Banned lists

Hi, everyone. Here's My current list of cards which have been nominated for banning in my play area(I only kept the ones I could see real imbalances in power in...): All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. Archon Investigation Justicar Retribution Protected Resources Fame Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) Pulled Fangs Thoughts Betrayed Protect Thine own Tomb Of Rameses Dreams of the Sphinx The Return to Innocence Direct Intervention The Wating List: Quickness Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) Any comments or arguments will be welcomed, except on those cards which are already being discussed in another thread. Alec Chang

Alec Chang (te...@lava.net) wrote: : Hi, everyone. : Here's My current list of cards which have been nominated for banning : in my play area(I only kept the ones I could see real imbalances in : power in...): Just making friendly comments (you can check out my group's house rules at http://www.csuglab.cornell.edu/Info/People/jeh13) : All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. We didn't do this, but nobody plays with them anyway, so there wasn't the need. : Archon Investigation I think this stayed unbanned due to apathy, since, again, nobody was really playing with it. : Justicar Retribution As far as I know, this only burns IC's and vamps with Pulse of the Canaille (due a weird Laptop ruling I half-remember)... so what's the big deal? : Protected Resources This hasn't been abused in our group (it's hardly been used), but if it does, it'll probably go out the window. : Fame Again, I can see the abuses, but they aren't being done in our play group (we're big on _shame_)... : Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) We just disallowed the combo. : Pulled Fangs We 'fixed' this to make it just like Disarm, but I'm not convinced that the card isn't still broken... : Thoughts Betrayed We 'fixed' this one, too. See the web page or DejaNews. : Protect Thine own Is this the one where you burn a Non-Cam vamp? I've never seen it used, but it could be yucky. : Tomb Of Rameses Another case of it not being abused. : Dreams of the Sphinx I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and I just don't think it's that bad. : The Return to Innocence Well, duh. : Direct Intervention The concensus was "if it ever pisses anyone off, we'll probably ban it". : The Wating List: : Quickness : Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) I would put it in the "only use it if brain-damaged" pile. If Blur doesn't do it for you, I don't see how 5 strikes for gobs of blood is any better than 3 for 1. James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- [Currently at home reading e-mail over the modem, so forgive slow response times and spelling errors...]

> Alec Chang wrote: > All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. > Archon Investigation > Justicar Retribution > Protected Resources > Fame > Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) > Pulled Fangs > Thoughts Betrayed > Protect Thine own > Tomb Of Rameses > Dreams of the Sphinx > The Return to Innocence > Direct Intervention > Quickness > Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) Addendum: Pentex Subversion and Pulled Fangs should more properly be placed on the waiting list. We haven't banned them yet, and I do not see Pulled Fangs as broken. If the damage from PF wasn't unpreventable.... We also banned Kiss of Ra. We've fixed Fame to a certain extent by adding a _lot_ of errata. Fame now 1. is unique, 2. costs 1 pool, 3. makes you burn a pool when your Famous vampire is rescued from torpor, and 4. goes away when the Famous vampire is rescued. Not all Famous vampires are Elvis. -Nathan Harada

> We've fixed Fame to a certain extent by adding a > _lot_ of errata. Fame now 1. is unique, 2. costs 1 pool, > 3. makes you burn a pool when your Famous vampire is rescued > from torpor, and 4. goes away when the Famous vampire is > rescued. Not all Famous vampires are Elvis. I might be mistaken, but I think that it is already unique. Also, why would it cost you a pool if it's just going away? It should be one or the other - cost a pool to rescue OR Fame goes away upon being rescued. Because with your errata, essentially, the meth contolling the famed Vamp has to pay 2 pool to cost their prey 3 pool. Doesn't seem right. Sorrow -- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 26 Dec 1996 03:47:03 GMT, je...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (J. Hamblin) wrote: [Re: Justicar Retributiom] >As far as I know, this only burns IC's and vamps with Pulse of the >Canaille (due a weird Laptop ruling I half-remember)... so what's the big >deal? It can burn a vampire for a negligible cost, so like Protect thine own and Archon Investigation, it's banned. >: Protect Thine own > >Is this the one where you burn a Non-Cam vamp? I've never seen it used, >but it could be yucky. Yep. Also, I'm not clear on whether Sabbat is "Non-Camarilla." Intuitively, it is, so that makes the card just that much more broken. >: Dreams of the Sphinx > >I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's >that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and >I just don't think it's that bad. It's not that bad, but it is too good compared to other staple cards. If I had a choice between a Dreams and a Short term, the Dreams would _always_ be the better choice, if only for flexibility, speed of return on your investment, and sheer power. >: The Wating List: > >: Quickness >: Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) > >I would put it in the "only use it if brain-damaged" pile. If Blur >doesn't do it for you, I don't see how 5 strikes for gobs of blood is any >better than 3 for 1. Well, basically, my interpretation was that you could use Lightning Reflexes with a pile of Tastes of Vitae, Decapitations, and Torn Signposts to almost insure that your opponent dies first round; you don't really even risk any blood. It would take larger vampires for that, admittedly, but an almost guaranteed first round decapitation deck could easily get brutal. Anyway, as Nathan mentioned on another branch of this thread, Kiss of Ra is also on the banned list. Alec Chang

On 26 Dec 1996 20:36:56 GMT, "Chris Boget" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> We've fixed Fame to a certain extent by adding a >> _lot_ of errata. Fame now 1. is unique, 2. costs 1 pool, >> 3. makes you burn a pool when your Famous vampire is rescued >> from torpor, and 4. goes away when the Famous vampire is >> rescued. Not all Famous vampires are Elvis. > >I might be mistaken, but I think that it is already unique. >Also, why would it cost you a pool if it's just going away? It should be >one or the other - cost a pool to rescue OR Fame goes away upon being >rescued. Because with your errata, essentially, the meth contolling the >famed Vamp has to pay 2 pool to cost their prey 3 pool. Doesn't seem >right. > Well, our main gripe with Fame were the abuses of it, and the fact that it effectively gave a vampire immunity to combat with no real way to get rid of the fame w/out burning it from combat. The cost was addressed with the 1 pool cost; The abusive combos with Talbot's Chainsaw and Chantry were fixed by it burning when the vampire was rescued from torpor, and the extra pool cost was to give the card nuances, as opposed to "Okay, I play fame on this vamp, I bleed with Day operation, and this guy rescues him. Repeat next turn." This way, rescuing the vampire might be less wise than letting him be diablerized, and someone can always make you lose a pool by rescuing him. Anyway, just wanted to let you see our reasoning. Alec Chang

Nathan Harada (i...@hula.net) wrote: : > Alec Chang wrote: : : > All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. Hmm. In my game environment no-one ever uses them, since we can never predict what the other players will be playing. They are now less valuable than ever since there are now 22 clans. I can see that Cultivated Blood Shortage would be a pain if you always play Ventrue, and everyone in your group knows it, but whose fault would that be? I have been playing Nosferatu with a fair amount of consistency lately, but still have yet to be hit with a Nosferatu Putrescence. It would make very little difference in most of my Nosferatu Decks anyway, since few rely on hand damage. : > Archon Investigation I'm not sure I'm so opposed to this card anymore. It seems to me that one if its effects is to increase the value of previously little used cards such as Aura Reading, Pulse of the Canaille (at inferior), Owl Companion, Monocle of Clarity, and other cards that allow one to find out what your prey has in his hand. It is still possible to safely bleed for 4 or more, you just have to do a little intelligence-gathering first. (I still don't like any card that can burn a vamp so easily, but it is possible to adjust to its existence). : > Justicar Retribution : > Protected Resources : > Fame : > Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) Instead of banning Dragon Breath Rounds, why not simply make a house rule that Zip Gun is not a "Weapon: Gun", but simply a "Weapon". This way, no ammo cards could be played on it. : > Pulled Fangs Wasn't quite so bad under the old rules for Ag. Damage. Ditto for Dragon Breath rounds. I would not be averse to a house rule restoring the old rules for Ag. Damage. Jyhad used to be a game where it was difficult to burn vampires (considered immortal), but this has changed. : > Thoughts Betrayed : > Protect Thine own : > Tomb Of Rameses : > Dreams of the Sphinx : > The Return to Innocence : > Direct Intervention : > Quickness : > Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) : Addendum: : Pentex Subversion and Pulled Fangs should more : properly be placed on the waiting list. We haven't banned : them yet, and I do not see Pulled Fangs as broken. If the : damage from PF wasn't unpreventable.... Is is unpreventable?? I prevented it in one of my last games (using Skin of Rock) and no-one objected. Skin of Night would work fine as well. Skin of Steel won't work of course, since it only prevents damage from strikes. : We also banned Kiss of Ra. : We've fixed Fame to a certain extent by adding a : _lot_ of errata. Fame now 1. is unique, 2. costs 1 pool, : 3. makes you burn a pool when your Famous vampire is rescued : from torpor, and 4. goes away when the Famous vampire is : rescued. Not all Famous vampires are Elvis. Too much errata, I think. If one makes house rules one should keep them simple so everyone can remember them. The unique part is official though. Calling it "unique" is a decent fix, since it is just as easy to remember as calling it "banned". If alot more errata is necessary, then I would say just ban it. John Whelan

>J. Hamblin wrote: > > :Alec Chang (te...@lava.net) wrote: > : All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. > We didn't do this, but nobody plays with them anyway, so there wasn't the > need. No one really used them-we just thought that some of them were _really_ unfair. Out of Control and Malkavian Derangement: Alternate Personality topped the lists. Most people had no problem with the hosers from the basic set, such as Brujah Frenzy, but banning the usage of certain cards while leaving others was a problem for us. So to even it out, and make the game fairer to those people who _couldn't_ constantly change their decks, all the hosers were banned. Allies such as Kherebutu and the Dauntain Black Magician lost their burn X clan abilities. > : Justicar Retribution > As far as I know, this only burns IC's and vamps with Pulse of the > Canaille (due a weird Laptop ruling I half-remember)... so what's the big > deal? Due to the latest reading of Pulse, "this vampire gets +2 bleed on each bleed action," and Laptop Computer rulings from TOM, "equipment is always optional" this card is only usable to burn IC members and vampires who have accumulated Tasha, JS, or Inveraray. As a "Justicar" Retribution should not be able to burn an Inner Circler, this card is near worthless. As a means of burning a vampire which has _worked_ to find a good retainer or a good haven, the ability to burn that vampire is unjustified. > : Protect Thine Own > Is this the one where you burn a Non-Cam vamp? I've never seen it used, > but it could be yucky. Yep. Over here, Non-Camarilla = Sabbat. Not only that, but no Independent clan has the inherent ability to stop the vote from passing if an IC vote deck wants it through. > : Dreams of the Sphinx > I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's > that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and > I just don't think it's that bad. Pound for pound, this card is one of the best in the game, second only to Tomb of Ramses. There is no risk to playing it, and you will always get your investment back. It is more versatile and effective than any card with a similar effect. > : The Waiting List: > : Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) > I would put it in the "only use it if brain-damaged" pile. If Blur > doesn't do it for you, I don't see how 5 strikes for gobs of blood is any > better than 3 for 1. Glaser Rounds-Taste of Vitae. Torporize Etrius first round from long range with a Zip Gun. If you think he has a Shotgun Ritual, dodge the first strike.

Alec Chang wrote: > > On 26 Dec 1996 03:47:03 GMT, je...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu (J. Hamblin) > wrote: > > >: Dreams of the Sphinx > > > >I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's > >that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and > >I just don't think it's that bad. > > It's not that bad, but it is too good compared to other staple cards. > If I had a choice between a Dreams and a Short term, the Dreams would > _always_ be the better choice, if only for flexibility, speed of > return on your investment, and sheer power. > Am I missing something, or does Slave Auction totally make the investments wallpaper?? (Unless of course you're playing in a two-player game...) If this is your reasoning, then Slave Auction should be on your list, shouldn't it? -- "...But when the blast of war blows in our ears, | Rob Bush Then imitate the action of the tiger: | (Zam...@moose.erie.net) Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood." | Aspiring Animator, Henry V, Act iii. Sc. 1. | Edinboro U. of PA

: >: Protect Thine own : > : >Is this the one where you burn a Non-Cam vamp? I've never seen it used, : >but it could be yucky. : Yep. Also, I'm not clear on whether Sabbat is "Non-Camarilla." : Intuitively, it is, so that makes the card just that much more broken. I think that someone said there are three classes: Camarilla, Non-Camarilla, and Sabbat. I'm not sure though... I read the card, and it requires a Justicar or IC member. I really don't think it's that bad, but I can see your rationale. : >: Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) : > : >I would put it in the "only use it if brain-damaged" pile. If Blur : >doesn't do it for you, I don't see how 5 strikes for gobs of blood is any : >better than 3 for 1. : Well, basically, my interpretation was that you could use Lightning : Reflexes with a pile of Tastes of Vitae, Decapitations, and Torn : Signposts to almost insure that your opponent dies first round; you : don't really even risk any blood. It would take larger vampires for : that, admittedly, but an almost guaranteed first round decapitation : deck could easily get brutal. Well, my Nosferatu Obf/Pot deck regularly Decapitates on the first round, and doesn't use celerity at all. James -- James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't panic; base 8 is just like base 10, really -- if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"

Rob Bush (Zam...@moose.erie.net) wrote: : > [snip] : Am I missing something, or does Slave Auction totally make the : investments wallpaper?? (Unless of course you're playing in a two-player : game...) [snip] Well, Protracted Investment was always wallpaper. This is doubly true since Secret Horde appeared, since the latter can do exactly what PI does, but also gives other options. Secret Horde is still a poor card compared to Short Term Investment, which is the only investment card I would consider putting in a deck. But to answer your question: Yes, I think you are missing something. Slave Auction is Unique, and that is a disadvantage. STI is not just better in a 2-player game, but also in a 3 player game, where it would have the same potential gain, but also the advantage that it cannot be contested. Unlike Slave Auction, STI is a SURE THING provided only that you can stay in the game long enough to reap the benefits. STI also might be better in a 4 player game, especially if one player gets ousted before you get to play the card. In fact it is not clear to me that Slave Auction is necessarily EVER a better card. If you are playing an 8-player game this only increases the chance that the card will be contested (Everyone else will also be counting the number of players and getting the same ideas as you). Even if noone contests it is by no means guaranteed that the game will last long enough for you to gain the 5 extra pool. Slave Auction offers additional profit for additional risk. Its a pretty fair swap, and not necessarily a wise one. JBWhelan

>Here's My current list of cards which have been nominated for banning >in my play area(I only kept the ones I could see real imbalances in >power in...): >All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. >Any comments or arguments will be welcomed, except on those cards >which are already being discussed in another thread. The dangerous thing when banning cards is that all people wants different cards to be banned, and in the end there would nearly not be any cards left. You card list of "Want to ban theese" differs much from mine. My cards that I like to be banned is theese: 1. Thoughts Betrayed - Sure, its a high expensive powerful card, but it do something really bad to game play - it stops someone from using his main source - his hand. - Should be exchanged for another less effective card. If Thoughts Betrayed is banned alone without any new card, then Immortal Grapple should not exist either, since it nearly do the same to many clans. 2. Return to innocence - A player should not be ousted by a single card, regardless the cost. 3. Anathema - There is no rescue from this card, and the card can be putted on all vampires. Ok if it could only be putted on vampires that have commited diablerie. 4. Kiss Of Ra - "If you block me its your foult" 5. >Archon Investigation I dont see this card as a "Counterspell". "Archon Investigation" the card sais and if you really hurt your fellow vampires aand an archon finds out youre dead. Now, go in peace. >Justicar Retribution I agree that this card is wrecked. Dont forget Fear Of Mekhet. Both theese card directly burns vampires. Also Judgement: Camarilla Segragation and rotect Thine Own have the same power. >Protected Resources Why? I dont see any troubles with this card at all. Explain! >Fame Not that powerful. Now it also unique. >Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) Its fair. Its a 2 card combo that do 3 aggrevated. Ive seen better combos than that in two cards. >Pulled Fangs I agree. Since the new rules of aggrevated damage arrived then this card have been far to powerful. Its the most valuable card in my town. >Thoughts Betrayed I agree, but only if tremere gets another "avoid s:ce card". If not Immortal Grapple also should be banned since it do the same to many decks. >Protect Thine own I agree >Tomb Of Rameses I dont agree. The card costs 3 pool and the blood gain isn't that much. You get vampires faster in play, and with all theese "burn vampire cards" then the card is needed. >Dreams of the Sphinx i dont agree. the card isn't powerful enough. Explain to me why. >The Return to Innocence I Agree. >Direct Intervention I agree. Thoose cunterspells belongs to magic. >The Wating List: >Quickness I dont agree. Gangrels have becomed to powerful in combat and it still should be assamites and Brujahs who should be the most powerful combat clans. >Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) Lightning regflexes is wallpaper to me.

>>: Dreams of the Sphinx >> >>I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's >>that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and >>I just don't think it's that bad. >It's not that bad, but it is too good compared to other staple cards. >If I had a choice between a Dreams and a Short term, the Dreams would >_always_ be the better choice, if only for flexibility, speed of >return on your investment, and sheer power. I would rather use pulled fangs than Burning Wrath. The rare cards is often better. >Well, basically, my interpretation was that you could use Lightning >Reflexes with a pile of Tastes of Vitae, Decapitations, and Torn >Signposts to almost insure that your opponent dies first round; you >don't really even risk any blood. It would take larger vampires for >that, admittedly, but an almost guaranteed first round decapitation >deck could easily get brutal. The hidden lurker/immortal grapple - death of my concience do the same.

On 31 Dec 96 18:48:11 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: >>>: Dreams of the Sphinx >>> >>>I've seen the argument against this card, and I just don't think it's >>>that bad. The Goth Band combo seems way to esoteric to be abusive, and >>>I just don't think it's that bad. > >>It's not that bad, but it is too good compared to other staple cards. >>If I had a choice between a Dreams and a Short term, the Dreams would >>_always_ be the better choice, if only for flexibility, speed of >>return on your investment, and sheer power. > >I would rather use pulled fangs than Burning Wrath. The rare cards is >often better. Well, put it this way: if a card is strictly better than another, it's probably broken. Many people believe that pulled fangs is broken for just that reason. At the very least, it's too powerful. >>Well, basically, my interpretation was that you could use Lightning >>Reflexes with a pile of Tastes of Vitae, Decapitations, and Torn >>Signposts to almost insure that your opponent dies first round; you >>don't really even risk any blood. It would take larger vampires for >>that, admittedly, but an almost guaranteed first round decapitation >>deck could easily get brutal. > >The hidden lurker/immortal grapple - death of my concience do the same. Death of My Conscience costs you cards out of your hand; a cruicial but important difference. Besides, prevention wise, it's easier to stop one huge strike than a plethora of little-ish ones. Alec Chang

On 31 Dec 96 18:43:45 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: >>Here's My current list of cards which have been nominated for banning >>in my play area(I only kept the ones I could see real imbalances in >>power in...): > >>All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. > >>Any comments or arguments will be welcomed, except on those cards >>which are already being discussed in another thread. > >The dangerous thing when banning cards is that all people wants different >cards to be banned, and in the end there would nearly not be any cards left. > >You card list of "Want to ban theese" differs much from mine. > >My cards that I like to be banned is theese: >1. Thoughts Betrayed - Sure, its a high expensive powerful card, but it do >something really bad to game play - it stops someone from using his main >source - his hand. - Should be exchanged for another less effective card. >If Thoughts Betrayed is banned alone without any new card, then Immortal >Grapple should not exist either, since it nearly do the same to many >clans. > >2. Return to innocence - A player should not be ousted by a single card, regardless >the cost. > >3. Anathema - There is no rescue from this card, and the card can be putted on >all vampires. Ok if it could only be putted on vampires that have commited >diablerie. Yeah, this one is pretty darnn bad too, it's just that there are ways to get around it. It's not a "burn now, loserboy" kind of deal. >4. Kiss Of Ra - "If you block me its your foult" > All of these except Anathema _are_ on our banned list, even if I forgot to post them there in my original post. > >>Archon Investigation >I dont see this card as a "Counterspell". "Archon Investigation" the card >sais and if you really hurt your fellow vampires aand an archon finds out >youre dead. >Now, go in peace. Refer to the previous strings of posts on this...I'm not going to eat up bandwidth arguing this one again. >>Justicar Retribution >I agree that this card is wrecked. Dont forget Fear Of Mekhet. Both theese >card directly burns vampires. Also Judgement: Camarilla Segragation and >rotect Thine Own have the same power. > >>Protected Resources >Why? I dont see any troubles with this card at all. Explain! Free immunity to big bleeds for a deck that never bleeds. Hi, meet my ventrue vote deck. Bleed? I never bleed.... >>Fame >Not that powerful. Now it also unique. Have you ever seen a Chantry/ little Tremere with fame/ other Tremere w/ talbot's chainsaw combo going? It's not pretty, and uniqueness means jack to it... >>Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) >Its fair. Its a 2 card combo that do 3 aggrevated. Ive seen better combos >than that in two cards. Yeah? And how many of them can be used by anyone for so little cost? Check out the comments on the weenie dominate bleed deck w/ zip guns and DBR in Steve Bucy and Robert Goudie's playgroup... >>Pulled Fangs >I agree. Since the new rules of aggrevated damage arrived then this card >have been far to powerful. Its the most valuable card in my town. > >>Thoughts Betrayed >I agree, but only if tremere gets another "avoid s:ce card". If not Immortal >Grapple also should be banned since it do the same to many decks. > >>Protect Thine own >I agree > >>Tomb Of Rameses >I dont agree. The card costs 3 pool and the blood gain isn't that much. >You get vampires faster in play, and with all theese "burn vampire cards" >then the card is needed. Read about the Etrius deck. Or "Meet the Inner Circle". Decks which are able to gain a huge amount of pool because of this card and other cards in combination, as well as ousting several people in single bleeds, in conjuction w/ RTI, are not fair. >>Dreams of the Sphinx >i dont agree. the card isn't powerful enough. Explain to me why. Compare to Short Term Investment, a decent and staple balanced card. Dreams of the Sphinx is a) faster at giving you your blood back, b) can give you extra transfers as well as extra pool, c) has great versatility, being able to be used for either more hand size, more pool, more transfers, or all of them at different times. I've won games only because of a Dreams of the Sphinx breaking up my hand jam, when it was originally put into the deck to increase speed. >>The Return to Innocence >I Agree. > >>Direct Intervention >I agree. Thoose cunterspells belongs to magic. > >>The Wating List: > >>Quickness >I dont agree. Gangrels have becomed to powerful in combat and it still >should be assamites and Brujahs who should be the most powerful combat >clans. Why should any particular combat clans be more powerful than the others? Gangrel, Brujah, and Assamites should all be equal in combat capacity, or else the game is unbalanced. >>Lightning Reflexes(in the "only use it to abuse it" pile) >Lightning regflexes is wallpaper to me. Alec Chang

>>>Protected Resources >>Why? I dont see any troubles with this card at all. Explain! >Free immunity to big bleeds for a deck that never bleeds. Hi, meet my >ventrue vote deck. Bleed? I never bleed.... I can see your point here, but should the car really get banned becouse you can build a Vote deck on it? I thought thats where the whole point... >>>Fame >>Not that powerful. Now it also unique. >Have you ever seen a Chantry/ little Tremere with fame/ other Tremere >w/ talbot's chainsaw combo going? It's not pretty, and uniqueness >means jack to it... Have you ever seen Serpentis- mummify or the Force Of Will - Freak Drive - Rapid Healing Combo? I know the ones... Ive seen them, Ive met them all... And I tell ya, If the card wouldnt be unique, then its to good... >>>Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) >>Its fair. Its a 2 card combo that do 3 aggrevated. Ive seen better combos >>than that in two cards. >Yeah? And how many of them can be used by anyone for so little cost? >Check out the comments on the weenie dominate bleed deck w/ zip guns >and DBR in Steve Bucy and Robert Goudie's playgroup... I would never use the combo in a Brujah deck... Only in decks that normally cant fight. Ok, the combo is mean, but its a one shot - preventible selfdamaging combo to. Check the Withe Phosperous Grenade. >>>Tomb Of Rameses >>I dont agree. The card costs 3 pool and the blood gain isn't that much. >>You get vampires faster in play, and with all theese "burn vampire cards" >>then the card is needed. >Read about the Etrius deck. Or "Meet the Inner Circle". Decks which >are able to gain a huge amount of pool because of this card and other >cards in combination, as well as ousting several people in single >bleeds, in conjuction w/ RTI, are not fair. Ive seen that deck to. Yes, fun deck. I dont play against it. I have seen a deck WITHOUT return to innocence that survived pretty good against my weenie vote deck... (With only Inner Circle in it), it gained about 10 pool per round. It didnt use Tomb Of Ramses, it used Golconda Inner Peace. When the RtI arrived the deck becamed terrible. >>>Dreams of the Sphinx >>i dont agree. the card isn't powerful enough. Explain to me why. >Dreams of the Sphinx is a) faster at giving you your blood back, b) >can give you extra transfers as well as extra pool, c) has great >versatility, being able to be used for either more hand size, more >pool, more transfers, or all of them at different times. I've won >games only because of a Dreams of the Sphinx breaking up my hand jam, >when it was originally put into the deck to increase speed. Like the Burning Wrath - Pulled Fangs.... There is one better card to use, and thats rare. >Why should any particular combat clans be more powerful than the >others? Gangrel, Brujah, and Assamites should all be equal in combat >capacity, or else the game is unbalanced. Gangrel still beats Brujah. Have you met the "scorpion sting - prevent my damage - pulled fangs" combo yet? I have... My friend have more than 20 pulled fangs... Leather Jackets is a must... ad then he dont use pulled fangs.

On 04 Jan 97 03:34:56 -500, staffan....@mailbox.swipnet.se (staffan.bengtsson) wrote: >>>>Protected Resources >>>Why? I dont see any troubles with this card at all. Explain! > >>Free immunity to big bleeds for a deck that never bleeds. Hi, meet my >>ventrue vote deck. Bleed? I never bleed.... > >I can see your point here, but should the car really get banned becouse you can >build a Vote deck on it? I thought thats where the whole point... It's unfair. Like being able to counter an opponent's spell, letting them waste all of their mana, for UU and a card in M:tG. Vote decks do not need this kind of immunity; bleed decks do not need the inability to bleed for more than 2. The whole point may be to become immune to bleeds of more than 2, but that is not, and has never been the issue. There are many ways of dealing with bleed which require cards in specific disciplines which are more flexible, and require more intelligence to play. All of them are viable if used correctly. Just because some weenie doesn't know how to keep his vote deck from being bled to death doesn't mean that an overpowered trump card should be made for him; it means he should get better. >>>>Fame >>>Not that powerful. Now it also unique. > >>Have you ever seen a Chantry/ little Tremere with fame/ other Tremere >>w/ talbot's chainsaw combo going? It's not pretty, and uniqueness >>means jack to it... > >Have you ever seen Serpentis- mummify or the >Force Of Will - Freak Drive - Rapid Healing Combo? > >I know the ones... Ive seen them, Ive met them all... And I tell ya, If the card wouldnt be unique, then its to good... > >>>>Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) >>>Its fair. Its a 2 card combo that do 3 aggrevated. Ive seen better combos >>>than that in two cards. > >>Yeah? And how many of them can be used by anyone for so little cost? >>Check out the comments on the weenie dominate bleed deck w/ zip guns >>and DBR in Steve Bucy and Robert Goudie's playgroup... > >I would never use the combo in a Brujah deck... Only in decks that normally >cant fight. Ok, the combo is mean, but its a one shot - preventible >selfdamaging combo to. Check the Withe Phosperous Grenade. Cost: 2 cards, 1 damage. Effect: Your opponent is in torpor (at some point) unless they can prevent 2 aggravated, because DBR is played _during_ damage resolution, after the strike has been successful. The DBR is even broken w/ .44 magnum. For a cost of 2 pool, and a couple of cards, you've burned my vampire instead of torporizing him? Oh, gee, that's fair. >>>>Tomb Of Rameses >>>I dont agree. The card costs 3 pool and the blood gain isn't that much. >>>You get vampires faster in play, and with all theese "burn vampire cards" >>>then the card is needed. > >>Read about the Etrius deck. Or "Meet the Inner Circle". Decks which >>are able to gain a huge amount of pool because of this card and other >>cards in combination, as well as ousting several people in single >>bleeds, in conjuction w/ RTI, are not fair. > >Ive seen that deck to. Yes, fun deck. I dont play against it. I have seen >a deck WITHOUT return to innocence that survived pretty good against my weenie >vote deck... (With only Inner Circle in it), it gained about 10 pool per round. >It didnt use Tomb Of Ramses, it used Golconda Inner Peace. When the RtI arrived >the deck becamed terrible. Golconda is quite abusive too, but I digress. Any deck which allows someone to gain 2 times the capacity of a vampire in pool each turn, and still have a vampire to act with is broken. Soul-Gem + Large vampire w/ 1 master skill, + Golconda <repeat> Anything along these lines ought to be banned. Personally, I think that the problem cards here are the Soul Gem, then Golconda, but I digress.... >>>>Dreams of the Sphinx >>>i dont agree. the card isn't powerful enough. Explain to me why. > >>Dreams of the Sphinx is a) faster at giving you your blood back, b) >>can give you extra transfers as well as extra pool, c) has great >>versatility, being able to be used for either more hand size, more >>pool, more transfers, or all of them at different times. I've won >>games only because of a Dreams of the Sphinx breaking up my hand jam, >>when it was originally put into the deck to increase speed. > >Like the Burning Wrath - Pulled Fangs.... There is one better card to use, and >thats rare. > >>Why should any particular combat clans be more powerful than the >>others? Gangrel, Brujah, and Assamites should all be equal in combat >>capacity, or else the game is unbalanced. > >Gangrel still beats Brujah. Have you met the "scorpion sting - prevent my damage >- pulled fangs" combo yet? I have... My friend have more than 20 pulled fangs... >Leather Jackets is a must... ad then he dont use pulled fangs. If you have to use another card to counter one strategy, because if you don't, you cannot win, there is something wrong. Pulled fangs, like DBR, is broken, because it does aggravated damage which cannot be dodged, and because it has no real requirements other than the minion be doing more damage at close range than the opposition and not be going to torpor. There are so many ways to (ab) use pulled fangs that it is almost certainly another example of the "power rare" syndrome, ie card which are rare being better than the commons or uncommons. All cards should be of equal power and quality. When this rule is violated, then a card is either too weak or too powerful. When it is too powerful, it unbalances the game. When it is too weak, it becomes wallpaper. Wallpaper is better than having to ban overpowered cards. Alec Chang

>>I would never use the combo in a Brujah deck... Only in decks that normally >>cant fight. Ok, the combo is mean, but its a one shot - preventible >>selfdamaging combo to. Check the Withe Phosperous Grenade. >Cost: 2 cards, 1 damage. >Effect: Your opponent is in torpor (at some point) unless they can >prevent 2 aggravated, because DBR is played _during_ damage >resolution, after the strike has been successful. The DBR is even >broken w/ .44 magnum. For a cost of 2 pool, and a couple of cards, >you've burned my vampire instead of torporizing him? Oh, gee, that's >fair. There are cards that do the same you know. MANY combos go under the comment "For a cost of 2 pool, and a couple of cards, you've burned my vampire instead of torporizing him?". >Golconda is quite abusive too, but I digress. Any deck which allows >someone to gain 2 times the capacity of a vampire in pool each turn, >and still have a vampire to act with is broken. >Soul-Gem + Large vampire w/ 1 master skill, + Golconda <repeat> >Anything along these lines ought to be banned. Personally, I think >that the problem cards here are the Soul Gem, then Golconda, but I >digress.... Again, you can build a deck using that combo, or you can use the cards like they should - to add something more into a normal deck. If you build a whole deck on a certain card then you abuse the use of that card. I could certanly abuse MANY of the normal cards and making powerful combos that my whole deck depends on. Just becouse of that the card should not be banned. I rather hate the cards that make a whole deck MUCH better if you just add one or two, and only 2 cards go under that statement (Direct Intervention an RtI). >If you have to use another card to counter one strategy, because if >you don't, you cannot win, there is something wrong. Pulled fangs, >like DBR, is broken, because it does aggravated damage which cannot be >dodged, and because it has no real requirements other than the minion >be doing more damage at close range than the opposition and not be >going to torpor. There are so many ways to (ab) use pulled fangs that >it is almost certainly another example of the "power rare" syndrome, >ie card which are rare being better than the commons or uncommons. There is many decks i think of that be much better if you just add one or two pulled fangs. One more of this much-more-power-in-all-decks-just- adding-one-card. >All cards should be of equal power and quality. When this rule is >violated, then a card is either too weak or too powerful. When it is >too powerful, it unbalances the game. When it is too weak, it becomes >wallpaper. >Wallpaper is better than having to ban overpowered cards. You must find a good use for the cards before someone begins to use them. Pulled Fangs was considered wall paper when we still played Jyhad.

te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: >All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. These are so limited in use that their power is justifiable. They are a gamble - the payoff should be higher. >Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | * - Tribble http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | (-*-) - Darth Tribble in his Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | TIE Fighter

On 6 Jan 1997 12:59:59 GMT, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: >>All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. > >These are so limited in use that their power is justifiable. >They are a gamble - the payoff should be higher. > >>Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) > >I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun >unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR >even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. I use Zip Guns, but then I also use Mass Reality (pretty cool if you have two of them in play) [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) writes: > >All "Clan Hoser" cards which _only_ have a point when "hosing" a clan. > > These are so limited in use that their power is justifiable. > They are a gamble - the payoff should be higher. > > >Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) > > I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun > unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR > even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. I like using Zip Gun in my Weenie Dominate Bleed deck. I do have a few DBR in there but I'd keep the Zip Gun's even if DBR didn't exist. They allow me to get a manuever which by itself _might_ be enough to avoid getting smacked. Most importantly, I don't have to waste any time equipping in a deck where speed is of the utmost. Robert -- ...................................................................... :The opinions expressed here are strictly my own delusional ramblings: :and do not reflect the opinions of The Walt Disney Company. : : : :Robert Goudie robert...@studio.disney.com: :....................................................................: :cigars * v:tes * car rallies * scotch * sega rally champion * spoon : :....................................................................:

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: : te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: [snip] : >Dragon's Breath Rounds(Broken w/ Zip Gun) : I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun : unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR : even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. Not true. Lots of people I know play Zip Guns without DRB, including me. I use them in my Nosferatu Prince deck for defence. Only the combo should be banned. Rule that Zip Guns cannot use ammo (ie. that they are only a "weapon", not a "weapon: gun). John Whelan

Alec Chang (te...@lava.net) wrote: [DBR-Zip Gun combo] : Effect: Your opponent is in torpor (at some point) unless they can : prevent 2 aggravated, because DBR is played _during_ damage : resolution, after the strike has been successful. The DBR is even : broken w/ .44 magnum. For a cost of 2 pool, and a couple of cards, : you've burned my vampire instead of torporizing him? Oh, gee, that's : fair. Don't forget, however, that unlike the Zip Gun, one must spend an action (somehow, or be playing an obfuscate deck) to bring out the .44 magnum, bringing the total cost to 2 pool, an action, and two cards for this combo. While it still yeilds significant results, I agree with L.Scott that the real criminal in this combo is the Zip Gun itself. I like it for the flavour that it adds to the game and the mental imagery I have when it appears, but it is too easily abused by too many people. I am now, and always have been in favour of a fix to the Zip Gun which prevents it from using Ammo cards, either by explicit text or renaming the card as simply 'Weapon' instead of 'Weapon: Gun'. This would then make it a reasonable card, IMHO. Always lurking, seldom posting, and still using Nicole's account... Shane H.W. Travis | Anyone who is capable of getting themselves ro...@duke.usask.ca | made President should on no account be allowed Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | to do the job. -- Douglas Adams, HHGTTG

[ quoted text not captured ] I, personally, don't find the problem to be with the Zip Gun, but rather with DBR itself. My objection stems from the fact that DBR causes aggravated damage which is immune to dodges, S:CE, or any means of avoiding aggravated strikes except damage prevention(which is really only fortitude and, if you want to stretch it, Heart of Darkness, which I've never seen used....) and, under the latest "Ruling", Rotshreck. Personally, even though DBR has a cost, I find the costs and requirements to using it piddling, especially when one considers that a) a deck which plans to abuse DBR will be able to get guns fairly easily through either unblockable actions or disguised/concealed weapons, and b) the ability to burn a vampire with DBR requires so much less than most other tricks(barring Decapitate, which is marginal ban quality as well), ie a .44 magnum, a blur, and DBR, that the effect is disproportionate to the cost. Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I've seen so many vampires burned by DBR in my playgroup that it's not even funny. The Toreador Celerity/gun deck which used it also used Obfuscate for the Disguised Weapons, and had pool-gain good enough so that the loss of the gun was effectively meaningless. I can oust the guy, it's just that it takes action early in the game, when he hasn't set up the engine, and having vampires burned, not torpored, but burned w/ DBR doesn't help the equity of the scenario one bit. Alec Chang

jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: >: I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun >: unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR >: even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. >Not true. Lots of people I know play Zip Guns without DRB, including >me. I use them in my Nosferatu Prince deck for defence. >Only the combo should be banned. Rule that Zip Guns cannot use ammo (ie. >that they are only a "weapon", not a "weapon: gun). I agree with banning the combo (as my group has done), but if it comes down to outright banning either DBR or Zip Gun, which is all this thread was interested in, I'd prefer to see the Zip Gun banned rather than DBR. [ quoted text not captured ]

staffan.bengtsson wrote: > > You must find a good use for the cards before someone begins to use them. > Pulled Fangs was considered wall paper when we still played Jyhad. Probably because under the old aggravated damage rules, PF wasn't quite as insane. -- "...But when the blast of war blows in our ears, | Rob Bush (Zamboni) Then imitate the action of the tiger: | [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: > >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > >: I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun > >: unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR > >: even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. > > >Not true. Lots of people I know play Zip Guns without DRB, including > >me. I use them in my Nosferatu Prince deck for defence. > >Only the combo should be banned. Rule that Zip Guns cannot use ammo (ie. > >that they are only a "weapon", not a "weapon: gun). > > I agree with banning the combo (as my group has done), but > if it comes down to outright banning either DBR or Zip Gun, > which is all this thread was interested in, I'd prefer to > see the Zip Gun banned rather than DBR. > As I understand it, there are two problems with Zip Gun/DBR: 1. The combo is too cheap- do 3 points of aggravated damage at range for the cost of 1 pt of damage to your vampire, no disciplines required. 2. Ammo cards aren't played until damage resolution, so you can wait to see if the opposing vampire will do anything funny before playing the DBR. My suggested solutions: 1. DBR adds 2 aggravated to a gun's damage, right? Re-errate Zip Gun so that _any_ ammo card increases both the main and side effect damage for Zip Gun. Now Zip Gun/DBR does 1+2 agg. to both vampires - owch! That should cap some of the more serious offences. 2. All ammo cards should be played during strike declaration, not resolution. What do people think about these fixes? -Mark Langsdorf http://www.engr.trinity.edu/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/index.html

mlan...@io.com (Mark Langsdorf) writes: >My suggested solutions: >1. DBR adds 2 aggravated to a gun's damage, right? Re-errate Zip Gun so >that _any_ ammo card increases both the main and side effect damage for >Zip Gun. Now Zip Gun/DBR does 1+2 agg. to both vampires - owch! That >should cap some of the more serious offences. This would get rid of the combo, which seems to be people's concern. So, a good solution. >2. All ammo cards should be played during strike declaration, not >resolution. Bad! DBR would become wall paper. You willing to risk the blood you invested in that gun on the chance that the guy might dodge? Probably not. DBR would ONLY be used with the Zip Gun and only propagate this combos use. >What do people think about these fixes? You can read it. :) Mike

Mark Langsdorf <mlan...@io.com> wrote in article <5atpig$9qb$1...@nntp-1.io.com>... > L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > > jbwh...@dorsai.org (John Whelan) writes: > > >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: > > >: I'd rather see Zip Gun banned. No one plays with Zip Gun > > >: unless they are using DBR, but my group still plays DBR > > >: even though we've banned the DBR-Zip combo. > > > > >Not true. Lots of people I know play Zip Guns without DRB, including > > >me. I use them in my Nosferatu Prince deck for defence. > > >Only the combo should be banned. Rule that Zip Guns cannot use ammo (ie. > > >that they are only a "weapon", not a "weapon: gun). > > > > I agree with banning the combo (as my group has done), but > > if it comes down to outright banning either DBR or Zip Gun, > > which is all this thread was interested in, I'd prefer to > > see the Zip Gun banned rather than DBR. > > > As I understand it, there are two problems with Zip Gun/DBR: > > 1. The combo is too cheap- do 3 points of aggravated damage at range for > the cost of 1 pt of damage to your vampire, no disciplines required. > > 2. Ammo cards aren't played until damage resolution, so you can wait to > see if the opposing vampire will do anything funny before playing the > DBR. > > My suggested solutions: > 1. DBR adds 2 aggravated to a gun's damage, right? Re-errate Zip Gun so > that _any_ ammo card increases both the main and side effect damage for > Zip Gun. Now Zip Gun/DBR does 1+2 agg. to both vampires - owch! That > should cap some of the more serious offences. > > 2. All ammo cards should be played during strike declaration, not > resolution. > > What do people think about these fixes? #1 would definetly stop this abuse, but I think it is way to much. Nobody would ever use Zip Gun again. Most people use Zip Gun in decks with clans that have no damage prevention or S:CE. This solution would prohibit Zip Gun's use in these types of decks. #2 is a very good idea. I have always thought it was stupid to play ammo cards in strike resolution where the damage could not be prevented. Doing this would make the old Zip Gun/DBR combo much more risky. I would laugh at the guy who plays his Zip Gun/DBR every time I play a Skin of Steel. This would allow other ways to avoid Zip Gun/DBR besides S:CE, Dodge, Obedience, IG, and TB. Almost any deck would be likely to have some defense against it. Steve Bucy I'd be better off undead... "Hmmm. I notice the number of conditional phrases in there... _seems_ to indicate a weakness, _may_ be vulnerable in theory." - G'Kar

mlan...@io.com (Mark Langsdorf) writes: > >As I understand it, there are two problems with Zip Gun/DBR: >1. The combo is too cheap- do 3 points of aggravated damage at range for >the cost of 1 pt of damage to your vampire, no disciplines required. >2. Ammo cards aren't played until damage resolution, so you can wait to >see if the opposing vampire will do anything funny before playing the >DBR. >My suggested solutions: >1. DBR adds 2 aggravated to a gun's damage, right? Re-errate Zip Gun so >that _any_ ammo card increases both the main and side effect damage for >Zip Gun. Now Zip Gun/DBR does 1+2 agg. to both vampires - owch! That >should cap some of the more serious offences. >2. All ammo cards should be played during strike declaration, not >resolution. I assume you're recommending both solutions, right? Solution 1) creates some rules problems if the ammo is used after the first use of the Zip Gun. It would probably work, but it's easier to say "no DBR in Zip Guns"; and even easier to say Zip Gun is just a Weapon, not a Weapon: Gun. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 7 Jan 1997 17:28:53 GMT, mboh...@students.uiuc.edu (michael charles bohlmann) wrote: >mlan...@io.com (Mark Langsdorf) writes: > >>My suggested solutions: >>1. DBR adds 2 aggravated to a gun's damage, right? Re-errate Zip Gun so >>that _any_ ammo card increases both the main and side effect damage for >>Zip Gun. Now Zip Gun/DBR does 1+2 agg. to both vampires - owch! That >>should cap some of the more serious offences. > >This would get rid of the combo, which seems to be people's concern. So, >a good solution. Maybe. I frankly think that DBR _should_ be used in the gun, and make it burn after the strike, whether it succeeds or not. The main problem with this, of course, is that it still allows the sickening little effects I was seeing in my playgroup w/ the .44 magnum. Oh, well..... >>2. All ammo cards should be played during strike declaration, not >>resolution. > >Bad! DBR would become wall paper. You willing to risk the blood you >invested in that gun on the chance that the guy might dodge? Probably not. >DBR would ONLY be used with the Zip Gun and only propagate this combos >use. Hardly. Celerity Strikes would still be a viable option for taking someone down, especially if your opponent isn't using additionals. "Oh, wait, was that a DBR on my third strike this round? Burn, sucker!" I think it's probably a good fix(if there are any good fixes...) but I still think that DBR is not a card that belongs in Jyhad. Same goes for Society of Leopold, Pulled Fangs, and Fame.... >>What do people think about these fixes? Heck, I like them better than DBR, but when a card is overpowered broken, the best answer is just to toss it out the window, as far as I'm concerned. Banning is a perfectly legitimate way to deal with problems, despite the whining you get from munchkins who love the combinations they can use with the broken cards.... Alec Chang