I have been thinking about a way for high capacity vampires to deal
with weenies in the early game without adding new rules to the game,
and this is the card I came up with:
Card Name: Insert cool name here
Cardtype: Master
Cost: 0
Requires at least 2 vampires with a capacity above 7 in your
uncontrolled region. Only playable if you control no minions.
Put this card in play and put 3 counters on it. If there are any
counters on this card and you control no minions, you do not burn pool
either for being bled or for the effects of a referendum. Remove a
counter on this card during your discard phase. Tap this card to
discard a copy of this card in your hand to move a minion card in your
ash heap to the bottom of your library. A Methuselah can only play one
copy of this card per game.
--
Damnans
http://www.almadrava.net/damnanshttp://www.vtes.nethttp://es.groups.yahoo.com/group/vteshispania/
On Mar 20, 10:31 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> I have been thinking about a way for high capacity vampires to deal
> with weenies in the early game without adding new rules to the game,
> and this is the card I came up with:
>
Like a Fart in the Wind
Master, 1 pool
Only playable if you control no minions. Put this card in play and put
3 counters on it. If there are any counters on this card and you
control no minions, you burn one less pool while being bled or during
a referendum. Remove a counter on this card during your discard phase.
A Methuselah can only play one Like a Fart in the Wind per game.
--
- Gregory Stuart Pettigrew
On Mar 20, 1:18 pm, "gpettig...@gmail.com" <gpettig...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Seclusion
Master, 1 Pool.
Put this card in play with 3 counters on it. While you control no
minions, bleeds against you are at -1 bleed and you gain one
additional vote against each referendum called by your predator or
prey. During your influence phase, move one counter from this card to
a vampire in your uncontrolled region or burn this card. You may not
use transfers to draw crypt cards or move counters into your pool.
witness1
-hide away
[ quoted text not captured ]
Both of you are missing the essential point of gines's suggestion.
That is that you can remove the other copies you get from your hand.
This is so you can play enough copies to almost certainly get it in
your opening hand, and not be completely screwed having 12 dead cards
in your deck.
Cheers,
B
Damnans schrieb:
> I have been thinking about a way for high capacity vampires to deal
> with weenies in the early game without adding new rules to the game,
> and this is the card I came up with:
>
> Card Name: Insert cool name here
> Cardtype: Master
> Cost: 0
> Requires at least 2 vampires with a capacity above 7 in your
> uncontrolled region. Only playable if you control no minions.
> Put this card in play and put 3 counters on it. If there are any
> counters on this card and you control no minions, you do not burn pool
> either for being bled or for the effects of a referendum. Remove a
> counter on this card during your discard phase. Tap this card to
> discard a copy of this card in your hand to move a minion card in your
> ash heap to the bottom of your library. A Methuselah can only play one
> copy of this card per game.
Could be cool while playing with Descent into Darkness. Tap your minons
down, Descent and play "cool name" . Wait until your minions refill
while you are practically invincible. Timing is an issue since you have
to bring out the card, then the minions, descent on the next turn (while
the first copy is still "active") play a new one the turn after. But
still it would make a strong deck.
Johannes
"Johannes Walch" <johanne...@vekn.de> schreef in bericht
news:etpckq$euf$1...@news01.versatel.de...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not if you include the last sentence of the card :-)
This card doesn't address the main problem of weenies vs. large-caps
- that the actions (and reactions) of a large-cap typically aren't
worth enough compared to the actions (and reactions) of a weenie.
- Ben Peal
What about
Protective Hand of the Father
Cardtyp - Master
Cost - 1 pool
Put this card in play. If you control no minions you may tap this
card to cause an action that would cause you pool loss to fail. If
this action is performed by a vampire with a capacity of 4 or less,
that vampire suffers 1 unpreventable damage. During your influence
phase, you may discard another copy of this card from your hand to add
1 blood to a minion in your uncontrolled region. Burn this card when
you control a minion. If that minion has a capacity less than 7, burn
a pool. A Methusela may only control 1 Protective Hand of the Father
at a time.
--> J
grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com
[ quoted text not captured ]
This card addresses one of the problems of weenies vs. large-caps: one
is going to have enough time to bring out a high-cap.
The other problems could be addressed by making new cards with better
effects for high capacity vampires.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <1174401083.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes:
>Card Name: Insert cool name here
>Cardtype: Master
>Cost: 0
>Requires at least 2 vampires with a capacity above 7 in your
>uncontrolled region. Only playable if you control no minions.
>Put this card in play and put 3 counters on it. If there are any
>counters on this card and you control no minions, you do not burn pool
>either for being bled or for the effects of a referendum. Remove a
>counter on this card during your discard phase. Tap this card to
>discard a copy of this card in your hand to move a minion card in your
>ash heap to the bottom of your library. A Methuselah can only play one
>copy of this card per game.
I'm not a fan, for various reasons.
1) Seven Line Syndrome. The card is long and wordy.
2) This card needs to be played turn 1 or 2, really. There's little
benefit to playing it much later than that, for its intended purpose.
So you have to stuff your deck with 10 of them. (Compare Info Highway,
which can have significant positive late-game benefits for fatties using
Govern, or to speedily bring out a vampire following an oust.) That's a
lot of your deck being given over to 1 card that is mostly only intended
for turn 1 or 2.
3) Though on the flipside, one seemingly incidental effect of this card
is holding it as a blocker strategy when you get pwned by a weenie
combat deck, or similar. Throw it down when they burn Etrius, and they
may have trouble bleeding you. I'm not sure that's either intentional
or positive.
4) Though it harms weenie decks, clearly, it also hurts a number of
other decks that probably don't need to be toned down. For example,
bruise-bleed decks often capitalize on being able to get bleeds through
when the opportunity arises. They can't go into combat with you (no
minions), they can't bleed you. Sit on their hands. Ditto, midcap
bleed or whatever. They're decks you could reasonably try to fend off.
Elsewhere, someone came up with the idea of having crypt cards that gave
you extra transfers, which is quite a neat idea. Extending that...
Making An Example
Artwork: Some thin-blood being hanged, or set fire to, or
something.
Crypt card back, but with a library card front that looks a bit
like The Embrace etc.
1 capacity, clanless Independent vampire
When this card is in play, it is a unique master card. If you
have controlled Making An Example before, burn this card. Put 3
counters on it when it enters play, and remove a counter during
your untap phase. Burn it if it has no counters. When vampires
of less than 4 capacity or minions with a cost less than 4 bleed
you or call referendums, you neither gain nor lose pool as a
result of that action if you control no minions.
Which is still a bit awkward on the SLS front, but might be an
interesting twist on the whole problem. I mind losing the crypt space
less, because it's a fattie deck which typically bring out only a few
vampires, rather than sacrificing 8-12 cards from your library.
It still leaves the late game awkwardness. Include it to fend people
off when you're dying. I'm not sure.
I initially thought about having it remove all copies of itself from the
game too. But actually, I rather like having the ability for you to
have 4 copies of Arika, 2 Queen Anne, 2 Lucinde, 4 Making An Examples,
and have some crypt construction problems to tweak. Sort of like a star
vampire deck, only different.
(Disclaimer: my own work, White Wolf welcome to use/adapt/borrow etc.)
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1174401083.8...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes:
> >Card Name: Insert cool name here
> >Cardtype: Master
> >Cost: 0
> >Requires at least 2 vampires with a capacity above 7 in your
> >uncontrolled region. Only playable if you control no minions.
> >Put this card in play and put 3 counters on it. If there are any
> >counters on this card and you control no minions, you do not burn pool
> >either for being bled or for the effects of a referendum. Remove a
> >counter on this card during your discard phase. Tap this card to
> >discard a copy of this card in your hand to move a minion card in your
> >ash heap to the bottom of your library. A Methuselah can only play one
> >copy of this card per game.
>
> I'm not a fan, for various reasons.
>
> 1) Seven Line Syndrome. The card is long and wordy.
That could be fixed. But not a significant problem anyway.
> 2) This card needs to be played turn 1 or 2, really. There's little
> benefit to playing it much later than that, for its intended purpose.
> So you have to stuff your deck with 10 of them. (Compare Info Highway,
> which can have significant positive late-game benefits for fatties using
> Govern, or to speedily bring out a vampire following an oust.) That's a
> lot of your deck being given over to 1 card that is mostly only intended
> for turn 1 or 2.
I see you haven't read the whole card text, since the card already
addresses that problem you mention:
Relevant text: "Tap this card to discard a copy of this card in your
hand to move a minion card in your ash heap to the bottom of your
library."
> 3) Though on the flipside, one seemingly incidental effect of this card> is holding it as a blocker strategy when you get pwned by a weenie
> combat deck, or similar. Throw it down when they burn Etrius, and they
> may have trouble bleeding you. I'm not sure that's either intentional
> or positive.
This card is just an example. There could be other cards alike with
other effects.
But one of the most important things about this card is that it
addresses part of the weenie problem with no new rules.
> 4) Though it harms weenie decks, clearly, it also hurts a number of
> other decks that probably don't need to be toned down. For example,
> bruise-bleed decks often capitalize on being able to get bleeds through
> when the opportunity arises. They can't go into combat with you (no
> minions), they can't bleed you. Sit on their hands. Ditto, midcap
> bleed or whatever. They're decks you could reasonably try to fend off.
Well, that would only happen for 3 turns. But in any case, playtesting
should fix the problems that arise with the use of this card (or cards
alike).
[...]
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
"Main problem" to you may be cumulative actions on turn 10, but it
seems that to these people, "main problem" refers to actions taken
before Arika can act.
I personally feel the 20 conditioning or 20 KRC or 40 Computer Hacking
etc. is the most scary type of weenie deck, but it seems to be the
least prevalent, so I don't think it needs nurfing.
I don't think most build-to-a-crescendo weenies (i.e. your boon-based
decks) need any real nurfing.
So, what does?
This doesn't matter to anyone reading this thread, however, because
this would be attempting to identify the problem. I have tried to do
this in previous threads and it does not seem anyone who suggests a
solution to this "problem" wants to /identify/ the problem.
I am pretty unconvinced that anything will be done about this until
somebody takes the time to say something other than "look how many
actions they have"; real results will have to come into it. Weenies
worked great in the past, and still work great in theory--but in
practise, they just get killed by Ancilla Empowerment, or Howler, or
table hate, or whatever.
If a real problem is pointed out, I think LSJ will give us a real
solution. Until then, I doubt anyone is listening.
-- Brian
[ quoted text not captured ]
I think this thread points out that the problem is bad deck building.
People want to ignore capacity considerations and build decks with
FIVE copies of a vampire that takes 3 turns to transfer out. They
don't want to use lots of Dreams/InfoHighway/Zillah's Valley/Tomb of
Ramses or even Dummy Corporation to make up for this. They think
Effective Management is only for weenie decks, and not to improve your
selection from the varied spread of vampires with different levels of
your chosen disciplines and clans that you have put in your crypt to
play the cards you put in your library.
They don't want to take advantage of their high capacity vampires with
lots of Minion Taps, backed up by Giants Blood or Entrenching or Voter
Captivation or Golconda.
Really, the only reason to not play with some 1caps and 3caps and 5
caps in your deck is because you want to bring out a big vamp and put
a Soul Gem and a skill card on them. If you're tapping into that level
of power, you deserve an associated risk of being in front of a quick
starter. If they are playing only high cap vamps and not moving them
out quickly and using them to bloat, then they deserve to die because
they have overtransferred -- stretched out their influence beyond its
reasonable limits -- piddled away their resources.
Basic deckbuilding from the first release of this game included using
vampires with a range of capacities. It was practically built in when
you got your first set of cards, because you had a limited
collection.
islando...@aol.com wrote:
> I personally feel the 20 conditioning or 20 KRC or 40 Computer Hacking
> etc. is the most scary type of weenie deck, but it seems to be the
> least prevalent, so I don't think it needs nurfing.
The deck(s) you refer to aren't scary -- they are stupid, as they almost
*never* get more than 1vp. That, and hopefully your explanation to the
bad/inexperienced player why they shouldn't be playing such a stupid deck,
is why the deck(s) are less prevalent.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
In message <1174484828.3...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Damnans <damna...@ono.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:>> I'm not a fan, for various reasons.
>>
>> 1) Seven Line Syndrome. The card is long and wordy.>
>That could be fixed. But not a significant problem anyway.
Actually, you'd be surprised just how significant a problem Seven Line
Syndrome can be. Not for all players or all play-groups, of course.
But there are a number of people whose eyes will glaze over once a card
hits too much text.
Fata Amria is a good example, here.
>> 2) This card needs to be played turn 1 or 2, really. There's little
>> benefit to playing it much later than that, for its intended purpose.
>> So you have to stuff your deck with 10 of them. (Compare Info Highway,
>> which can have significant positive late-game benefits for fatties using
>> Govern, or to speedily bring out a vampire following an oust.) That's a
>> lot of your deck being given over to 1 card that is mostly only intended
>> for turn 1 or 2.>
>I see you haven't read the whole card text,
I see you're jumping to conclusions.
>since the card already
>addresses that problem you mention:
>
>Relevant text: "Tap this card to discard a copy of this card in your
>hand to move a minion card in your ash heap to the bottom of your
>library."
I think it's little more than a sticking plaster for a nasty design
feature.
There are a few strands going on here.
1) You need 8-12 copies in a deck. There is, essentially, no point
putting the card in a deck *at all* unless you put sufficient in to make
it come up first two turns. Which is a bit icky. Compare Info Highway.
People often put 2-4 copies in decks, and mix and match with Dreams of
the Sphinx. If either of them come up early, great! Free transfers,
Arika comes out a touch quicker than otherwise, or you can start on the
next vampire a little quicker. Whichever. If they turn up in the late
game, that's fine too because the cards still have a positive use. So
you can make a deliberate strategic choice. Should I put in quite a
few? Can I cope with one or two? This card doesn't allow that. It
basically says "You must put 10 of me in a deck."
2) Land. When Garfield created Jyhad, he didn't want to replicate the
mistake of land. There shouldn't be the need for a huge hunk of cards
in your deck that's basically only there to let you do other stuff. A
huge hunk of these feels very similar to that.
3) Sticking plaster. Even a fatty deck can make some very rapid
advances in terms of numbers of cards used. Multi-acting decks, or
throwing everything it's got at a given action. This can be multiple
cards. Pulling into your card is pulling into dead weight, and clumping
can mean they easily pull multiples (either through poor shuffling,
because humans are bad at it, or just statistical tomfoolery). If I
can't get rid of all of them, what do I do? Hold them to use next turn,
clogging my hand? Discard them normally, as the dead weight they are?
You might get a somewhat easier solution by making it burn option, and
including a line like "You may discard <foo> from your hand using the
Burn Option rules if you have one in play already."
>> 4) Though it harms weenie decks, clearly, it also hurts a number of
>> other decks that probably don't need to be toned down. For example,
>> bruise-bleed decks often capitalize on being able to get bleeds through
>> when the opportunity arises. They can't go into combat with you (no
>> minions), they can't bleed you. Sit on their hands. Ditto, midcap
>> bleed or whatever. They're decks you could reasonably try to fend off.>
>Well, that would only happen for 3 turns. But in any case, playtesting
>should fix the problems that arise with the use of this card (or cards
>alike).
The point being that bruise-bleed decks, amongst others, capitalize on
the gaps in their prey's defences. No minions? Quick, nip in with a
couple of bleed. No combat defence? A quick rush. Hybrid strategies
generally do this sort of thing. Making it quite as blanket as you have
means that there's a lot of collateral damage.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 21 mrt, 22:27, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote:
> If a real problem is pointed out, I think LSJ will give us a real
> solution. Until then, I doubt anyone is listening.
It has been told to you multiple times in the other threads. YOU don't
see it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe you could be so kind as to say it here then? I've been trying
repeatedly to get not just theory how weenies could work, but a real-
world example of a weenie deck which actually wins more than its share
of games. And despite my plea, still the only example I can remember
being given was given by me!
Weenie Dragon's Breath Rounds, EC 2006, Orion Gissler
Gets 3 GW prior to the finals, almost wins the finals.
Really strong? Yes. Epidemic? No. Only one deck.
Other examples are still forthcoming. The current tournament scene
looks to me to be rather balanced with regards to capacity, perhaps a
bit top-heavy from overrepresentation of large-cap stealth-voters.
(Ben Peal, in email, then showed me there are many stealth-bleeders,
but still not many weenies.)
So what's it going to be? Do you have any evidence, or only more
theory? Telling me to reference another thread is OK if you can tell
me which post provides some sort of evidence.
-- Brian
[ quoted text not captured ]
Brian, for what it's worth, I agree with you - weenies are not the
scourge everyone seems to be decrying. They take a lot of skill to
play, since they are inherently fragile, and their decks tend to be very
focused. I rarely hear of weenie toolbox decks.
Only exception to this is Tupdog decks, but that fad seems to have
waned. And this card being suggested doesn't help against Doggie decks
anyway I think.
I think weenies win as often as other types of decks. Stealth Bleed
wins more often, as you point out.
Ah well, folks are so emotional about weenies, maybe because we call
them weenies - Freud would have a field day.
best -
chris
--
Super Fun Cards
http://myworld.ebay.com/superfuncards/
auct...@superfuncards.com
On Mar 22, 5:22 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote:
> Brian, for what it's worth, I agree with you - weenies are not the
> scourge everyone seems to be decrying. They take a lot of skill to
> play, since they are inherently fragile, and their decks tend to be very
> focused. I rarely hear of weenie toolbox decks.
I, too, agree that weenie decks aren't that big of a deal.
My experience has been that anyone trying to demonize "weenie" decks
are doing so because they want to play decks that feature huge cap
vampires and either have a stupid amount of set up time to get
rolling, have poor pool management and/or have no method for dealing
with decks that have a lot of minions.
There are and have been many methods available for dealing with weenie
decks. Choosing not to make use of those methods doesn't validate the
existence of some overwhelming problem.
Regards,
Noal
> Ah well, folks are so emotional about weenies, maybe because we call
> them weenies - Freud would have a field day.
I have been for some time now been saying that in this day and age of
political correctness, that the so called weenie decks need to be
addressed as "Capacity Limited" instead.
Of course, I'm sure that Igo the Hungry would still take offence at
that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Right, in California, to avoid lawsuits from Nigel the Shunned, we call
them Capacity Challenged, or the more modern Generationally Exceptional.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mar 21, 3:09 am, "Damnans" <damnansv...@ono.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:18 am, benp...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This card doesn't address the main problem of weenies vs. large-caps
> > - that the actions (and reactions) of a large-cap typically aren't
> > worth enough compared to the actions (and reactions) of a weenie.
>
> This card addresses one of the problems of weenies vs. large-caps: one
> is going to have enough time to bring out a high-cap.
>
> The other problems could be addressed by making new cards with better
> effects for high capacity vampires.
>
> --
Along those lines, (and I think I've suggested this before at some
point), it seems like the game may have benefitted from a balance
standpoint if there were 3 levels of disciplines instead of 2 (also
from a thematic stand point because really the idea that Chandler
Hungerford would be as Protelicious as Stanislava is laughable).
Seeing as how it's probably too late to introduce a third discipline
level to the game, I'm not sure why the following design tactic isn't
implemented (more, if it has been at all):
Over the Hill
1 Blood
[pot] Strike for 1R
[POT] Strike for 2R. If the striking vampire's capacity is greater
than 8, then the strike is for 3R and costs one less blood.
Seems simple and elegant enough (provided that we don't do this with
cards that already have too much card text) and it just may help
address Gines' point.
Peteo
<islando...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:1174595388.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 3:18 am, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:>> On 21 mrt, 22:27, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > If a real problem is pointed out, I think LSJ will give us a real
>> > solution. Until then, I doubt anyone is listening.
>>
>> It has been told to you multiple times in the other threads. YOU don't
>> see it.>
> Maybe you could be so kind as to say it here then? I've been trying
> repeatedly to get not just theory how weenies could work, but a real-
> world example of a weenie deck which actually wins more than its share
> of games. And despite my plea, still the only example I can remember
> being given was given by me!
what would deck lists prove. Can you give me a fatty deck that wins more
than its share of games?
>
> Weenie Dragon's Breath Rounds, EC 2006, Orion Gissler
> Gets 3 GW prior to the finals, almost wins the finals.
>
> Really strong? Yes. Epidemic? No. Only one deck.
what about all the Embrace decks? There's almost no final in a large
tournement without it. Maybe less so now, because they are going out of
style, but not because they don't win anymore.
>
> Other examples are still forthcoming. The current tournament scene
> looks to me to be rather balanced with regards to capacity, perhaps a
> bit top-heavy from overrepresentation of large-cap stealth-voters.
> (Ben Peal, in email, then showed me there are many stealth-bleeders,
> but still not many weenies.)
most bleeders, IME, use weenie to lower mid cap vamps... Besides, you can't
look at the tournement scene for proof, just like you can't look at the TWDA
for proof. People have been shamed out of playing weenie decks.
>
> So what's it going to be? Do you have any evidence, or only more
> theory? Telling me to reference another thread is OK if you can tell
> me which post provides some sort of evidence.
More theory, because it is basically a theoretical problem. Everything comes
down to:
- weenies have the same basic strength and bleed as higher cap vamps
- weenie decks have more actions, because a vampire can usually only take
one action.
- a lot of cards affect A vampire, making fatty decks more vulnerable.
in short: cheaper and just as good means poor play balance. Even if it
doesn't reliably wins you games.
gines this is a wonderfull well thought well balanced card. i think it
should enter playtesting asap. i just wish lsj will do it. this could
be the first step shifting the balance from the weenies/lower midcaps
to the fatties.
i dont think that the rather long card text poses a problem (week of
nightmares has a very long text and still sees enough play).
s
On 22 Mrz., 21:29, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 22, 3:18 am, "Jeroen" <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 21 mrt, 22:27, islandofyia...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > If a real problem is pointed out, I think LSJ will give us a real
> > > solution. Until then, I doubt anyone is listening.
the problem is not that weenie decks win games all the time, but the
can totally ruin your deck if you do not dedicate a large part of it
to the defense of weenie decks. usually weenies dont win games because
people gang up on them, but still the pose a big problem because of
there huge impact on their first prey.
>
> > It has been told to you multiple times in the other threads. YOU don't
> > see it.
>
> Maybe you could be so kind as to say it here then? I've been trying
> repeatedly to get not just theory how weenies could work, but a real-
> world example of a weenie deck which actually wins more than its share
> of games. And despite my plea, still the only example I can remember
> being given was given by me!
i think a common misconceotion is that weenies win with speed (they
can given the right circumstances) but have a more consistent chance
of winning via a solid defense and attrition.
and still there are several weenie decks that win with speed (kevin s
friendmaker, ravonos week of nightmare, legacy of pander decks etc)
i prefer slower more defense orientated weenie decks (even some
toolboxy) and i have a lot of success with them. so yes weenies (can)
win on a regular basis.
> Weenie Dragon's Breath Rounds, EC 2006, Orion Gissler
> Gets 3 GW prior to the finals, almost wins the finals.
>
> Really strong? Yes. Epidemic? No. Only one deck.
>
> Other examples are still forthcoming. The current tournament scene
> looks to me to be rather balanced with regards to capacity, perhaps a
> bit top-heavy from overrepresentation of large-cap stealth-voters.
> (Ben Peal, in email, then showed me there are many stealth-bleeders,
> but still not many weenies.)
>
i fail to see an overrepresentation of large cap stealth voters
(especially if you take away arika (she should be reprintet without
obf and much of the problem would be solved)). righht now most decent
successful tourney decks have an avg cap between 5-6. most 9-11 caps
are rather unplayable.
stefan
In message <1174733412.4...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Stefan Ferenci <a950...@unet.univie.ac.at> writes:
>i dont think that the rather long card text poses a problem (week of
>nightmares has a very long text and still sees enough play).
I'd point out that many people either don't know or don't remember quite
how it works.
It's useful to have cards where both the Methuselah playing it and those
defending against it are clear as to what is going on, and why, and what
their options are.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Brian Moritz wrote:
> "Main problem" to you may be cumulative actions on turn 10, but it
> seems that to these people, "main problem" refers to actions taken
> before Arika can act.
I should have re-phrased that. For me, the problem I see is that
the action (or reaction) of a large-cap vampire (with a few
exceptions) is not worth sufficiently more than a vampire of lower
capacity (weenie, midcap, whatever). A smaller vampire can generate
almost as much intercept, almost as much stealth, almost as much
bleed, almost as much strength, etc. At the same time, there's
definitely an upper boundary from a design perspective on how much
pool should be lost during a single action, so it's hard to justify
giving large-cap vampires a proportionate ability to inflict pool loss
per action. Still, I think a lot more can be done to improve the
quality of the actions of large-caps. Hell, it'd be nice to see a top-
tier rush deck that wasn't a weenie deck.
- Ben Peal
[ quoted text not captured ]
How's this for a variant:
Untapping "as normal" costs an influence.
Details:
It doesn't really "cost" an influence, since you don't have influence
to spend during your untap phase. Rather, when untapping your minions,
you note how many you untapped "as normal" (the ones that were already
untapped don't count for this). Call it X. Then, during your influence
phase, your number of transfers is reduced by X. If X is greater than
your transfers, you get zero transfers and must make up the excess
with pool or blood (or life), no more than 1 blood/life per minion.
Can be combined with the 5+1 transfer variant:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/78c7f3b44ad46b4f
On 12 apr, 04:51, "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> How's this for a variant:
>
> Untapping "as normal" costs an influence.
>
> Details:
> It doesn't really "cost" an influence, since you don't have influence
> to spend during your untap phase. Rather, when untapping your minions,
> you note how many you untapped "as normal" (the ones that were already
> untapped don't count for this). Call it X. Then, during your influence
> phase, your number of transfers is reduced by X. If X is greater than
> your transfers, you get zero transfers and must make up the excess
> with pool or blood (or life), no more than 1 blood/life per minion.
>> Can be combined with the 5+1 transfer variant:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/78c7...- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
I'm not at all in favor of any rules change that would force you to
keep track of things, just for something to happen (quite some time)
later. Also, I think this rule empowers untap cards like Freak Drive
and Guard Dogs a lot, which is not what you're trying to do, right?
If the "fix" really needs to be related to the number of minions that
took actions per turn, I think you'd better just "mark" a minion that
acts in a minion phase for that turn's upcoming influence phase (so it
doesn't favor decks that can untap minions). With a max of 1 mark per
turn so you don't cripple multi-action decks, and the marks are
removed at end of turn.
As a newbie I haven't experienced any problems with the current rules
(yet), but since I'm willing to believe there is a problem that needs
to be fixed, I like the 5+1 rule just fine by itself. It doesn't
change a whole lot to the influence phase system, really. Why not hold
a bunch of playtest-sessions to see if it would work well enough by
itself first, before thinking of more drastic (IMHO) measures?
just thinking,
Teeka
Teeka wrote:
> On 12 apr, 04:51, "LSJ" <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:>> How's this for a variant:
>>
>> Untapping "as normal" costs an influence.
>>
>> Details:
>> It doesn't really "cost" an influence, since you don't have influence
>> to spend during your untap phase. Rather, when untapping your minions,
>> you note how many you untapped "as normal" (the ones that were already
>> untapped don't count for this). Call it X. Then, during your influence
>> phase, your number of transfers is reduced by X. If X is greater than
>> your transfers, you get zero transfers and must make up the excess
>> with pool or blood (or life), no more than 1 blood/life per minion.
>>
>> Can be combined with the 5+1 transfer variant:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/78c7...- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>>
>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven ->
>
> I'm not at all in favor of any rules change that would force you to
> keep track of things, just for something to happen (quite some time)
> later.
It isn't quite the hardship that "quite some time later" would imply. It's only
to the end of the turn, and you know you have to track it when it occurs, so you
can prepare for it (using counters or dice or intentional memory or whatever).
> Also, I think this rule empowers untap cards like Freak Drive
> and Guard Dogs a lot,
No more than current.
> which is not what you're trying to do, right?
Right.
> If the "fix" really needs to be related to the number of minions that
> took actions per turn, I think you'd better just "mark" a minion that
> acts in a minion phase for that turn's upcoming influence phase (so it
> doesn't favor decks that can untap minions). With a max of 1 mark per
> turn so you don't cripple multi-action decks, and the marks are
> removed at end of turn.
That's cool, too -- each action could "costs" an influence. Probably should
apply to "each successful block" as well, in that case, so as not to really
power-up wall decks.
The exception for multi-action decks seems designed to empower Freak Drive,
which you seemed to want to avoid above -- not sure if the exception is warranted.
> As a newbie I haven't experienced any problems with the current rules
> (yet), but since I'm willing to believe there is a problem that needs
> to be fixed, I like the 5+1 rule just fine by itself. It doesn't
> change a whole lot to the influence phase system, really. Why not hold
> a bunch of playtest-sessions to see if it would work well enough by
> itself first, before thinking of more drastic (IMHO) measures?
I never find a good reason to stop thinking. :-)
Playtest is mandatory for official changes, especially to such core parts of the
game. But it isn't a pre-requisite to simply suggesting a variant, or to
brainstorming about variants. Indeed, the latter almost always comes first.
On 12 apr, 13:53, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> > I'm not at all in favor of any rules change that would force you to
> > keep track of things, just for something to happen (quite some time)
> > later.
>
> It isn't quite the hardship that "quite some time later" would imply. It's only
> to the end of the turn, and you know you have to track it when it occurs, so you
> can prepare for it (using counters or dice or intentional memory or whatever).
>
That's true, I didn't mean I thought it would be hard to do, but just
a bit annoying if you needed to keep track of a bunch of stuff each
turn instead of just playing your cards and moving on (personal
opinion, though).
> > Also, I think this rule empowers untap cards like Freak Drive
> > and Guard Dogs a lot,
>
> No more than current.
>
If you say so. I thought it would, but you're the Man(tm) :-)
> > which is not what you're trying to do, right?
>
> Right.
>
> > If the "fix" really needs to be related to the number of minions that
> > took actions per turn, I think you'd better just "mark" a minion that
> > acts in a minion phase for that turn's upcoming influence phase (so it
> > doesn't favor decks that can untap minions). With a max of 1 mark per
> > turn so you don't cripple multi-action decks, and the marks are
> > removed at end of turn.
>
> That's cool, too -- each action could "costs" an influence. Probably should
> apply to "each successful block" as well, in that case, so as not to really
> power-up wall decks.
>
I get what you mean, but that would again mean keeping track of
multiple things (besides the actual cards and counters on the table),
for longer than just the time between your minion phase and influence
phase, a thing I just don't look forward to doing.
> The exception for multi-action decks seems designed to empower Freak Drive,
> which you seemed to want to avoid above -- not sure if the exception is warranted.
>
Again, you can judge things like that 1000 times better than I can. I
was just thinking along.
> > As a newbie I haven't experienced any problems with the current rules
> > (yet), but since I'm willing to believe there is a problem that needs
> > to be fixed, I like the 5+1 rule just fine by itself. It doesn't
> > change a whole lot to the influence phase system, really. Why not hold
> > a bunch of playtest-sessions to see if it would work well enough by
> > itself first, before thinking of more drastic (IMHO) measures?
>
> I never find a good reason to stop thinking. :-)
>
Heh, that's very true indeed.
> Playtest is mandatory for official changes, especially to such core parts of the
> game. But it isn't a pre-requisite to simply suggesting a variant, or to
> brainstorming about variants. Indeed, the latter almost always comes first
Of course. So, have you tested the 5+1 idea yet?
After all this years surprises me a lot that the Weenie problem or
these types of decks are still a problem! It's incredible but people
complain about it since Jyhad!!
After 2 million discussion posts about this, the Weenie problem cannot
be fixed by specific cards. That's an illusion.
IMO (once again and again and again...) the problem can only be
corrected through base rules update with introduction on crypt
construct limitation or limitation on the number of ready vampires
with cap below 5....
In message <1176346295.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Details:
>It doesn't really "cost" an influence, since you don't have influence
>to spend during your untap phase. Rather, when untapping your minions,
>you note how many you untapped "as normal" (the ones that were already
>untapped don't count for this). Call it X. Then, during your influence
>phase, your number of transfers is reduced by X. If X is greater than
>your transfers, you get zero transfers and must make up the excess
>with pool or blood (or life), no more than 1 blood/life per minion.
I'm mildly concerned about the knock-on effects to a few things,
notably:
- "pay one to see one", in the mid-game or late-game, or even in the
early game for a bad shuffle on a star vampire deck which has
weenies but isn't really a weenie deck. Playing your deck (i.e.
untapping vampires) causes it to be more expensive to draw
vampires in the late game, and bringing out one or two weenies
for early defence against a really bad shuffle of a star-vampire
deck may leave you in a sticky situation.
- advancement becomes harder. Though Gift of Experience and Epiphany
both exist to merge vampires outside of the influence phase,
this - like pay one to see one - becomes more expensive. I'm
not sure merging vampires should be harder.
- does it make Inconnu Tutelage a bit too expensive for others to use?
One of the nice balancing effects of Inconnu Tutelage, to my
mind, is that it gives everyone else the possibility to use it
without too much bother, once they hit the mid-game. Since
they'd be using up their transfers, it becomes more bothersome
to use for other players. The player using it can, of course,
be doing things like using Info Highway to try to counteract
this, whereas the other players now have to make extra effort.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1176346295.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:>> Details:
>> It doesn't really "cost" an influence, since you don't have influence
>> to spend during your untap phase. Rather, when untapping your minions,
>> you note how many you untapped "as normal" (the ones that were already
>> untapped don't count for this). Call it X. Then, during your influence
>> phase, your number of transfers is reduced by X. If X is greater than
>> your transfers, you get zero transfers and must make up the excess
>> with pool or blood (or life), no more than 1 blood/life per minion.>
> I'm mildly concerned about the knock-on effects to a few things,
> notably:
... that would have to be addressed in a serious solution (probably after
investigation via playtesting), but which do not invalidate the basic idea.
In message <1RuTh.9471$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:>> I'm mildly concerned about the knock-on effects to a few things,
>> notably:>
>... that would have to be addressed in a serious solution (probably
>after investigation via playtesting), but which do not invalidate the
>basic idea.
Oh, I wasn't trying to invalidate the basic idea. But it seems silly
not to raise concerns when they might prompt someone (you, me, someone
else on the group, a canny playtester in private or at an unofficial
tournament you run, whoever) to come up with a better suggestion that
could be playtested thoroughly.
Re-reading the mechanism: if I have 4 vampires out, untap all, costing 4
transfers, can I get any transfers at all in my influence phase? Or is
it only that I burn for the number of minions untapped "as normal" in
excess of 4? (Or whatever number my transfers are.) Basically, if I
have 4 vampires out and no other transfer-altering effects for the rest
of the game, do I have zero transfers for the rest of the game? Or can
I burn blood to buy them back?
Another concern I had about this today goes as follows. Same situation
as above - comment, not invalidation.
Assume I have two vampires out (reasonable) and I'm playing Govern the
Unaligned at superior. Which seems a not unreasonable setup. Two
vampires untapping costs two transfers.[0] My vamp plays Govern the
Unaligned. I have two transfers left. Depending on the answer to the
question above, I either have to bring it back over three turns (2
transfers spare each turn) or I'd need to burn two extra blood to "buy"
two more transfers to bring two pool back. Alternatively, I have to
draw the blood back slowly. Or I have to play Info Highway, or Ingrid
Rossler, or something.
If I have 3 or 4 vampires out (3 midcaps, 4-7, isn't that unreasonable),
this becomes a lot more problematic!
Now, this might be sort of a good thing with Govern the Unaligned, which
a lot of people would like to see toned down in power. And it might be
okay for Enchant Kindred. But I would be less happy about it hitting,
say, Ecoterrorists or Reunion Kamut, both of which exist to fill pool
gain gaps, IMO.
And because those pool gain mechanisms would suffer, would it make Blood
Doll, Minion Tap, Grooming the Protege, and Information Highway (and
friends) commensurately more necessary (even more necessary, perhaps),
which would make some of the really nice master cards that exist for
things *other than* pool gain vanish. Which would seem to be a pity.
A tangential thought: one of the major sources of potential pool gain
comes from this. Church of Vindicated Faith, Inspire, and Travis being
the obvious cards for this sort of thing, obviously. Many of the
alternatives available to vampires - Blood Doll etc. - are not available
to Imbued. (Info Highway is, of course.)
Again, people might like this sort of thing, though.
[0] I also think it would be easier to just give players their transfers
at the start of the turn, in this setup.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1RuTh.9471$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:>> James Coupe wrote:>>> I'm mildly concerned about the knock-on effects to a few things,
>>> notably:>> ... that would have to be addressed in a serious solution (probably
>> after investigation via playtesting), but which do not invalidate the
>> basic idea.>
> Oh, I wasn't trying to invalidate the basic idea. But it seems silly
> not to raise concerns when they might prompt someone (you, me, someone
> else on the group, a canny playtester in private or at an unofficial
> tournament you run, whoever) to come up with a better suggestion that
> could be playtested thoroughly.
Ah.
> Re-reading the mechanism: if I have 4 vampires out, untap all, costing 4
> transfers, can I get any transfers at all in my influence phase? Or is
If you have more, like from Info Highway, sure.
> it only that I burn for the number of minions untapped "as normal" in
> excess of 4? (Or whatever number my transfers are.) Basically, if I
This.
> have 4 vampires out and no other transfer-altering effects for the rest
> of the game, do I have zero transfers for the rest of the game? Or can
> I burn blood to buy them back?
Zero.
> Another concern I had about this today goes as follows. Same situation
> as above - comment, not invalidation.
>
> Assume I have two vampires out (reasonable) and I'm playing Govern the
> Unaligned at superior. Which seems a not unreasonable setup. Two
> vampires untapping costs two transfers.[0] My vamp plays Govern the
> Unaligned. I have two transfers left. Depending on the answer to the
> question above, I either have to bring it back over three turns (2
> transfers spare each turn) or I'd need to burn two extra blood to "buy"
> two more transfers to bring two pool back. Alternatively, I have to
> draw the blood back slowly. Or I have to play Info Highway, or Ingrid
> Rossler, or something.
Right.
> If I have 3 or 4 vampires out (3 midcaps, 4-7, isn't that unreasonable),
> this becomes a lot more problematic!
Perhaps. But only "problematic" in that it is different.
> Now, this might be sort of a good thing with Govern the Unaligned, which
> a lot of people would like to see toned down in power. And it might be
> okay for Enchant Kindred. But I would be less happy about it hitting,
> say, Ecoterrorists or Reunion Kamut, both of which exist to fill pool
> gain gaps, IMO.
Both of which are used that way, but their existence is probably hinged on some
other idea (else they would say "tap to gain a pool").
> And because those pool gain mechanisms would suffer, would it make Blood
> Doll, Minion Tap, Grooming the Protege, and Information Highway (and
> friends) commensurately more necessary (even more necessary, perhaps),
> which would make some of the really nice master cards that exist for
> things *other than* pool gain vanish. Which would seem to be a pity.
Perhaps so.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
I don't suppose that you would be willing to sanction one of the Origin
tournaments as a 5+1?
Please? :)
[ quoted text not captured ]
LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
Maybe i'm just crazy. what about a variant like this? 4 transfer you can
transfer " as usual" and control a vampire or you can spend 2 transfer
(no pool) to bring a vampire to controlled even if it is not "at
capacity" provided he is at least half full.
Would this make hi cap too strong?
Andrea
On Apr 14, 3:27 pm, andrea.la.ma...@infinito.it.invalido (andrea la
malfa) wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/78c7...> > ad46b4f
>
> Maybe i'm just crazy. what about a variant like this? 4 transfer you can
> transfer " as usual" and control a vampire or you can spend 2 transfer
> (no pool) to bring a vampire to controlled even if it is not "at
> capacity" provided he is at least half full.
>
> Would this make hi cap too strong?
>
> Andrea
*cough uber strong cough*
Turn 1, i go 4th or 5th. Zillah's valley on Arika, (4 counters), 2
transfers (6 counters, thus over half) 2 transfers and she pops out
turn 1. Think her being half empty is a problem, given the fact that
regeneration/entrenching or best, Ancient influence + awe + voter cap.
Thats a poolgain of 14, for the expense of 7. i'm on 37 pool, with
arika on full, end of turn 2. Think it might be a bit tooo strong, yes.
Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
yes but then the problem is with votercap!!!!! (see the other thread) in
avery other situation the being empty is a serious limitthat maybe can
compensate less action done. Andrea
On Apr 14, 9:27 am, andrea.la.ma...@infinito.it.invalido (andrea la
malfa) wrote:
> Maybe i'm just crazy. what about a variant like this? 4 transfer you can
> transfer " as usual" and control a vampire or you can spend 2 transfer
> (no pool) to bring a vampire to controlled even if it is not "at
> capacity" provided he is at least half full.
>
> Would this make hi cap too strong?
>
> Andrea
As Blooded Sand pointed out, yes.
I remember talk of a variant that allowed for pool transfer to happen
before the game started. During set up, each methuselah had 20 pool
and 10 counters that they could assign to their 4 crypt vampires in
any configuration they chose. Does anybody remember doing this?
I don't see how this would balance "TWP" (the weenie problem), but
maybe something along those lines could - like maybe allocating up to
four Pool to a single crypt card before the game begins. This would
give a range of 5 - 9 caps potentially hitting the controlled region
on the first turn, and since the extra influence can only be used on a
single crypt card, it is less of an advantage for weenies. Perhaps the
rule is harsher and states that only a single crypt card may recieve
counters if the +4 transfers are used on the first turn, giving a
player with all weenies no reason to even use it.
. This would
> give a range of 5 - 9 caps potentially hitting the controlled region
> on the first turn,
Or 5-8 caps, if I actually think about it for a minute.