2 blood Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after blocks are declined. Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each action.

J a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] I don't like this card. an aspect of the game i loved for so long is, vampires are supposed to play cards in relation to their disciplines. we had disciplineless prevention which is annoying but ok, and now we have disciplineless bounce. So what's the next step, agg damage without pro or vic ? :/ I'm more and more annoyed by cards that turns a game which allowed you to plan ahead and outguess your enemies, into something where every vampire can do everything. It will just become plain boring.

[ quoted text not captured ] DT answer our prayers !

[ quoted text not captured ] My thoughts - finally we might see a lessened requirement for dominate and auspex in tournament decks. The requirements though countermand this. Many older vampires will have access to flick as it is, 2 blood is expensive and only 1 per action is alright, but means that big guy decks relying on it can still get caught at the end of the flick chain. I'll definately find a use for it in some decks, but maybe not as many as I might have thought. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Also, isn't "Tap this reacting vampire" a part of the cost? Therefore it can't be used with Wakes? Or would it need to be written "Tap this reacting vampire TO <blah>"? Morgan Vening

> Also, isn't "Tap this reacting vampire" a part of the cost? Therefore > it can't be used with Wakes? Or would it need to be written "Tap this > reacting vampire TO <blah>"? It would need to be "Tap X to do Y", ala The Mole, dominate ability. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Also, isn't "Tap this reacting vampire" a part of the cost? Therefore > it can't be used with Wakes? Or would it need to be written "Tap this > reacting vampire TO <blah>"? > Deflectiona and telephatic also have Tap this reacting vampire. It does not say "only useble by an untapped vampire" or "tap this vampire to do...." I'll find a nosferatu deck who really likes this, maybe even a big setite. BTW You can not compare this reaction card with the non-skilled prevent. Cant wait to see the rest.. Oortje

> I don't like this card. > an aspect of the game i loved for so long is, vampires are supposed to > play cards in relation to their disciplines. > > we had disciplineless prevention which is annoying but ok, and now we have > disciplineless bounce. So what's the next step, agg damage without pro or > vic ? :/ > I'm more and more annoyed by cards that turns a game which allowed you to > plan ahead and outguess your enemies, into something where every vampire > can do everything. It will just become plain boring. I understand what you're saying, and share it to a degree. Now, a few points : - lots of people complained that Aus and Dom had the enormous advantage of bounce ; those people are now happy, you are not, it's hard to satisfy everyone - I think this opens for a whole world of new viable possibilities, because there are many interesting concepts out there that weren't playable because fo the absence of bounce ; now, some clans without Dom or Aus can be played without being totally hopeless, and that's good for the game - all the disciplineless cards are limited, somehow : Glancing Blow will never be as good as having For, and will be used only in some types of decks where preventing 1 might make a real difference. Same goes for Lost in Translation (what a strange name for that card...) : it costs 2 blood and deflects only younger, and taps, so it's sort of an inferior Redirection (that works with allies) for 2 blood. Much weaker, but still useful - Given its cost and limitations, LiT won't be a good card in anything but high-caps decks. Now, that's good too : it's perfectly logical that big vampires can bounce weaker ones even without Dom / Aus (in the card game or even in the background). And it encourages / allows playing those vamps now (maybe we'll see some Gwendolyn decks now ?). - Marciana Giovanni can still deflect Arika's bleeds ; Cock Robin still can't. - every deck can do lots of things, but it's still predictable (as of now) : For decks can prevent a lot, every deck can prevent for 1 per card (not replaceable) ; Ani or Aus can give lots of intercept, Pro can give 1 ; etc, etc. I do agree that we're walking a thin line here, and the game conceptors have to be very, very cautious of not ruining the unique possibilities of each discipline. But if there is one thing I'm glad of, it's disciplineless bounce : as much as I love Dominate, it's good to be able to play "something else", and seriously, this will never be as good as Deflection or the more polyvalent Telepathic Misdirection. I think this is actually good for the variety of the game. And I really prefer a high-cap-oriented disciplineless bounce rather than seeing, over the time, a bounce in For, a bounce in Pre, etc etc (I hope that enver happens, and think there's no chance of that now). -- Orpheus ---------------- Top of Ban / Fix List : PTO, Champion, Memories of Mortality.

> BTW You can not compare this reaction card with the non-skilled > prevent. I can't see why you couldn't. Both are less good than their discipline counterparts. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus a écrit : >>I don't like this card. >>an aspect of the game i loved for so long is, vampires are supposed to >>play cards in relation to their disciplines. >> >>we had disciplineless prevention which is annoying but ok, and now we have >>disciplineless bounce. So what's the next step, agg damage without pro or >>vic ? :/ >>I'm more and more annoyed by cards that turns a game which allowed you to >>plan ahead and outguess your enemies, into something where every vampire >>can do everything. It will just become plain boring. > > > I understand what you're saying, and share it to a degree. > > Now, a few points : > > - lots of people complained that Aus and Dom had the enormous advantage of > bounce ; those people are now happy, you are not, it's hard to satisfy > everyone but tell me why should "we" (and who is that we anyway) satisfy everyone ?? We all like and dislike some aspect of this game : so should we make it even and resolve everything by throwing dice if i ask the designers to do so ? mmm.... > - I think this opens for a whole world of new viable possibilities, because > there are many interesting concepts out there that weren't playable because > fo the absence of bounce ; now, some clans without Dom or Aus can be played > without being totally hopeless, and that's good for the game TONS of concepts were already playable. I played clans with no access to bounce, and with my mediocre talent got them to the finals of tournament... So i guess it was not so difficult huh ? The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > - all the disciplineless cards are limited, somehow : Glancing Blow will > never be as good as having For, and will be used only in some types of decks > where preventing 1 might make a real difference. Same goes for Lost in > Translation (what a strange name for that card...) : it costs 2 blood and > deflects only younger, and taps, so it's sort of an inferior Redirection > (that works with allies) for 2 blood. Much weaker, but still useful Limited somehow, yes, but it's still a disciplineless bounce for 2 blood, which is nothing when you are bled for 3 pool. In followers of set decks which voter caps like crazy, those 2 blood means nothing. > - every deck can do lots of things, but it's still predictable (as of now) : > For decks can prevent a lot, every deck can prevent for 1 per card (not > replaceable) ; Ani or Aus can give lots of intercept, Pro can give 1 ; etc, > etc. err, excuse me, from protean not being able to generate intercept versus legwork / sonar => which means 2 cept, there is a difference :/ > I do agree that we're walking a thin line here, and the game conceptors have > to be very, very cautious of not ruining the unique possibilities of each > discipline. What if it's already done ? :/ > And I really prefer a high-cap-oriented disciplineless bounce rather than > seeing, over the time, a bounce in For, a bounce in Pre, etc etc (I hope > that enver happens, and think there's no chance of that now). i understand your point, but i'd rather not see this card printed :/

On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong and I don't plan to include a single Lost in Translation into my deck. I am completely fine with my bloat and my 2nd traditions. If something cripples Nosfe royalty more than anything else, it's not powerbleed (which just lets you play your Parity Shifts), but a hostile vote deck at the table, as the Nosfies have very limited ways to gain votes. Then there are the inherent weaknesses of all fattie decks, i.e weenies and/or strong combat. man, did you ever play a Nosferatu vote deck?

>> I understand what you're saying, and share it to a degree. >> >> Now, a few points : >> >> - lots of people complained that Aus and Dom had the enormous advantage >> of bounce ; those people are now happy, you are not, it's hard to satisfy >> everyone > > > but tell me why should "we" (and who is that we anyway) satisfy everyone > ?? We all like and dislike some aspect of this game : so should we make it > even and resolve everything by throwing dice if i ask the designers to do > so ? mmm.... There is no "should", nor did I pretend to the contrary. But a majority of players will rejoice over this card (at least for some time, before they realize it isn't as playable as they would like). >> - I think this opens for a whole world of new viable possibilities, >> because there are many interesting concepts out there that weren't >> playable because fo the absence of bounce ; now, some clans without Dom >> or Aus can be played without being totally hopeless, and that's good for >> the game > > TONS of concepts were already playable. I played clans with no access to > bounce, and with my mediocre talent got them to the finals of > tournament... So i guess it was not so difficult huh ? Yes, it was. Because you or I (not often but I did...) or some skilled players succeeded without bounce doesn't mean that it's not difficult. Also, I think if we took a look at those decks we'd see either rush, non-Aus intercept, or mega-bloat, and that would revolve around fw enough decktypes. I'm not reducing your merits here, even if you can succeed to some extent with weird decks, it doesn't mean that when confronted to good players with better decks you could win anyway ; and it doesn't mean that players less skilled in deck weirdness could do the same. > The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! That's not true. I don't think many Nosfe Royalty will care to include this card. Why ? Because it would take too many slots, slow them down, complicate their Parity Shift strategy... OTOH I think this will make life easier on the non-camarilla, who don't have access to Parity cheese or bounce sweetness. >> - all the disciplineless cards are limited, somehow : Glancing Blow will >> never be as good as having For, and will be used only in some types of >> decks where preventing 1 might make a real difference. Same goes for Lost >> in Translation (what a strange name for that card...) : it costs 2 blood >> and deflects only younger, and taps, so it's sort of an inferior >> Redirection (that works with allies) for 2 blood. Much weaker, but still >> useful > > Limited somehow, yes, but it's still a disciplineless bounce for 2 blood, > which is nothing when you are bled for 3 pool. In followers of set decks > which voter caps like crazy, those 2 blood means nothing. Good then. How many FoS vote decks have you seen recently ? I've been planning to make one for a while, until now it was barely viable, now maybe a little more so, even if it's still 10 times less good than Ventrue Obf (oh, and BTW, those have conditionless bounce too...). >> - every deck can do lots of things, but it's still predictable (as of >> now) : For decks can prevent a lot, every deck can prevent for 1 per card >> (not replaceable) ; Ani or Aus can give lots of intercept, Pro can give 1 >> ; etc, etc. > > err, excuse me, from protean not being able to generate intercept versus > legwork / sonar => which means 2 cept, there is a difference :/ Legwork : 1 blood ; Do not replace until your next untap phase. +1 intercept. Not usable by a vampire with more than 0 intercept. Not sure if it works if you add one more intercept after it, but it's still a pretty big restriction. If you go that way, Pack Tactics has been available for years now. Do you see it played often ? Fact is, anyone could easily go to 2 intercept against a bleed (Sonar is against D actions too). Anyway, the popularity of those cards show how optimal they are. >> I do agree that we're walking a thin line here, and the game conceptors >> have to be very, very cautious of not ruining the unique possibilities of >> each discipline. > > What if it's already done ? :/ If it is done, it goes way back to the first disciplineless cards. For the rest, no, I don't believe it's done yet. I agree that a disciplineless aggravated card is the limit never to be crossed. >> And I really prefer a high-cap-oriented disciplineless bounce rather than >> seeing, over the time, a bounce in For, a bounce in Pre, etc etc (I hope >> that enver happens, and think there's no chance of that now). > > i understand your point, Good, we understand each other then, we just have different PoVs. > but i'd rather not see this card printed :/ Too late. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes >> like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : >> powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > > actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong Then you don't face facts. Or don't play it right. > and I don't plan to include a single Lost in Translation into my deck. > I am completely fine with my bloat and my 2nd traditions. If something > cripples Nosfe royalty more than anything else, it's not powerbleed > (which just lets you play your Parity Shifts), but a hostile vote deck > at the table, as the Nosfies have very limited ways to gain votes. > Then there are the inherent weaknesses of all fattie decks, i.e > weenies and/or strong combat. Agreed on those, although a big turn of powerbleed can hurt a lot, but usually Parity polyvalence can help a lot (including by killing the offending predator). > man, did you ever play a Nosferatu vote deck? As much as I agree with some of those arguments, I dunno if Reyda ever played Nosfe Royalty but be assured that he has fought against more such decks than you'll ever play. This being said, I don't think he's very objective on the conversation, and there is the slight possibility that you might be a little subjective yourself. ;-) ------------- Orpheus

In message <46e7c747$0$32427$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >we had disciplineless prevention which is annoying but ok, and now we >have disciplineless bounce. So what's the next step, agg damage without >pro or vic ? :/ Huh? Reality check: easy disciplineless aggravated damage was available for years. The problem with it wasn't that it made the game boring, but that it was too easy to do, and too powerful as a result. See: Pulled Fangs. Other disciplines have aggravated damage. Some have quite a bit. e.g. Burst of Sunlight (tha), Breath of Thanatos (nec), Taste of Death (qui). Clans have access to aggravated damage, such as the Malkavians with Escaped Mental Patient. Disciplineless aggravated damage is available in the form of many weapons. Ivory Bow and, to a lesser extent, Sengir Dagger have been popular for some decks since the creation of Jyhad. Starshell Grenade Launcher or White Phosphorus Grenade are hardly poor. Dragon's Breath Rounds still has uses, particularly with some cheap guns around. And if you want a combat card that gifts aggravated damage without disciplines? Molotov Cocktail. Usable without disciplines - Trap, presses - but tricky to abuse. Two entries in the TWDA. That was released four and a half years ago. Welcome to 2003. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> If you go that way, Pack Tactics has been available for years now. Do you > see it played often ? Fact is, anyone could easily go to 2 intercept against > a bleed (Sonar is against D actions too). Sonar is only against D actions at inferior. At PRO, it is just +1 intercept. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > I agree that a disciplineless > aggravated card is the limit never to be crossed. Flamethrower

interesting card :( unfortunately

On Sep 12, 2:05 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > >> The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > >> like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > >> powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > > > actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong > > Then you don't face facts. Or don't play it right. It depends on what you call Nosfe royalty. Yes, I usually win 3 games out of 5 with my deck, but that is not what you would call uber strong I hope. If you refer to the legendary vampire-parity shift trick decks, which won few tournaments recently, those might appear uber strong, but I dare to say, just because of very weird tournament environment they exist in. but that is for another discussion (or a flame :)). but anyway, regardless of what I wrote above, my main point was that "the only ones that could cripple them : powerbleeders." is completely wrong statement - and I think we agree on that one. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 sep, 13:50, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <46e7c747$0$32427$79c14...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda [ quoted text not captured ] I dare to suppose that Reyda was referring to hand aggravated damage: chiroptean marauder, bone spur, wolf claws and claws of the dead

On 12 sep, 12:59, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I don't like this card. > an aspect of the game i loved for so long is, vampires are supposed to > play cards in relation to their disciplines. I agree with not liking the card. But for other reasons. Since the problem area of 'bleed for 7+' isn't addressed, this is the next best thing. But I do think it's not good enough to find its way into many decks. I can see adding them to big cap Gangrel, nossies and Assamites, but not 9 in a deck like deflection.

Alias a écrit : > On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes >>like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : >>powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > > > actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong > and I don't plan to include a single Lost in Translation into my deck. > I am completely fine with my bloat and my 2nd traditions. If something > cripples Nosfe royalty more than anything else, it's not powerbleed > (which just lets you play your Parity Shifts), In my experience, Parity shift may be the most delayed vote in all v:tes history. My playgroup is also using Confusion of the eye for making the annoying votes fail. And when i say they pack lots of them, it means lots. I also pack some confusion in my own decks to avoid Alastors (free assault rifle is bad) or Justicars vote that might interfere with my grasp on the vote lock. > but a hostile vote deck > at the table, as the Nosfies have very limited ways to gain votes. Excuse me, but you may be the one baldy playing the nossies. if i can count correctly, i have very quickly up to Selma = 2 votes, Niklaus = 2 votes, Murat = 2 votes, Sheldon = 3 votes, Legendary vampire on selma means i can rely on 9 to 11 voices to let other people hear my opinion. Very few other decks can claim to have access to so many voices so quickly thanks to Niklaus special & Zillah's valley. Having transient voices is, as always, better than playing push since you can act with a single vote card in your hand, without waiting for the whole combo (awe / cap etc...) showing at once. > Then there are the inherent weaknesses of all fattie decks, i.e > weenies and/or strong combat. > > man, did you ever play a Nosferatu vote deck? mmm.. how can i put this simply ? :) I play nosferatu since 1994, pal :) And i am still practicing : my strongest deck at the moment is a gr 2/3 Nosferatu deck with Suhailah as a guest star. It plays OBF / FOR / POT and easily disarms any fighter in the way :) I qualified for the european championship with this marvel. so yes, i'm quite aware of nosferoyalty's nemesis by now :)

[ quoted text not captured ] ivory bow. at least my example is undercosted. ;) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

LSJ a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] 4 pool, man...

"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> wrote in news:46e7cc1f$0$21615$426a...@news.free.fr: > Lost in Translation (what a strange name for that card...) : (an) explanation; instructions from a methuselah to attack a particuolar enemy's stronghold are sent through a chain of lesser minions (a Meth wouldn't assign such a minor task to a worthless underling directly). Along the way, the instructions get slightly distorted by a minion working for the opposition, and the wrong building gets torched (the correct target was the untouched building in the right lens). The original instructions were "lost in translation" to the acting minion... DaveZ

On Sep 12, 2:53 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Alias a écrit : > > > On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > >>like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > >>powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > > > actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong > > and I don't plan to include a single Lost in Translation into my deck. > > I am completely fine with my bloat and my 2nd traditions. If something > > cripples Nosfe royalty more than anything else, it's not powerbleed > > (which just lets you play your Parity Shifts), > > In my experience, Parity shift may be the most delayed vote in all v:tes > history. My playgroup is also using Confusion of the eye for making the > annoying votes fail. And when i say they pack lots of them, it means > lots. I also pack some confusion in my own decks to avoid Alastors (free > assault rifle is bad) or Justicars vote that might interfere with my > grasp on the vote lock. so first Nosfe royalty is overpowered, and now, all of a sudden, it's easily foiled by one card, and everyone plays dozen of that card. I am losing the last bits of consistency in your arguments :) > > > but a hostile vote deck > > at the table, as the Nosfies have very limited ways to gain votes. > > Excuse me, but you may be the one baldy playing the nossies. > if i can count correctly, i have very quickly up to > > Selma = 2 votes, Niklaus = 2 votes, Murat = 2 votes, Sheldon = 3 votes, 9 votes= 31 pool. Arika=4 votes, Lucinde=3 votes, Victorine=2 votes, HQ=3 votes, all for 30 pool. I don't see any relevance in this basic school mathematics. > Legendary vampire on selma means i can rely on 9 to 11 voices to let > other people hear my opinion. Very few other decks can claim to have > access to so many voices so quickly thanks to Niklaus special & Zillah's > valley. >Having transient voices is, as always, better than playing push > since you can act with a single vote card in your hand, without waiting > for the whole combo (awe / cap etc...) showing at once. uh? you mean just the way round, don't you? > > > Then there are the inherent weaknesses of all fattie decks, i.e > > weenies and/or strong combat. > > > man, did you ever play a Nosferatu vote deck? > > mmm.. how can i put this simply ? :) > I play nosferatu since 1994, pal :) And you still don't understand the mechanics.. :( no I'm kidding :) > > And i am still practicing : my strongest deck at the moment is a gr 2/3 > Nosferatu deck with Suhailah as a guest star. It plays OBF / FOR / POT > and easily disarms any fighter in the way :) I qualified for the > european championship with this marvel. so your problem is that you rule, and with Lost in Translation you will be unstoppable? I lost the point..in translation :) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe a écrit : > In message <46e7c747$0$32427$79c1...@nan-newsreader-05.noos.net>, reyda > <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: > >>we had disciplineless prevention which is annoying but ok, and now we >>have disciplineless bounce. So what's the next step, agg damage without >>pro or vic ? :/ > > > Huh? > > Reality check: easy disciplineless aggravated damage was available for > years. The problem with it wasn't that it made the game boring, but > that it was too easy to do, and too powerful as a result. See: Pulled > Fangs. >Welcome to 2003. mais alors toi... yes, i'm pretty sure you know everything about v:tes. and if i type wikipedia v:tes, your photo will pop up :) but please, stop opening those already open doors. It makes a lot of wind for nothing. I am aware that ivory bow thing and you know it. What's the point in... pointing this ? and if you really want to know There is already a card that does agg damage in combat with no disciplines, and another one that sends a younger vamp in torpor. I'm glad that both are draft effect... By know. But who knows what wille happen in the future. Going back to the argument : Do you understand that part of the pleasure in a game consists of guessing what the opponent might play, based on the vampire he plays, the discipline spread he relies on and the info from his ash heap ? Now, well, you will get your bleed redirected with no info whatsoever(*). I am not playing heavy bleeds decks, so i am not whining because of my strategies would be ruined. ((sadly i already think your answer will be "don't bleed if there is an older vampire" ...)) Deckbuilding is, in my opinion, not about laziness, but is a matter of choices between disciplines, vampires, etc... You choose what you can handle and what you cannot. And it's one of the spice of the game. I am just sad to see that you can now build any deck you want without having to worry about bleeds : just save like 5 slots for "Lost in translation" and it's ok. ((yes, i know it does not really work for weenie decks, blahblah)) I would not complaint if the card was printed in the first year of v:tes. But 13 years later... Is there really a need for this ?

On Sep 12, 1:55 pm, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Lost in Translation > Reaction, 2 blood > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > blocks are declined. > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > action. Whoah. Discilineless (limited) bounce. After thinking about it for a few minutes, I like it. All too many tournament decks go the "must have dom or AUS, so I can bounce" route. Now there is another option, one that will make large- cap decks without dom or AUX slightly more viable. I'm all for that. It's limited to allies and younger, costs quite a bit, and is also usable once per action: also good. Discipline-based bounce will still be much better. As it should be.

Alias a écrit : > On Sep 12, 2:53 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>Alias a écrit : >> >> >>>On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes >>>>like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : >>>>powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! >> >>>actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong If you cannot say "nosfe royalty is uber strong", then you still have a lot to learn about this game anyway. >>>and I don't plan to include a single Lost in Translation into my deck. >>>I am completely fine with my bloat and my 2nd traditions. If something >>>cripples Nosfe royalty more than anything else, it's not powerbleed >>>(which just lets you play your Parity Shifts), >> >>In my experience, Parity shift may be the most delayed vote in all v:tes >>history. My playgroup is also using Confusion of the eye for making the >>annoying votes fail. And when i say they pack lots of them, it means >>lots. I also pack some confusion in my own decks to avoid Alastors (free >>assault rifle is bad) or Justicars vote that might interfere with my >>grasp on the vote lock. > > > so first Nosfe royalty is overpowered, and now, all of a sudden, it's > easily foiled by one card, and everyone plays dozen of that card. > > I am losing the last bits of consistency in your arguments :) The existence of delaying, which you see a lot during tournament, does not make Nosfe Royalty a weak deck. But if you rely only on Parity shift to soak 2 bleed for 6, then you might be disappointed if a delaying show up. And guess what kind of deck packs lots of delaying ? that's right, power bleeder, so they don't get banished, so you cannot parity shift them. Is it sooooo hard to understand without trying to turn my words against me in the name of fun or whatever you want ? Now the nossies (since we took them as an example in the early beginning of this thread) have a good way to screw what was their nemesis. >>>but a hostile vote deck >>>at the table, as the Nosfies have very limited ways to gain votes. >> >>Excuse me, but you may be the one baldy playing the nossies. >>if i can count correctly, i have very quickly up to >> >>Selma = 2 votes, Niklaus = 2 votes, Murat = 2 votes, Sheldon = 3 votes, > > > 9 votes= 31 pool. > > Arika=4 votes, Lucinde=3 votes, Victorine=2 votes, HQ=3 votes, all for > 30 pool. I don't see any relevance in this basic school mathematics. Then you missed something : 4 vampires = 4 political actions, 3 vampires = 3 political actions. And your HQ must be tapped, so is here for one vote only. If you tap it during your turn, you can't use it when others are acting. Oh, and may i say that you missed the legendary vampire that turns Selma into Arika in terms of permanent bleed and votes... But maybe i am the one with dirt in the eye there ? >>Legendary vampire on selma means i can rely on 9 to 11 voices to let >>other people hear my opinion. Very few other decks can claim to have >>access to so many voices so quickly thanks to Niklaus special & Zillah's >>valley. >>Having transient voices is, as always, better than playing push >>since you can act with a single vote card in your hand, without waiting >>for the whole combo (awe / cap etc...) showing at once. > > > uh? you mean just the way round, don't you? yes, of course i meant permanent vs transient => permanent is better than pushing (transient). >>And i am still practicing : my strongest deck at the moment is a gr 2/3 >>Nosferatu deck with Suhailah as a guest star. It plays OBF / FOR / POT >>and easily disarms any fighter in the way :) I qualified for the >>european championship with this marvel. > > > so your problem is that you rule, and with Lost in Translation you > will be unstoppable? My problem is : Disciplines are supposed to do things. Now you can do major things without disciplines. I'm inclined to say it is against the spirit of the game. This is my problem. I don't know if it's yours. But we're here to discuss. > I lost the point..in translation :) Wow, very funny. I bet that if i was half that funny, i would have much success with the girls...

Orpheus <orphe...@free.fr> wrote: > > BTW You can not compare this reaction card with the non-skilled > > prevent. > I can't see why you couldn't. Both are less good than their discipline > counterparts. It's sort of worth pointing out that LiT's effect, although it costs 2 more blood, is better than basic Redirection, since Redirection doesn't let you bounce allies.

On Sep 12, 9:32 am, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Alias a écrit : > > so your problem is that you rule, and with Lost in Translation you > > will be unstoppable? > > My problem is : Disciplines are supposed to do things. Now you can do > major things without disciplines. I'm inclined to say it is against the > spirit of the game. This is my problem. I don't know if it's yours. But > we're here to discuss. It's slightly better than inferior redirection (because it works against allies, and redirection does not). It costs +2 blood over inferior redirection, and only one can be played each action (which is a positive if your prey was packing with this card, but a negative if your copy gets DI'd or the bleed gets bounced back). I don't think it really steps on the toes of disciplines too much. witness1

On Sep 12, 4:43 pm, Jozxyqk <jfeue...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well, "better" is debatable. Inf. Redirection doesn't let you bounce allies, true. This is mainly an issue vs the Imbued, currently. Ignoring that, LiT costs 2 blood (which is a lot) and can't be used to bounce something that's been bounced to you (a common occurence). I'd still claim that inferior Redirection is better, in a general case.

> Ignoring that, LiT costs 2 blood (which is a lot) and can't be used to > bounce something that's been bounced to you (a common occurence). Not entirely true - it doesn't let you bounce something that's been bounced to you with LiT or that's been bounced back to you after you've bounced it with a LiT during the action already. but if it's bounced to you with a deflection or some such, then sure you can bounce it on with LiT. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] ? I think it can be used on a bounced bleed, just not if another LiT was played already. > I'd still claim that inferior Redirection is better, in a general > case. Well, the _effect_ of LiT is better. But once you account for the cost, maybe not so much better that it's really all that meaningful. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] lol. I thought about that, but an equipment is something else, really : what it does can be predicted (once equipped with, and surprise-equipping with Flamethrower requires Obf), it has a pool cost, isn't useable under Immortal Grapple, etc. Quite different with surprise aggs. Just imagine Giovanni For with a disciplineless aggrav : IG, you can't prevent mine, I prevent yours, it's aggravated. Don't even need Disarm anymore, don't risk any additionals... -------- Orpheus

>> If you go that way, Pack Tactics has been available for years now. Do you >> see it played often ? Fact is, anyone could easily go to 2 intercept >> against >> a bleed (Sonar is against D actions too). > > Sonar is only against D actions at inferior. At PRO, it is just +1 > intercept. I stand corrected. It shows how many I've seen hit the table since it's been printed. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >> The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong >> >> archetypes >> >> like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them >> >> : >> >> powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! >> >> > actually, I am playing nosfe royalty,I don' t think it's uber strong >> >> Then you don't face facts. Or don't play it right. > > It depends on what you call Nosfe royalty. Yes, I usually win 3 games > out of 5 with my deck, but that is not what you would call uber strong > I hope. Well, it's quite strong, given that there are 5 players at a table, so if your deck is just as strong as the others - and you too as a player - you should win 3 times less often. Most players who access a tournament final do it with 2 GWs out of 3 games, sometimes even with 1GW / 6 VPs, so you'd probably be there every time. Nice, isn't it ? > If you refer to the legendary vampire-parity shift trick decks, which > won few tournaments recently, those might appear uber strong, They are a Tier1, comparable to AAA and co. > but I > dare to say, just because of very weird tournament environment they > exist in. Really ? It is the same metagame I've seen since I play competively : very few combat, lots of bleed and vote. Nothing new under the sun... err, the moon. ;-) > but that is for another discussion (or a flame :)). If you want. > but anyway, regardless of what I wrote above, my main point was that > "the only ones that could cripple them : powerbleeders." is completely > wrong statement - and I think we agree on that one. Yes, we do. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Excuse me, but you may be the one baldy playing the nossies. That mistype was actually very funny. So Alias is bald ? No wonder he likes ugly clans then !! ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I lost the point..in translation :) > > Wow, very funny. I bet that if i was half that funny, i would have much > success with the girls... But you're not so I get all the girls. No, wait...

[ quoted text not captured ] Probably more as "the limit" intended: Molotov Cocktail B

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, true, brainfart here. The "only once" may become an issue when re- bouncing bleeds *if* LiT proves to be popular, but you're right in that it's quite probable that you got bounced via Deflection (or whatever). However... what you see pretty often is a big bleed being bounced around quite a few times before it finally lands. In these cases, the probability of one of those bounces being a LiT rises with each one, and that specific limitation of LiT may bite you. We'll see.

>> Lost in Translation (what a strange name for that card...) : > > (an) explanation; instructions from a methuselah to attack a particuolar > enemy's stronghold are sent through a chain of lesser minions (a Meth > wouldn't assign such a minor task to a worthless underling directly). > Along the way, the instructions get slightly distorted by a minion working > for the opposition, and the wrong building gets torched (the correct > target > was the untouched building in the right lens). The original instructions > were "lost in translation" to the acting minion... > > DaveZ Ok, convincing enough, I guess that's the original spirit of the thing. Thanks for the, uh, translation. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> and if you really want to know There is already a card that does agg > damage in combat with no disciplines, and another one that sends a younger > vamp in torpor. I'm glad that both are draft effect... By know. But who > knows what wille happen in the future. As he pointed out, we forgot all about Molotov Cocktail, so there already is a non-draft disciplineless combat card which does aggravs and nobody cares (much) about. So I guess it all depends on the strength of each individual card. > Going back to the argument : Do you understand that part of the pleasure > in a game consists of guessing what the opponent might play, based on the > vampire he plays, the discipline spread he relies on and the info from his > ash heap ? Now, well, you will get your bleed redirected with no info > whatsoever(*). I am not playing heavy bleeds decks, so i am not whining > because of my strategies would be ruined. > > ((sadly i already think your answer will be "don't bleed if there is an > older vampire" ...)) > > Deckbuilding is, in my opinion, not about laziness, but is a matter of > choices between disciplines, vampires, etc... > You choose what you can handle and what you cannot. And it's one of the > spice of the game. Agreed. > I am just sad to see that you can now build any deck you want without > having to worry about bleeds : just save like 5 slots for "Lost in > translation" and it's ok. ((yes, i know it does not really work for weenie > decks, blahblah)) Now, that is completely wrong, my friend. You still have to "worry" about bleeds. Between the slots, the blood, and the "younger" part, this card will be useful only for very few vamps and in very few decks. I think Jeroen has the list about right : finally we can try and play Assamites and a few other underdogs without Dom, isn't that good ?! If anything, it strenghtens the older vampires and weakens the allies. Nothing I can't rejoice about. > I would not complaint if the card was printed in the first year of v:tes. > But 13 years later... Is there really a need for this ? There has been a strong demand for it, so at least in the opinion of many players the answer was : yes. And seeing the card, I can't help but think that it fits the need exactly. Very good job, guys. And this comes from Mr Criticism (your big-cap indies still stink though lol). [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think this will see much use in setite decks, as most big cap setites have dominate already anyway. But its quite nice to lot of other decks. !Brujah, Assamites and Guruhi especially.

>> > > BTW You can not compare this reaction card with the non-skilled >> > > prevent. >> > I can't see why you couldn't. Both are less good than their discipline >> > counterparts. >> >> It's sort of worth pointing out that LiT's effect, although it costs 2 >> more blood, is better than basic Redirection, since Redirection doesn't >> let you bounce allies. > > Well, "better" is debatable. > > Inf. Redirection doesn't let you bounce allies, true. This is mainly > an issue vs the Imbued, currently. > > Ignoring that, LiT costs 2 blood (which is a lot) and can't be used to > bounce something that's been bounced to you (a common occurence). > > I'd still claim that inferior Redirection is better, in a general > case. Anyway, it's not like anyone who has Deflections in his collection usually plays Redirection (I know there has been some debate over this, but on the whole it's not a good bounce alternative). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 12, 9:25 am, Klaita...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't think this will see much use in setite decks, as most big cap > setites have dominate already anyway. But its quite nice to lot of > other decks. !Brujah, Assamites and Guruhi especially. It remains to be seen if the slew of new Setites in this set have dominate nearly as frequently as the existing ones, of course. -John Flournoy

[ quoted text not captured ] I've seen _superior_ Redirection played with some frequency (in decks that include tons of wakes and tap out frequently). I can't recall the last time I saw anyone bother with the inferior (outside of maybe a draft). witness1

> > I don't think this will see much use in setite decks, as most big cap > setites have dominate already anyway. But its quite nice to lot of > other decks. !Brujah, Assamites and Guruhi especially.- Masquer le texte des messages précédents - > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - there are FIVE 8+ setiths with dominate and FOUR 8+ assamite with dominate don't bury assamites too fast ;-)

On Sep 12, 5:59 am, reyda <true_re...@hotmail.com> wrote: > J a écrit : > > > Lost in Translation > > Reaction, 2 blood > > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > > blocks are declined. > > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > > action. > > I don't like this card. > an aspect of the game i loved for so long is, vampires are supposed to > play cards in relation to their disciplines. Unfortunately, disciplineless bounce appeared to be a neccessity due to players fixation with having bounce in their decks. Only two disciplines plus imbued had access to bounce. The result of this was that rather than finding ways to work without bounce most people played clans with those disciplines or bolted them on to other clans through out-of-clan disciplines. At various tournaments the diversity in what people bring to the table in terms of decks has IMO been decreasing as people continue to focus on bounce as their defense. At Origins this year during one of the tournaments I wandered through the thirty players at one of the late-week tournaments and noted that 4 players were playing clans without access to bounce. (The reason I had time to check this was that I was one of the 4 attempting to play without bounce and had been quickly ousted :-P ). Of those 26 bounce capable decks, most if not all evidenced bounce during my brief tour. (Heavy appearances by Lasombra, often 2 at a table together). Disciplineless bounce is needed to remedy the developing situation where people are not playing the clans without bounce (IMO). I think it is a good thing when you sit down at a table in the second round of a tournament and see actually different decks from the same bounce proliferated decks you just finished playing with. As for the card itself I think the cost and restriction are high enough that this card will not take the game by storm and will have little *practical effect* on the game. But I hope its other effect - increasing deck diversity - is much greater. The variety of decks in VTES is one of its strong points. Disciplineless bounce will increase the diversity of decks being played. John P. Winnipeg

Is this what we have been waiting for? HA HA HA! This card is an insult. Totaly useless. By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker.... I can't belive that this is the card you had everyone so excited for LSJ. This is a vaste of paper.

On Sep 12, 11:40 am, "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: > Unfortunately, disciplineless bounce appeared to be a neccessity due > to players fixation with having bounce in their decks. Players don't have an irrational fixation with having bounce in their decks. Players have bounce in their decks because it is an unfortunate necessity. > Only two disciplines plus imbued had access to bounce. The result > of this was that rather than finding ways to work without bounce > most people played clans with those disciplines or bolted them on to > other clans through out-of-clan disciplines. 'Cause, still, it is mostly necessary. There are ways to work around having bounce, yes (bloat, rush, block, whatever). But for the most part, *all* of the workarounds are still just less effective than bounce. Which is a sad reality of the game. > At various tournaments the diversity in what people bring to the table > in terms of decks has IMO been decreasing as people continue > to focus on bounce as their defense. People continue to focus on bounce as their bleed defense as it is simply much better than the alternatives as opposed to other possibilities, bounce protects you *and* hurts your prey at the same time. With one card. Cheaply. Bounce is far and away the most effective defense to the most effective offense in the game. Thus, bounce is good. It isn't an irrational decision to rely on bounce. It isn't a fixation. It is just the best option. -Peter

> Is this what we have been waiting for? > HA HA HA! This card is an insult. Totaly useless. Sure. That's why you won't see any hitting the table, nor any in the TWDA in the months to come... > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... ??? If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just check : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... > I can't belive that this is the card you had everyone so excited for > LSJ. LSJ has always excited me. Something in the way he wears his cowboy boots, I guess... > This is a vaste of paper. You mean this message ? That's why I won't print it. ;-) Seriously, you didn't expect a disciplineless card to be as good as a Dominate card, did you ? If so, you had to expect disappointment. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 12, 5:55 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Lost in Translation > Reaction, 2 blood > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > blocks are declined. > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > action. It's good for combat. Now I can play my Samantha/Enkidu/Basilia/Jaque Molay/Nangila Were/Wynn/Karsh multi-rush decks without sweating a Dominate predator (as much?!?), and I won't have to line my crypt with dom/aus weenies to keep myself afloat. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On 12 Sep, 18:27, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... > > ??? > > If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just check > : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... I think you are missing the point here. Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in this) The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that this card obviously woun't do. (therefore false advertisement) > > I can't belive that this is the card you had everyone so excited for > > LSJ. > > LSJ has always excited me. Something in the way he wears his cowboy boots, I > guess... Okey then... > Seriously, you didn't expect a disciplineless card to be as good as a > Dominate card, did you ? If so, you had to expect disappointment. Again; missing the point.

i like the card. if i choose, i choose to ban all the bounce (ok, im a fascist) but we have all the bounce and now this. and with the obvious DOM comparision, hey boys, stop... if i choose now to play intercept and not DOM, i have a new choice far better than pack tactics... if you like dom, play dom... make an skeleton for every deck thay include GtU, deflection and dom dudes... its simple and efective... but a lot boring. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 syys, 20:00, mel...@nith.no wrote: > On 12 Sep, 18:27, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... > > > ??? > > > If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just check > > : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... > > I think you are missing the point here. > > Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore > the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in > this) > The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try > and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that > this card obviously woun't do. > (therefore false advertisement) I dunno, it's not that obvious to me. You could say that this won't steer you away from decks that don't have dom, but you certainly can't say that people obviously won't start using this when several people have already said that they will. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That deck would be awesome if it was one each of all those vampires instead of star vampire with weenie support. :) Later, ~Rehlow

[ quoted text not captured ] I for one will be glad to stop relying on those few Assamites for bounce though. How many decks have I made with 3x Badr al-Budur or Deviki w/Dom masters just to tack on bounce? Peter is right on the money when he said bounce is the best defense to the most common offense in the game. Now everyone has the same access to bounce, some clans just have better bounce than others. I will call this card a success in that it equalizes the availability of bounce without helping weenie decks. Also, the restrictions are significant enough that it really doesn't wallpaper other bleed defenses either. So kudos to the design team on this one.

On Sep 12, 12:00 pm, mel...@nith.no wrote: > On 12 Sep, 18:27, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: > > > > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... > > > ??? > > > If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just check > > : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... > > I think you are missing the point here. > > Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore > the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in > this) > The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try > and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that > this card obviously woun't do. > (therefore false advertisement) > I think Lost in Translation will be better in some decks than Dominate skill cards + Deflection. Either you include lots of Dominate skill cards, using up deck space and master phase actions, or risk not drawing a Dominate skill card and having unplayable Deflections in your hand. If you choose to play vampires with dominate you use up crypt slots on these bouncing vampires who might not be able to play other cards in your deck or if you play the vampires of your clan with dominate you end up having to make deck decisions based on those few vampires. Having to play dominate is very limiting. I have a Samedi Little Mountain Cemetery deck with only The Baron being able to play Deflection. I am thinking of changing it to some Deflection, some Lost in Translation so that I am not totally dependent on The Baron for bounce. Later, ~Rehlow

J skrev: > Lost in Translation > Reaction, 2 blood > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > blocks are declined. > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > action. > Fantastic card! Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became playable in a competitive environment? Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. Good work! Sten -- More ramblings at http://yapvamp.blogspot.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

mel...@nith.no wrote in news:1189616413.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > On 12 Sep, 18:27, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> wrote: >> > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... >> >> ??? >> >> If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just >> check >> : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... > > I think you are missing the point here. > > Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore > the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in > this) > The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try > and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that > this card obviously woun't do. Meh. It'll take some not-dominate/not-auspex tier 2 strategies, and make them potentially more viable in the tournament scene, by patching a gap in some defense packages. Frex, this card can pair well in low-med quantity with rush combat strategies that make use of Taste of Vitae to refill (thus mitigating the cost), and a lot of decks like that are on the cusp of being tournament-viable; Blood Brothers, Brujah, !Bru, Gargoyles, Samedi, not- Pro/Dom Gangrel, Ahrimanes, Nossies, big Ravnos (who are already used to spending lots of blood). > (therefore false advertisement) > Well, if it was LSJ that actually said those things, then yeah... but since it was just wild speculation on the part of the player base, not so much. DaveZ

On Sep 12, 11:11 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Sep 12, 11:40 am, "John P." <jtpat...@mts.net> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, disciplineless bounce appeared to be a neccessity due > > to players fixation with having bounce in their decks. > > Players don't have an irrational fixation with having bounce in their > decks. Players have bounce in their decks because it is an unfortunate > necessity. I never called it an *irrational* fixation. I do not see bounce as a neccessity but in the current environment not having bounce is a handicap that must be planned carefully around. Under those circumstances a fixation with bounce may be justified. I think calling bounce a neccessity is a little strong though. I'm sure there's some TWD without bounce somewhere. > > Only two disciplines plus imbued had access to bounce. The result > > of this was that rather than finding ways to work without bounce > > most people played clans with those disciplines or bolted them on to > > other clans through out-of-clan disciplines. > > 'Cause, still, it is mostly necessary. There are ways to work around > having bounce, yes (bloat, rush, block, whatever). But for the most > part, *all* of the workarounds are still just less effective than > bounce. Which is a sad reality of the game. Agreed. (since there is a "mostly" in front of "necessary" :P) > > At various tournaments the diversity in what people bring to the table > > in terms of decks has IMO been decreasing as people continue > > to focus on bounce as their defense. > > People continue to focus on bounce as their bleed defense as it is > simply much better than the alternatives as opposed to other > possibilities, bounce protects you *and* hurts your prey at the same > time. With one card. Cheaply. Bounce is far and away the most > effective defense to the most effective offense in the game. Thus, > bounce is good. It isn't an irrational decision to rely on bounce. It > isn't a fixation. It is just the best option. > > -Peter Peter I think we're agreeing here. (don't blame me) I never faulted the player's logic that encourages them to choose bounce as their best defense, I was simply saying this is a needed card because it will allow players that feel they need bounce to now play more varied decks. Which is good in my books. Regards, John P. Winnipeg

[ quoted text not captured ] Redirection at DOM is great unless your Predator's playing Imbued. grumblefuckmutter... -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in news:1189613512.711510.45120 @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > People continue to focus on bounce as their bleed defense, as it is > simply much better than the alternatives as opposed to other > possibilities. Bounce protects you *and* hurts your prey at the same > time. With one card. Cheaply... It isn't a fixation. It is just the best > option. Quoted for TRUTH!! DaveZ

[ quoted text not captured ] Now you can with OBF CEL Drafting!

In message <1189599832.0...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, coincoi...@hotmail.com writes: >I dare to suppose that Reyda was referring to hand aggravated damage: >chiroptean marauder, bone spur, wolf claws and claws of the dead Quietus, Abombwe, Potence, and Gargoyles all have access to aggravated hand damge. If you can pull off a Dawn Operation, so does Fortitude. There may be others that I can't remember. (The Quietus one is rubbish.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Sep 12, 3:35 am, reyda wrote: > Orpheus a écrit : > > - lots of people complained that Aus and Dom had the enormous advantage of > > bounce ; those people are now happy, you are not, it's hard to satisfy > > everyone > > but tell me why should "we" (and who is that we anyway) satisfy everyone > ?? We all like and dislike some aspect of this game Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but what I understand the line above to mean is: "I understand that not everyone can be satisfied by everything this game produces. I am okay with it when a change gets made that I like, but when something is changed/printed that I don't like, it's clearly unfair and bad for the game." Is that about right? You seem to be indicating that you realize that not everyone can be satisfied. You also seem equally determined to convince people that this is a bad card, and should never have been made. Have I missed anything? > TONS of concepts were already playable. I played clans with no access to > bounce, and with my mediocre talent got them to the finals of > tournament... So i guess it was not so difficult huh ? There are, in fact, a lot more concepts that will now be more playable in competitive play because of this. If one or two archetypes get a little stronger because of that, I'm okay with it. > The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! Uh...you can't seriously believe that power bleed is the only counter for Nosferatu Princes. And if you're going to put Lost in Translation in these decks, what are you going to take out? IME, they're already kind of toolboxy, and they'll be losing some of that for LiT. > Limited somehow, yes, but it's still a disciplineless bounce for 2 > blood, which is nothing when you are bled for 3 pool. In followers of > set decks which voter caps like crazy, those 2 blood means nothing. OMG, the sky is falling! Seriously though, the card has a fairly significant cost. You either have to leave a big(ger) guy untapped, or you also have to have a WWEF (or equivalent). Add to that the younger restriction and the 2 blood, and it becomes one of the most expensive reaction cards around. If you have other cards in your deck to offset the costs of this card, that further dilutes your offense. > > - every deck can do lots of things, but it's still predictable (as of now) : > > For decks can prevent a lot, every deck can prevent for 1 per card (not > > replaceable) ; Ani or Aus can give lots of intercept, Pro can give 1 ; etc, > > etc. > > err, excuse me, from protean not being able to generate intercept versus > legwork / sonar => which means 2 cept, there is a difference :/ Ah, but everyone can get +1 from legwork. You're really nitpicking here, aren't you? You left out Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics. > > I do agree that we're walking a thin line here, and the game conceptors have > > to be very, very cautious of not ruining the unique possibilities of each > > discipline. > > What if it's already done ? :/ What if the game designers thought that AUS/dom were having too large an influence on the metagame? Where's your FUD then? If this had been a Thaumaturgy card, would you have been okay with it? Or would that be a problem too? Just because something can be done by a discipline doesn't mean it can't be done through other methods. Supposedly, THA can mimic any discipline, though at a greater cost. Does that mean that the designers should come up with cards that do everything all the other disciplines can do, so that the "flavor" of Thaumaturgy can be accurately represented in the game? Probably not, but we do have Mirror Walk now. I think maybe I'll go back and see what you thought about that. Or Stealth Ritus. Or Legwork. Xian disciplineless

In article <1189620859.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, "John P." <jtpa...@mts.net> wrote: > I never called it an *irrational* fixation. True--I think I read your post, started responding, and figured out that we were actually saying the same thing about half way through my response. Which I adjusted accordingly, but left the "irrational" in there, just in case :-) > I do not see bounce as a > neccessity > but in the current environment not having bounce is a handicap > that must be planned carefully around. Under those circumstances a > fixation > with bounce may be justified. I think calling bounce a neccessity is a > little strong though. I'm sure there's some TWD without bounce > somewhere. Oh, sure. There are also decks in the TWDA that should never have won a tournament in a million years :-) But really, is bounce an absolute necessity? No. You can win tournament without bounce. I have won plenty of tournaments without bounce (heck--it seems likely that most of my decks in the TWDA don't have bounce in them...). But it is difficult. And playing *with* bounce is *much* easier than playing without bounce. 'Cause bounce is a much more efficient way to deal with bleed defense than any other possibility. > Peter I think we're agreeing here. (don't blame me) I never faulted > the > player's logic that encourages them to choose bounce as their best > defense, I was simply saying this is a needed card because it will > allow players that feel they need bounce to now play more varied > decks. > > Which is good in my books. Agreed. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

Disciplineless bounce, good. Only usable once per action, bad. Cost 2 blood, bad. younger minion, um whatever. Total, 2 bad, 1 good, seems a bit too little bang for buck.

Blooded Sand skrev: > Disciplineless bounce, good. Only usable once per action, bad. Cost 2 > blood, bad. younger minion, um whatever. > > Total, 2 bad, 1 good, seems a bit too little bang for buck. > Well, still well worth it to have a few copies in, for example, an animalism wall deck. Basically you save a copy in your hand for a rainy day -- read "block fails". There are a lot of vampires that look good on paper, and which would be fun to play but for their total inability to bounce a bleed. Who knows, we might even see Sutekh and Gwendolyn :) [ quoted text not captured ]

reyda schrieb: > LSJ a écrit : >> Orpheus wrote: >> >>> I agree that a disciplineless aggravated card is the limit never to >>> be crossed. >> >> >> Flamethrower > > 4 pool, man... Concealed, Saturday Night, DBR. See the deck of Orian. It´s brutal, and Jake Washington can do it. -- Johannes Walch

reyda schrieb: > TONS of concepts were already playable. I played clans with no access to > bounce, and with my mediocre talent got them to the finals of > tournament... "on sait jamais, sur un malentendu ça peut marcher!" ;-) > The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes > like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : > powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! Nosfe royalty (I suppose you are talking about the turbo with Zillahs and Legendary) is far from uber-strong. It hardly makes the list of Tier1 since it is very vulnerable to a lot of things, since w/o the Parity Shifts it dies. And I wouldn´t include Lost in Translation in the deck since it will just cripple your allready difficult card flow. The usability of the card is limited for this type of deck since there isn´t always a good possibility to play it since you a) don´t stay untapped with the vamps and b) the avg capacity is between 7-8 so it´s only usefull against mid-cap powerbleed and Arika will still get you. I would rather have another 2nd Tradition since that can stop important stuff or wear out the stealth and not just bounce a bleed in some situations but clog your hand most of the time. If you are afraid of Powerbleed, Archon Investigation is a better choice. -- Johannes Walch

> Blooded Sand skrev: >> Disciplineless bounce, good. Only usable once per action, bad. Cost 2 >> blood, bad. younger minion, um whatever. >> >> Total, 2 bad, 1 good, seems a bit too little bang for buck. >> > > Well, still well worth it to have a few copies in, for example, an > animalism wall deck. Basically you save a copy in your hand for a > rainy day -- read "block fails". I'm not sure it's that good an idea. It means that your main vampire will be hig-cap enough to afford the opportunity cost, and it's slots that won't be taken by permacept or others. For example, I'm not sure Howler would play LiT, while Una or Cock Robin might use a few. > There are a lot of vampires that look good on paper, and which > would be fun to play but for their total inability to bounce a > bleed. Yes. > Who knows, we might even see Sutekh and Gwendolyn :) I had the same thought about Gwendolyn ; as for Sutekh, maybe you're stretching it a little... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> > By all means we can't make a skill like dominate any weaker... >> >> ??? >> >> If you mean that it's stupid to make the same as Dom but weaker, just >> check >> : Computer Hacking. It's like a Scouting Mission but weaker... > > I think you are missing the point here. If I'm missing anything, it's the meaning of your previous sentence. Feel free to explain yourself in a clearer way and I'll answer to the point. > Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore > the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in > this) Yes, sure. > The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try > and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that > this card obviously woun't do. > (therefore false advertisement) Whoever said that spat shit with his mouth. No one ever said that one single card would replace Dominate : it would mean that the card would enable to bleed, deflect, steal allies, graverob, seduce, etc etc. Now, if the "advertisement" was that people wouldn't have to play Dom just for deflections, it is true if your minion(s) meet the necessary requirements of the card, i.e. being high-cap enough and having enough spare blood. As has been said by many others, this card opens possibilities of dominate-freeness for decks which would have included Marcianna Giovanni or Keith Moody just for deflecting purposes !! That is good. >> Seriously, you didn't expect a disciplineless card to be as good as a >> Dominate card, did you ? If so, you had to expect disappointment. > > Again; missing the point. I think you're the one missing the point of the card, mate. It does what it does, not more, and this is enough to open new possibilities without wallpaperizing Dom or Aus bounce (far from it). All this is good in my book (we'll see if my opinion changes after a few months of tentative abuses). [ quoted text not captured ]

>> The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes >> like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : >> powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! > > Nosfe royalty (I suppose you are talking about the turbo with Zillahs and > Legendary) is far from uber-strong. It hardly makes the list of Tier1 > since it is very vulnerable to a lot of things, since w/o the Parity > Shifts it dies. I'm surprised you think so. I've seen enough suck decks, "à la suisse" version, to tell you it deserves its place among Tier1, even without bounce. Yes, it walks a thin line, but that's its strength as well as its weakness (being able to get out fast, kill its prey or call a PS right before it dies)... > And I wouldn´t include Lost in Translation in the deck since it will just > cripple your allready difficult card flow. Agreed. I might include some in the rush version of the Nosfe Princes, though. > The usability of the card is limited for this type of deck since there > isn´t always a good possibility to play it since you a) don´t stay > untapped with the vamps and b) the avg capacity is between 7-8 so it´s > only usefull against mid-cap powerbleed and Arika will still get you. > > I would rather have another 2nd Tradition since that can stop important > stuff or wear out the stealth and not just bounce a bleed in some > situations but clog your hand most of the time. And combining 2nd + LiT makes for a meager 3 blood, much too much for voters-not-capers ! > If you are afraid of Powerbleed, Archon Investigation is a better choice. Or Protected Ressources, if you bleed with Legendary Vampire only for the kill... [ quoted text not captured ]

> Redirection at DOM is great unless your Predator's playing Imbued. Or Nephandii, or Shadow Court Satyrs, or Political Ally, or Brigitter Gebauer,or... > grumblefuckmutter... You nickname as a rap star ? ;-) -------- Yorpheus

>> > Lost in Translation >> > Reaction, 2 blood >> > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after >> > blocks are declined. >> > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the >> > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the >> > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each >> > action. >> >> It's good for combat. Now I can play my Samantha/Enkidu/Basilia/Jaque >> Molay/Nangila Were/Wynn/Karsh multi-rush decks without sweating a >> Dominate predator (as much?!?), and I won't have to line my crypt with >> dom/aus weenies to keep myself afloat. Nu Lives again !! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Fantastic card! > > Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became > playable in a competitive environment? Maybe, but not much... > Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed by your prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... > Good work! I have to say : yes, it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1189632744....@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > Total, 2 bad, 1 good, seems a bit too little bang for buck. I dunno--strikes me as pretty reasonable. In reality, most decks that could really benefit from LiT could probably graft dom/AUS bounce in anyway, but once and a while, it'll seem like a good idea to use LiT instead, and it is unlikely to be overpowering. [ quoted text not captured ]

> What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed by your > prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... Not entirely. If Deflection is DI'd, I can wake another guy and Deflect with him. Or I can Redirect/Misdirect/My Enemy's Enemy with the first guy. If I don't have access to these disciplines, and am relying on LiT to flick, and it gets DI'd, that's it. I can't play another one during this action, so I have to wear the bleed. So LiT is more problematic when it gets DI'd then other flick. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

atomweaver wrote: > mel...@nith.no wrote in > > >> (therefore false advertisement) >> > Well, if it was LSJ that actually said those things, then yeah... but since > it was just wild speculation on the part of the player base, not so much. > > Well Dave, in the Game Trade article written by LSJ, it said "disciplineless bounce", so it did in fact come from Scott. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

LSJ wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> I agree that a disciplineless aggravated card is the limit never to >> be crossed. > > Flamethrower e.g. c.f. Ivory Bow, Black Gloves, Improvised Flamethrower, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 12, 6:55 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Lost in Translation > Reaction, 2 blood > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > blocks are declined. > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > action. Large cap combat with vitae (tasting or thefting) cry horray!

>> Lost in Translation >> Reaction, 2 blood >> Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after >> blocks are declined. >> Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the >> acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the >> chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each >> action. > > Large cap combat with vitae (tasting or thefting) cry horray! Eze, the Demon Prince playable at last ?

"Orpheus" <orphe...@free.fr> schreef in bericht news:46e87255$0$32166$426a...@news.free.fr... >> Fantastic card! >> >> Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became >> playable in a competitive environment? > > Maybe, but not much... > >> Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. > > What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed by > your prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... Nope. You play LiT after blocking. It gets DIed. 'One per action' means you can't wake someone else and LiT again (wich you can with deflection) nor play a variant bounce card with the same minion (dom and aus have 2 bounce cards.) ergo: you have to take the bleed. All hail the mighty DI :)

In message <1189616413.7...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, mel...@nith.no writes: >Dominate is by far the most powerfull skill in the game and therefore >the most played in decks as well(deflection being a big factor in >this) >The point of this card as it was rumored was that it was going to try >and steer people away from using dom in every deck. Something that >this card obviously woun't do. >(therefore false advertisement) Obviously won't do? If you want to place a bet on that... Some decks will steer away from Dominate. Instead of having to throw in Dominate[0] weenies, they'll pick their own clan. Instead of having to throw in Dominate masters and Deflection, they'll put in (more) Wakes and Lost in Translation and, perhaps, a few Life in the City to fuel LiT, which is also useful for other reasons. Will it affect every deck? No. Weenies won't use it much at all, obviously, for example. Will some decks still prefer to graft on Deflection? Sure. Are there decks out there that have Dominate grafted on already that will prefer Lost in Translation? Possibly, possibly not. If the deck is already doing well, it may stick with what it's got. The interesting part will be to see the decks that *aren't* being built at the moment, because people can't defend against massive bleeds. I can certainly see some people building fattie decks that use Lost in Translation, where little viable bleed defence existed currently. For example, I would be extremely unsurprised to see a few people who kind of like the Assamites but don't play them currently (due to their weaknesses) trying out Lost in Translation as potentially viable bleed defence in an in-clan, non-superstar deck. That will be where the card is best measured. Not in how it affects already-viable decks, but in how it allows old, unplayable deck-styles to start stepping up to potentially Tier 2, Tier 1.5... [0] Alter Dominate/Deflection etc. to taste, if you prefer the alternatives. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <46e7e62e$0$26646$79c1...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >but please, stop opening those already open doors. It makes a lot of >wind for nothing. I am aware that ivory bow thing and you know it. >What's the point in... pointing this ? One would have to wonder why you complain about the impending arrival of disciplineless aggravated damage, when it already exists. What's the point in that? >Going back to the argument : Do you understand that part of the >pleasure in a game consists of guessing what the opponent might play, >based on the vampire he plays, the discipline spread he relies on and >the info from his ash heap ? This isn't what I was talking about. You whined about how we might "next" get disciplineless aggravated damage, which would make the game boring. We already have it. The game isn't boring. When people make claims that aren't true, they get corrected. That's how discussions work. The easiest way to avoid this is not to make claims that aren't true, especially when you know they aren't. Using false claims to support an argument is just crass. It's also notable LSJ made exactly the same point as I did (his example being Flamethrower), yet you didn't find it necessary to tell him to stop opening "already open doors", or ask him why he's pointing these things out, or whine that his photo would turn up in searches. Funny that you choose to attack me and not him, when I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument, the same as him. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think LiT is a useful card and it will be played in the future. But as with a lot of disciplineless cards it is a fair bit weaker then the corresponding discipline cards. In an average tournament in the near future the ratio of all Lost in Translations to Deflections being used will perhaps be 1 to 50. This card won't cause a revolution, but is useful. As mentioned before in this thread, "bounce" is a very efficient defense method. 1. A bounce reduces a bleed to 0 (for you). 2. A bounce causes an opponent being bled. But there is another aspect. 3. With a bounce no risk is involved (except from being bounced back). To reduce the "must have" dom/AUS modules in the game the introduction of other bounce cards help of course. But it would also be nice to consider methods that increase the risk of using the bounce cards. Harsh Example: Player A bleeds player B. Player B bounces the bleed to player C. Player C uses a reaction card that causes the bounce card to be negated and player B gets 2 extra pool damage. This is just an example to demonstrate what I mean. I still think there also should be some kind of bounce (not for Dominate or Auspex) that "bounces" back the bleed to the original bleeder (*). Archon Investigation is about the only real threat a big bleed with enough stealth has to worry about at the moment. That's a bit poor. (*) BTW: I know that someone who bleeds cannot bleed one selves, it should be more in the way of getting pool damage according to the heighth of the bleed amount. H

On 13 sep, 02:41, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> schreef in berichtnews:46e87255$0$32166$426a...@news.free.fr... [ quoted text not captured ] Is this true? I was under the impression that when you play a bounce (any bounce) is like playing it after blocking, I mean, that the bounce phase is after the I choose/choose not to block phase. Rafa

"Kozkak" <tecp...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189679311.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That's what I said, isn't it? LiT even has it in its text (emphasis mine) "Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, *********after blocks are declined**************"

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> schreef in bericht news:gl8Gi.102949$8s4.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "Kozkak" <tecp...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht > news:1189679311.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On 13 sep, 02:41, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> >> wrote: >>> "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> schreef in >>> berichtnews:46e87255$0$32166$426a...@news.free.fr... >>> >>> >> Fantastic card! >>> >>> >> Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became >>> >> playable in a competitive environment? >>> >>> > Maybe, but not much... >>> >>> >> Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. >>> >>> > What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed >>> > by >>> > your prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... >>> >>> Nope. >>> You play LiT after blocking. ok, i see. I left out 'attempts' at the end of this sentence.

librarian wrote: > atomweaver wrote: >> mel...@nith.no wrote in >> >> >>> (therefore false advertisement) >>> >> Well, if it was LSJ that actually said those things, then yeah... but >> since it was just wild speculation on the part of the player base, not >> so much. > > Well Dave, in the Game Trade article written by LSJ, it said > "disciplineless bounce", so it did in fact come from Scott. What is false about "disciplineless bounce"? You seem to have forgotten what "those things" (in the context above) were, despite the fact that "those things" were in the message you responded to (and snipped from). To wit: I did not say "[LiT] was going to try and steer people away from using dom in every deck". I said "disciplineless bounce". So it did, in fact, not come from me.

On Sep 12, 11:55 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Lost in Translation > Reaction, 2 blood > Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, after > blocks are declined. > Tap this reacting vampire. Chosse another Methusela other than the > acting minion's controller. The acting minion is now bleeding the > chosen Methusela. Only one Lost in Translation may be played each > action. IMO this is an important card for the game. Despite it makes sense or not in a WoD+clan+disciplines perspective, it will surelly allow many decks to be improved and/or become more bleed resistant. Many many times one didn't select certain vampires to be included in a crypt because they didn't have the capability to deflect bleeds. Or other times one didn't take to tournament or play more often a good combat deck because it felt most of times against a bleed predator or bleed deflections coming form the grand-predator or ally. Thanks, Scott! :-)

> But it would also be nice to consider > methods that increase the risk of using the bounce cards. > > Harsh Example: Player A bleeds player B. Player B bounces the bleed to > player C. Player C uses a reaction card that causes the bounce card to be > negated and player B gets 2 extra pool damage. > I still think there also should be some kind of bounce (not for Dominate > or Auspex) that "bounces" back the bleed to the original bleeder (*). > Archon Investigation is about the only real threat a big bleed with enough > stealth has to worry about at the moment. That's a bit poor. > > (*) BTW: I know that someone who bleeds cannot bleed one selves, it should > be more in the way of getting pool damage according to the heighth of the > bleed amount. Bounce may have been a flaw in the original design of Jyhad. Deflection and Telepathic Misdirection were fun and surprising and stuff back in 1993, and there were only ten disciplines so 20% of them had bounce. Still, the distribution of disciplines among the original clans made for a huge imbalance of bleed defense and bleed offense and Dominate gave a clan both of them. The optimal time to correct the flaws in Jyhad would have been during the first few expansions. While the V:TES 'reprint' set made some rational adjustments (Archon Investigation, Protected Resources), the rest of the Wizards of the Coast expansions mostly just added more flaws. [ speculations on what could or should have been done omitted here ... no doubt you can all speculate for yourselves ] As for nowadays, I don't think spreading around the bounce is the best fix. 'Follow the bouncing bleed' has a randomizing effect on the game, making little musical-chairs interludes that end with somebody losing a bunch of pool. I don't think bounce-punishment is a great fix either. 'Huge reward at huge risk' also makes the game more random. I'd like to see bounce prevention of some sort, instead. Of several sorts, actually... One possible example: Counterproposal reaction, cost 1 blood requires a titled vampire with capacity greater than 4 If you are being bled by your predator, reduce the bleed by 2. If you are being bled by a Methuselah other than your predator and you are not the original target of this bleed action, the original target is now the target again.

On 13 sep, 09:53, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <46e7e62e$0$26646$79c14...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda > > <true_re...@hotmail.com> writes: > >but please, stop opening those already open doors. It makes a lot of > >wind for nothing. I am aware that ivory bow thing and you know it. > >What's the point in... pointing this ? > > One would have to wonder why you complain about the impending arrival of > disciplineless aggravated damage, when it already exists. > > What's the point in that? may i suggest you read coincoinmaster's answer to get a clue ? > >Going back to the argument : Do you understand that part of the > >pleasure in a game consists of guessing what the opponent might play, > >based on the vampire he plays, the discipline spread he relies on and > >the info from his ash heap ? > > This isn't what I was talking about. You whined about how we might > "next" get disciplineless aggravated damage, which would make the game > boring. We already have it. The game isn't boring. When people make > claims that aren't true, they get corrected. That's how discussions > work. The easiest way to avoid this is not to make claims that aren't > true, especially when you know they aren't. Using false claims to > support an argument is just crass. and what about the fact that vampires should play cards according to their disciplines ? you know it's the point of the discussion, don't you ? > It's also notable LSJ made exactly the same point as I did (his example > being Flamethrower), yet you didn't find it necessary to tell him to > stop opening "already open doors", or ask him why he's pointing these > things out, or whine that his photo would turn up in searches. Funny > that you choose to attack me and not him, when I'm pointing out the > flaws in your argument, the same as him. what flaws ? you want to compare a single combat card like wolf claws with a 4 pool flamethrower or a combo like concealed/gun/dbr which requires 3 cards to be efficient ? or a molotov cocktail that does not let you strike on first round and only works on subsequent rounds so you can see it coming miles away ? I have no reason to attack anyone, i answered to lsj in the same tone he answered me. He did not bother to make a 200k mail to state things everyone already knows. but, since arguing with you is a huge waste of time, i forfeit. yes, you are 100% right and i am 100% wrong. thank you for correcting my ignorant self. i hope your ego feels better now. end of discussion.

@Malone I agree that the current bounce tech is a bad design by WoC, but they couldn't look in the future either. And by "bad design" I mean that the bounce cards are just too cheap for what they have to offer. The bounce principle isn't bad at all (In my opinion LiT is a pretty balanced card). But what can you do to correct this? 1. Ban the bounce cards. 2. Reword the bounce cards. 3. Introduce more bounce cards. 4. Introduce bounce punishment (I like that expression). Nobody wants banning or rewording of the bounce cards. They are too much part of the game to actually remove or change them. To introduce more possibilities to bounce is a solution. Perhaps we return to the situation that 20% of the disciplines could use them. BTW your bounce prevention card "Counterproposal" is also a bounce card at superior. Bounce punishment changes the "Hugh reward vs no risk" into "Hugh reward vs greater risk". Personally I think that this doesn't sound too bad and it breaks the bounce cycles that we see at the tournaments at the moment. H

[ quoted text not captured ] Right, agreed. Perhaps bad snipping on my part then, or more likely, poor reading comprehension. "Those things" you did not say. "Disciplineless bounce" you did say. On a slightly different topic, so far I have enjoyed what I have seen of the new set - I look forward to putting these cards in play. Of them all, including the GT previews, Nakhthorheb is still the one I am looking forward to building a deck with first. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't see where you come to the conclusion that you can't play Dom or Aus bouncers after LiT is DI'ed. You can't play another LiT sure per card text, but why can't you play a Deflection, Redirection, My Enemy's Enemy or Telepathic Misdirection? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 13, 2:15 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > > "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> schreef in bericht > >news:46e87255$0$32166$426a...@news.free.fr... > >>> Fantastic card! > > >>> Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became > >>> playable in a competitive environment? > >> Maybe, but not much... > > >>> Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. > >> What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed by > >> your prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... > > > Nope. > > You play LiT after blocking. > > It gets DIed. > > 'One per action' means you can't wake someone else and LiT again (wich you > > can with deflection) nor play a variant bounce card with the same minion > > (dom and aus have 2 bounce cards.) > > ergo: you have to take the bleed. > > > All hail the mighty DI :) > > I don't see where you come to the conclusion that you can't play Dom or > Aus bouncers after LiT is DI'ed. You can't play another LiT sure per > card text, but why can't you play a Deflection, Redirection, My Enemy's > Enemy or Telepathic Misdirection? Because if you bothered to pack LiT you probably don't meet the requirements for any other bounce? witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] No doubt. I just thought there was a rules wrinkle I was missing - that's usually pretty likely. [ quoted text not captured ]

> but, since arguing with you is a huge waste of time, i forfeit. > yes, you are 100% right and i am 100% wrong. thank you for correcting > my ignorant self. > i hope your ego feels better now. end of discussion. Can you satisfy my ego too ? I need people to tell me just that. Oh, and add that part where girls like me better than you. ;-) Your Orphy

>>> I don't see where you come to the conclusion that you can't play Dom or >>> Aus bouncers after LiT is DI'ed. You can't play another LiT sure per >>> card text, but why can't you play a Deflection, Redirection, My Enemy's >>> Enemy or Telepathic Misdirection? >> >> Because if you bothered to pack LiT you probably don't meet the >> requirements for any other bounce? Not necessarily : you might have a mixed crypt of fatties, some of whom have Dom (big Setites, Justicar decks with Pascek + Lucinde, etc.) and still pack a few LiT for safety - but keep a few deflects because, well... They're just way better ! -- Orpheus ---------------- Top of Ban / Fix List : PTO, Champion, Memories of Mortality.

> Counterproposal > reaction, cost 1 blood > requires a titled vampire with capacity greater than 4 > If you are being bled by your predator, reduce the bleed by 2. If you > are being bled by a Methuselah other than your predator and you are > not the original target of this bleed action, the original target is > now the target again. Would prefer it to be above 6, but I like it ! [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus schrieb: >>> The "that's good for the game" means that already uber strong archetypes >>> like nosfe royalty can now beat the only ones that could cripple them : >>> powerbleeders. Viva la crap !! >> Nosfe royalty (I suppose you are talking about the turbo with Zillahs and >> Legendary) is far from uber-strong. It hardly makes the list of Tier1 >> since it is very vulnerable to a lot of things, since w/o the Parity >> Shifts it dies. > > I'm surprised you think so. I've seen enough suck decks, "à la suisse" > version, to tell you it deserves its place among Tier1, even without bounce. > Yes, it walks a thin line, but that's its strength as well as its weakness > (being able to get out fast, kill its prey or call a PS right before it > dies)... I have never played the deck myself, but I talked with Kamel about it (who has played and usually plays only the strongest deck) and he said that it is too risky and to unreliable for him. In fact the problem is that if you can´t pass the votes in the beginning (due too titled vampires on prey/pred or DT, CotE ...) you cannot afford new vampires and will never re-gain vote-lock. -- Johannes Walch

Orpheus schrieb: >>>> I don't see where you come to the conclusion that you can't play Dom or >>>> Aus bouncers after LiT is DI'ed. You can't play another LiT sure per >>>> card text, but why can't you play a Deflection, Redirection, My Enemy's >>>> Enemy or Telepathic Misdirection? >>> Because if you bothered to pack LiT you probably don't meet the >>> requirements for any other bounce? > > Not necessarily : you might have a mixed crypt of fatties, some of whom have > Dom (big Setites, Justicar decks with Pascek + Lucinde, etc.) and still pack > a few LiT for safety - but keep a few deflects because, well... They're just > way better ! You might also get kidnapped and stuffed with an anal probe by Aliens. Just a question of probability. :) -- Johannes Walch

Chlorix64 schrieb: > Personally I think that this doesn't sound too bad and > it breaks the bounce cycles that we see at the tournaments at the moment. Why are these bounce cycles bad? Somebody *is* loosing pool, resources go off the table, everything is fine. If you don´t have bounce you better pack rush or bloat, thats a very basic deck building principle. The new bounce is just the *enabler* (they were really unplayable before) for those big-caps who can´t bloat/rush fast enough and don´t have dom/AUS (did somebody say Appolonius?) -- Johannes Walch

In message <1189694500.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Reyda ! <Rey...@gmail.com> writes: >On 13 sep, 09:53, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> In message <46e7e62e$0$26646$79c14...@nan-newsreader-07.noos.net>, reyda >> >> <true_re...@hotmail.com> writes: >> >but please, stop opening those already open doors. It makes a lot of >> >wind for nothing. I am aware that ivory bow thing and you know it. >> >What's the point in... pointing this ? >> >> One would have to wonder why you complain about the impending arrival of >> disciplineless aggravated damage, when it already exists. >> >> What's the point in that? > >may i suggest you read coincoinmaster's answer to get a clue ? And you were still wrong on this point, because there are other several ways to get aggravated hand damage without Protean or Vicissitude. End of world imminent. I'd also point out that you still didn't find it necessary to be quite this rude to LSJ, when he suggested Flamethrower. >> This isn't what I was talking about. You whined about how we might >> "next" get disciplineless aggravated damage, which would make the game >> boring. We already have it. The game isn't boring. When people make >> claims that aren't true, they get corrected. That's how discussions >> work. The easiest way to avoid this is not to make claims that aren't >> true, especially when you know they aren't. Using false claims to >> support an argument is just crass. > >and what about the fact that vampires should play cards according to >their disciplines ? you know it's the point of the discussion, don't >you ? You made several different points. I responded to one of them. I didn't respond to the others. If you don't want people to respond to other points, *don't make them*. Especially when they're not true. You made a point. It was wrong. It was corrected. Get over it. >> It's also notable LSJ made exactly the same point as I did (his example >> being Flamethrower), yet you didn't find it necessary to tell him to >> stop opening "already open doors", or ask him why he's pointing these >> things out, or whine that his photo would turn up in searches. Funny >> that you choose to attack me and not him, when I'm pointing out the >> flaws in your argument, the same as him. > >what flaws ? You whined about the impending arrival of disciplineless aggravated damage *when we already have it*. >you want to compare a single combat card like wolf claws >with a 4 pool flamethrower or a combo like concealed/gun/dbr which >requires 3 cards to be efficient ? "Compare"? Not really. Disciplineless stuff is generally supposed to be worse than disciplined stuff, otherwise it just wallpapers the disciplined version. It's not a question of comparing it beyond that. People who want the disciplined version can play that discipline/clan and/or graft it on. People who don't can try the disciplineless version. We don't really need to compare them and say the disciplineless version is tip-top and just as efficient, because it's not really supposed to be. It's usually supposed to be a less efficient fall-back for the less fortunate. So yes, Flamethrower is expensive - though probably overcosted. Ivory Bow isn't, Improvised Flamethrower has a lot going for it, Blowtorch is tricky but not unplayable. So, we already have disciplineless aggravated damage. And hey, guess what, the disciplined version is pretty much always better, because the disciplineless stuff is limited! The disciplined stuff is cheaper, easier, more efficient, whatever. The game is usually very good like that. We have disciplineless bounce now. But hey, guess what, the disciplined version is pretty much better! > or a molotov cocktail that does not >let you strike on first round and only works on subsequent rounds so >you can see it coming miles away ? Yep, Molotov Cocktail isn't as good as Wolf Claws, mostly. Just like Lost in Translation isn't as good as Deflection, generally. (Although Molotov Cocktail has a fine place in weenie Fortitude/Trap decks, where seeing it coming isn't really an issue because the vampire has already had multiple rounds to check you're not about to S:CE, usually.) So we're obviously agreed that the disciplineless aggravated damage that's in the game is just fine and won't be a "What next? Woe is me" situation, because the designers aren't putting in ridiculously powerful cards. And the game isn't boring with Ivory Bow and Molotov Cocktail in it. That's good to know! >I have no reason to attack anyone, i answered to lsj in the same tone >he answered me. He did not bother to make a 200k mail to state things >everyone already knows. Apparently: a) you didn't already know this, because you wouldn't have lied about this if you did b) Orpheus already openly stated that he'd forgotten about Molotov Cocktail. So you're attacking me for making a post that definitely helped Orpheus in this discussion! Way to go. >but, since arguing with you is a huge waste of time, i forfeit. >yes, you are 100% right and i am 100% wrong. thank you for correcting >my ignorant self. >i hope your ego feels better now. end of discussion. So, when you make a mistake and someone corrects it, you have a fit because you were wrong? How about accepting you made a mistake and, you know, admitting you were wrong and moving on without the need to throw your toys out of the pram in the process? Were you 100% wrong? No, of course fucking not. That's why I responded to *one particular part* of your post. I disputed *one* thing you said, because it wasn't true. Did I dispute the other things? No. So why all this idiocy? There isn't a need for that, yet you do it anyway. Would you rather the things you say that are wrong are left uncorrected? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On 13 sep, 05:32, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Kozkak" <tecpat...@hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnews:1189679311.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 13 sep, 02:41, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > wrote: > >> "Orpheus" <orpheus...@free.fr> schreef in > >> berichtnews:46e87255$0$32166$426a...@news.free.fr... > > >> >> Fantastic card! > > >> >> Am I exaggerating if I think that 100 vampires suddenly became > >> >> playable in a competitive environment? > > >> > Maybe, but not much... > > >> >> Eight copies of this one and four Wash to kill those **** DI:s. > > >> > What does DI have to do in this ? Worrying about your LiT being DIed by > >> > your prey ? Same as with any bounce card, then... > > >> Nope. > >> You play LiT after blocking. > >> It gets DIed. > >> 'One per action' means you can't wake someone else and LiT again (wich > >> you > >> can with deflection) nor play a variant bounce card with the same minion > >> (dom and aus have 2 bounce cards.) > >> ergo: you have to take the bleed. > > >> All hail the mighty DI :) > > > Is this true? I was under the impression that when you play a bounce > > (any bounce) is like playing it after blocking, I mean, that the > > bounce phase is after the I choose/choose not to block phase. > > That's what I said, isn't it? > > LiT even has it in its text (emphasis mine) > > "Only useable when an ally or younger vampire is bleeding you, > *********after blocks are declined**************"- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - I see. Sorry, I misunderstood it because when you said that the difference between LiT and other bounce was that with LiT, once DI'ed, you had to take the bleed and with the others not, I assumed wrongly that you were saying that LiT was played after the block and the others were not. Since Orpheus said that was the same as with any other, I thought that the difference was the after blocking thing not the "only one can be played per action" and I assumed so because the clause "only one per action" only affects other people given that as a reaction you cannot play the same one on the same action once is Di'ed even if it's another minion. So unless you have a different card in hand (e.g Redirection) is almost the same as with any other. Yeah, I know, it's not exactly the same, but one still usually worries when your bounce gets Di'ed even if it's a Deflection. Rafa.

>> I'm surprised you think so. I've seen enough suck decks, "à la suisse" >> version, to tell you it deserves its place among Tier1, even without >> bounce. Yes, it walks a thin line, but that's its strength as well as its >> weakness (being able to get out fast, kill its prey or call a PS right >> before it dies)... > > I have never played the deck myself, but I talked with Kamel about it (who > has played and usually plays only the strongest deck) and he said that it > is too risky and to unreliable for him. Yes, I saw him play it, I nearly ousted him with a sub-optimal toolboxy deck, but I think he made the finals with it didn't he ? > In fact the problem is that if you can´t pass the votes in the beginning > (due too titled vampires on prey/pred or DT, CotE ...) you cannot afford > new vampires and will never re-gain vote-lock. It certainly is a problem, which is why you have several ways of getting out enough votes from the beginning. Now, it may not be a sure-way deck, but as is the case with many Tier1 : when played right and with a little luck, you have all the chances to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Not necessarily : you might have a mixed crypt of fatties, some of whom >> have Dom (big Setites, Justicar decks with Pascek + Lucinde, etc.) and >> still pack a few LiT for safety - but keep a few deflects because, >> well... They're just way better ! > > You might also get kidnapped and stuffed with an anal probe by Aliens. > Just a question of probability. Who told you about THAT ?!? ^_^ Anyway, chances of an Alien anal probe are greater than a mix of LiT and Deflections, but still, that can happen. ;-) ----------- Orpheus, Johannes anal fantasy

> the clause "only one per > action" only affects other people given that as a reaction you cannot > play the same one on the same action once is Di'ed even if it's > another minion. > > Rafa.- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - I was still thinking about this and I'm not sure of this anymore. I think that line above is wrong, you can deflect with the same card but with different minion, right? Unless the card says otherwise, of course. Rafa

Kozkak wrote: >> the clause "only one per >> action" only affects other people given that as a reaction you cannot >> play the same one on the same action once is Di'ed even if it's >> another minion. >> >> Rafa.- Ocultar texto de la cita - >> >> - Mostrar texto de la cita - > > I was still thinking about this and I'm not sure of this anymore. I It is correct. > think that line above is wrong, you can deflect with the same card but > with different minion, right? Deflect = "play Deflection", then yes. Deflect = "deflect the bleed with Lost in Translation", then no. > Unless the card says otherwise, of > course. Lost in Translation's card text makes it a card that says otherwise.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah ok, thanks Rafa

On Sep 13, 7:30 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > Chlorix64 schrieb: > > Personally I think that this doesn't sound too bad and > > > it breaks the bounce cycles that we see at the tournaments at the moment. > > Why are these bounce cycles bad? > They're (quasi)random. Maybe there should be a vote card where, on success of the refferndum, going clockwise, the first methuselah unable to discard a master card burns 4 pool. It could be called Musical Chairs. > Somebody *is* loosing pool, resources go off the table, everything is > fine. If you don´t have bounce you better pack rush or bloat, thats a > very basic deck building principle. a game-diminishing, lame principle > > The new bounce is just the *enabler* (they were really unplayable > before) for those big-caps who can´t bloat/rush fast enough and don´t > have dom/AUS (did somebody say Appolonius?) If that's the direction things are to go, if we really want a game where 'you must have bounce' is a basic principle, let's have Serpentis bounce and Protean bounce and Thanatosis bounce and ... Let's enable everybody! Vampire: the Eternal Bounce Cycle

In article <1189905386....@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote: > If that's the direction things are to go, if we really want a game > where 'you must have bounce' is a basic principle, let's have > Serpentis bounce and Protean bounce and Thanatosis bounce and ... > Let's enable everybody! Well, to be fair, currently, VTES *already* is a game where you must have bounce. If you don't have bleed bounce in a competitive situation, you are going to be fighting a very uphill battle. And G'Quan help you if you are, like, the only guy at the table with no bounce. Lost in Translation, in reality, isn't that likely to increase the amount of bounce in circulation, however. I suspect that most decks that are going to be using Lost in Translation were probably finding a way to have bounce anyway, as many, many decks that don't really have much place having bounce in them find a way to shoehorn it in. LiT will make it easier to shoehorn in the bounce, yeah, but I don't think it will really make it show up all that more often. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

[ quoted text not captured ] Norm already hit on it earlier - I think LiT will find a place in superstar decks that don't feature a vamp with dom or AUS, and you won't have to fill out your crypt with dom nerds. Weenie fortitude and other non-dom weenie archetypes are out of luck, which isn't necessarily bad. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

In article <pycHi.96981$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx>, librarian <auct...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Norm already hit on it earlier - I think LiT will find a place in > superstar decks that don't feature a vamp with dom or AUS, and you won't > have to fill out your crypt with dom nerds. Sure--but what I was trying to (probably unsuccessfully) point out was that those decks currently mostly already have a crypt full of dom nerds just to get the bounce shoehorned in. So we probably aren't going to be seeing so much more bounce than we already do; we are probably just going to be seeing less crypts that come with a superstar and 5 dom nerds built in :-) > Weenie fortitude and other non-dom weenie archetypes are out of luck, > which isn't necessarily bad. Weenie fortitude has access to reliable sideline dominate (and sideline AUS if you want too...). But in any case, yeah. [ quoted text not captured ]