banishment

Just a quick question for the group on a couple of cards - our gaming group is thinking of banning Peace of Khetamon and Banishment, with regards to their ability to remove vamps from play with only a vote. Especially banishment, with its abilirty to remove vampires from the game and costing transfers and pool if that vampire is not at capacity when banished. I have no problem with this cards, seeing as it is a vote card action, that can be blocked, and a vote, which can be voted down , but my gaming partners are of the opinion that the card's effect is unbalanced with regards to its costs. (Vote decks should not be able to get rid of vampires, especially with a vote card that has no minion restrictions... which I disagree with greatly). I am on the anti-ban side of the discussion, as I am trying to develop an effective Masquerade Enforcement - Banishment - Anarch Revolt vote deck. Opinions on the brokenness of Banishment, please, as our Inner Jyhad Cabal will be voting on this... Dave G. -- "Unless a man feels he has a good memory, he should never venture to lie." - Montaigne

David Joseph Greenbaum wrote: > > Just a quick question for the group on a couple of cards - our gaming > group is thinking of banning Peace of Khetamon and Banishment, with > regards to their ability to remove vamps from play with only a vote. > Especially banishment, with its abilirty to remove vampires from the game > and costing transfers and pool if that vampire is not at capacity when > banished. I have no problem with this cards, seeing as it is a vote card > action, that can be blocked, and a vote, which can be voted down , but my > gaming partners are of the opinion that the card's effect is unbalanced > with regards to its costs. Just to make the point, let's compare Banishment, to Regaining the Upper Hand. Both of these cards are votes. Neither requires a Prince or Justicar. Both can be blocked, voted down, etc. in the exact same way. Regaining the Upper Hand gives you the edge. Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue playing the game. There is no reason why a vote should be able to have such an effect. > (Vote decks should not be able to get rid of > vampires, especially with a vote card that has no minion restrictions... > which I disagree with greatly). You seem to disagree with this for the sole reason that you like playing with the card. I'm sure people would get a kick out of playing Thoughts Betrayed, too, but that doesn't make its effect balanced. In fact, Banishment's effect is similar to that of TB, since it removes/diminishes one's capacity to simply play the game (in one case, to play cards, in the other, to have vampires) for a very low cost. James -- James E. Hamblin je...@cornell.edu "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. ... Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender." -- G'Kar, Babylon 5: "Z'ha'dum"

James Hamblin (je...@cornell.edu) inscribed in fleeting electrons: : Just to make the point, let's compare Banishment, to Regaining the Upper : Hand. Both of these cards are votes. Neither requires a Prince or : Justicar. Both can be blocked, voted down, etc. in the exact same way. Agreed. : Regaining the Upper Hand gives you the edge. RtUH is a wall paper card - has been long since... eternity. : : Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly : requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue : playing the game. No - it does not prevent the player from playing the game... The vamp that's the announced target of Banishment can block. Any vamp of either predator or prey of Banishment minion's controller can block. The vote can be voted down. And, to boot, the vampire and the blood on the vampire at the end of the contigently successful vote are still there... Effectively, the only things screwed with are the transfers in the turn(s) used to bring the vamp out. The vampire is guaranteed to come back out before the turn of the player playing banishment, if the vampire is full, or within four pool of full, and the effect of the vote has been: to wit remove a vampire from play for *one* turn, and force the player to reinfluence the vampire (if necessary) to return the vampire to play. This is *not* "put your hand down and go get a coke." This is a valid card, in a valid strategy, with a valid effect. The action is not guaranteed, and it is one action (political action) to one vampire. I see no reason why this is broken. And the vampire that have to call votes must survive the combat monsters and the bleeders in order to call those very votes... I see nothing wrong with Banishment. : There is no reason why a vote should be able to have such an effect. Straw man... RtUH is a useless card. Banishment is a useful, if non broken card. Better to compare Banishment to, say, Conservative Agitation, or Kine Resources Contested, which both have the effect of destroyed pool at the cost of an action and a card. Banishment is NOT broken when compared to these staples of the vote deck. : : You seem to disagree with this for the sole reason that you like playing : with the card. I'm sure people would get a kick out of playing Thoughts : Betrayed, too, but that doesn't make its effect balanced. Ummm, no. I pointed out to you all of the costs, dangers, and consequences of using Banishment as written. None of that has to do with whether I enjoy playing that card. Banishment is not Thoughts Betrayed. It does not break the basic values of the game. It is part of the game.... See above. And, even if I got a kick out of playing Banishment, does that have anything to do with the price of tea in China? If pleasure upon the playing of the card was the sole measure of the card's merit, then we should ban Immortal Grapple, Decapitation, Strike: Combat Ends, and practically any other card in the game worth playing with, in a game meant to be played because it is fun. : In fact, Banishment's effect is similar to that of TB, since it : removes/diminishes one's capacity to simply play the game (in one case, : to play cards, in the other, to have vampires) for a very low cost. It does not. The effects of TB are inescapable except to play TB first, and TB prevents you from using your hand - a resource in the game. Effectively, for the cost of two blood, you are saying that your opponent may not play the game. The consequences of playing TB, in any reasonably designed TB deck, is a burned vamp and the loss of all the blood on it. Your vampire Banished is not prevented from being used for purposes either before the vote (in intercept or reaction), during the vote (inherent votes, reaction cards) or after the vote (vampire merely uncontrolled, not destroyed, blood still existent on vampire, etc...) If the poor vamp isn't going to come back out during the Meth's next influence phase because of lack of blood, well, hell's bells, it *used* that blood for *something* (even to prevent burning in rush combat). Banishment isn't broken because of its effect because if Banishment is broken because you claim it is a trump, than both Immortal Grapple and S:CE are also broken. Hell, stealth's broken then (no intercept deck can beat a stealth bleed/vote deck) Your argument in the light of these facts is rather specious. Phrase it better. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > David Joseph Greenbaum wrote: > > Just a quick question for the group on a couple of cards - our gaming > > group is thinking of banning Peace of Khetamon and Banishment, with > > regards to their ability to remove vamps from play with only a vote. > > Especially banishment, with its abilirty to remove vampires from the game > > and costing transfers and pool if that vampire is not at capacity when > > banished. I have no problem with this cards, seeing as it is a vote card > > action, that can be blocked, and a vote, which can be voted down , but my > > gaming partners are of the opinion that the card's effect is unbalanced > > with regards to its costs. > > Just to make the point, let's compare Banishment, to Regaining the Upper > Hand. Both of these cards are votes. Neither requires a Prince or > Justicar. Both can be blocked, voted down, etc. in the exact same way. You pick the weakest vote from the base set. Include Conservative Agitation and Disputed Territory in the comparison. > > Regaining the Upper Hand gives you the edge. > Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly > requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue > playing the game. Banishment does not "require" the player to spend pool to continue playing (unless he only had one vampire, in which case he was either about to lose anyhow, or was going to spend more pool regardless). Banishment also usually gives that player the option to spend transfers to *gain* pool (from the Banished vampire). The pool to be spent is also based on how much blood the vampire had lost, something which a voting deck can usually not influence. So, since the vote deck doesn't have precise control over the "required" pool loss, the effect is greater in other ways for balance. ConsAg costs a Meth 4pool in a five-player (tournament) game. This pool loss is immediate and completely controlled by the vote deck. It also allows the vote deck to weaken (by 1pool) any other player at the table. Disputed Territory does better than "removes" a location from the game - it switches control of the location. Net change of 4pool when used on HG, the most common location seen in my group's games, and useful to any deck. > There is no reason why a vote should be able to have such an effect. Nor any reason why a vote should have Disputed Territory's effect, I suppose? > > (Vote decks should not be able to get rid of > > vampires, especially with a vote card that has no minion restrictions... > > which I disagree with greatly). > > You seem to disagree with this for the sole reason that you like playing > with the card. I'm sure people would get a kick out of playing Thoughts > Betrayed, too, but that doesn't make its effect balanced. In fact, > Banishment's effect is similar to that of TB, since it > removes/diminishes one's capacity to simply play the game (in one case, > to play cards, in the other, to have vampires) for a very low cost. And Disputed Territory: to have locations. And ConsAg: to have pool. But, in the case of Banishment, your ability to "have" vampires is more under your control, since the vote deck can't usually force you to remove blood from your ready vampires. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

David Joseph Greenbaum writes: >: >: Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly >: requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue >: playing the game. >No - it does not prevent the player from playing the game... The vamp >that's the announced target of Banishment can block. Any vamp of either >predator or prey of Banishment minion's controller can block. The vote >can be voted down. And, to boot, the vampire and the blood on the vampire Even though I tend to agree that Banishment isn't unbalanced - just powerful - there's a mistake here: Banishment isn't directed - no vote is. Actually, the target isn't announced until the political action is successful (unblocked), right ? The target vampire has no special right to block, just the prey and predator. Now, if some player who is neither your prey nor predator is using a Banishment against you, it looks like some Meths ar ganging up against you... OR he's planning long-term, or he's thinking of switching place with your predator, or something. >: >: You seem to disagree with this for the sole reason that you like playing >: with the card. I'm sure people would get a kick out of playing Thoughts >: Betrayed, too, but that doesn't make its effect balanced. > >Ummm, no. I pointed out to you all of the costs, dangers, and >consequences of using Banishment as written. None of that has to do >with whether I enjoy playing that card. Banishment is not Thoughts >Betrayed. It does not break the basic values of the game. It is part of >the game.... See above. > >And, even if I got a kick out of playing Banishment, does that have >anything to do with the price of tea in China? If pleasure upon the >playing of the card was the sole measure of the card's merit, then we >should ban Immortal Grapple, Decapitation, Strike: Combat Ends, and >practically any other card in the game worth playing with, in a game >meant to be played because it is fun. > Hey, just because you don't like the gory pictures and effects of potence cards doesn't mean they're not fun to play! _I_ like them, and not just because they are powerful (OK, I admit it helps). The idea of having a young Brujah grappling with the elder Toreador and tearing her apart looks cool... we're dealing with vampires, after all. :) Last week, a 2-cap vampire (I think it was Lupo) with _no_ enhancements tried to equip with something and was intercepted by a full Dragos. OK, we were playing 3CL (I hate that), but well, the Tzimisce deck was supposed to be combat-ready... Hmm, I don't remember the exact sequence but the net result was mutual torpor with no blood left on either - it was the first combat in the game, maybe the 3rd turn. Impressive and cool to watch. I'm pretty sure Dragos was Grappled and bashed on with a Torn Signpost... :) Philippe

David Joseph Greenbaum wrote: > ... The vamp > that's the announced target of Banishment can block. No, not unless he falls under the next category (Pred or Prey). Votes are never directed, so only the minions of the Predator and Prey can attempt to block. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Joseph Greenbaum wrote: > > : Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly > : requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue > : playing the game. > > No - it does not prevent the player from playing the game... The vamp > that's the announced target of Banishment can block. Any vamp of either > predator or prey of Banishment minion's controller can block. Well, I guess it's just too bad if you decide to Banish the vampire across the table. What, no Eagle's Sight? Sorry... > The vote > can be voted down. _Any_ vote can be voted down. The whole purpose of a good vote deck is to have a way to make the votes pass. The vote can in no way be voted down when you have 4 weenie vampires, all with titles, all with presence. > And, to boot, the vampire and the blood on the vampire > at the end of the contigently successful vote are still there... > Effectively, the only things screwed with are the transfers in the > turn(s) used to bring the vamp out. The vampire is not in play for however long, whether it be until the end of the game or even just one turn. > This is *not* "put your hand down and go get a coke." It's hard to play cards from your hand with no ready minions. It's hard to participate in the game when your only effective 8 point vampire who happens to have spent most/all of his blood is removed from play by a vote called by the 1-capacity Prince of Whatever across the table. > This is a > valid card, in a valid strategy, with a valid effect. Valid simply because it was printed? How is this effect justified? > The action is not guaranteed, and it is one action (political action) to > one vampire. If you had 10 Banishments you would play 10 Banishments. If you wanted the votes to be unblocked, you would use stealth. Oh, wait. You do. So you are playing a stealth-vote deck, with presence, and you claim that your votes, at +3 stealth can be blocked, and even if they're not, you only have at least 5 votes in favor... One card should not require someone to play a certain kind of deck to be effective. Banishment effectively removes the ability of the two strategies Bleed and Combat to deal with voting. Bleed will try to oust it's prey before the votes kill it. Combat will try to kill the voters. Neither of these can be done without vampires in play. Even if Banishment just slows down these decks, especially in the case of a vote deck, speed is everything. When you can Conservatively Agitate someone for 16 in one turn, a delay of one turn, or the loss of transfers can be deadly. > I see no reason why this is broken. And the vampire that > have to call votes must survive the combat monsters and the bleeders in > order to call those very votes... I see nothing wrong with Banishment. Banishment is not combat defense. Nor is it bleed defense. Just because you feel like you don't have any other option either means that you're uncreative, or simply paranoid. > : There is no reason why a vote should be able to have such an effect. > > Straw man... RtUH is a useless card. Banishment is a useful, if non > broken card. Better to compare Banishment to, say, Conservative > Agitation, or Kine Resources Contested, which both have the effect of > destroyed pool at the cost of an action and a card. Fine. Let's compare it to KRC (since it causes a fixed pool loss, whereas ConAg is variable). KRC: You tap a vampire, play a card, I lose 3 pool. Banishment: You tap a vampire, play a card. One of my vampires (likely one who has blood << capacity) is moved from controlled to uncontrolled. At worst, this causes the loss of up to 11 pool, and 3 turns' worth of transfers. But I'll consider an average case. Let's say it only cost me 4 pool and 1 turn of transfers. Already the loss is greater than KRC. But this doesn't take into account the loss of a vampire. Even if I choose to spend the pool and time to bring the vampire out, that's time that I was less able to play the game. It's not the same, as LSJ posits, as stealing a location. You don't need locations to play the game. "But," you say, "you don't have to spend the pool." Sure, I could just increase the effect of Banishment to "Choose a vampire. Remove that vampire from the game. Any blood on that vampire is moved to it's controllers pool, but really slowly." If Banishment _actually_ said that, it would be even more horrible. > Banishment is NOT > broken when compared to these staples of the vote deck. No, it only causes a comparable pool loss, time loss, and the (possibly) temporary removal of a vampire from play. Strictly more powerful, I'd say. > : You seem to disagree with this for the sole reason that you like playing > : with the card. I'm sure people would get a kick out of playing Thoughts > : Betrayed, too, but that doesn't make its effect balanced. > > Ummm, no. I pointed out to you all of the costs, dangers, and > consequences of using Banishment as written. Costs which are no more restrictive than for any other vote. Consequences? Other than people getting mad at you... > None of that has to do > with whether I enjoy playing that card. Banishment is not Thoughts > Betrayed. It does not break the basic values of the game. It is part of > the game.... See above. It is part of the game, just because WotC printed it? There was no such effect in Jyhad, in the original set. What other balancing measure do we have to go by? > And, even if I got a kick out of playing Banishment, It might mean that you're not looking at this objectively. > : In fact, Banishment's effect is similar to that of TB, since it > : removes/diminishes one's capacity to simply play the game (in one case, > : to play cards, in the other, to have vampires) for a very low cost. > > It does not. The effects of TB are inescapable except to play TB first, Well, you need to have superior Dominate, and two blood. To make TB effective, you also have to some way to exploit the fact that your opponent can't play any cards. This requires at _least_ one other discipline, and more cards. Banishment require the acting minion to be a vampire. To make Banishment effective, you also need a way to make the vote pass, so you need, say, superior Presence. Maybe Praxis Seizures, so you can have more votes. There's no need to exploit Banishment's effect. It effect is exploitative enough. > and TB prevents you from using your hand - a resource in the game. Gosh, and vampires aren't a resource in the game? > Effectively, for the cost of two blood, you are saying that your opponent > may not play the game. The consequences of playing TB, in any reasonably > designed TB deck, is a burned vamp and the loss of all the blood on it. The consequences of Banishment, in any reasonably designed vote deck, is the removal of a vampire from play. > Your vampire Banished is not prevented from being used for purposes > either before the vote (in intercept or reaction), during the vote (inherent > votes, reaction cards) or after the vote (vampire merely uncontrolled, > not destroyed, blood still existent on vampire, etc...) But, oh, no! I wasn't playing an intercept deck or a vote deck. I lose! I was playing with a titled vampire, so let's see... I've got 2 votes against. How many in favor? 10? Oh, well. Your vampire being Thoughts Betrayed isn't prevented from using equipment or other cards in play. And besides, unless I have a huge card-intensive combo, _nothing_ happens to the opposing vampire. Banishment requires one card, _maybe_ two. > If the poor vamp > isn't going to come back out during the Meth's next influence phase > because of lack of blood, well, hell's bells, it *used* that blood for > *something* (even to prevent burning in rush combat). So I should be punished for using blood off of my vampires. You're right. After a while using my vampires, once they don't have much blood left, I hate having them hunt. I'd much rather have them removed from the game. > Banishment isn't > broken because of its effect because if Banishment is broken > because you claim it is a trump, than both Immortal Grapple and S:CE are > also broken. Hell, stealth's broken then (no intercept deck can beat a > stealth bleed/vote deck) When is Immortal Grapple effective? When you can get to close range, and the opposing minion was going to use a strike other than a hand strike anyway. When is S:CE effective? Almost always, barring use of one of the few anti-S:CE cards. S:CE is very nearly a trump, but it's hard to justify doing something about it when there are so may such cards. Stealth? Come on. If you're not an intercept deck, you ignore the stealth. Stealth alone doesn't affect someone's ability to play the game. > Your argument in the light of these facts is rather specious. So, let me review your "facts". You claim that a particular vote is not out of line, since, like every other vote, it can be blocked or voted down. You keep saying this, over and over. But what about a non-intercept, non-vote deck? Why should one card cripple the ability of Bleed and Combat to deal with Vote? > Phrase it better. Yes, sir. [ quoted text not captured ]

Dave Greenbaum wrote: "Better to compare Banishment to, say, Conservative Agitation, or Kine Resources Contested" Yes, and when compared to KRC, for instance, Banishment comes out far better than a card that is somewhat dubious to begin with. KRC will cause one player (probably your prey) to lose 3 pool and another (probably your predator) to lose 1 pool. With a cost of 1 card and 1 action that any vampire can call, this is fairly reasonable. Now compare this to Banishment, which has the exact same cost (1 card, 1 action, any vampire can call it) and will on the average have the exact same effect (costing your prey 3 pool, give or take), as well as costing the player who has a vampire Banished transfers to get the vampire out again and causing them to lose actions by having the Banished vampire out of play for 1 or more turns. Ok, Banishing a vampire may not cost your prey 3 pool, like KRC does, but in all likelyhood it will cost at least that much to get the vampire back into play again. This is effectively costing the player with the Banished vampire +/-3 pool, just like KRC, for the exact same cost. Now, add onto this effect the loss of transfers (wasted time/resources) and the loss of actions (from the vamp being out of play for a turn or two), and Banishment becomes way more useful (in terms of cost/effect) than KRC. I completely agree that comparing the effect of Banishment to the effect of Regaining the Upper Hand is completely pointless, as RtUH quite simply blows, but comparing Banishment to KRC is perfectly valid, as both are very useful cards, but Banishment is simply far and away better (while accomplishing the same goal-causing pool loss to a player) and more useful then KRC for the _exact_ same cost. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "In America, first you get the Sugar, then you get the Power, then you get the Women." -Homer

James Hamblin writes: >Just to make the point, let's compare Banishment, to Regaining the Upper >Hand. Both of these cards are votes. Neither requires a Prince or >Justicar. Both can be blocked, voted down, etc. in the exact same way. >Regaining the Upper Hand gives you the edge. >Banishment effectively removes a vampire from the game, possibly >requiring a player to spend transfers and/or pool to be able to continue >playing the game. >There is no reason why a vote should be able to have such an effect. While I might agree that Banishment is overpowered and should be errated to be Prince/Justicar/IC, comparing it to Regaining the Upper Hand is a straw-man argument. If we were to take the cards Mummify, Far Fatuus, and Regaining the Upper Hand we could easily show that almost ALL the other cards are way overpowered. While I find it insulting that they put in stupid cards that are overpowered, I find it much more insulting that they reprinted Regaining the Upper Hand in the Sabbat expansion. There was no use for it before and reprinting it just showed that they don't really care if these cards fit in to the overall game.

PDB6 wrote: > I completely agree that comparing the effect of Banishment to the effect > of Regaining the Upper Hand is completely pointless, as RtUH quite simply > blows, but comparing Banishment to KRC is perfectly valid, as both are > very useful cards, but Banishment is simply far and away better (while > accomplishing the same goal-causing pool loss to a player) and more useful > then KRC for the _exact_ same cost. The difference is that the vote deck controls what is lost with KRC and ConsAg. With Banishment, the vote deck is at the mercy of the Prey to bring out larger vampires and to allow those larger vampires to lose blood. Since you lose control, the balance is maintained by increasing the effect. Malk Dementia is a more effective way of removing a Meth's vampires, but it depends on that Meth bringing out Malks, and on being able to use those Malks to diablerize. Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his blood back to his controller) is greater. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > The difference is that the vote deck controls what is lost with > KRC and ConsAg. With Banishment, the vote deck is at the mercy of > the Prey to bring out larger vampires and to allow those larger > vampires to lose blood. The precondition: "Must have large vampire. That vampire must spend blood." is hardly a restriction at all. Only weenie decks do not play with any small vampires, and I know of no deck that never has any of its vampires ever losing blood. > Since you lose control, the balance is maintained by increasing > the effect. I understand this from the design point of view, but I don't think that the effect is even warranted. The issue is not so much "the card is too powerful", but that "the card has an inappropriate effect". > Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the > effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his > blood back to his controller) is greater. "There must be a Malkavian in play" is a _much_ harsher restriction than "there must be a large-ish vampire in play which has spent most of its blood". James -- James Hamblin je...@cornell.edu

James Hamblin wrote: > > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > > Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the > > effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his > > blood back to his controller) is greater. > > "There must be a Malkavian in play" is a _much_ harsher restriction than > "there must be a large-ish vampire in play which has spent most of its > blood". And the effect (trading control of the vampire rather than merely returning the vampire unharmed to the uncontrolled region, and not relying on a successful vote nor even a successful action) is much harsher as a result. For balance. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi James, I find myself in the very unusual position of arguing with the majority... James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote in article <33455D...@cornell.edu>... > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > > > The difference is that the vote deck controls what is lost with > > KRC and ConsAg. With Banishment, the vote deck is at the mercy of > > the Prey to bring out larger vampires and to allow those larger > > vampires to lose blood. > > The precondition: "Must have large vampire. That vampire must spend > blood." is hardly a restriction at all. Only weenie decks do not play > with any small vampires, and I know of no deck that never has any of its > vampires ever losing blood. > Uh, I assume you mean "only weenie decks play with all small vampires" or something of that sort. I suppose it depends on your definition of a small vampire. The most common vampires in our games are 3 to 6 capacity, an 8 capacity vampire is an extreme luxury only to be afforded to the most successful of decks, or decks that simply provide food for the other Methuselahs... > > Since you lose control, the balance is maintained by increasing > > the effect. > > I understand this from the design point of view, but I don't think that > the effect is even warranted. The issue is not so much "the card is too > powerful", but that "the card has an inappropriate effect". > I was convinced by this line of argument in the case of TB, but it sounds quite unconvincing in this case. I own lots of banishments, I only use a few in my decks, and not for the reason you seem to think they are effective. My experience has been that if votes are tightly contested by more than 2 players, banishment is often a vote you can pass anyway, and then cryptic rider... > > Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the > > effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his > > blood back to his controller) is greater. > > "There must be a Malkavian in play" is a _much_ harsher restriction than > "there must be a large-ish vampire in play which has spent most of its > blood". > Actually, this depends on your play group. I would bet money (at least a dollar....) that a malkavian would turn up in one of our games before an 8 capacity vampire... Algustas -- I don't have time for a sig.file, I have to play Diablo

On Fri, 04 Apr 1997 14:59:44 -0500, James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> wrote: <snip> >The precondition: "Must have large vampire. That vampire must spend >blood." is hardly a restriction at all. Only weenie decks do not play >with any small vampires, and I know of no deck that never has any of its >vampires ever losing blood. <snip> >James >-- >James Hamblin >je...@cornell.edu I'll have you know my obf/cel deck rarely ever loses a blood. I have not one card in my deck that requires payment in blood. The only time I ever lose blood is when gangrel trap and hit me for one aggro or when I feel like taking damage just to make the combat decks feel special. It turns out just by accident my deck never has trouble with banishment. I play with so many wakes that any vampire can block, so as long as I have one vampire out I can block anything. So for me I lose one vampire for one turn until my next influence phase instead of taking 3 pool from a KRC. (I can even remove blood from vampires I don't need any more like Al-Ashrad after he's burned all locations or Francois once theres too much intercept out) Sorry, no actual useful input in the argument but I really like to go on about my deck. Deej "Did you paint pubic hair on my garden gnomes?" -Drew Carey Show

James Hamblin wrote: > One card should not require someone to play a certain kind of deck to be > effective. Banishment effectively removes the ability of the two > strategies Bleed and Combat to deal with voting. Bleed will try to oust > it's prey before the votes kill it. Combat will try to kill the > voters. Neither of these can be done without vampires in play. Even if > Banishment just slows down these decks, especially in the case of a vote > deck, speed is everything. Hi James, I would just like to make a point here on the subject of "one card should not force.....deck design argument", unfortunatly this kind of argument could be made for alot of cards in the game. Errol T

L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote: : James Hamblin wrote: : > : > L. Scott Johnson wrote: : > > : > > Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the : > > effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his : > > blood back to his controller) is greater. : > : > "There must be a Malkavian in play" is a _much_ harsher restriction than : > "there must be a large-ish vampire in play which has spent most of its : > blood". : And the effect (trading control of the vampire rather than merely : returning the vampire unharmed to the uncontrolled region, and not : relying on a successful vote nor even a successful action) is : much harsher as a result. For balance. Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'm part of the playgroup that was out for Banishment's head, and as it turned out, we decided to house rule that both Banishment and Anathema (the other semi-broken vote that's seen some recent complaining locally) may only be used on a vampire younger than the one calling the vote. I don't entirely agree with your line of reasoning. Malkavian Dementia is a clan screw card. The clan screws are all way wack because they punish someone for showing up with vampires of a certain clan. The Brujah Anti hoser for example - burn an Anti Brujah of cap 6 or less, isn't it? That (like a lot of the clan hosers) is just absurd. I don't care if it depends on someone having the right kind of vampire - it should never have been made. Leave "color hosers" to Magic. As far as Banishment itself goes, the problem I have with it is that it messes with the most basic resource of the game, with (as far as I can see) no justification. It takes one of your vampires out of the game. "unharmed to the uncontrolled region" is a nice way to put it, but in fact that vampire can in no way be used while in the uncontrolled region. In Jyhad/Vampire, you can not play the game without vampires. They are a resource even more basic than your hand (which Thoughts Betrayed invalidated). The possibility of voting a vampire out of the game did not exist in the original set. Nor should it ever have been created, to my mind. At that time, the only obvious way to remove a vampire from the game was by diablerie or Vulnerability. Both require the vampire to have been sent to torpor. Both have drawbacks (diablerie allows a bloodhunt to be called; vulnerability costs a pool and can only be used in your own master phase). Banishment has no obvious drawbacks and keeps you from playing the game. That's why it's Just Wrong. ;) Josh "this is a song about a superhero named tony.. it's called tony's theme!"

LSJ wrote: "The difference is that the vote deck controls what is lost with KRC and ConsAg. With Banishment, the vote deck is at the mercy of the Prey to bring out larger vampires and to allow those larger vampires to lose blood." Yes, but then Banishment is more versitile, so it evens out on that level (Banishing your Predators Vamp is generally much more useful than KRCing your predators pool). Some vampire of your preys will always be down some blood, and then by calling Banishment on them, you give your prey a choice: A. Have a vamp (a very important basic resource) removed from play permanently. B. Pay the pool to get them back into play. If they chose "A", you have removed a vamp from the game with very little cost (even less cost than Archon Investigation, a card widely regarded as broken and overpowered). If they chose "B", you have effectively cost them as much as a KRC (if not more), as well as making them waste transfers and losing vampire actions, making the card far more effective than KRC for its cost. Yes, under option "A" the player with the Banished vamp may get some pool back, just like Golconda, but even Golconda gives the player an out (pay 2 pool to avoid gaining 8). Yes, some times Banishment will be mostly useless (and even this is highly debateable) as neither your predator or prey will have a single vampire with any missing blood, but most of the time Banishment will be more effective than the basic staple vote card (KRC, a card that has already been deemed as somewhat overpowered-Its replacement in Sabbat was Screw the Masquerade which sucks a great deal in comparison) for the exact same cost. Granted, it seems somewhat iffy that you could build a deck with nothing but Banishment for offense (and again, I bet you probably could. Imagine, if you will, the arctypical weenie vote deck with Banishments replacing all the KRCs. No one at the table will ever take an action again...) like you could with KRC, but a deck with, say, 10 KRC and 10 Banishment as offense will be much more potent, versitile, and IMO sucessful than a deck with 20 KRC, which is already very potent. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 Apr 1997, Joshua Duffin wrote: > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@regency.wizards.com) wrote: > : James Hamblin wrote: > : > > : > L. Scott Johnson wrote: > : > > > : > > Since so much of this is not under the control of the Meth, the > : > > effect of Malk Dementia (burning a Malk, without giving his > : > > blood back to his controller) is greater. > : > > : > "There must be a Malkavian in play" is a _much_ harsher restriction than > : > "there must be a large-ish vampire in play which has spent most of its > : > blood". > > : And the effect (trading control of the vampire rather than merely > : returning the vampire unharmed to the uncontrolled region, and not > : relying on a successful vote nor even a successful action) is > : much harsher as a result. For balance. > > Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'm part of the playgroup that was > out for Banishment's head, and as it turned out, we decided to house rule that > both Banishment and Anathema (the other semi-broken vote that's seen some > recent complaining locally) may only be used on a vampire younger than the > one calling the vote. > If you hate that card so much, what about the vote which, when called by an IC member, burns any non-cam. vampire? Banishment is a very gentile card compared with other votes. As for the clan hosers, they keep people on their toes. There's not much fun playing in a group where decks seldom change. But I do agree with the idea of pro-clan deck cards. What happened to that thread anyways? Richard | Don't let youself get in your own way. -Wicker |

Richard E Braxton (bra...@cs.buffalo.edu) wrote: : On 5 Apr 1997, Joshua Duffin wrote: : > Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'm part of the playgroup that was : > out for Banishment's head, and as it turned out, we decided to house rule that : > both Banishment and Anathema (the other semi-broken vote that's seen some : > recent complaining locally) may only be used on a vampire younger than the : > one calling the vote. : > : If you hate that card so much, what about the vote which, when called by : an IC member, burns any non-cam. vampire? Banishment is a very gentile : card compared with other votes. Heh. In fact, I believe we outright banned that vote, as well as Sacrifice (a Sabbat vote which is sorta like that one). Banishment is nothing like reasonable in my eyes; there are some other votes that are arguably worse, and we've done stuff to those too. : As for the clan hosers, they keep people on their toes. There's not much : fun playing in a group where decks seldom change. But I do agree with the : idea of pro-clan deck cards. What happened to that thread anyways? I don't know what happened to it - the concept's not bad, although you could say that there are already a whole lot of pro-clan cards: all the masters that require you to have a vampire of a certain clan (hunting grounds, Art Museum and company, etc etc). While I agree that it's not much fun to play with people who never change their decks, I don't think clan hosers are the best way to avoid it. Around here, some of us change our decks all the time; others are more content to stick with one deck for a while, modifying it but not starting over from scratch. But we get enough variety to satisfy, without using clan hosers. Josh some will strut, and some will fret..

On 6 Apr 1997, Joshua Duffin wrote: [snip] > > Heh. In fact, I believe we outright banned that vote, as well as Sacrifice > (a Sabbat vote which is sorta like that one). Banishment is nothing like > reasonable in my eyes; there are some other votes that are arguably worse, > and we've done stuff to those too. > > : As for the clan hosers, they keep people on their toes. There's not much > : fun playing in a group where decks seldom change. But I do agree with the > : idea of pro-clan deck cards. What happened to that thread anyways? > > I don't know what happened to it - the concept's not bad, although you could > say that there are already a whole lot of pro-clan cards: all the masters that > require you to have a vampire of a certain clan (hunting grounds, Art Museum > and company, etc etc). While I agree that it's not much fun to play with > people who never change their decks, I don't think clan hosers are the best > way to avoid it. Around here, some of us change our decks all the time; others > are more content to stick with one deck for a while, modifying it but not > starting over from scratch. But we get enough variety to satisfy, without > using clan hosers. > Why ban or modify any card? The game keeps it's own balance by not letting any strategy win out over all others. I have not found a sure fire way to win at this game since vote pushing has become limited by the replace at end of turn rule. Sneak and bleed is always the most potent closely followed by bleed/bounce. Then there's combat, live forever and vote decks but Not in that order. To eliminate any part of the game causes the balance to shift to the remaining strategies. I am for the most variety possible. If there is someone in your group who is abusing a strategy because of a lack of counter strategies at the table, then build a deck to exploit the weaker parts of it or simply gang up on it. It happens in most groups to keep One Trick Ponies in line. Support your local Diabolist! Richard | Don't let yourself get in your own way. -Wicker |

Richard Braxton wrote: "Why ban or modify any card? The game keeps it's own balance by not letting any strategy win out over all others." That is good in theory, but certain "broken" cards tilt the table of play in one direction or another, and given a consistent play group (like we have), we can endavour to "fix" various cards that we (as a group) view as "broken" or " degenerate". After the initial relase of Jyhad, the amount of effort put into playtesting seemed to lessen, and as a result, the number of "broken" cards in the expansions is much greater than the number of "broken" cards in the original set, so we decided to fix them (keep in mind that various players in our group play, like, 5 or 6 multi player games a week, and have for about 2 years, so we have over analiyzed and thought about this game quite a bit). For instance, some "broken" cards we have dealt with are: Wake With Evenings Freshness: This card has been viewed as broken forever (not in a game breaking way, but still a bit off) because of its complete lack of cost and unrestricted ability to cycle. As the card reads, you can, just to get the card out of your hand, play WWEF in response to someone across the table calling a vote or something, not even attempting to block. There is no cost to this. We fixed it to say that you must attempt to block or react to play WWEF (similar to Forced Awakening, the WWEF replacement). Thoughts Betrayed: This card has been beaten to death (and then beaten some more) on this newsgroup, and the general consensus is that it is just plain wrong. Our group mutated it into a card that prevents all strikes for a round, keeping it perfectly viable as a combat defense but preventing the Tremere "I play TB and then procede to burn you" syndrome. Pulled Fangs: Originally (in Jyhad and not VTES), this card just sent you to torpor (along with the hunting problem). With the refitted Aggro rules in VTES, Pulled Fangs became a rediculously powerful card, far outweighing its cost (of nothing), as every combat that ended with a Pulled Fangs resulted in a burned vampire, with no blood hunt or consequences whatsoever (at least Decapitate only works with POT, costs 2 blood, and the vampire needs to be going to torpor). We changed it to operate the same way as Disarm (the PF replacement) from Sabbat, i.e. it just sent you to torpor, like it did originally (read Disarm and compare it to Pulled Fangs). Archon Investigation: Another card that has been beaten quite to death in this forum. The general consensus (among we right thinking people ;-) is that AI is completely overpowered compared to its cost (as it saves you pool from the bleed and burns a vampire, costing only a master card) and the only way to avoid it is to bleed for 3 or less every action (you can't play Sudden Reversal to stop a AI, mind you). As I assume the original intent of this card was to slow down S+B, it failed as good S+B decks can bleed you for 3 an action over and over again and kill you very efficiently, while a Bruise and Bleed or Tap and Bleed deck that can only manage to bleed you once or twice occasionally gets completely screwed. Sadly, our group is yet to do anything about this card, as Josh and I just recently got voted down (I think it was a tie, and tied votes fail, ya know...) We have recently added to cards we wanted to do something about Banishment, Peace of Ketehmon (which is completely inferior in every way to Banishment, yet printed after Banishment...), Protect Thine Own, and Anathema. We banned PTO outright, and made the other 3 only work on younger vampires than the acting one (so Igo the Prince of London can't Banish Arika...), from whence this thread sprang. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "It's a long, long rope they use to hang you soon I hope And I wonder why it hasn't happened Why why why" -They Might Be Giants

Richard Braxton wrote: ""If there is someone in your group who is abusing a strategy because of a lack of counter strategies at the table, then build a deck to exploit the weaker parts of it or simply gang up on it. It happens in most groups to keep One Trick Ponies in line." Or, you can prevent the OTP decks from the get go (which is why the DCI implimented the No Repeat Actions and Limited Vote Push rules) to avoid completely upsetting the Predator/Prey relationship that is the soul of the game (like the "Gang Up" method of fixing problems in the game does). Our group prefers the latter. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Apr 1997, PDB6 wrote: > Richard Braxton wrote: > "Why ban or modify any card? The game keeps it's own balance by not > letting any strategy win out over all others." > > That is good in theory, but certain "broken" cards tilt the table of play > in one direction or another, and given a consistent play group (like we > have), we can endavour to "fix" various cards that we (as a group) view as > "broken" or " degenerate". [big snip] > > Banishment, Peace of Ketehmon (which is completely inferior in every way > to Banishment, yet printed after Banishment...), Protect Thine Own, and > Anathema. We banned PTO outright, and made the other 3 only work on > younger vampires than the acting one (so Igo the Prince of London can't > Banish Arika...), from whence this thread sprang. [snip] If you continue to play by your own rules, what will you do when you decide to play with other groups or when some one wants to join your group but not with all of these special rules? Do you play in any tourneys? There is no happy medium. You would debate the use of each card instead of playing the game by the rules as written and errata. If you find a card that works, use it. If you find some one is playing the same deck, they will be predictable and defeatable. If you don't like cards that have a big effect on the game, then play 4CL or 1CL. That is easy to explain and accept. If your group plays with power then everyone would have power. Don't you trade or let those who have less cards borrow ones they can use? I'd hate to think about all the special rules that exist just because a cards effect was found offensive. This is about competition, no? Otherwise no one wins or loses. Keep a common ground or there won't be much to talk about, only arguments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Apr 1997, PDB6 wrote: > Richard Braxton wrote: > ""If there is someone in your group who is abusing a > strategy because of a lack of counter strategies at the table, then build > a deck to exploit the weaker parts of it or simply gang up on it. It > happens in most groups to keep One Trick Ponies in line." > > Or, you can prevent the OTP decks from the get go (which is why the DCI > implimented the No Repeat Actions and Limited Vote Push rules) to avoid > completely upsetting the Predator/Prey relationship that is the soul of > the game (like the "Gang Up" method of fixing problems in the game does). > Our group prefers the latter. > [snip] OTPs still exist within NRA and LVP rules. The two groups I play in use all DCI rules, one group uses 4CL. I've seen one deck that is 4CL and sweeps the table repeatedly without any of the overpowered cards. My friend vows to retire it after Origins Con and I will post it here when he does. The only way to control it is to gang up on it. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Joseph Greenbaum (dj...@cornell.edu) wrote: : RtUH is a wall paper card - has been long since... eternity. ACtually I've used it with some success in a setite deck. Use it to give your prey the edge. As many times as possible. Place those lovely little counters on that form of corruption card. Cash it in for a big vampire. Whop out another... Later, -- Adam Hattrell, Support, Cimio Ltd. ad...@cimio.co.uk

Richard wrote: > > If you continue to play by your own rules, what will you do when you > decide to play with other groups or when some one wants to join your group > but not with all of these special rules? If people want to join our group, they're going to have to accept the house rules we play with. We may debate the reasons again, and we _might_ change them if we got convinced, but that's the way we play. For example, a while back a 4CL player joined us, and for a while, he played 4CL decks anyway. We soon convinced him that NL was better (or at least more competitive in a NL environment) and he switched. It's not like we're three guys sitting around breaking the game. There are at least 10 of us currently in our group, and nobody has a problem with these house rules. But we never forget that they are house rules. > Do you play in any tourneys? Not very often. We're going to UBCon this weekend, and I'm running the event. My friends are planning to abuse the "sub-par" tourney environment. > There is no happy medium. You would debate the use of each card instead of > playing the game by the rules as written and errata. No. If we're going to a tournament, we'll accept the rules of whoever's running it, just as if we were running a tournament, we would expect the same. > If you find a card > that works, use it. If you find some one is playing the same deck, they > will be predictable and defeatable. What, by clan hosers? I find the idea of ganging up on someone because you know their deck is effective before the game even starts distasteful. > If you don't like cards that have a > big effect on the game, then play 4CL or 1CL. That is easy to explain and > accept. Try to fix a few wack cards by going to card limits, screwing up the entire game? Do you honestly believe 1CL is a viable environment? > If your group plays with power then everyone would have power. > Don't you trade or let those who have less cards borrow ones they can use? Yes. But how does having more of a broken card make it any less broken? > I'd hate to think about all the special rules that exist just because a > cards effect was found offensive. This is about competition, no? > Otherwise no one wins or loses. Keep a common ground or there won't be > much to talk about, only arguments. That's why we have house rules. Say 9 out of 10 of us feel card X is out of line, or overpowered. Those 9 will all complain and argue every time the last person abuses it. So why not have house rules? If most of the people agree, then there's your common ground. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes: >LSJ wrote: >"The difference is that the vote deck controls what is lost with KRC and >ConsAg. With Banishment, the vote deck is at the mercy of the Prey to >bring out larger vampires and to allow those larger vampires to lose >blood." >Yes, but then Banishment is more versitile, so it evens out on that level >(Banishing your Predators Vamp is generally much more useful than KRCing >your predators pool). Some vampire of your preys will always be down some >blood, and then by calling Banishment on them, you give your prey a >choice: >A. Have a vamp (a very important basic resource) removed from play >permanently. >B. Pay the pool to get them back into play. >If they chose "A", you have removed a vamp from the game with very little >cost (even less cost than Archon Investigation, a card widely regarded as >broken and overpowered). If they chose "B", you have effectively cost >them as much as a KRC (if not more), as well as making them waste Or if not less. If you banish a full vamp, they lose no pool. If you banish a vamp who only has lost one or two blood, you still cost the controller only one to two pool - less than KRC. With three, you're finally equal, except that you've lost the ability to make some other Meth lose a pool, and you're still less than ConsAg at the start of a tourney game (5 players). Since, to belabor the point, you cannot completely control the nature of the loss, the effect is allowed to be greater than the effect of KRC, which gives you exacting control of the losses. >transfers and losing vampire actions, making the card far more effective >than KRC for its cost. Yes, under option "A" the player with the Banished >vamp may get some pool back, just like Golconda, but even Golconda gives If they "may", then they will. If they cannot (the vamp was empty), then they already got a lot of use out of the vamp (if it was large), or didn't lose much in the first place (if it is small). >the player an out (pay 2 pool to avoid gaining 8). And Banishment gives them an out: it's a political action. ------------- Aside, to no one in particular, and certainly not directed at PDB6, whose grasp of the game is not in question: Many people apparently feel that the extent to which Banishment is allowed to be greater is sufficient to make Banishment unbalancing. Fine. That may well be true. But the argument can be made that the effect is balanced. So there you go. If you feel that the effect can be reasonably attributed to the loss of control, then play it. If not, then ban it (or "fix" it with some other house rule). If my argument as to the possibility of being balanced with respect to the loss of control is faulty, then tell me why. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Assembler Command: http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | RPC: Rotate Program Counter Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

In article <5i30l9$i...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, dj...@cornell.edu (David Joseph Greenbaum) writes: (big snip) > >The action is not guaranteed, and it is one action (political action) to >one vampire. I see no reason why this is broken. And the vampire that >have to call votes must survive the combat monsters and the bleeders in >order to call those very votes... I see nothing wrong with Banishment. > > Okay, I'll take my stance on the Banishment uestion. Banishment is a good card and effective. True, its ability should probably have required a Prince/Just/IC, that would make Peace of Khetamon look somewhat decent, but still it is a vote and there are several ways to beat a vote: Block the action - argued because you can't do it if your across the table (disregarding Eagle Sight) Vote it down - In a truly political enviroment getting the vote through should be difficult, even with weenie vote decks (which I never have seen work properly since the DCI rulings). There are other ways to vote it down even if you don't have titled vamps: Kindred Coercion, Surprise Influence. Put in Vote Defense - An often overlooked option that can be implemented by simply adding two or three cards to your deck: Delaying Actions (and the vote can't be called again that turn, effectively stopping any more vamps from calling Banishments) and Treachery (not it costs the player a pool, go multiple and they'll fear playing vote cards) are great examples of Vote defense. I'm of the opinion that if you don't put in some defense against all the possible strategies that can be taken against you, then you deserve to get what is dished out to you (TB, AI and a few others are a bit powerful). Banishment is rough, but throw a few vote defense in here and your ready for anyone who plays politics. Banishment is not broke IMO as it is worded. If it had said "Burn the Vamp" instead of "Put him in the Uncontrolled", I could see a major problem. Besides, if all you play with is big vampires without any little guys, you deserve to get eaten alive. Lets face it, its the big vamps that this card screws over, not the the little ones. Banishment has its place, a deck designed around it wouldn't win in my play group (politics is always a carefully guarded sideline requiring deals) and even then its not always safe from Delaying Actions. I say we keep the card as is. (Okay, maybe add the Prince/Just/IC so Peace isn't such a waste). Chance "If you think you can, you're right. If you think you can't, you're right!" -- Henry Ford

Richard wrote: > > OTPs still exist within NRA and LVP rules. The two groups I play in use > all DCI rules, one group uses 4CL. I've seen one deck that is 4CL and > sweeps the table repeatedly without any of the overpowered cards. That's probably because 4CL breeds overpowered decks, usually S&B. It's not really the same to say that a 4CL deck is overpowered than to say that a NL deck is overpowered. But let's not get into the CL debate again. > My > friend vows to retire it after Origins Con and I will post it here when he > does. The only way to control it is to gang up on it. In 4CL often the "gang up" tactic is all that can be done. I really hope the Origins Jyhad tournament isn't 4CL. That would be really unfortunate... If it's not, then I don't think a 4CL deck will perform the same in a NL environment as in a NL one. [ quoted text not captured ]

Just a quick note: your ~150 character wide posts are hard to read and hard to format for replies. Try narrowing it down to ~70-80. > Okay, I'll take my stance on the Banishment uestion. Banishment is a good card > and effective. True, its ability should probably have required a Prince/Just/IC, > that would make Peace of Khetamon look somewhat decent, but still it is a vote > and there are several ways to beat a vote: Yes, there are several ways to beat a vote. But just because there is _some_ defense doesn't mean an effect which is unbalanced is justified. Besides, politics is unfortunately not very political. It is very one-sided, due in large part to Bewitching Oration. One card which gives 4 votes makes it very hard to put a vote down unless there is another vote deck at the table. And once enough Praxis Siezures pass, the vote deck is in complete domination. As long as there is no intercept or other vote deck at the table, the vote deck doesn't have to worry about its votes failing. > Block the action - argued because you can't do it if your across the table > (disregarding Eagle Sight) Requires intercept. > Vote it down - In a truly political enviroment getting the vote through should be > difficult, But because BO provides so many votes, this is nearly impossible to do. > even with weenie vote decks (which I never have seen work properly > since the DCI rulings). According to the Corrupter (who I hear has given up Jyhad for the moment to exploit Magic and make money), the DCI rule doesn't hurt WVP enough. Besides, WPV (Weenie Presence Vote) is still very powerful. > There are other ways to vote it down even if you don't > have titled vamps: Kindred Coercion, Surprise Influence. But why play with these cards? They only work once, and the vote deck is chock full of votes, votes and more votes. > Put in Vote Defense - An often overlooked option that can be implemented by > simply adding two or three cards to your deck: Delaying Actions (and the vote > can't be called again that turn, effectively stopping any more vamps from calling > Banishments) and Treachery (not it costs the player a pool, go multiple and > they'll fear playing vote cards) are great examples of Vote defense. "Two or three" of these things isn't going to help. "Oh, you made me put the ConAg back in my hand? I KRC you instead." > I'm of the opinion that if you don't put in some defense against all the possible > strategies that can be taken against you, then you deserve to get what is dished > out to you (TB, AI and a few others are a bit powerful). Banishment is rough, > but throw a few vote defense in here and your ready for anyone who plays > politics. Banishment is not broke IMO as it is worded. If it had said "Burn the > Vamp" instead of "Put him in the Uncontrolled", I could see a major problem. Viable Vote defense, just like Bleed defense, should include Rush and Race. Banishment strongly delays this strategies, often long enough to oust the person playing them. If the big Brujah is spending all of his time going back and forth from controlled to uncontrolled, he's not rushing the voters. > Besides, if all you play with is big vampires without any little guys, you > deserve to get eaten alive. But I should be punished for playing with any large vampires? > Lets face it, its the big vamps that this card > screws over, not the the little ones. I am completely unconvinced by the argument: "If the large vampire didn't have any blood on it, at least you got some use out of it." Well, yeah. And I wanted to get more use out of it, too, without having to spend 2 turns and 8 pool. Granted, this is a worst case scenario, but even the most abusive cards like RtI and TB aren't _always_ useful. > Banishment has its place, a deck designed > around it wouldn't win in my play group (politics is always a carefully guarded > sideline requiring deals) and even then its not always safe from Delaying > Actions. If the vote deck has to make deals to pass its votes, it will lose. Unless there is another vote deck at the table, politics will be extremely one-sided. So you seem to be saying that the only viable vote defenses are to play a vote deck yourself or play an intercept deck using Eagle's Sight. Or, water down your deck with cards that won't be at all useful unless there _is_ a vote deck. > I say we keep the card as is. (Okay, maybe add the Prince/Just/IC so Peace isn't > such a waste). I'm not suggesting that anyone else needs to change the card. I'm just trying to justify why we did. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson wrote: > > Aside, to no one in particular, and certainly not directed at PDB6, > whose grasp of the game is not in question: > > Many people apparently feel that the extent to which Banishment is > allowed to be greater is sufficient to make Banishment unbalancing. > Fine. That may well be true. But the argument can be made that the > effect is balanced. So there you go. > > If you feel that the effect can be reasonably attributed to the > loss of control, then play it. > > If not, then ban it (or "fix" it with some other house rule). > > If my argument as to the possibility of being balanced with respect > to the loss of control is faulty, then tell me why. Thanks for this, L. Scott. I do see where you're coming from, and I agree with you from a design standpoint. I just don't think that the loss of control is justification enough for the effect. Thanks for seeing our side as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, James Hamblin wrote: > Richard wrote: > > > > OTPs still exist within NRA and LVP rules. The two groups I play in use > > all DCI rules, one group uses 4CL. I've seen one deck that is 4CL and > > sweeps the table repeatedly without any of the overpowered cards. > > That's probably because 4CL breeds overpowered decks, usually S&B. It's > not really the same to say that a 4CL deck is overpowered than to say > that a NL deck is overpowered. But let's not get into the CL debate > again. Very agreed. ( and I do like to play both ) > > > My > > friend vows to retire it after Origins Con and I will post it here when he > > does. The only way to control it is to gang up on it. > > In 4CL often the "gang up" tactic is all that can be done. I really > hope the Origins Jyhad tournament isn't 4CL. That would be really > unfortunate... If it's not, then I don't think a 4CL deck will perform > the same in a NL environment as in a NL one. > There is a Rochester Draft and a Standard tourney at Origins. This deck does fall under 4CL but not on purpose. It sweeps NL tables! [ quoted text not captured ]

Richard Braxton wrote: "If you continue to play by your own rules, what will you do when you decide to play with other groups or when some one wants to join your group but not with all of these special rules?" Well, we all know what the actual rules of the game are and what all the cards really do, so there is no problem when we play in a tournament or in another group. Our play group consists of about 15 people these days (and new players keep showing up), and they are all ok with the various "house rules" (give or take a few specific people and specific cards). When new players show up, we introduce them to the various fixes we use locally and play. There is very little problem. Keep in mind that most changes we implimented are pretty minor in terms of game strategy as a whole, and maybe a total of a dozen cards (out of hundreds and hundreds) have been changed, and only 3 or 4 have been changed substantially or banned. In this upcoming tourney (at UBCon) that we will be at, the tourney will be run with completely standard DCI rules (no wacky house rules whatsoever), as we are not playing in our play group and do not intend on imposing our house rules on random people we don't know. We will be using only the standard rules. And we intend on milking it for all it is worth ;-) "Do you play in any tourneys? There is no happy medium. You would debate the use of each card instead of playing the game by the rules as written and errata." Yes, there is a happy medium. When playing with a group of local players who all pretty much agree on various house rules, I use them. When playing in a tournament (or with another group of players) with a bunch of people I don't know, I play by the rules being used. It would be foolish to do anything else. I'm certainly not going to show up at Origins and say "No! You can't use Banishment on Marty Lechtansi! He is older than the acting vampire and my house rule says you can't do that!" That would be silly. "If you don't like cards that have a big effect on the game, then play 4CL or 1CL." That has a far greater (and more deleterious) effect on the game than tweaking a few cards here and there. Why punish Undead Strength because Thoughts Betrayed is busted? Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "When I was ten I shaved my head and tried to be a monk. I thought the older women would like me if I did." -Weezer

In article <33496F...@cornell.edu>, James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: > >If the vote deck has to make deals to pass its votes, it will lose. >Unless there is another vote deck at the table, politics will be >extremely one-sided. So you seem to be saying that the only viable vote >defenses are to play a vote deck yourself or play an intercept deck >using Eagle's Sight. Or, water down your deck with cards that won't be >at all useful unless there _is_ a vote deck. > > I'm just trying to give alternate ways to beat a deck, rather than the obvious rush which always seems effective. I believe Banishment is a worthwhile card. It is slightly better than Mind Numb, but it must pass two tests to get there (Action and Voting). To me that seems to be worth the while. a deck only goes runaway if the other players let it happen. Banishment is the equivalent of of the Brujah sending someone to Torpor every round. If they can put every vamp brought out by their prey into torpor every round, how is the deck to counter this? It must involve some combat cards to get them out of combat or prevent the damage. Does this water the deck down? If it does then the original deck which had no combat cards was probably an unviable deck design (IMHO) and needed to be changed. [ quoted text not captured ]

xcdc...@aol.com wrote: > > I'm just trying to give alternate ways to beat a deck, rather than the > obvious rush which always seems effective. I believe Banishment is a > worthwhile card. It is slightly better than Mind Numb, How can you compare it to Mind Numb? With Mind Numb, the vampire is only tapped, not removed from the game. It can still Wake and react or block, and there is no pool loss at all. > but it must pass two tests to get there (Action and Voting). To me > that seems to be worth the while. But _any_ vote has to have the action succeed and the referendum pass. Why should Banishment be allowed to, as Josh says, remove an essential resource (i.e., vampires) from the game, however temporary? > A deck only goes runaway if the other players let it happen. So by not playing a vote or intercept deck, I'm allowing the vote deck to win? > Banishment is the equivalent of of the Brujah sending someone to > Torpor every round. If they can put every vamp brought out by their > prey into torpor every round, how is the deck to counter this? It > must involve some combat cards to get them out of combat or prevent > the damage. Does this water the deck down? Combat defense is much more card-efficient than vote defense. One Obedience or S:CE can make the entire rush action fail. The only really decent vote defense card, Delaying Tactics, only delays (as the card title implies) the inevitable. It stops one vote action, but vote decks usually have far more vote actions than combat decks have rush actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu) wrote: [cut cut] : Since, to belabor the point, you cannot completely control the nature of : the loss, the effect is allowed to be greater than the effect of KRC, : which gives you exacting control of the losses. [snip] : ------------- : Aside, to no one in particular, and certainly not directed at PDB6, : whose grasp of the game is not in question: : Many people apparently feel that the extent to which Banishment is : allowed to be greater is sufficient to make Banishment unbalancing. : Fine. That may well be true. But the argument can be made that the : effect is balanced. So there you go. : If you feel that the effect can be reasonably attributed to the : loss of control, then play it. : If not, then ban it (or "fix" it with some other house rule). : If my argument as to the possibility of being balanced with respect : to the loss of control is faulty, then tell me why. Well, from the point of view that Banishment is a vote like any other, and its effect can be encompassed in the loss of pool it causes by putting a non- full vampire back into the uncontrolled region - you're right, it's possible that it's balanced by the vote-caller not being able to completely control what the potential effect of the Banishment will be. But I don't think that really describes the effect of Banishment. My problem with the card is not so much that it is more efficient in causing direct pool loss than things like KRC - the problem is that it removes a basic resource of the game, which it should not be able to do. Vampires are too essential to be removable with a simple vote, even if only temporarily. It's the same problem I see with Thoughts Betrayed - even if TB is not especially efficient in causing pool loss, and won't always get you a vampire burned, and it costs 2 blood, a fairly steep price - it still eliminates your opponent's hand, another basic resource, from the game. It's not just that the effect is overpowered - the effect is Just Plain Wrong. I know this position doesn't allow for much debate - there's no quantifiable aspect to Wrongness, and it's inherently a matter of opinion. But this is my reason for why Banishment is certainly not balanced as written. Josh ..you will know it is time to turn the page when you hear artoo-detoo beep, like this.. : -- [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes >Fine. Let's compare Banishment to KRC (since it causes a fixed pool loss, >whereas ConAg is variable). KRC: You tap a vampire, play a card, I lose >3 pool. Banishment: You tap a vampire, play a card. One of my vampires >(likely one who has blood << capacity) is moved from controlled to >uncontrolled. At worst, this causes the loss of up to 11 pool, and 3 >turns' worth of transfers. But I'll consider an average case. Let's >say it only cost me 4 pool and 1 turn of transfers. Already the loss is >greater than KRC. But this doesn't take into account the loss of a >vampire. Even if I choose to spend the pool and time to bring the >vampire out, that's time that I was less able to play the game. Banishment costs no pool. All your pool is still there; the question is how many transfers must you use to get the pool on that vampire back in action, either by refilling the vampire or by withdrawing the pool. If the vampire is down by 4 blood, you lose 1 action with that vampire (roughly worth 1 pool) and 4 transfers to bring it back out. Transfers aren't precisely costed, and their value clearly changes over the course of the game, but I can't see that being worth more than 2 pool. So the net cost is 3 pool - a match for KRC. You can get a larger cost if the vampire is down more than 4 blood. If it's down 8, you get a six pool cost - except that then you just pull off the remainder for a cost of, say, 2 pool worth of transfers. Yes, the vampire isn't going to be around any longer, but any vampire down 8 blood is normally not going to be around much longer anyway. The main kind of decks really hurt by banishment are drain-and-refill type decks (i.e. Minion Tap/5th Tradition). I have no problem with weakening those a bit. It does also hurt the must-have-one-vampire decks, but that's not unbearable. So you have a vote that costs from 1 to six pool, depending on circumstances, and usually towards the low end. Certainly nice, but no killer. Roughly comparable to Conservative Agitation. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

> James Hamblin wrote: > > Richard wrote: > > Do you play in any tourneys? > Not very often. We're going to UBCon this weekend, and I'm running the > event. My friends are planning to abuse the "sub-par" tourney > environment. Ah. Alec is going to Origins this summer, and intends to play in the Vampire tournament. Given that this is with cards that are overpowered trumps not banned, as in our house rules, Alec is attempting to make a deck that will be able to deal with broken strategies. He's got three goals. First-to attempt to make a deck that will not have to use these questionable cards, but can beat one using them. Second-failing that, to display how broken some of the cards are, in hopes of getting a _real_ DCI banned list (more than just Paralyze and Ante cards). Third-to make bloody well sure that some unfocused weenie Brujah thing doesn't walk off with first prize. Alec, unfortunately, hasn't got net access due to a server problem. What the lucky freak has, however, is a bunch of my cards on loan and my analysis of the probable situation. Imagine taking all the broken cards from all the sets in Magic and playing no-limits. In Jyhad, that's IC vamps, RTI, AI, TB, Kiss of Ra, ToR, etc. There have been several prior decks that capitalize on these strategies, notably David Hyatt's Meet the Inner Circle and Steve Bucy's Winning with Broken Cards. TB and RTI have so warped the character of the game that I cannot see a tournament-quality deck under current DCI rules that doesn't include Dominate. Personally, if I were going, I would be playing a Euro-Brujah rush deck that involves playing Thoughts Betrayed first, then pulling off a couple of heads. Alec intends to try a Dom-For-Pro deck based off of Iliana and Stanislava. Yes, it works like Meet that Beloved Inner Circle, but Alec believes that a bleed deck with RTI-Horrific Countenance-Day Op-Kiss of Ra is the best choice for this sort of environment. Other things I can see: Weenie Dominate-Obfuscate bleed for a quick start Ventrue Antitribu block, bleed & bounce Ventrue Freak vote & bleed Giovanni-Lasombra-EuroBrujah TB and potence Tremere & Antitribu TB and burn (Feel free to critique my assessment and add more) -Nathan Harada

Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote in article <5ie1pe$4...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>... [Lots of snipage] > But I don't think that really describes the effect of Banishment. My problem > with the card is not so much that it is more efficient in causing direct pool > loss than things like KRC - the problem is that it removes a basic resource > of the game, which it should not be able to do. Vampires are too essential > to be removable with a simple vote, even if only temporarily. It's the same > problem I see with Thoughts Betrayed - even if TB is not especially efficient > in causing pool loss, and won't always get you a vampire burned, and it costs > 2 blood, a fairly steep price - it still eliminates your opponent's hand, > another basic resource, from the game. It's not just that the effect is > overpowered - the effect is Just Plain Wrong. > Well, the case for TB being out of touch with the game by removing your hand from play was fairly convincing. This is not the same argument, however, as your vampires (plural) are not removed from play, only a vampire (singular). If you want balance with decks dependent on one vampire you are going to have to ban about 1/5 of the cards in the game. It has been my experience that rarely a game goes by where somebody doesn't take a single action that removes a vampire from play, it might be a vote, or a bums rush, or mind numb, or whatever. Now if the card somehow removed all of your vampires from play, the "wrongness" would have the same feel as TB. > I know this position doesn't allow for much debate - there's no quantifiable > aspect to Wrongness, and it's inherently a matter of opinion. But this is > my reason for why Banishment is certainly not balanced as written. Hey, I'll be quantifying Love, God, and the Democratic budget next week :) Algustas -- I don't have time for a sig.file, I have to play Diablo

Hi Nathan, Your comments tend to lend support to a pet theory of mine, that the people arguing Banishment is broken play with larger vampires than those of us who argue that it isn't. Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote in article <334AE3...@hula.net>... [Tournament stuff snipped] > Ah. Alec is going to Origins this summer, and intends to play in > the Vampire tournament. Given that this is with cards that are > overpowered trumps not banned, as in our house rules, Alec is attempting > to make a deck that will be able to deal with broken strategies. He's > got three goals. > First-to attempt to make a deck that will not have to use these > questionable cards, but can beat one using them. Second-failing that, > to > display how broken some of the cards are, in hopes of getting a _real_ > DCI banned list (more than just Paralyze and Ante cards). Third-to make > bloody well sure that some unfocused weenie Brujah thing doesn't walk > off with first prize. You (or Alec) can most definitely make decks that can win at Origins without the broken cards. You just need to look more at the crypt and make your library simpler. Good luck. > Alec, unfortunately, hasn't got net access due to a server > problem. What the lucky freak has, however, is a bunch of my cards on > loan and my analysis of the probable situation. Imagine taking all the > broken cards from all the sets in Magic and playing no-limits. In > Jyhad, that's IC vamps, RTI, AI, TB, Kiss of Ra, ToR, etc. Um, it won't make any difference. If you are using large vampires like IC members, you can't afford to throw them away (RTI) or pay for AI. TB is annoying, but has never actually helped anyone make a winning deck design. Kiss of Ra jams your hand unless you can get someone to block (that will only happen once). I do agree TOR is broken, but it is unique, yes? Do you suppose anyone else at Origins might bring a few? > There have been several prior decks that capitalize on these > strategies, notably David Hyatt's Meet the Inner Circle and Steve Bucy's > Winning with Broken Cards. TB and RTI have so warped the character of > the game that I cannot see a tournament-quality deck under current DCI > rules that doesn't include Dominate. I would suspect that you are in for an education at Origins then. A weenie vote deck could still win. Although the winning deck will probably focus on either Dominate or Presence. > Personally, if I were going, I would be playing a Euro-Brujah > rush deck that involves playing Thoughts Betrayed first, then pulling > off > a couple of heads. This is way to slow for an environment like Origins. You will not see decks like this in the final round. Expect the average vampire to have a capacity between 3 and 5. Most libraries will only use one or two disciplines, depending on their crypt. > Alec intends to try a Dom-For-Pro deck based off of Iliana and > Stanislava. Yes, it works like Meet that Beloved Inner Circle, but Alec > believes that a bleed deck with RTI-Horrific Countenance-Day Op-Kiss of > Ra is the best choice for this sort of environment. > Even with an uncontested TOR (and that is asking for a lot at origins) this is too slow to be competitive. You have to be able to deal with a fast, aggressive predator. Your fighting the clock as well as your predator and prey... > Other things I can see: > Weenie Dominate-Obfuscate bleed for a quick start What do you mean by weenie? they will not be one or two capacity vampires, unless they are using the broken ruling on mask of 1000 faces... > Ventrue Antitribu block, bleed & bounce A fine deck design. I use it when the combat decks have been showing up a lot at my group... > Ventrue Freak vote & bleed There is a much more efficient way to approach this design. Throw out your clan focus and concentrate on a discipline. If you do this with presence, you can make a crypt that has all 3-5 capacity vampires, many with superior presence. Vote, if it is blocked, majesty, untap, bleed with legal manipulations, gain a pool. etc. Enough of these small vamps also have dominate that you can even throw in deflections for those RTI moments...This is the type of deck I would likely play at Origins. > Giovanni-Lasombra-EuroBrujah TB and potence You have got to be kidding. This deck won't even be rushing it's first vampire until turn 3, way too slow for origins. Expect to see haven uncovered and the Elysium if you try this. You will need at least on small vamp out to arson/rampage those locations, so maybe turn 4 before you get in to combat. Expect to be ousted on turn five... > Tremere & Antitribu TB and burn The only TB design I take seriously. It could be incredibly annoying, and possibly even win. Still, it is not going to have all the cards it needs all the time, so when it hand jams (and it will) it will be in trouble... > > (Feel free to critique my assessment and add more) OK. I hope this felt constructive. Good luck (Alec) at origins. [ quoted text not captured ]

Nathan Harada wrote: "Third-to make bloody well sure that some unfocused weenie Brujah thing doesn't walk off with first prize." Man, I don't know what that deck was (that posted Brujah junk deck that won some big tourney somewhere), but the decks at Origins for the last two years were all pretty much ok. The deck that won last year was a fairly standard Ventrue S:CE/Bonding/Bleed deck (used by a woman who was either not amazingly familiar with the game or a total ringer, as in the game I played with her, I helped her oust me when it got down to me and her. Doh.). Some of the decks were completely pointless, some were fairly standard (Malk S+B, Gangrel Rush, Setite Sneak/Vote, Toreador Intercept/Guns) and some were trying to be degenerate (like a weenie vote deck I saw that did really well) and may or may not have been sucessful. My deck (a weird Nosferatu based Rush/Deflection deck) did fairly well, gaining 4 VPs in a four player and 2 five player games (one game I got totally whacked, one I ousted 2 and was the last at the table, the four player I ousted my prey and then got ousted by the other player who had ousted her prey), and all in all, the decks were pretty even keel. Algusts then wrote: "You have got to be kidding. This deck won't even be rushing it's first vampire until turn 3, way too slow for origins." Man, I don't know what Origins you went to, but at the last two, the decks were hardly all well honed killing machines. I just don't think there is enough really good Jyhad competition that leads to the development of really good "tourney killer" decks like there are in Magic. In the 13 (out of 50) decks I played against last year, I can think of one or two really bad ones and the rest were all fairly acceptable to adaquate. There were one or two fast kill really effective decks at the tourney (I think they were weenie voters) that were pretty scary, but for the most part the decks were all pretty mid range standard decks. The deck that won, again, was a pretty straight forward Ventrue S:CE/Bleed deck, primarily because the rounds were arranged by VP's, and in the final round all the real VP gainer decks were in the same game and they all shut each other down, allowing the guy (or woman, actually) in "second" to win. [ quoted text not captured ]

Algustas wrote: > [clip] > Nathan Harada <i...@hula.net> wrote in article <334AE3...@hula.net>... > > [Tournament stuff snipped] > [clip] > Um, it won't make any difference. If you are using large vampires like IC > members, you can't afford to throw them away (RTI) or pay for AI. TB is > annoying, but has never actually helped anyone make a winning deck design. > Kiss of Ra jams your hand unless you can get someone to block (that will > only happen once). I do agree TOR is broken, but it is unique, yes? Do you > suppose anyone else at Origins might bring a few? > Algustus' understanding of the tournament environment seems to match many of my experiences. TB has not been in a winning deck ever! Frankly, combat decks have only rarely appeared in the finals and have never won. I personally have a hard time believing that a combat deck can get the requisite average of >2.5 VP per round that it routinely takes to reach the finals. Also, the time limits and library exhaustion rule make combat decks (especially card intensive ones) unlikely winners. One more point. If people are using RTI they either use the Soul Gem or minion tap the vampire and refill it then MT it again long before they every give it up to an RTI. They can certainly afford it. > > There have been several prior decks that capitalize on these > > strategies, notably David Hyatt's Meet the Inner Circle and Steve Bucy's > > Winning with Broken Cards. TB and RTI have so warped the character of > > the game that I cannot see a tournament-quality deck under current DCI > > rules that doesn't include Dominate. > > I would suspect that you are in for an education at Origins then. A weenie > vote deck could still win. Although the winning deck will probably focus on > either Dominate or Presence. > Don't mess with Steve Bucy man. Ya' cant argue with results. He's got about fifty people gunning for him now at the next con. Steve uses large vamps almost exclusively and wins an ungodly amount of games. However, weenie decks also play a big role in tournaments. They are fast and very effective. WVP will still get you some (and maybe even _enough_ ) VPs. My Weenie Dominate deck was the most dominant deck played in the last 2 years. Another guy in our playgroup won with Weenie Presence Bleed. I've received 2nd place finishes with Weenie Fortitude and Weenie Stealth Vote Push. > > Personally, if I were going, I would be playing a Euro-Brujah > > rush deck that involves playing Thoughts Betrayed first, then pulling > > off > > a couple of heads. > > This is way to slow for an environment like Origins. You will not see > decks like this in the final round. Expect the average vampire to have a > capacity between 3 and 5. Most libraries will only use one or two > disciplines, depending on their crypt. > I agree that the above deck would be too slow. As a side note though, I think you tend to equate large vampires with slowness. As a rule, if you are playing with all large vamps you have multiple ToRs and probably even Info Hwy to offset the size. > > Alec intends to try a Dom-For-Pro deck based off of Iliana and > > Stanislava. Yes, it works like Meet that Beloved Inner Circle, but Alec > > believes that a bleed deck with RTI-Horrific Countenance-Day Op-Kiss of > > Ra is the best choice for this sort of environment. > > > > Even with an uncontested TOR (and that is asking for a lot at origins) > this is too slow to be competitive. You have to be able to deal with a > fast, aggressive predator. Your fighting the clock as well as your predator > and prey... > An uncontested TOR is relatively easy to come by. Most players will let you use yours and then play their own rather than start a contestation war. I don't see what the KoR will add, though. You're making the bleeds unblockable anyway. Who cares if the other guy is ready or in torpor. What if your prey has Fortitude? I don't think the benefit is worth a possibly worthless card in your hand. > > Other things I can see: > > Weenie Dominate-Obfuscate bleed for a quick start > > What do you mean by weenie? they will not be one or two capacity vampires, > unless they are using the broken ruling on mask of 1000 faces... > [clip] > > Ventrue Freak vote & bleed > > There is a much more efficient way to approach this design. Throw out your > clan focus and concentrate on a discipline. If you do this with presence, > you can make a crypt that has all 3-5 capacity vampires, many with superior > presence. Vote, if it is blocked, majesty, untap, bleed with legal > manipulations, gain a pool. etc. Enough of these small vamps also have > dominate that you can even throw in deflections for those RTI > moments...This is the type of deck I would likely play at Origins. > This is a great idea. Steve Bucy has one. He, of course, uses large titled vampires but the concept is the same. I suspect this will do well in tournament play. > > Giovanni-Lasombra-EuroBrujah TB and potence > > You have got to be kidding. This deck won't even be rushing it's first > vampire until turn 3, way too slow for origins. Expect to see haven > uncovered and the Elysium if you try this. You will need at least on small > vamp out to arson/rampage those locations, so maybe turn 4 before you get > in to combat. Expect to be ousted on turn five... > You're on the money again. This deck would die a miserable death! [clip] I guess the thing that gets me about TB decks and combat decks in general (remember I am speaking only of tournament play) is that you can eliminate every vamp at the table but that doesn't earn you a single VP. Are your Nosferatu going to start bleeding for one and run the table? Not likely. I once saw a combat deck that was so effective that one of the other players refused to bring out a vampire for many turns. The combat deck had to just sit there. Tick tick tick... don't forget the time limit. > > > > (Feel free to critique my assessment and add more) > > OK. I hope this felt constructive. Good luck (Alec) at origins. > Go kick some butt Alec. Good Luck. 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: :LA Tourny Info -> http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~ezix/other/rg/vtourn_1.html: :....................................................................: :Da pony run, he jump he pitch. He t'row my master in da ditch. : :He died and da jury wondered why. Da verdict was the blue tail fly.: :....................................................................: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Algustas (algu...@sprintmail.com) wrote: : Joshua Duffin <du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> wrote in article : <5ie1pe$4...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>... : > another basic resource, from the game. It's not just that the effect is : > overpowered - the effect is Just Plain Wrong. : > : Well, the case for TB being out of touch with the game by removing your : hand from play was fairly convincing. This is not the same argument, : however, as your vampires (plural) are not removed from play, only a : vampire (singular). If you want balance with decks dependent on one vampire : you are going to have to ban about 1/5 of the cards in the game. It has : been my experience that rarely a game goes by where somebody doesn't take a : single action that removes a vampire from play, it might be a vote, or a : bums rush, or mind numb, or whatever. Now if the card somehow removed all : of your vampires from play, the "wrongness" would have the same feel as TB. Ah, well, if your position is that Banishment's argument is substantially inferior because it only takes one of your vamps out of play at a time, rather than all of them at once... then you're hopeless. ;) Seriously - Thoughts Betrayed only makes you unable to use your hand for one vampire, doesn't it? All your other vampires can still play cards from your hand... What I want is for remove-vampire-from-game effects to exist as little as possible, and for them to be reasonably costly and non-straightforward. The combat method requires at least a few cards, and if you want to make sure they don't get out of torpor, diablerie (or a master card and a pool, or a skill- specific action) is required. The mind numb method is a little on the hard- to-deal-with side for my taste, which may indicate that I have a low tolerance for non-basic-set effects that are developed (often with, in my opinion, dubious balance) in later expansions - but Misdirection has a certain amount of similarity, and is roughly as annoying (and fatal), typically. It's my opinion that *all* the votes that can remove vampires from the game are a little excessive - I think the only one my playgroup hasn't messed with is the Tradition Upheld (successful vote burns a caitiff) one, which inherently is limited to vampires of cap 1, mostly, with a few 2s and one 3 that I know of (Dan Murdock - all the Sabbat Pander are not, of course, caitiff). If Banishment *did* take all your vampires out of play in the same way that it currently puts one into uncontrolled, it would be broken in ways that TB can only dream of. TB can get one of your vampires burned, at a fairly high cost, and you can't play the game while it's happening. Banishing *all* your vamps with a single vote would most likely get you ousted before you recovered, at a relatively low opportunity cost (calling and passing a vote), and you wouldn't get to play the game until you were dead. : > I know this position doesn't allow for much debate - there's no : quantifiable : > aspect to Wrongness, and it's inherently a matter of opinion. But this : is : > my reason for why Banishment is certainly not balanced as written. : Hey, I'll be quantifying Love, God, and the Democratic budget next week :) Hah. Good luck! Josh ..opinion, schmopinion..

On 9 Apr 1997, PDB6 wrote: > Nathan Harada wrote: [snip] > standard Ventrue S:CE/Bonding/Bleed deck (used by a woman who was either > not amazingly familiar with the game or a total ringer, as in the game I > played with her, I helped her oust me when it got down to me and her. > Doh.). Some of the decks were completely pointless, some were fairly > standard (Malk S+B, Gangrel Rush, Setite Sneak/Vote, Toreador > Intercept/Guns) and some were trying to be degenerate (like a weenie vote > deck I saw that did really well) and may or may not have been sucessful. [Big snip] Hey! That weenie vote deck is mine and it is completely degenerate! The only reason she won the tourney was because she was never at the lead table and the point scoring system was not standard. You were ranked according to the number of victory points you scored for the entire event. She scored zero in the first game and swept the next two for a total of 8 points (there were even numbers of four all around) I took 7 points in the first two games and was at the lead table (the best against the best, etc.) for games two and three. The final game was incredible! It was like playing chess it was so concentrated and balanced that it ended in a four way draw (ran out of time) and for that each at the table was given a half point. Did anyone else at this tourney sweep a table? But that's OK-- The judge redistributed the prizes so that more players at the lead table got more stuff and I was able to talk with the winner and she gave me one of the gamma cards for Sabbat, (a black and white on paper without art which was used in play testing, Campground Hunting Grounds.) I traded a bunch of boosters with another winner (I was after AH cards) and Netrunner cards were given to first and second place. Unfortunatly the deck does not work under the new vote pushing rules so I have taken it apart and will be able to post it. [ quoted text not captured ]

A friend of mine pointed out an aspect of banishment that makes it, IMO, a fairly balanced card. It would be overpowered if not for the two following aspects. 1. Not only are there two opportunities to stop it from happening, the initial action which can be blocked, and the vote which can be voted down. (This has been stated) 2. Bypassing #1 is hopefully easily doable for a vote deck, but can a good vote deck reliably knock a large vamp down the 3+ blood to make the vote better than KRC? In my experience a good vote deck will have to make a big effort (and lose some vamps in the process) to do so much damage to any large vamp. A good combat deck on the other hand would have difficulty getting the vote passed (see #1). Ultimately a vote deck must rely on another player doing the damage to the vamp you wish to banish. This problem makes banishment a slightly more opportunistic card that could sometimes find itself without a good target. Ultimately, banishing any Methusalah's vamp beside your prey's is pointless unless that vamp is strong enough to threaten you. Anathema on the other hand applies well to both your predator and your prey and goes well in a combat deck w/ princes. In the right deck Anathema can be much more powerful.