LSJ - New rules question

Scott, Back with the 7/7 rulings you changed the V:TES rules (from the V:TES rulebook) back into the Jyhad rules (in the Jyhad rulebook) so that the game could be played the way it was originally designed. Now the CE rules (from the CE rulebook) are changing the game again for matters of simplicity of play again. So, my question is: Could we re-implement the agg damage = blood burned rule? It really made things simpler to play during the V:TES era. I think that the game could use some refining to make it easier to learn - but would like the rules changes to eventually stop because I am sick of having to re-learn the rules every year or so! Sam (formerly Fantasy15)

Awazzzz wrote: > > Scott, > > Back with the 7/7 rulings you changed the V:TES rules (from the V:TES rulebook) > back into the Jyhad rules (in the Jyhad rulebook) so that the game could be > played the way it was originally designed. Now the CE rules (from the CE So that the agg-damage-dealing effects would be balanced, as originally designed, yeah. > rulebook) are changing the game again for matters of simplicity of play again. > So, my question is: Could we re-implement the agg damage = blood burned rule? "Could?". Of course. Will it ever be official again? No.(*) Balance outranks simplicity. (*) Never say never, of course. I'm just speaking for the current plans of the current designer. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>>So that the agg-damage-dealing effects would be balanced, as originally designed, yeah.Will it ever be official again? No.(*) Balance outranks simplicity. Balance? I thought the general feeling was that bleed/vote decks did better than combat decks - and the rule gives more cost to cards like Daring the Dawn. How do you define balance?

[ quoted text not captured ] In this usage, it refers to an effect being costed/restricted appropriately. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020719150803...@mb-fg.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Now the CE rules (from the CE >rulebook) are changing the game again for matters of simplicity of play again. "Simplicity" would be best served with no limits of the grouping fashion. Balance is entirely separate from simplicity. Attempting to conflate the two concepts is likely to lead to running round in circles. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D You don't need to hear it but I'm dried up EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 and sick to death of love. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

Jmae Coupe wrote: >"Simplicity" would be best served with no limits of the grouping >fashion. You are right James, I should have asked: Since the old rule is more balanced, can we reinstate it?

[ quoted text not captured ] Faulty supposition. Since the current rule is more balanced than the 1995 VTES rule, the 1995 VTES rule will not be reinstated, no. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Weird! You're asking Scott to change the rules and complaining about the periodic rule changes IN THE SAME POST!!! I guess sometimes it is the same people who complain either way. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Balance is defined by the usefulness of individual cards. Can I use a Torn Signpost or a Govern the Unaligned or whatever at all - or is it too useful and easy to win with on the other hand? Just because you can envision a particular type of deck, for instance a "rush combat" deck or an "intercept combat" deck or something, doesn't mean game balance demands that that type of deck be viable to play. Otherwise, people will come up with all sorts of decks they would like to see become being playable: Corruption decks, deck destruction (i.e. The Slaughterhouse) decks, decks based on allies, decks based entirely on master cards, etc. The question is more about whether various types of offensive combat cards can be considered useful in the game in some type of functional deck or not. Fred

In message <20020719155156...@mb-bh.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >You are right James, I should have asked: Since the old rule is more balanced, >can we reinstate it? The old rule is not more balanced, however. It is significantly more powerful, with cards that could *NEVER* burn a vampire under Jyhad being able to do so under V:TES rules, as printed in 1995. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] LOL! You honestly believe that making agg damage more powerful is going to make the game *more* balanced? From what we've seen and (especially) the so-called rumors (which seem to get more and more reliable each passing day), it seems fairly obvious that the Camarilla Edition will already shift the game in favor of combat (if Majesty/Catatonic Fear do cost a blood and 5th Tradition is limited to 4 blood). Even without those particular changes, 1 agg is easy enough to get (compared to 2 agg) that it would seriously upset many of the delicate dynamics that already provide balance to the game. (Gangrel poke and Ivory Bow would be that much better. And Tempting other vampires and making them Dare the Dawn would be that much more effective as well). Halcyan 2 Could we please *not* re-implement the agg damage = blood burned rule?

> > >Awazzzz wrote: >> >> >>So that the agg-damage-dealing effects would be balanced, as originally >Balance is defined by the usefulness of individual cards. Can I use a Torn >Signpost or a Govern the Unaligned or whatever at all - or is it too useful >and >easy to win with on the other hand? Just because you can envision a >particular >type of deck, for instance a "rush combat" deck or an "intercept combat" deck >or >something, doesn't mean game balance demands that that type of deck be viable >to >play. Otherwise, people will come up with all sorts of decks they would like >to >see become being playable: Corruption decks, deck destruction (i.e. The >Slaughterhouse) decks, decks based on allies, decks based entirely on master >cards, etc. The question is more about whether various types of offensive >combat cards can be considered useful in the game in some type of functional >deck or not. > >Fred Well, Fred, here we are NOT talking about individual cards, we are talking about a rule. You are right on on the definition though, which leads me to think that balance refers to the way a card is played in a given rule structure. Changing a rule structure is not in itself a balance issue, but it does effect the balance of cards in the rule structure. For instance, Daring the Dawn is more costly with the V:TES agg rule. Now, if you were controling anothe methuselah's vampires and making them play Daring the Dawn, you would be using the added cost to your advantage - or would you? In order to play the Daring the Dawn, the vampire must have fortitude. In order to do this combo, the methuselah has invested in the vampire in two ways: First, he has gained control of the vampir by some fashion, then he has given the vamp fortitude. This is now his vampire and if it burns or goes to torpor, he no longer can do actions with it. The effect of the rule change would add to the cost of cards that used agg as a cost, and increase the effect of cards that used agg damage as an effect. I do believe that this might add the balance to the game where Majesty would not have to cost 1 blood. Please understand, I find rules changes annoying, but less so than rewording cards to the point of wallpaper.

Halcyan wrote: >LOL! You honestly believe that making agg damage more powerful is going to >make >the game *more* balanced? > >From what we've seen and (especially) the so-called rumors (which seem to get >more and more reliable each passing day), it seems fairly obvious that the >Camarilla Edition will already shift the game in favor of combat (if >Majesty/Catatonic Fear do cost a blood and 5th Tradition is limited to 4 >blood). > >Even without those particular changes, 1 agg is easy enough to get (compared >to >2 agg) that it would seriously upset many of the delicate dynamics that >already >provide balance to the game. (Gangrel poke and Ivory Bow would be that much >better. And Tempting other vampires and making them Dare the Dawn would be >that >much more effective as well). Yeah, I really do think that it would make the game more balanced. I played with this rule back when V:TES came out and liked it alot. Back then, yes vampires actually got burned. Now it is very difficult to burn a vampire and I find the game less exciting because of it. There's no inherent risk of being at 0 blood, most of the agg cards cannot burn a vamp! Toning down the powerful aspects of a game is a poor way to balance it. Instead, more power should be provided to aspects that are lacking. If bleed decks are more powerful than others - should a rule be made that limits bleed - or should cards be made that help votes and combat? Personally, I think that taking power levels down on cards that we have been playing with for years is not the way to keep a game exciting. If the only cards in the game were 2cap vamps and computer hacking, it would be balanced, but would it be any fun?

Awazzzz wrote, in response to LSJ: >Balance? I thought the general feeling was that bleed/vote decks did better >than combat decks - and the rule gives more cost to cards like Daring the >Dawn. I think the strategy you have in mind for promoting "balance" is flawed. Your idea is that the deficiencies of combat decks is to permit the existence of a handful of overpowered cards. This might "balance" combat compared to S&B, but it would not balance the card set. Rather, it would create a situation where ONLY a certain narrow type of combat deck is viable for play, and most combat cards become wallpaper. It also creates a situation where, in a competitive environment, all combat defence will be directed against aggravated damage combat decks, resulting in a distressing sameness even in non-combat decks.. If you want to improve "balance", it is better to do so in ways that keep all combat cards playable. If you want to help combat decks become more viable, then it is best to make a change that will work well with a larger variety of old combat cards and decks. I like the approach of the design team better than yours. One of the things they are rumoured have done is weaken Majesty. This increases the odds for all combat decks, and makes a large variety of combat cards more likely to see play, whereas your approach enables only a small variety of combat decks, and pushes the remainder deeper into the margins. Another thing they have done (not a rumor) is to further enable weapon decks by making Concealed Weapon disciplineless. By creating one balanced, playable card, they make a whole host of combat cards (particularly weapons and allies) somewhat more balanced and playable than they once were.

In message <20020720040412...@mb-mf.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Yeah, I really do think that it would make the game more balanced. I played >with this rule back when V:TES came out and liked it alot. Back then, yes >vampires actually got burned. I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", rather more "brutal" or similar. In Jyhad it was *impossible*, that is *absolutely impossible*, for a Gangrel to burn a vampire with a single poke - even with any other damage sources - or for an Ivory Bow to do the same. It was *just* possible for a Flamethrower to do it. And the cards were balanced by having the Flamethrower cost a *LOT* more pool. Thus the cards were balanced relative to one another. (Another example of the wrong changes made in V:TES was that, under NO circumstances was it possible for Pulled Fangs to *EVER* burn someone under Jyhad. That is how the card was designed and costed. It was probably still too powerful, even with a torporise effect. (It was damage, and so could be prevented, unlike Paralyse.)) Burning vampires != measure of balance. Combat decks already command a great deal of power by targeting secondary resources - specifically, vampires, sometimes allies. They form the basis of the original lock down decks. If you run in, knock a vampire into torpor and repeat - which is easily possible - the deck gets shut down. It can rebuild itself, if it can rescue its vampires, but such isn't easy anyway. (2 blood and another vampire is a significant cost.) Also, the Bloodhunt is a huge balancing factor in terms of combat. (Well, mostly combat. It is possible to torporise vampires outside of combat, and diablerie doesn't occur in combat always - Amaranth being the main way to do it in combat - but it's a large factor towards balancing combative arrangements.) A combative deck will suffer - and was intended to suffer - by having less access to votes. Having to conspire with a voting deck to back it up in the Bloodhunt, or to convince the voting deck to do the diablerie itself, provides a measure of balance. Burning is harder, but evades the Bloodhunt. Being able to evade it with a single point of aggravated damage is not significantly harder. The Brujah could pound you for *lots* of damage, and you'd go to torpor. The Gangrel could do it with just one card - a claw - but that makes it much easier for you to prevent. Neither clan had easy access to burning, nor was it meant to. (Bear in mind how expensive Burning Wrath is, for example.) Combat is, effectively, the original "lock down" deck. Forget Reality/Sensory Deprivation, or whatever. You torporise vampires, they can't do anything. That's it. They bring out another, you torporise it. Again. Again. And again. >There's no inherent risk of being >at 0 blood, most of the agg cards cannot burn a vamp! Correct, for the most part. That's how the game was designed, balanced and costed, way back in the beginning. A desire to make combat more powerful is *not* the same as making vampires easier to burn being balanced. First of all, you need to demonstrate that combat needs empowering, because it is significantly unbalanced. Certain facets of combat do very well, thank you. A broad increase in power levels is not a very useful way to target such changes. Gangrel Royalty decks can do extremely well. Brujah pot/cel decks can do very well similarly. (It's notable in the latter case that changes to Majesty won't affect it heavily, because it *already* combats Majesty itself. This is how targeted changes can be useful employed.) Then you need to demonstrate that making vampires easier to burn is the way to establish that balance. It's worth bearing in mind the assorted effects that also deal aggravated damage which would also be affected by such a change. I'd suggest using Google to dig up many of the previous arguments. I'd also suggest examining the ways in which targeted action can be significantly more subtle. (For instance, a rewrite of Majesty does not affect Daring the Dawn.) Then I'd suggest working out the difference between "simple" and "balanced" - if you can rewrite a sentence, without effort, from "This is more simple, do this" to "This is more balanced, do this", regarding a delicate, complex issue, then you have probably made some significant errors of logic. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Yeah, I really do think that it would make the game more balanced. I played >with this rule back when V:TES came out and liked it alot. Back then, yes >vampires actually got burned. Now it is very difficult to burn a vampire and >I >find the game less exciting because of it. There's no inherent risk of being >at 0 blood, most of the agg cards cannot burn a vamp! I consider vampires being easily burned a bad thing. It would be different if you could correlate the likelihood to the size of the vampire. As it is, losing a weenie may be insignificant but losing one of three (for instance) minions you bring out is crippling. Toning down the >powerful >aspects of a game is a poor way to balance it. Instead, more power should be >provided to aspects that are lacking. If bleed decks are more powerful than >others - should a rule be made that limits bleed - or should cards be made >that >help votes and combat? Personally, I think that taking power levels down on >cards that we have been playing with for years is not the way to keep a game >exciting. If the only cards in the game were 2cap vamps and computer >hacking, >it would be balanced, but would it be any fun? Combat has no relevance to ousting your prey. That's its problem, not that it doesn't work often enough at nuking minions. With intercept everywhere, political actions' +1 stealth is pretty much a wash with the ability of multiple players to block it. Voting also requires having a card in hand. And, then, there's Delaying Tactics. I would agree with you about encouraging rather than discouraging. But, what I would do is give combat decks more Fame type cards so that they can hit people's pools, and I might look for ways to give voting decks better ways to manage cards in hand, such as political actions that can be pitched for combat effects or effects to increase hand size (over and above the ones generally available) or cards that remove the need to have a PA in hand to do an offensive vote along the lines of Echo of Harmonies or a put into play card that enables initiating votes (useful ones, not just getting rid of it) throughout the game.

James Coupe: >>I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", rather more "brutal" or similar. I think that a game about vampires should be somewhat "brutal" Vampires are not nice people. Just because something is brutal, does not mean it is not balanced. People on this newsgroup cry when they get their asses kicked and so they tone the game down to appease them. Bleed has been toned down by rules, vote has been toned down by rules, and combat has been toned down. Toning down a game does little for balancing and detracts from the excitement of the game. This game will never have perfect balance. However, I think that toning everything's power down to the level of wall paper cards is unacceptable. Also, we used to play with this rule, and I never found it particularly brutal. >>In Jyhad it was *impossible*, that is *absolutely impossible*, for a Gangrel to burn a vampire with a single poke - even with any other damage sources - or for an Ivory Bow to do the same. It was *just* possible for a Flamethrower to do it. And the cards were balanced by having the Flamethrower cost a *LOT* more pool. Thus the cards were balanced relative to one another. Yes, and so the rules team changed the rule for V:TES - it was changed back when LSJ became the 1 man rules team in 7/7. Right now I cannot burn a vampire with a starshell grenade launcher - a grenade launcher cannot burn the vamp no matter how many times you hit it. This is silly. >>(Another example of the wrong changes made in V:TES was that, under NO circumstances was it possible for Pulled Fangs to *EVER* burn someone under Jyhad. That is how the card was designed and costed. It was probably still too powerful, even with a torporise effect. (It was damage, and so could be prevented, unlike Paralyse.)) Sorry, James but one could do as much damage as one wanted with PF because it was not limited to one per combat >>Burning vampires != measure of balance. It effects the balance of cards, yes >>Combat decks already command a great deal of power by targeting secondary resources - specifically, vampires, sometimes allies. They form the basis of the original lock down decks. If you run in, knock a vampire into torpor and repeat - which is easily possible - the deck gets shut down. It can rebuild itself, if it can rescue its vampires, but such isn't easy anyway. (2 blood and another vampire is a significant cost.) Then why wallpaper S:CE? >>Also, the Bloodhunt is a huge balancing factor in terms of combat. (Well, mostly combat. It is possible to torporise vampires outside of combat, and diablerie doesn't occur in combat always - Amaranth being the main way to do it in combat - but it's a large factor towards balancing combative arrangements.) A combative deck will suffer - and was intended to suffer - by having less access to votes. Having to conspire with a voting deck to back it up in the Bloodhunt, or to convince the voting deck to do the diablerie itself, provides a measure of balance. Burning is harder, but evades the Bloodhunt. Being able to evade it with a single point of aggravated damage is not significantly harder. The bloodhunt helps those with votes. - not combatants. >>The Brujah could pound you for *lots* of damage, and you'd go to torpor. The Gangrel could do it with just one card - a claw - but that makes it much easier for you to prevent. Neither clan had easy access to burning, nor was it meant to. (Bear in mind how expensive Burning Wrath is, for example.) There are Gangrels with potence and Brujas with Protean, so I really don't see your point. There is also Gangrel Revel. LSJ would like you to believe that this rule is in place because of balance, but really the only reason he made it was to return to the original rules structure. >>Combat is, effectively, the original "lock down" deck. Forget Reality/Sensory Deprivation, or whatever. You torporise vampires, they can't do anything. That's it. They bring out another, you torporise it. Again. Again. And again. If I have just brought a vamp out, it has plenty of blood, so this rule does not directly effect the lockdown deck. A vampire in torpor with no blood is just as locked as a burned vamp. Should we errata Sense Dep to only tap vampires for a turn? No!! >>Correct, for the most part. That's how the game was designed, balanced and costed, way back in the beginning. Then why did they change it for V:TES? >>A desire to make combat more powerful is *not* the same as making vampires easier to burn being balanced. No, But making vampires easier to burn would make combat more balanced. Again, this is a better way than wallpapering cards. >>First of all, you need to demonstrate that combat needs empowering, because it is significantly unbalanced. Certain facets of combat do very well, thank you. A broad increase in power levels is not a very useful way to target such changes. Gangrel Royalty decks can do extremely well. Brujah pot/cel decks can do very well similarly. (It's notable in the latter case that changes to Majesty won't affect it heavily, because it *already* combats Majesty itself. This is how targeted changes can be useful employed.) I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered. I just think that most people think so. I think that WW is trying to empower combat decks for this reason. Balance has to do with cards in a game, not the rules of it. The rules effect the balance of the cards. Changing a card's text effects its balance. Since when has Majesty been a broken card? I have been playing this game for years and you mean to tell me the whole time I am getting gyped by people that play majesty? -that majesty has somehow been ruining the game? Personally, I have been having fun for the last number of years with the game, I'm sorry that it was ruined for you. >>Then you need to demonstrate that making vampires easier to burn is the way to establish that balance. It's worth bearing in mind the assorted effects that also deal aggravated damage which would also be affected by such a change. AGAIN, there are two ways this rule would effect the game. First, it would increase the cost of cards that use agg damage as a cost, second it would increase the effect of cards that used agg damage as an effect. Cards that use agg as a cost are generaly (but not limited to) actions/action modifiers. >>I'd suggest using Google to dig up many of the previous arguments. I'd also suggest examining the ways in which targeted action can be significantly more subtle. (For instance, a rewrite of Majesty does not affect Daring the Dawn.) Then I'd suggest working out the difference between "simple" and "balanced" - if you can rewrite a sentence, without effort, from "This is more simple, do this" to "This is more balanced, do this", regarding a delicate, complex issue, then you have probably made some significant errors of logic. I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", rather more "brutal" or similar. James, please do not assume that I do not know what I am talking about. I have participated in many threads on discussion, particularly during 7/7 when this rule was made. Making things less brutal - or wimpy - effects balance just as making things brutal does. Personally, I prefer brutal games to wimpy ones. Nystylc: >>I think the strategy you have in mind for promoting "balance" is flawed. Your idea is that the deficiencies of combat decks is to permit the existence of a handful of overpowered cards. Which cards? >>This might "balance" combat compared to S&B, but it would not balance the card set. Rather, it would create a situation where ONLY a certain narrow type of combat deck is viable for play, and most combat cards become wallpaper. It also creates a situation where, in a competitive environment, all combat defence will be directed against aggravated damage combat decks, resulting in a distressing sameness even in non-combat decks.. Non agg damage is not effected by the rule. Hitting someone for 9 points of non-agg damage is still a powerful thing >>If you want to improve "balance", it is better to do so in ways that keep all combat cards playable. If you want to help combat decks become more viable, then it is best to make a change that will work well with a larger variety of old combat cards and decks. This change does improve a number of combat cards - the agg-damage ones. Let me get my point straight: Combat decks ARE effective, and this rule would help them, but not make them OVERpowered. >>I like the approach of the design team better than yours. One of the things they are rumoured have done is weaken Majesty. This increases the odds for all combat decks, and makes a large variety of combat cards more likely to see play, whereas your approach enables only a small variety of combat decks, and pushes the remainder deeper into the margins. Majesty is not a broken card. I have been playing with and against Majesty for years now and not once has it ever ruined a game for me. Wallpapering cards is not the way to make other strategies more viable. >>Another thing they have done (not a rumor) is to further enable weapon decks by making Concealed Weapon disciplineless. By creating one balanced, playable card, they make a whole host of combat cards (particularly weapons and allies) somewhat more balanced and playable than they once were. I think the strategy you have in mind for promoting "balance" is flawed. Your idea is that the deficiencies of combat decks is to permit the existence of a handful of overpowered cards. Instead of changing Concealed weapon, they could have made a new card. This way, my old CW would still be playable as written, and I would not have to try and teach extensive errata to people when I try and teach them the rules of the game. Also, just because a grenade launcher is easier to equip, doesn'r permit me to burn a vamp with it James Coupe: >>I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", rather more "brutal" or similar. I think that a game about vampires should be somewhat "brutal" Vampires are not nice people. Just because something is brutal, does not mean it is not balanced. People on this newsgroup cry when they get their asses kicked and so they tone the game down to appease them. Bleed has been toned down by rules, vote has been toned down by rules, and combat has been toned down. Toning down a game does little for balancing and detracts from the excitement of the game. This game will never have perfect balance. However, I think that toning everything's power down to the level of wall paper cards is unacceptable. Also, we used to play with this rule, and I never found it particularly brutal. >>In Jyhad it was *impossible*, that is *absolutely impossible*, for a Gangrel to burn a vampire with a single poke - even with any other damage sources - or for an Ivory Bow to do the same. It was *just* possible for a Flamethrower to do it. And the cards were balanced by having the Flamethrower cost a *LOT* more pool. Thus the cards were balanced relative to one another. Yes, and so the rules team changed the rule for V:TES - it was changed back when LSJ became the 1 man rules team in 7/7. Right now I cannot burn a vampire with a starshell grenade launcher - a grenade launcher cannot burn the vamp no matter how many times you hit it. This is silly. >>(Another example of the wrong changes made in V:TES was that, under NO circumstances was it possible for Pulled Fangs to *EVER* burn someone under Jyhad. That is how the card was designed and costed. It was probably still too powerful, even with a torporise effect. (It was damage, and so could be prevented, unlike Paralyse.)) Sorry, James but one could do as much damage as one wanted with PF because it was not limited to one per combat >>Burning vampires != measure of balance. It effects the balance of cards, yes >>Combat decks already command a great deal of power by targeting secondary resources - specifically, vampires, sometimes allies. They form the basis of the original lock down decks. If you run in, knock a vampire into torpor and repeat - which is easily possible - the deck gets shut down. It can rebuild itself, if it can rescue its vampires, but such isn't easy anyway. (2 blood and another vampire is a significant cost.) Then why wallpaper S:CE? >>Also, the Bloodhunt is a huge balancing factor in terms of combat. (Well, mostly combat. It is possible to torporise vampires outside of combat, and diablerie doesn't occur in combat always - Amaranth being the main way to do it in combat - but it's a large factor towards balancing combative arrangements.) A combative deck will suffer - and was intended to suffer - by having less access to votes. Having to conspire with a voting deck to back it up in the Bloodhunt, or to convince the voting deck to do the diablerie itself, provides a measure of balance. Burning is harder, but evades the Bloodhunt. Being able to evade it with a single point of aggravated damage is not significantly harder. The bloodhunt helps those with votes. - not combatants. >>The Brujah could pound you for *lots* of damage, and you'd go to torpor. The Gangrel could do it with just one card - a claw - but that makes it much easier for you to prevent. Neither clan had easy access to burning, nor was it meant to. (Bear in mind how expensive Burning Wrath is, for example.) There are Gangrels with potence and Brujas with Protean, so I really don't see your point. There is also Gangrel Revel. LSJ would like you to believe that this rule is in place because of balance, but really the only reason he made it was to return to the original rules structure. >>Combat is, effectively, the original "lock down" deck. Forget Reality/Sensory Deprivation, or whatever. You torporise vampires, they can't do anything. That's it. They bring out another, you torporise it. Again. Again. And again. If I have just brought a vamp out, it has plenty of blood, so this rule does not directly effect the lockdown deck. A vampire in torpor with no blood is just as locked as a burned vamp. Should we errata Sense Dep to only tap vampires for a turn? No!! >>Correct, for the most part. That's how the game was designed, balanced and costed, way back in the beginning. Then why did they change it for V:TES? >>A desire to make combat more powerful is *not* the same as making vampires easier to burn being balanced. No, But making vampires easier to burn would make combat more balanced. Again, this is a better way than wallpapering cards. >>First of all, you need to demonstrate that combat needs empowering, because it is significantly unbalanced. Certain facets of combat do very well, thank you. A broad increase in power levels is not a very useful way to target such changes. Gangrel Royalty decks can do extremely well. Brujah pot/cel decks can do very well similarly. (It's notable in the latter case that changes to Majesty won't affect it heavily, because it *already* combats Majesty itself. This is how targeted changes can be useful employed.) I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered. I just think that most people think so. I think that WW is trying to empower combat decks for this reason. Balance has to do with cards in a game, not the rules of it. The rules effect the balance of the cards. Changing a card's text effects its balance. Since when has Majesty been a broken card? I have been playing this game for years and you mean to tell me the whole time I am getting gyped by people that play majesty? -that majesty has somehow been ruining the game? Personally, I have been having fun for the last number of years with the game, I'm sorry that it was ruined for you. >>Then you need to demonstrate that making vampires easier to burn is the way to establish that balance. It's worth bearing in mind the assorted effects that also deal aggravated damage which would also be affected by such a change. AGAIN, there are two ways this rule would effect the game. First, it would increase the cost of cards that use agg damage as a cost, second it would increase the effect of cards that used agg damage as an effect. Cards that use agg as a cost are generaly (but not limited to) actions/action modifiers. >>I'd suggest using Google to dig up many of the previous arguments. I'd also suggest examining the ways in which targeted action can be significantly more subtle. (For instance, a rewrite of Majesty does not affect Daring the Dawn.) Then I'd suggest working out the difference between "simple" and "balanced" - if you can rewrite a sentence, without effort, from "This is more simple, do this" to "This is more balanced, do this", regarding a delicate, complex issue, then you have probably made some significant errors of logic. I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", rather more "brutal" or similar. James, please do not assume that I do not know what I am talking about. I have participated in many threads on discussion, particularly during 7/7 when this rule was made. Making things less brutal - or wimpy - effects balance just as making things brutal does. Personally, I prefer brutal games to wimpy ones. Nystylc: >>I think the strategy you have in mind for promoting "balance" is flawed. Your idea is that the deficiencies of combat decks is to permit the existence of a handful of overpowered cards. Which cards? >>This might "balance" combat compared to S&B, but it would not balance the card set. Rather, it would create a situation where ONLY a certain narrow type of combat deck is viable for play, and most combat cards become wallpaper. It also creates a situation where, in a competitive environment, all combat defence will be directed against aggravated damage combat decks, resulting in a distressing sameness even in non-combat decks.. Non agg damage is not effected by the rule. Hitting someone for 9 points of non-agg damage is still a powerful thing >>If you want to improve "balance", it is better to do so in ways that keep all combat cards playable. If you want to help combat decks become more viable, then it is best to make a change that will work well with a larger variety of old combat cards and decks. This change does improve a number of combat cards - the agg-damage ones. Let me get my point straight: Combat decks ARE effective, and this rule would help them, but not make them OVERpowered. >>I like the approach of the design team better than yours. One of the things they are rumoured have done is weaken Majesty. This increases the odds for all combat decks, and makes a large variety of combat cards more likely to see play, whereas your approach enables only a small variety of combat decks, and pushes the remainder deeper into the margins. Majesty is not a broken card. I have been playing with and against Majesty for years now and not once has it ever ruined a game for me. Wallpapering cards is not the way to make other strategies more viable. >>Another thing they have done (not a rumor) is to further enable weapon decks by making Concealed Weapon disciplineless. By creating one balanced, playable card, they make a whole host of combat cards (particularly weapons and allies) somewhat more balanced and playable than they once were. I think the strategy you have in mind for promoting "balance" is flawed. Your idea is that the deficiencies of combat decks is to permit the existence of a handful of overpowered cards. Instead of changing Concealed weapon, they could have made a new card. This way, my old CW would still be playable as written, and I would not have to try and teach extensive errata to people when I try and teach them the rules of the game. Also, just because a grenade launcher is easier to equip, doesn'r permit me to burn a vamp with it

>I think that a game about vampires should be somewhat "brutal" Vampires are >not nice people. Just because something is brutal, does not mean it is not >balanced. People on this newsgroup cry when they get their asses kicked and >so >they tone the game down to appease them. Bleed has been toned down by rules, >vote has been toned down by rules, and combat has been toned down. Toning >down >a game does little for balancing and detracts from the excitement of the >game. >This game will never have perfect balance. However, I think that toning >everything's power down to the level of wall paper cards is unacceptable. >Also, we used to play with this rule, and I never found it particularly >brutal. If you want a violent, brutal, combat-oriented game, maybe you should try Rage...and save *us* you're crying and whining just because the game isn't the way you like it. >Yes, and so the rules team changed the rule for V:TES - it was changed back >when LSJ became the 1 man rules team in 7/7. AFAIK, I don't think LSJ is the *only* person in charge of rules. He's the most exposed one and has the most contact with the players, but isn't there an entire Rules Team thingy? >Right now I cannot burn a vampire >with a starshell grenade launcher - a grenade launcher cannot burn the vamp >no >matter how many times you hit it. This is silly. Actually you can. Try combining Starshell Grenade Launcher with Carrion Crows. Try punching while your Ghoul Retainer uses the Starshell. Try using it on an already wounded vampire who has used Undead Persistance to keep going. All of these are cases when your beloved little Starshell Grenade Launcher can burn a vampire. Jyhad/VTES is a game about political intrigue, subtle influences, and pulling strings in a clandestine struggle against other Methusalehs. It wasn't meant to be a visceral slugfest like Werewolf's Rage. Combat is not the end all for Jyhad/VTES nor should it ever be. >There are Gangrels with potence and Brujas with Protean, so I really don't >see >your point. In most cases though, you have to go to high-cap vampires for this. >There is also Gangrel Revel. 3 pool for a card that is burnable as a (D) action? Talk about bleeding yourself for 3! >LSJ would like you to believe that >this rule is in place because of balance, but really the only reason he made >it >was to return to the original rules structure. Irregardless whether or not this returns us to the "original rules structure," it provides the best balance to the game. (And yes, I am disagreeing with you on whether your preferred agg damage is "balanced"). >If I have just brought a vamp out, it has plenty of blood, so this rule does >not directly effect the lockdown deck. No. Combat decks *love* it when they get to attack a full vamp just brought out because it means the loss of that resource will hurt you even harder. >A vampire in torpor with no blood is >just as locked as a burned vamp. Untrue. Vampires in torpor can be Golconda'ed, can take actions to leave torpor (i.e.Rapid Healing), and most importantly, *other people* can rescue them. Maybe your playgroup just isn't very cooperative, but I do cross-table rescues *all the time*. >Should we errata Sense Dep to only tap >vampires for a turn? No!! Then it would merely be a slight variation on Sensory Overload. >Personally, I prefer brutal games to wimpy ones. > Then why don't you play with your own little house rule and leave the rest of us alone? Halcyan 2

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote > I have been playing this > game for years and you mean to tell me the whole time I am getting gyped by > people that play majesty? You probably don't realize this but 'gyp' is short for Gypsy (which was originally short for Egyptian IIRC) and the word is generally used in a rather racist context. It implies that all gypsies are thieves. A similar word would be 'jewed' but anti-semitism is not as popular as it once was (unless you equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism :) Just mentioning it because you probably used the word without knowing the origins of the word... > There are Gangrels with potence and Brujas with Protean, so I really don't see > your point. There is also Gangrel Revel. LSJ would like you to believe that > this rule is in place because of balance, but really the only reason he made it > was to return to the original rules structure. I suspect Gangrel Revel will be powered-up in the Anarchs set if current trends continue. Having it be a bit cheaper or better-yet unburnable would be a great boon to the Gangrel I think. In general I am somewhat concerned with the changes being made to my favourite game, but I also tend to agree with most of the changes made. It certainly makes the game 'messier' but does it make the game unbalanced? From what I've seen so far... I don't think so. But I'll have to wait until I try playing with all the changes to commit to either side of any of these arguments. I actually really like the idea of making Majesty cost a blood. I've pushed for more ways for combat to counter S:CE but making the cost of playing S:CE more prohibitive seems reasonable to me. How many PRE decks will be able to afford the cost of Majesty-ing out of every combat now? They'll have to be more selective in how they avoid combat when constructing a deck. (I'm thinking that maneuvers will start to become more popular actually... I've already started using them quite a bit). No choice is perfect but then no choice *should* be perfect. You plays your cards and you takes your chances. The [rumoured] changes to Majesty just make the investment a bit more steep... a good thing IMHO. Cheers, WES

In article <20020720145809...@mb-fa.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> wrote: >James, please do not assume that I do not know what I am talking about. To date, he hasn't had to assume it. gomi -- Blood, guts, guns, cuts Knives, lives, wives, nuns, sluts

In article <ahch4...@enews2.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > >"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote > >> I have been playing this >> game for years and you mean to tell me the whole time I am getting gyped >by >> people that play majesty? > >You probably don't realize this but 'gyp' is short for Gypsy (which was >originally short for Egyptian IIRC) and the word is generally used in a >rather racist context. It implies that all gypsies are thieves. A similar >word would be 'jewed' but anti-semitism is not as popular as it once was >(unless you equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism :) See also: 'Indian giver' (US Slang for someone who takes back a gift), 'Indian summer' (the fake summer you sometimes get in the middle of fall, rather unfortunate because there's no good alternative phrase to describe the phenomenon). Last I checked, tho, 'filthy Scot bastard,' 'lecherous, sheep-buggering Welshman,' and 'Australian' are all still acceptable slurs, tho. gomi tip o' the sheep to leggy ps: insert ludicrously off-topic 'israel v. anti-semitism' flame war here. send e-mail for details. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020720145809...@mb-fa.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >James Coupe: > >>>I think what you meant to write in your first sentence wasn't "balanced", >rather more "brutal" or similar. > >I think that a game about vampires should be somewhat "brutal" Vampires are >not nice people. Some vampires are not nice people, in the V:tM world. Perhaps the majority. It is also notable, however, the vampires are super human in their *defensive* capabilities. Just as they can dish out damage, they can also take a lot - bashing damage is halved, lethal damage is soakable under the right conditions. (V:TES simplifies this, of course.) >Just because something is brutal, does not mean it is not >balanced. People on this newsgroup cry when they get their asses kicked and so >they tone the game down to appease them. This is based on faulty premises, and is fundamentally flawed. So far as I can see, rules are not changed to "appease" people. Whenever I have corresponded with LSJ regarding rulings or rules changes where I have had a problem with a specific section of the set-up, very little has been weighed in the balance of "appeasing" people. If a situation is unbalanced, inconsistent or unclear, action is taken. (Obviously, this is all in the view of LSJ and, presumably, the Rules Team.) People "crying" has never resulted in action being taken that I have ever seen. People presenting logical, thoughtful, well-planned, well- argued points of view, backed up with theory and practise in multiple situations, has resulted in action being taken - not all of which I necessarily agree with entirely, but corrective action nonetheless. >Bleed has been toned down by rules, Actually, bleed has been touched very little by the rules. Only No Repeat Actions significantly touches it, and that is a specific subset of bleed - bleed *and* untap. Many bleed decks don't untap (though, equally, some do or would do if NRA didn't exist in some form or other) and so are relatively untouched by this. The rulings (in the general sense of all E/R/C together) on Deflection's wording, later incorporated into recent printings, also made bleed more powerful, relatively, since bleed bounce became harder to cycle. (Prior to the changes, you could "cycle" a bleed bounce card by playing it, selecting yourself as the target when you already were.) This makes bleed bounce quite a lot weaker in the end game (though closer to designer intent, almost certainly so), clogging the hand. Cycling becomes a necessity. Attempts to argue that Return to Innocence was balanced, however, are likely to meet with failure and repeated rebuttals. >vote has been toned down by rules, Votes have been toned down in some respects - mostly that of vote pushing. This tones down some specific vote decks, which were able to exploit a facet that no other deck could - using one card type to do all their things. Combat required rush and damage (or equipment or whatever). Bleed required bleed actions and modifiers and stealth. Votes could just call themselves, and pass themselves with the same resource, as well as cycling hugely to no effect. In part, this depowered some specific vote types - a lot of non-Presence decks find life harder, though there are certain obvious exceptions (the Lasombra, for instance). Also, Presence oriented vote decks are very powerful. The Setites can do some wholly evil things with votes. Legacy of Pander - which may be one other sticking point - was returned to its originally intended, designed, balanced and costed format. (The text issued in The Sabbat was erroneous.) >and combat has been toned down. Combat has been refocused in some ways. Some specific parts of combat have been made harder. Specifically, aggravate damage is *closer* to the Jyhad rules. (The Jyhad rules are quite complex, however.) However, in other matters, combat was never touched by NRA if multiple ways of entering combat were available. Strike: Combat Ends has been provided with multiple counters or alternatives. Pulled Fangs was downgraded, but Concealed Weapon is to be reprinted, making weapon decks more viable. Swings and roundabouts. Combat has certainly gained in many ways - Fame, for instance. >Toning down >a game does little for balancing and detracts from the excitement of the game. Detracting from the "excitement" is a personal issue - this is not one that can be argued. Toning down doing little for balancing is a different issue, however. First of all, it is necessary to demonstrate that different elements are "toned down", and that they haven't advanced since through new cards. Second of all, it is necessary to demonstrate that toning down doesn't balance the game. >This game will never have perfect balance. This does not mean that balance is not a useful goal. >However, I think that toning >everything's power down to the level of wall paper cards is unacceptable. That's fine, then. Not everything is wallpaper, and substantial portions of the card set see regular play, so that's fine. >Also, we used to play with this rule, and I never found it particularly brutal. You are one group. One group is welcome, on its own, to do whatever it wants. Specific gaming groups will almost always represent atypical sections of the game. Do you play more vote? Do you play more combat? Do you play more bleed? Do the Setites Corrupt a lot more often? Whatever. For instance, if you regularly play combat decks in your gaming group, it is possible that a lot of damage prevention creeps in. (This is only one of many potential situations.) As such, the relative power of certain cards will be skewed relative to a cross-play-group norm. Cards that can be readily (in a specific play-group) defended against will not necessarily be defensible in a non-skewed play-group. Drifts towards strategy and counter-strategy being the only viable types have threatened to kill the game before. >>>In Jyhad it was *impossible*, that is *absolutely impossible*, for a Gangrel >to burn a vampire with a single poke - even with any other damage sources - or >for an Ivory Bow to do the same. It was *just* possible for a Flamethrower to >do it. And the cards were balanced by having the Flamethrower cost a *LOT* >more pool. Thus the cards were balanced relative to one another. > >Yes, and so the rules team changed the rule for V:TES - it was changed back >when LSJ became the 1 man rules team in 7/7. No, this fundamentally misunderstands the situation. 1) Regarding the 7/7 as a change back to the Jyhad rules is fundamentally mistaken. Learning the rules changes may help. 2) LSJ is not and was not a one man rules team. >Right now I cannot burn a vampire >with a starshell grenade launcher - a grenade launcher cannot burn the vamp no >matter how many times you hit it. This is silly. Vampires are inherently tough creatures. They can resist huge amounts of damage, and heal huge amounts of damage too. Only the Changing Breeds can really outpace them with regards such. >>>(Another example of the wrong changes made in V:TES was that, under NO >circumstances was it possible for Pulled Fangs to *EVER* burn someone under >Jyhad. That is how the card was designed and costed. It was probably still >too powerful, even with a torporise effect. (It was damage, and so could be >prevented, unlike Paralyse.)) > >Sorry, James but one could do as much damage as one wanted with PF because it >was not limited to one per combat So? Do you understand the Jyhad rules? It seems not. It would *probably* aid you to research the Jyhad rules, as it would avoid such obvious mistakes regarding the design and balance of those rules. Under the Jyhad rules, it was impossible to *EVER* burn a vampire with Pulled Fangs. This is because of the packeting system that existed for damage. Of every packet of damage, the first point of aggravated damage sent the vampire to torpor, irrespective of whether they were there already or currently on their way to torpor. Thus, playing 20 Pulled Fangs sent the vampire to torpor twenty times. The amount of damage done was irrelevant. (With the exception of Franciscus' special "ability".) It was *impossible* to burn a vampire with Pulled Fangs, unless you added another effect - such as a diablerie action or a copy of Amaranth. >>>Burning vampires != measure of balance. > >It effects the balance of cards, yes You misread the statement. Burning vampires is not the same as a measure of balance. Just because it would be easier to burn vampires under your proposed change, this does not make it a useful measure of balance. You have not demonstrated that burning vampires is necessary. You have not demonstrated that combat is underpowered. You have not demonstrated that combat will benefit from being upgraded in such a fashion, without detriment. (For instance, whilst one type of aggravated damage deck might remain balanced under your proposed change, there may be others which do not.) >>>Combat decks already command a great deal of power by targeting secondary >resources - specifically, vampires, sometimes allies. They form the basis of >the original lock down decks. If you run in, knock a >vampire into torpor and repeat - which is easily possible - the deck gets shut >down. It can rebuild itself, if it can rescue its vampires, but such isn't >easy anyway. (2 blood and another vampire is a significant cost.) > >Then why wallpaper S:CE? This is based on the premise that S:CE has been wallpapered. There is no evidence to suggest from where I stand that S:CE has been wallpapered. "Then why wallpaper S:CE" is an excellent sound-bite. But you need to put in a lot of work to show that it's been wallpapered. There are certain specific sources of Strike: Combat Ends which may have been addressed, or may be addressed in the Camarilla Edition (about which I have no knowledge other than the vague rumours circulating), but other sources of S:CE have been introduced at the same time. Taking TheLasombra's Tournament Winning Deck Archive, the winner of Thadius Zho: Boston includes 9 copies of Majesty. "Can I wear this jacket too?" includes 6 Form of Mist, which depend on Strike: Combat Ends being viable. Jay's deck from Origins 2002 includes 22 copies of Earth Meld. That's looking at the first few decks. You have not demonstrated that S:CE has been wallpapered. It would aid you greatly if you would do so. >>>Also, the Bloodhunt is a huge balancing factor in terms of combat. (Well, >mostly combat. It is possible to torporise vampires outside of combat, and >diablerie doesn't occur in combat always - Amaranth being >the main way to do it in combat - but it's a large factor towards balancing >combative arrangements.) A combative deck will suffer - and was intended to >suffer - by having less access to votes. Having to >conspire with a voting deck to back it up in the Bloodhunt, or to convince the >voting deck to do the diablerie itself, provides a measure of balance. Burning >is harder, but evades the Bloodhunt. Being able to >evade it with a single point of aggravated damage is not significantly harder. > >The bloodhunt helps those with votes. - not combatants. Erm, yes. That's the point. Combatants are ****supposed**** to be hindered by the bloodhunt. Being able to torporise vampires is supposed to be significantly easier than burning a vampire outright. Thus burning a vampire via a diablerie action (or Amaranth) includes difficulties of surviving a bloodhunt. The game was *designed* to benefit from a mixture of strategies. Richard Garfield says so. (Arguing about the design of Jyhad, specific to the Jyhad incarnation, is much simplified if you read Richard Garfield's own words on the situation.) Providing a significant difficulty for combat decks allows a vote deck to interact at this point. Thus diplomacy and inter-player balance are established (or are sought to be established). The game then isn't a situation of 5 different players trying to pull off five different strategies with minimal interaction - it isn't supposed to be. Intra- table diplomacy and balance is supposed to be achievable, though limited in certain fashions - the predator-prey mechanism driving a lot of motivation in diplomacy, such that few are the situations where two players can both equally benefit from the same situation to the fullest extent. You still need to demonstrate that combatants need help. Aggravated damage is not the only combat, and you have yet to even demonstrate that aggravated damage based combat needs help. You *have* provided your view that vampires should explode more often. You are entitled to that view, and can play however you want in your group. However, changes are made regarding pan-game balance, not just individual groups. Some groups can, do and will exploit sources of imbalance where they exist. Not all groups see all problems. >>>The Brujah could pound you for *lots* of damage, and you'd go to torpor. The >Gangrel could do it with just one card - a claw - but that makes it much easier >for you to prevent. Neither clan had easy access to burning, nor was it meant >to. (Bear in mind how expensive Burning Wrath is, for example.) > >There are Gangrels with potence and Brujas with Protean, so I really don't see >your point. This is unfortunate. :( Understanding costing, opportunity costs and the balance they can provide is pretty fundamental to arguments of cross-game balance. (Simplicity, designer intent, theme, limited resources (both pool and library wise), uniqueness and so on are other useful themes to explore.) Yes, there are Gangrels with Potence - but these are not readily available, such as Protean is. The cheapest vampire with Potence available is a 6 capacity. (Indeed, there are two vampires - Zack and Badger.) There are no Gangrel with superior Potence, which doubles the effectiveness of many such cards. (Resetting damage with Torn Signpost provides an additional 1 damage in most situations at pot, but an additional 2 damage at POT. Undead Strength provides +1 damage at pot, but +2 damage.) For the Brujah, there is one Brujah with Protean - Don Cruez, a 10 capacity vampire. What does this mean? It means that accessing these disciplines becomes difficult, relative to accessing Protean. Pot/Pro is a *wonderful* discipline combination. Quick Meld (excellent maneuvers), Flesh of Marble (useful damage prevention, with an unfortunate Achilles Heel), Immortal Grapple (preventing S:CE and equipment), Torn Signpost/Undead Strength (providing significant amounts of damage) and a Claw (Claws of the Dead, Bone Spur etc.) provide a formidable arsenal. However, generating the vampires to unleash this arsenal is tricky. It's expensive - large vampires, relative to a pot/cel type deck of 3 caps and similar. It's slow - if you go first, Zack North will take 3 turns to get out, assuming you don't have/draw Information Highway or similar. >There is also Gangrel Revel. LSJ would like you to believe that >this rule is in place because of balance, but really the only reason he made it >was to return to the original rules structure. Gangrel Revel is fragile and expensive. 3 pool for +1 strength is a lot of pool. It can also be immediately burned, assuming you aren't playing against a Ravnos deck (who have good defences anyway). It is a master card, and so competes for generally scarce Master Phase Actions. (Certainly, the end game may become drawn out in terms of turns, but many games are won or lost during the frenzy of earlier turns.) >>>Combat is, effectively, the original "lock down" deck. Forget >Reality/Sensory Deprivation, or whatever. You torporise vampires, they can't >do anything. That's it. They bring out another, you torporise it. Again. >Again. And again. > >If I have just brought a vamp out, it has plenty of blood, so this rule does >not directly effect the lockdown deck. This is a statement based mostly on inexperience of effective combat decks. In essence, a blood buffer should not prevent a combat deck from sending you to torpor, if they're playing well. A potence deck will throw down Disarm. A Gangrel deck will torporise you with a single claw. Breath of the Dragon or Chiropteran Marauder (or whatever) from the Tzimisce. *Of course*, you can defend. You can Dodge. You can prevent. You can fight back, whatever. However, if a combat deck is in combat with you and is having problems working out "Assuming my opponent doesn't play any cards, how do I torporise them this combat?", something is probably going significantly wrong - this may be down to luck of the draw, of course. Getting through blood on a vampire should be the least of a combat deck's worries - cards for it should either be available in abundance, or irrelevant. Targeting the right vampire (Are you rushing? How do you stop blocks? How do you stop Obedience? Are you blocking? How do you beat Change of Target?) and beating defence (what do I do if you Skin of Steel? what do I do if you hit me with Lucky Blow? what do I do if you have an Elysium: the Arboretum available) are significant worries. >A vampire in torpor with no blood is >just as locked as a burned vamp. Should we errata Sense Dep to only tap >vampires for a turn? No!! Again, a bizarre extension of a line of reasoning. Sensory Deprivation is very different to torporisation. And an efficient combat deck both can and will torporise you with ease. If it does it efficiently enough, you won't stay there for one turn - because there won't be anyone to get you out. >>>Correct, for the most part. That's how the game was designed, balanced and >costed, way back in the beginning. > >Then why did they change it for V:TES? A number of things changed for V:TES. Partly, it is obvious that the changes for V:TES were designed to streamline some elements of the game - wrongly assuming that such streamlining wouldn't affect the balance of such cards. Jyhad was, rightly, perceived as being extremely subtle and complex - attempts to put it forward as a card game that anyone could be taught in ten minutes were being made. The "Basic Game" is evidence of such. One might also point to some of the textual changes that were made that similarly shifted cards in ways they didn't expect. It is also notable that your question elides certain facts: "Then why did they change it for V:TES?" Who is they? The they for Jyhad is not the same as the they for V:TES. It is certainly obvious that the "they" who designed and "balanced" Return to Innocence prior to its printing, and similarly Thoughts Betrayed and Tomb of Rameses, were not terribly familiar with the game as she was played properly. The "they" responsible for V:TES was similarly removed from the "they" for Jyhad, in terms of understanding the subtle balances that Jyhad had developed. >>>A desire to make combat more powerful is *not* the same as making vampires >easier to burn being balanced. > >No, But making vampires easier to burn would make combat more balanced. Again, >this is a better way than wallpapering cards. You have not shown that combat is unbalanced. You have not shown that making vampires easier to burn would make combat more balanced. You have not shown that cards are being wallpapered. Please provide proof, not soundbites. Simply *saying* that combat is unbalanced does not make it so. Combat decks are doing well when played well. >>>First of all, you need to demonstrate that combat needs empowering, because >it is significantly unbalanced. Certain facets of combat do very well, thank >you. A broad increase in power levels is not a very useful way to target such >changes. Gangrel Royalty decks can do extremely well. Brujah pot/cel decks >can do very well similarly. (It's notable in the latter case that changes to >Majesty won't affect it >heavily, because it *already* combats Majesty itself. This is how targeted >changes can be useful employed.) > >I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered. Then they do not need to be upgraded. If you do not think them underpowered, please do not argue for them to be upgraded. You would then be arguing for them to be overpowered. >I just think that >most people think so. Please point to these "most people". A statistically valid survey will do. >I think that WW is trying to empower combat decks for >this reason. Balance has to do with cards in a game, not the rules of it. Balance can derive from both cards and rules, as they interact with one another. For instance, the rules on discarding balance certain facets of the game. You cannot just cycle through your deck endlessly, deck composition becomes a huge facet of the game rather than something to be worked at but then ignored in game if you messed up. >The >rules effect the balance of the cards. Changing a card's text effects its >balance. Since when has Majesty been a broken card? You may do well to read the archives on Google to see different views, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't, but all of which have some basis in different opinions and playgroups. You may also do well to note that not all card text changes occur due to brokenness. If Majesty was broken, errata would have been issued to it, similar to that issued to Return to Innocence (which was later banned). >I have been playing this >game for years and you mean to tell me the whole time I am getting gyped by >people that play majesty? -that majesty has somehow been ruining the game? Many people play V:TES for years without seeing certain facets, certain combinations. The base set is intended to be balanced. Majesty has certainly been at the very top end of the power curve for some time. A base set provides a useful opportunity for rebalancing it. If Majesty is the card you believe has been "wallpapered", you would do well to examine the rumours more carefully. A simple cost of 1 blood does little to wallpaper Majesty. It is certainly playable with such a cost. >Personally, I have been having fun for the last number of years with the game, >I'm sorry that it was ruined for you. Who said anything about ruined? If I didn't enjoy V:TES, I wouldn't put so much time into it. >>>Then you need to demonstrate that making vampires easier to burn is the way >to establish that balance. It's worth bearing in mind the assorted effects >that also deal aggravated damage which would also be affected by such a change. > >AGAIN, there are two ways this rule would effect the game. You may want to learn the difference between "effect" and "affect", since the two have distinct meanings, both of which can be applied in such discussions, which may cause confusion. You appear, here, to mean "affect". >First, it would >increase the cost of cards that use agg damage as a cost, second it would >increase the effect of cards that used agg damage as an effect. Cards that use >agg as a cost are generaly (but not limited to) actions/action modifiers. Would you please provide a detailed analysis of these changes, in order to support a case for them being both necessary *and* balanced? >James, please do not assume that I do not know what I am talking about. Thus far you have: - shown ignorance of costing issues, regarding vampire creation and discipline availability (Gangrel having Potence doesn't suddenly make things magically happen, when it's only available on specific large vampires, at inferior) - confused soundbites of opinion with facts - fundamentally misrepresented the Jyhad aggravated damage rules, whilst also arguing for a separate set - misrepresented the Rules Team as being one person - claimed that combat decks aren't underpowered, but then argued for them to be upgraded - claimed that blood on a vampire alone will protect them from a combat deck, which is not supported by real life facts - claimed that Strike: Combat Ends has been wallpapered, without providing evidence - misunderstood the balance of cards like Gangrel Revel, which include expense, opportunity cost and fragility in their balance - confused your personal preferences with a need for rewrites - argued that balance is only governed by cards, not the rules, when both may have subtle roles to play I can list more, if you want. >I have >participated in many threads on discussion, particularly during 7/7 when this >rule was made. Making things less brutal - or wimpy - effects balance just as >making things brutal does. Personally, I prefer brutal games to wimpy ones. Your personal preferences are your own. However, the game is not designed to be a combat game. It is a mix of combat, bleed, politics, random actions, blocks, diplomacy, luck, skill and cunning. Combat is but one facet amongst many. Rebalancing the game towards combat then balances it away from all the other facets that exist. >Nystylc: Please note, it is generally considered to be good Usenet etiquette to respond to posts individually. This is why the References: header exists, so that a thread of replies can be established. If you would care to re-write this facet of Usenet, you can contribute to USEFOR. However, whilst Usenet exists how it is - which is emphatically not a random web-based discussion board, with random lists of posts - respecting its mechanisms may aid you. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You probably don't realize this but 'gyp' is short for Gypsy (which was >originally short for Egyptian IIRC) and the word is generally used in a >rather racist context. It implies that all gypsies are thieves. A similar >word would be 'jewed' but anti-semitism is not as popular as it once was >(unless you equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism :) Okay, I may be a bit biased, but the one time I did encounter gypsies they *were* thieves. A few years back on a family vacation, a bunch of gypsies tried to steal some stuff from my dad (which included our passports). Ironically enough, it was at Oxford no less. So all of the gypsies I've met and been aware of *have* been all thieves... =) >I suspect Gangrel Revel will be powered-up in the Anarchs set if current >trends continue. Having it be a bit cheaper or better-yet unburnable would >be a great boon to the Gangrel I think. I think it would be a tad bit overpowered if it were completely unburnable. I think lowering the cost to 2, or maybe lowering the cost to 1 and making it unique might be a bit more fair. >I actually really like the idea of making Majesty cost a blood. I've pushed >for more ways for combat to counter S:CE but making the cost of playing S:CE >more prohibitive seems reasonable to me. How many PRE decks will be able to >afford the cost of Majesty-ing out of every combat now? They'll have to be >more selective in how they avoid combat when constructing a deck. (I'm >thinking that maneuvers will start to become more popular actually... I've >already started using them quite a bit). It'll also unwallpaper Staredown. If Majesty costs a blood, I'll be packing my Presence decks with a whole lot of Staredowns and a handful of Majesty/Catatonic Fear from now on. Halcyan 2

>>I consider vampires being easily burned a bad thing. It would be different if you could correlate the likelihood to the size of the vampire. As it is, losing a weenie may be insignificant but losing one of three (for instance) minions you bring out is crippling. I consider vampires being easily burned a bad thing. It would be different if you could correlate the likelihood to the size of the vampire. As it is, losing a weenie may be insignificant but losing one of three (for instance) minions you bring out is crippling. Larger vampires would still be less likely to burn than small ones because they have more blood. >>Then why don't you play with your own little house rule and leave the rest of us alone? I am not going to play with CE, but there still needs to be rules that the game is played by. I would rather make one rule change than so many card errata or rewords. >>I actually really like the idea of making Majesty cost a blood. I've pushed for more ways for combat to counter S:CE but making the cost of playing S:CE more prohibitive seems reasonable to me. How many PRE decks will be able to afford the cost of Majesty-ing out of every combat now? They'll have to be more selective in how they avoid combat when constructing a deck. (I'm thinking that maneuvers will start to become more popular actually... I've already started using them quite a bit) Personally, I already use maneuvers in my combat decks. Now let's look at S:CE - S:CE by nature takes a strike, which means that you may only play 1 per round and you cannot hit the opposing minion with that strike. Now, Skin of Rock does not require a strike, can be played as much as needed during combat, and you can still hit the opposing minion with a strike. So it seems that Skin of Rock is a better card. Therefore, if Majesty costs 1 blood, Skin of Rock must also cost 1 blood. This is how the "balance" is created for this game. There must be a better way. >>It'll also unwallpaper Staredown. If Majesty costs a blood, I'll be packing my Presence decks with a whole lot of Staredowns and a handful of Majesty/Catatonic Fear from now on. Yeah, it's true, Staredown is a wallpaper card - bringing Majesty down to its wallpaper level isn't fun. I think staredown has it's purpose - it's a presence dodge - which is cool for Toreadors with guns. However, it is still not a good S:CE card. Making the rest of the S:CE cards also not good destroys a whole strategy of the game. >>So far as I can see, rules are not changed to "appease" people. Whenever I have corresponded with LSJ regarding rulings or rules changes where I have had a problem with a specific section of the set-up, very little has been weighed in the balance of "appeasing" people. People "crying" has never resulted in action being taken that I have ever seen. People presenting logical, thoughtful, well-planned, well- argued points of view, backed up with theory and practise in multiple situations, has resulted in action being taken - not all of which I necessarily agree with entirely, but corrective action nonetheless. Well thought out complaints are still complaints. Sure, crying is a harsh word, but I believe that many of the reworded cards have been reworded from constant bitching from people who have felt "abused" by them. >>Toning down doing little for balancing is a different issue, however. First of all, it is necessary to demonstrate that different elements are "toned down", and that they haven't advanced since through new cards. Second of all, it is necessary to demonstrate that toning down doesn't balance the game. Toning down a game's elements does bring some balance to a game - but never will all cards be equal. Toning up a game elements does bring the same balance as toning down (you tone up weaker strategies to equal stronger ones.) Of course the cards will still never be equal, but I really don't see how S:CE is abusive. Only broken cards need to be toned down. Strategy balances should be done with rules changes. >>You are one group. One group is welcome, on its own, to do whatever it wants. So, I have to play with myself now? That's fine with me - How about I not play at all? I have obviously been playing wrong for many years now - having fun with majesty. I guess all those fun times were wrong. >>Burning vampires is not the same as a measure of balance. Just because it would be easier to burn vampires under your proposed change, this does not make it a useful measure of balance. You have not demonstrated that burning vampires is necessary. You have not demonstrated that combat is underpowered. You have not demonstrated that combat will benefit from being upgraded in such a fashion, without detriment. (For instance, whilst one type of aggravated damage deck might remain balanced under your proposed change, there may be others which do not.) I simply think that the rule is a fun simple one. I think it adds to the excitement of the game. I don't think combat decks need boosting. But then why would they change S:CE? (rumor of course) How is making vampires nearly impossible to burn balanced? Rules effect the balance of the game, but no rule can outbalance another rule - only cards can be balanced, (and perhaps strategies) >>This is based on the premise that S:CE has been wallpapered. There is no evidence to suggest from where I stand that S:CE has been wallpapered. "Then why wallpaper S:CE" is an excellent sound-bite. But you need to put in a lot of work to show that it's been wallpapered. There are certain specific sources of Strike: Combat Ends which may have been addressed, or may be addressed in the Camarilla Edition (about which I have no knowledge other than the vague rumours circulating), but other sources of S:CE have been introduced at the same time. The wallpapering of S:CE is at this point a rumor of course. I wish that White Wolf would make a full disclosure, so that we could discuss such matters - because they pertain to the discussions of the overall changes of the set. However, I have a feeling that WW is trying to diffuse these discussions as much as possible. But to say there is NO evidence is asinine. The rumor exists, and I believe it came from an unofficial spoiler, also WW has an upcoming section on the preview about card changes. This thread (hopefully) shows that there are ways to balance a game besides wallpapering cards. I just thought it would be good to get people thinking about what balance means before the official information about card changes comes out. Do we need to implement this rule change? No. Would it help the game? Maybe or maybe not. Do we need to wallpaper majesty? No. Would it help the game or make people quit? This remains to be seen. Anyway, I'd like to be done with this thread. We could go on and on about balance and how rules changes effect cards - but it really doesn't matter, because WW seems to be only concerned with bringing in new players - it doesn't matter what we think.

In message <20020721022039...@mb-fk.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: *PLEASE* respect Usenet etiquette. 1) Putting two replies in the same post is *wrong*. 2) Following up to the wrong posts is *wrong*. 3) Not citing the people to whom you are replying, especially when there are several sections of material in the same post from entirely different responses is *wrong*. *PLEASE* learn how to drive your news-reader properly. If your news- reader isn't up to the task, get a better one. If you want people to respond to your posts with reasoned responses, you need to put in work so that other people can follow what you're replying to, from whom. The idea is to make things easy for everyone else to read, by your putting in a few seconds more work. (Hitting follow-up to a separate post is not hard.) Having to fight with your posts to work out what's from where is *not* a good way to get people to take your arguments seriously. You really need to make things as easy as possible for the reader. >>>So far as I can see, rules are not changed to "appease" people. Whenever I >have corresponded with LSJ regarding rulings or rules changes where I have had >a problem with a specific section of the set-up, very >little has been weighed in the balance of "appeasing" people. People "crying" >has never resulted in action being taken that I have ever seen. People >presenting logical, thoughtful, well-planned, well- argued points of view, >backed up with theory and practise in multiple situations, has resulted in >action being taken - not all of which I necessarily agree with entirely, but >corrective action nonetheless. > >Well thought out complaints are still complaints. So? Complaints that have a thought-out purposes, backed up by facts, are *also* convincing arguments. That's what's needed to bring about change. Convincing arguments, combining theory and practise, together with suitable remedial possibilities for balance. >>>Toning down doing little for balancing is a different issue, however. First >of all, it is necessary to demonstrate that different elements are "toned >down", and that they haven't advanced since through new cards. Second of all, >it is necessary to demonstrate that toning down doesn't >balance the game. > >Toning down a game's elements does bring some balance to a game - but never >will all cards be equal. No, this is a given. However, you now contradict yourself. Previously, you have stated categorically that toning down rules brings only a little balance to the game. Now you state that it can bring some balance to the game. Contradictions a go-go. >Toning up a game elements does bring the same balance >as toning down (you tone up weaker strategies to equal stronger ones.) Of >course the cards will still never be equal, but I really don't see how S:CE is >abusive. Only broken cards need to be toned down. Strategy balances should be >done with rules changes. You haven't demonstrated that S:CE is abusive. You haven't shown that S:CE is being toned down. There is a rumour that one specific source of S:CE is being adjusted. This is rebalancing a card. You have also previously stated that: "Balance has to do with cards in a game, not the rules of it." Now you are stating that balance of specific sections of the game (strategy related) is done with the rules. Sitting down and thinking through what you're writing would probably aid you in avoiding such obvious contradictions. >>>You are one group. One group is welcome, on its own, to do whatever it >wants. > >So, I have to play with myself now? Erm, no. One group. See? However, one group will always be atypical. Is everyone else supposed to play by your rules? Rules changes are made for the good of the entire game. Different tournaments need to have a generally balanced rules set-up, as do all games played by such rules. If you want to tone up combat because your group plays it a lot more, or a lot less, or whatever, that's fine. Some tournaments already do this - specifically twisting rules to reflect a specific balance they want. Clan only decks, combative decks, alternative rules and so on. This is separate, however, from game balance as a whole. Combat is *not* the only facet of the game. The game was principally designed with three active strategies, with some hybridisation being expected in the stronger decks. (Others have emerged since, with new cards and new clans. Lock down, in the form of Ravnos denial, is new. Corruption is mostly new, though combat/Graverobbing could achieve something analogous.) Vote decks still need to be balanced against combat decks. Vote/rush hybrid decks - a pretty fearsome combination when it works, as it can - still need to be balanced. Bleed decks still need to be balanced against combat decks. Bruise and bleed still needs to be balanced. You have stated yourself, quite clearly: "I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered." However, you are now arguing for combat decks to be empowered. (Bizarre, but true.) Please demonstrate that upgrading combat decks - which are "not underpowered" (your words) - will not break them, and will not break balance between them and other popular, standard archetypes, as designed into the game. >That's fine with me - How about I not play >at all? I have obviously been playing wrong for many years now - having fun >with majesty. I guess all those fun times were wrong. *sigh* Majesty is at the top end of the power curve. This is pretty difficult to argue against. A basic set aims to provide a balanced, so far as is possible, set for new players to begin with. This provides a useful opportunity for rebalancing cards which are seriously out of alignment. That is all. This is not a question of "fun". This is a question of balancing cards, so that cost (which includes many factors - clan, discipline, age, blood, cost in hand, cost in library etc.), opportunity cost (generally significant enough to separate it from cost per se) and effect are all roughly balanced, in the grand scheme of things. >>>Burning vampires is not the same as a measure of balance. Just because it >would be easier to burn vampires under your proposed change, this does not make >it a useful measure of balance. You have not demonstrated that burning >vampires is necessary. You have not demonstrated that combat is underpowered. >You have not demonstrated that combat will benefit from being upgraded in such >a fashion, without detriment. (For instance, whilst one type of aggravated >damage deck might remain balanced under your proposed change, there may be >others which do not.) > >I simply think that the rule is a fun simple one. Simplicity is not the only measure of utility. The rule *MUST* still be balanced, when finished. (If you don't want a balanced game, that's separate. However, Jyhad has been designed from the start to be balanced. Mistakes have been made, and rectified.) You stated: "Since the old rule is more balanced, can we reinstate it?" Since balance is one of the key criteria for rules changes, you need to demonstrate what you have stated - that the "old rule is more balanced". Rules being "fun" and "simple" are not usually useful arguments for radical balance shifts. "Fun" and "simple" may, however, be extremely useful arguments where multiple options present themselves; picking the "simple" remedy may then be best, or whatever. However, before a change can be made, you need to demonstrate that the game, cards, archetypes and decks will still be balanced, after the change. You have already stated that "the old rule is more balanced". Please provide proof that "the old rule is more balanced", not more soundbites. >I think it adds to the >excitement of the game. I don't think combat decks need boosting. Then don't boost them. >But then >why would they change S:CE? (rumor of course) The only rumour I have heard is a change to Majesty. This is not the same as changing S:CE. The change to Majesty is also a fairly minor one, which will still leave the card to be eminently useful, played sensibly. Attempting to play any card, post-change, as it was played pre-change, without re-examining it and adjusting as necessary is likely to result in failure. This is not the same as the card being wallpaper or unplayable, of course. If you have heard other, specific, rumours regarding S:CE, bring them forward. Affecting one source of S:CE is not the same as changing S:CE. Please learn the difference. >How is making vampires nearly >impossible to burn balanced? "Making"? The situation that currently exists is already here. You have stated, repeatedly, that "I don't think combat decks need boosting." If combat decks don't need boosting, it follows that they are (roughly, within the limits possible) balanced. (Or, potentially, overly powerful - if they don't need to be boosted, because they're already too good. However, we can leave this possibility to one side.) It is also likely to be true that it is not "nearly impossible" to burn vampires. I regularly see vampires being burned. Anathema is an extremely good card for such, for example. Similarly, dealing multiple points of aggravated damage, or sufficient regular damage to wound a vampire, combined with a point of aggravated damage is certainly possible. For example: - A Gangrel deck can generate additional damage, in order to create a wounded vampire, using Ritual Challenge (potentially slow, though Freak Drive speeds it up usefully), Gangrel Revel (expensive and fragile), Carrion Crows (for my money, one of the best cards in the game), Strength of the Bear (well balanced and useful, at fall-back, enough to include in decks with no, or only a little, Spiritus, especially with its stackability), Blissful Agony/Scorpion Sting and so on. Retainers are, generally, a poor option, though again Freak Drive can speed things up usefully. Going in combat with ANI/pro Gangrel (doable at five capacity) and even ani/pro Gangrel (doable at three capacity, with Anastasia Grey) can then allow: - Pre-range - Carrion Crows - Strength of the Bear - Range - Quick Meld (maybe) - Strike - Scorpion Sting - Strike-modifier - Claws of the Dead With an ANI/pro vampires, that's 5 damage, three of which is aggravated, coming from two different sources (thus harder for Skin of Steel), some of which is (obviously) environmental, some of which is aggravated (thus making some of the damage prevention sources unusable, specifically pro- based Flesh of Marble, but a few others exist). Cost? Five cards, two blood. All five are useful cards. Quick Meld may well not even be necessary, metagame-willing. You hit, you can burn a vampire, or torporise them. Similarly, you can throw down Amaranth. Difficult for the Gangrel, but a well-tuned deck may be including Stansylvania, a very useful vampire, or Gangrel Justicar (either Gangrel Justicar, the vote card, or Angus the Unruled, or whoever the new Gangrel Justicar will be in the Camarilla Edition) and fiddle with Absolution of the Diabolist. This is playable during your minion phase, by specific card text. The Gangrel Antitribu have many of the tactics of the Gangrel available to them, for the Country Gangrel. The Country Gangrel also have Gangrel Conspiracy available to them. (Again, playable during your own turn.) The City Gangrel Antitribu (obf/cel/pro) have different discipline splits, and thus some of the cards available aren't useful. However, Celerity provides for additional strikes. Both Gangrel and !Gangrel can access Shadow of the Wolf, though it's probably a poor choice for the !Gangrel - a Blur might be better. However, again, a single point of aggravated damage (unprevented), Amaranth, Gangrel Conspiracy is a perfectly usable combo. (Slow, due to the M:OOT restrictions of one per turn, but doable.) These are all useful combinations, but with restrictions stopping them being easy. *No* strategy is supposed to "just happen" - costing should make them expensive, relative to their output, and interaction should be possible at many levels. - The Tzimisce can use a number of the Animalism tricks of the Gangrel, above. Vicissitude helps replace some of the tricks of Protean. For instance, Chiropteran Marauder helps replace the claw. Body Arsenal and Horrid Form are also useful substitutes. They lose out slightly on maneuvers, but gain in assorted other ways - War Ghoul is often a better bet than Renegade Garou, even with his cigar. Combining Carrion Crows (I really cannot emphasise how useful this card is), Strength of the Bear (Dragos would have fun with it, if he didn't already have 'vic' which more or less works out the same with its combat modifiers), a source of aggravated damage, a source of additional hand damage e.g. Scorpion Sting, is all very easy, for a small investment in cards. Flinging Amaranth is possible, but not the best of options - their votes are quite expensive, a 6 bishop, 8, 8, 9, 10. Diplomacy and negotiation may allow diablerie to be explored, which is certainly doable. The Gangrel and Country !Gan also have Freak Drive, allowing rush/freak/diablerie, all with one vampire. - Any potence oriented deck has a number of useful cards at its disposal. Immortal Grapple, Torn Signpost, Increased Strength and Undead Strength can form the basis of a formidable strike - obviously, you may only need to play a couple, for any given vampire. If combined with celerity (principally Brujah and !Bru), additional strikes can be achieved, which help whittle down damage prevention. If combined with Obtenebration (Lasombra), there are various interesting options - Arms of the Abyss is quite popular (though watch out for IG conflicts). If combined with Protean, many options can be explored, but this is an expensive route (thus achieving a measure of balance). Obfuscate has provided a nice set of options in the past - obf/pot is a *very* small investment, capacity-wise. A search through Google's archives will reveal some of the absolutely scary average capacities that have been achieved, where it almost feels like you're getting pool to play those vampires. It falls down to Skin of Steel (where Celerity needs superior Skin of Steel, or similar), but it's a viable option, especially if it's combat/something combined. If you're playing Nosferatu or !Nos, you could even drop in a few Animalism cards, for Carrion Crows, which helps combat that tendencies. Potence, however, then brings in some other fantastic options. Diablerie, via Amaranth or separate actions, is always possible. But Potence has two extremely useful cards - Disarm and Decapitate. Blood won't save you, if enough damage is done (which only needs to be more than the other person) - you go to torpor. Then you burn. Immortal Grapple, Undead Strength, Disarm, Decapitate - four cards, 2 blood, burned vampire. Just requires POT, which is relatively simple to access - four caps, for CEL/POT (Jimmy Dunn) and obf/POT (Agatha), as well as a few other vamps, less directly combative. It follows that claiming that it is nearly impossible to burn vampires is hard to support. Could you provide proof of your "nearly impossible" claim, rather than a soundbite? >Rules effect the balance of the game, but no rule >can outbalance another rule - only cards can be balanced, (and perhaps >strategies) This is a curious assertion. Rules define the templates within which cards work. Cards and rules together create strategies. The idea is that, at the end of the day, each item created by rules should be balanced. For instance, dropping the Bloodhunt rule willy- nilly would unbalance certain facets of the game. (As well as wallpapering a few cards, but that's separate.) Rules create and sustain balance, in tandem with cards, within the game as a whole. You have not demonstrated that combat is negatively unbalanced (i.e. underpowered). Indeed, you have claimed that it isn't. You have not demonstrated that upgrading the aggravated damage rules away from the current template (which is close to Jyhad costing and balance) will not unbalance these facets of the game. You have not demonstrated many things. Please provide proof, not soundbites. >>>This is based on the premise that S:CE has been wallpapered. There is no >evidence to suggest from where I stand that S:CE has been wallpapered. "Then >why wallpaper S:CE" is an excellent sound-bite. But you need to put in a lot >of work to show that it's been wallpapered. There are certain specific sources >of Strike: Combat Ends which may have been addressed, or may be addressed in >the Camarilla Edition (about which I have no knowledge other than the vague >rumours circulating), but other sources of S:CE have been introduced at the >same time. > >The wallpapering of S:CE is at this point a rumor of course. Please provide direct details of the rumour. Such issues can then be explored. >I wish that White >Wolf would make a full disclosure, so that we could discuss such matters - >because they pertain to the discussions of the overall changes of the set. >However, I have a feeling that WW is trying to diffuse these discussions as >much as possible. But to say there is NO evidence is asinine. The rumor >exists, and I believe it came from an unofficial spoiler, also WW has an >upcoming section on the preview about card changes. The rumours exist that Majesty may be costed. (Potentially also Catatonic Fear.) This is not the same as S:CE being wallpapered. If you have specific rumours to address, please address them. However, rumours and speculation are not evidence. >This thread (hopefully) shows that there are ways to balance a game besides >wallpapering cards. You've shown *nothing*. Honestly. You've *SHOWN* nothing. You haven't provided proof. You haven't cited current winning decks. You haven't explored avenues for balance. You haven't explored designer intent. You have made many repeated errors. You haven't provided anything other than items like: - combat should be upgraded because I like it - it would be "fun" and "simple" - confusing items like "simple" and "balanced" interchangeably and so on. If you want to *SHOW* something, do it. Sit down, work it through, provide examples, provide theories, provide practise, provide speculation if you want. But actually *SHOW* something. You haven't shown that any specific cards are being wallpapered, either. >Anyway, I'd like to be done with this thread. We could go on and on about >balance and how rules changes effect cards - but it really doesn't matter, >because WW seems to be only concerned with bringing in new players - it doesn't >matter what we think. Before you're done with the thread, would it be possible for you to stop providing soundbites about cards being wallpapered and actually provide some solid, workable *EVIDENCE* and *PROOF* for those soundbites? If all you say is "S:CE is being wallpapered" without backing it up with *proof*, you don't advance anything. If you want to advance things in a useful way, actually back up your assertions, rather than coming up with more soundbites about "fun", "simple", "balanced" and "wallpaper", without providing any actual basis in pan-game fact for them. If you don't provide proof for the need for a change, nothing's going to change. Assuming you *want* the changes, you need to prove why they're needed. And if you can provide useful, solid proof, that works in useful, thematic, theoretic, practical, pan-game, pan-strategy ways, rather than a focus of "I like burning vampires, ergo...", you'll garner some support. Indeed, if you can provide useful, solid proof of that sort for your arguments, I'll support it myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <20020721022039...@mb-fk.aol.com>, Awazzzz > <awa...@aol.com> writes: > > *PLEASE* respect Usenet etiquette. > > 1) Putting two replies in the same post is *wrong*. > 2) Following up to the wrong posts is *wrong*. Oh, cripes! I dislike having arguments about minor Usenet netiquette points but I dislike people making pretentious claims that about "rules" that just aren't so even more. At best these come down as readability recommendations that can sometimes even be counterproductive if followed rigidly. I will include replies to multiple posts in a single post at times when I think it's reasonable and efficient to respond to various posts that way. And nothing you say will ever make me stop that because it's a stupid concept as an all-inclusive "rule". Following-up a single post using the wrong previous post reference is weird and defeats a minor feature of threaded newsreaders but - particularly when done in the correct thread at least - is not a serious problem. Only your third point, about citing the author of quoted text accurately and in a non-confusing way, causes real problems. > 3) Not citing the people to whom you are replying, especially when there > are several sections of material in the same post from entirely > different responses is *wrong*. What it comes down to is common sense. To make your posts as readable as possible and to avoid causing confusion (which can sometimes blossom into full-scale anger and loathing), quote text you're responding to, quote it in a way that we can separate what you're quoting and what you're saying in response, cite the author of the quoted text accurately and understandably, don't quote unnecessary text, and put your response where we can see what it responds to - meaning underneath the appropriate quote and not on top of it. All of these things are just minor writing style issues which are not particularly important if we can understand the author's meaning well enough in spite of such transgressions. There's no need to constantly harp on them. It's only when someone habitually pumps out posts that cause serious confusion. FOR INSTANCE: if someone finds it necessary to post in order to ask the author for clarification of what he meant to say or if a flame-war starts due to confusion about who said what, then something is seriously wrong. If something like that happens, then it might be worth posting to _suggest_ some common sense rules to avoid problems. Fred

In message <3D3B2AA2...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: >Oh, cripes! I dislike having arguments about minor Usenet netiquette >points but I dislike people making pretentious claims that about "rules" >that just aren't so even more. Would you care to cite current examples of best practise where the References: line doesn't work how it has always worked? The References: line exists for a *specific* reason - that of threading. The idea is to construct threads, not just post after post after post, like on a web-based forum. Even Google can cope with threading. Threads also allow people to isolate what's being referred to, easily. You can back up to the previous post to see what was said, in a wider context, assuming you have the post, since in a thread of a hundred articles the previous article may have been read 50 posts ago. It's how Usenet *works*. Threading is fundamental to Usenet. USEFOR's current drafts reinforces this. USER represents, in many respects, current best practice (there are some areas where it defines new practice, of course); arguing that is just isn't so is wilfully ignoring the facts. I am sorry if citing Usenet mechanisms, practise and drafts for the future is "pretentious". If you don't want a threaded medium, using Usenet is probably a bad idea. Whilst using Usenet, however, respecting its threaded nature is probably best and most useful. It's how Usenet works, it's how people will expect it to work. If you don't like the facts of how Usenet works, there's not a lot I can do about that. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Oh, cripes! I dislike having arguments about minor Usenet netiquette >points but I dislike people making pretentious claims that about "rules" >that just aren't so even more. I don't like being anal about netiquette either but there *are* some basic things people should be considerate of. Top-posting, proper quoting/referencing, etc. And most importantly don't constantly click the "Send all" button when having a private conversation on an e-mail list. It's not very good when 20+ people get 30+ messages they don't even have anything to do with... Halcyan 2

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3D3B2AA2...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: > >Oh, cripes! I dislike having arguments about minor Usenet netiquette > >points but I dislike people making pretentious claims that about "rules" > >that just aren't so even more. > > Would you care to cite current examples of best practise where the > References: line doesn't work how it has always worked? This question isn't even coherent. > The References: line exists for a *specific* reason - that of threading. > The idea is to construct threads, not just post after post after post, > like on a web-based forum. ... > It's how Usenet *works*. Threading is fundamental to Usenet. USEFOR's > current drafts reinforces this. USER represents, in many respects, > current best practice (there are some areas where it defines new > practice, of course); arguing that is just isn't so is wilfully ignoring > the facts. ... > If you don't want a threaded medium, using Usenet is probably a bad > idea. Threading is a feature. Period. Sorry that I have to disagree with your assertion of "facts", but they seem rather empty to one who'd been using Usenet effectively on non-threading newsreaders long before the threaded ones become popular or widely distributed. Stating that, "If you don't want to use power steering, cars are probably a bad idea." would be an approximately equivalent claim. Usenet without threading worked just fine and, in my humble opinion, was still an excellent, effective idea. Given that point, your indignation is misplaced. Defeating the threading mechanisms is a Usenet crime on the level of a misspelling or bad grammar. Not a good example for the newbies and not the best way to effectively communicate but unworthy of posted comment by itself. Fred

Dear James, Frist of all, I'd like to address the etiquette question. You wrote: >>*PLEASE* respect Usenet etiquette. >>1) Putting two replies in the same post is *wrong*. >>2) Following up to the wrong posts is *wrong*. >>3) Not citing the people to whom you are replying, especially when there are several sections of material in the same post from entirely different responses is *wrong*. Look, James, I started this thread and I need to be able to respond to multiple people's comments. I do not want to be carrying on five completely different conversations (ex. One about balance, once about reworded cards, one about the proposed rule change, one about usenet ettiquite, etc.) I simply cannot answer everyone individually - it would lead to there being five separate conversations. I quote whole paragraphs, so that people will know what it is the other person said. I try to quote who said the paragraph, but sometimes, it is not worth my time. >>Having to fight with your posts to work out what's from where is *not* a good way to get people to take your arguments seriously. You really need to make things as easy as possible for the reader. I really don't care who said what. I don't know you outside of Usenet, James. Only the context and point they are trying to make is important to me. Now, that we are DONE with this particular part of the conversation which has NOTHING to do with rules changes, balance, etc, let's stop wasting time and get back to the point. I had written: >Toning down a game's elements does bring some balance to a game - but never will all cards be equal. And you responded: >No, this is a given. However, you now contradict yourself. Previously, you have stated categorically that toning down rules brings only a little balance to the game. Now you state that it can bring some balance to the game. Contradictions a go-go. James, I'm sorry that you feel that there is such a difference between "some" and "not much" or "a little." I would hardly call this a contradiction of "go-go" proportions. Toning down is a way to bring "some" or "a little" balance to a game. It also detracts from the inherent danger of playing and makes the game less exciting. (for example with the proposed rule change, wouldn't a playeer be more nervous about hunting with o blood? Oooh drama!) Another thing I said: >Toning up a game elements does bring the same balance as toning down (you tone up weaker strategies to equal stronger ones.) Of course the cards will still never be equal, but I really don't see how S:CE is abusive. Only broken cards need to be toned down. Strategy balances should be done with rules changes. And you replied: >>You haven't demonstrated that S:CE is abusive. You haven't shown that S:CE is being toned down. There is a rumour that one specific source of S:CE is being adjusted. This is rebalancing a card. James, why would I demonstrate the S:CE is abusive when I am saying, "I really don't see how S:CE is abusive." If I don't think S:CE is abusive, then why would I suppport rebalancing the card? You are smarter than this James, think before you write. I also stated that: "Balance has to do with cards in a game, not the rules of it." And you replied: >>Now you are stating that balance of specific sections of the game (strategy related) is done with the rules. Sitting down and thinking through what you're writing would probably aid you in avoiding such obvious contradictions. James, please listen up, because I'm only going to say this one last time. Rules cannot be balanced - no rule will out balance another rule. Balance reffers to cards in the game in relativity to each other and the same with strategies. Changing rules effects the balance of cards and strategies, but is not in itself a balanced or unbalanced rule. You said: >>Is everyone else supposed to play by your rules? Rules changes are made for the good of the entire game. Different tournaments need to have a generally balanced rules set-up, as do all games played by such rules. No, James, I am not a one man rules team. I do not make rule changes arbitrary of newsgroup and VEKN opinions. Only WW does that. >>Vote decks still need to be balanced against combat decks. Vote/rush hybrid decks - a pretty fearsome combination when it works, as it can - still need to be balanced. Bleed decks still need to be balanced against combat decks. Bruise and bleed still needs to be balanced. Yeah, and how would the proposed rule change effect this? Do you think that I was unable to play a bleed deck during the V:TES days? The V:TES days were the height of this game for me - and never did I feel that combat decks outweighed bleed decks (or vice versa) I had stated: >>"I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered." And you replied: However, you are now arguing for combat decks to be empowered. (Bizarre, but true.) Please demonstrate that upgrading combat decks - which are "not underpowered" (your words) - will not break them, and will not break balance between them and other popular, standard archetypes, as designed into the game. No, James, I am not arguing for combat decks to be empowered and I never was. I am simply requesting that an old rule be reinstated. A rule that did not break balance when it was in effect. All archetypes (bleed, combat, etc.) are still perfectly viable under this rule. >>Majesty is at the top end of the power curve. This is pretty difficult to argue against. A basic set aims to provide a balanced, so far as is possible, set for new players to begin with. This provides a useful opportunity for rebalancing cards which are seriously out of alignment. You are always asking me to cite references and examples - where's yours that says that Majesty is broken? Majesty is a less powerful card than Skin of Rock. With Skin of Rock: it does not take my strike (allowing me to "hit" opposing minion), is playable as much as needed, and does not have as many counters against it. If we make Majesty cost 1 blood, Skin of Rock must too in order to maintain balance. >>This is not a question of "fun". This is a question of balancing cards, so that cost (which includes many factors - clan, discipline, age, blood, cost in hand, cost in library etc.), opportunity cost (generally significant enough to separate it from cost per se) and effect are all roughly balanced, in the grand scheme of things. Actually, James, I DO play games to have fun. I DO think the proposed rule is more fun. I also think that balance is maintained within it. Remember, I used to play with this rule - and it did not stop me from playing any archetype of deck. Yes, I had stated: >>"Since the old rule is more balanced, can we reinstate it?" And you replied: >>Since balance is one of the key criteria for rules changes, you need to demonstrate what you have stated - that the "old rule is more balanced" You have already stated that "the old rule is more balanced". Please provide proof that "the old rule is more balanced", not more soundbites. The old rule effects balance better than the current one because it adds cost to cards like Daring the Dawn and adds effect for cards like Burning Wrath. >>The only rumour I have heard is a change to Majesty. This is not the same as changing S:CE. The change to Majesty is also a fairly minor one, which will still leave the card to be eminently useful, played sensibly. Attempting to play any card, post-change, as it was played pre-change, without re-examining it and adjusting as necessary is likely to result in failure. This is not the same as the card being wallpaper or unplayable, of course. Changing Majesty would effect the entire strategy of S:CE. It would make a new system for cards to be balanced against - thereby effecting Catatonic Fear, etc. Also, making S:CE cost one blood would ruin the entire strategy. The whole point of S:CE is to avoid burning blood. Wallpaper - why would I play this when I could play fortitude? Affecting one source of S:CE is not the same as changing S:CE. Please learn the difference. >>Effecting one source of S:CE would put a new definition of what is balanced on the game. Making Majesty cost one blood would make Cat Fear overpowered, etc. James, please, I know you are smarter than this. I had said >>How is making vampires nearly impossible to burn balanced? And you replied: >>"Making"? The situation that currently exists is already here. Okay, James, since grammar seems to be the focus of your argument, I will ask, "how is having vampires nearly impossible to burn balanced? >>I regularly see vampires being burned. Anathema is an extremely good card for such, for example. Similarly, dealing multiple points of aggravated damage, or sufficient regular damage to wound a vampire, combined with a point of aggravated damage is certainly possible. James, thank you for your examples (which I am not going to post again here) As far as Anathema goes, It has requirements, but no cost. Since this is an easy way to burn vamps, shouldn't all ways to burn vamps be equally as easy to maintain balance? Now, as far as adding to damage to be able to burn a vampire - this is the deal: It does not cost any more to add to agg damage as it does to add to regular damage. Did you get that, it's rather important for this conversation. Playing a torn signpost costs the same for vamps with agg hand as it does for vamps without. Why is this important? It shows that getting a second point of agg isn't an expensive thing and therefore - burning a vampire with two agg isn't too far from burning a vamp with one agg. What it all comes down to this this: Should one need to add to the damage of a Starshell Grenade Launcher (or similar card) to burn a vamp with 0 blood or Should one need to add damage to the Grenade Launcher (or similar card) to be able to burn a vamp with 0 blood? This is really the one question that we should be taking about here -This is how the rule change effects balance. Everything else, like WW's arbitrary changes to the game - are irrelevant but fun to discuss. You Wrote: >>It follows that claiming that it is nearly impossible to burn vampires is hard to support. Could you provide proof of your "nearly impossible" claim, rather than a soundbite? First of all, one must add to the agg damage done to be able to burn an opposing minion. Then one must be able to get around the opposing minions defenses - damage prevention, dodge, S:CE, thoughts betrayed, etc. This makes it much easier to burn a vamp with cards like Anathema, or Society of Leoplod than agg damage cards. You do not need to pay any blood cost for those cards, they are not as easily avoided, and you do not need to add another card to them to burn a vampire. I have said, and I still say: >>Rules effect the balance of the game, but no rule can outbalance another rule - only cards can be balanced, (and perhaps strategies) You replied: >>This is a curious assertion. Rules define the templates within which cards work. Cards and rules together create strategies. The idea is that, at the end of the day, each item created by rules should be balanced. For instance, dropping the Bloodhunt rule willy- nilly would unbalance certain facets of the game. (As well as wallpapering a few cards, but that's separate.) Rules create and sustain balance, in tandem with cards, within the game as a whole. Exactly, rules effect balance - but still a rule cannot be balanced or unbalanced (or even more balanced than another rule) however, one rule can balance the game better than another rule. Anyone sick of hearing the definition yet? >>You have not demonstrated that combat is negatively unbalanced (i.e. underpowered). Indeed, you have claimed that it isn't. Right >>You have not demonstrated that upgrading the aggravated damage rules away from the current template (which is close to Jyhad costing and balance) will not unbalance these facets of the game. Which facets of the game? You have not demonstrated many things. Please provide proof, not Soundbites. I have given examples and reasons. What specifically do you want from me? As long as I provide proof, what's wrong with soundbites? Do you really think I would be here discussing these issues without adding commentary? >>Please provide direct details of the rumour. Such issues can then be explored. I am not trying to prove a rumor. I used the rumor as evidence for my arguments. If WW would confirm or deny the rumor - then it would be proof. Right now, it is only evidence. >>You've shown *nothing*. Honestly. You've *SHOWN* nothing. I have shown that there are many ways to effect balance - not just wallpapering cards. >>You haven't provided proof. You haven't cited current winning decks. You haven't explored avenues for balance. You haven't explored designer intent. You have made many repeated errors. I have explored balance. I have stated that the rule change would effect balance and shown that change to be positive. I have explored designer intent by stating that the rule used to be in the V:TES rule book. I have provided many examples as proof. I have not cited winning decks, but I am sure that winning deck archetypes in V:TES times are still winning deck archetypes today and vice versa. No, I would rather not. But I will if you really want it. >>If you want to *SHOW* something, do it. Sit down, work it through, provide examples, provide theories, provide practise, provide speculation if you want. But actually *SHOW* something. I have. I did. Please, James, your attempts to make me look stupid Aren't working. Simply denying that I have used examples will not make my examples go away. >>You haven't shown that any specific cards are being wallpapered, either. I cannot do this with a rumor. But LSJ has wallpapered cards in the past (TOR3, RTI, Mind Rape) form broken to useless in one fell swoop. He is not above doing this again. He is not above doing it to cards that are "at the top of the curve" but not broken either. This will never end unless we stop it. Maybe when the Revised card preview comes out I will be proved wrong. I hope this is the case. >>Before you're done with the thread, would it be possible for you to stop providing soundbites about cards being wallpapered and actually provide some solid, workable *EVIDENCE* and *PROOF* for those soundbites? If all you say is "S:CE is being wallpapered" without backing it up with *proof*, you don't advance anything. If you want to advance things in a useful way, actually back up your assertions, rather than coming up with more soundbites about "fun", "simple", "balanced" and "wallpaper", without providing any actual basis in pan-game fact for them. "fun" is a matter of opinion. It is my OPINION that the rule change would be fun. "Simple" reffers to easy of play. Agg damage = blood burned is more simple than Agg damge - 1 = blood burned. Balance reffers to cards in the game. The rule change would give a higher cost to cards that use agg damage as a cost and more effect to cards that use agg damage as an effect. This is a fact in itself. I do not need to prove it, and I have given examples of these cards. The fact that you refute that I have given proof, does not change the fact that I have given proof (or at least good evidence.) You are only trying to make me look stupid. James, I do not want to make an enemy of you. But pointing out grammatical inconsistencies in my posts only bothers me. It is not constructive to arguing either point of view. Stating that I have not provided examples - when I have upon request (remember this thread started as a question to LSJ - nothing more) is really ticking me off and not constructive to arguing either point of view. If you have a question about what I have to say, would like additional examples, or would like to refute what I have said with examples - please do so, but do not continue to deny that I have backed up the things I have said. I have and am willing to give more evidence if needed.

In message <3D3B7717...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: >Threading is a feature. Period. So it should be used properly. Period. It's how Usenet *works*. If you don't like it, contact USEFOR. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020719150803...@mb-fg.aol.com... > > So, my question is: Could we re-implement the agg damage = blood > burned rule? > It really made things simpler to play during the V:TES era. I think > that the > game could use some refining to make it easier to learn - but would > like the > rules changes to eventually stop because I am sick of having to re- > learn the rules every year or so! Hi Sam, The VTES agg damage rule is certainly a little simpler than the current rule (which isn't exactly the same as the Jyhad rule, but pretty close). But it also makes agg damage quite a bit more powerful (in terms of ease of burning vampires) than the current rule. For example, the Ivory Bow, by itself, could burn vampires (who were at 0 blood) under the VTES rule. The Ivory Bow is undercosted at 1 pool even with current agg-damage rules - it's *way* undercosted with the VTES rule. Likewise, Protean Claws- type cards are pretty hard to burn vamps with currently; it's a lot easier under the VTES rule. In my opinion, the game is more balanced when it's at least as hard as it is now to burn vampires with agg damage. It seems clear to me that the original conception of the game involved usually needing to risk a blood hunt (ie diablerize) if you wanted to burn vampires by hitting them with aggravated damage, and to me that feels appropriate: it shouldn't be *too* easy to burn vampires. Josh more aggravating than aggravated

> It's how Usenet *works*. If you don't like it, contact USEFOR. > > -- > James Coupe What is USEFOR? Is this some kind of joke I don't understand? Tim Bowen Columbus, OH

Howdy, OK, not to insert myself into a flamewar or anything, but... > Frist of all, I'd like to address the etiquette question. You wrote: > > >>*PLEASE* respect Usenet etiquette. > > >>1) Putting two replies in the same post is *wrong*. By which I presume James means not to reply to two or more separate posts in a single post. I disagree that this is always important; if several branches of a thread are running in parallel, it may be useful to consolidate them. This is not, however, what Awazzz (sp?) is doing. > >>2) Following up to the wrong posts is *wrong*. By which I further presume James means replying to a different post than the one you selected 'reply' in. This, while not _wrong_ in the Biblical sense or anything, _is_ really, really annoying, and further can make it more or less impossible to follow the conversation. Given that the Usenet is more or less entirely about having conversations, it kind of defeats the purpose of posting to do this. (Though I still feel that consolidations of the kind I supported above can be exceptions to the 'rule'.) > >>3) Not citing the people to whom you are replying, especially when there > are several sections of material in the same post from entirely > different responses is *wrong*. This really should never come up if you are following 1 & 2 above. Most newsreaders/posters do some sort of useful quoting which make it pretty trivial to figure out who said what if you're not crossing your threads. I generally clip the actual who said what line(s) at the top in a vain attempt to protect the innocent from spam; even so it's usually pretty clear who said what. That said, if you are practicing heretical permutations of 1 and/or 2 above, you really, really need to be careful about this 'rule' or you can make it look like people said things they didn't or didn't say things they did, etc. > Look, James, I started this thread and I need to be able to respond to multiple > people's comments. I do not want to be carrying on five completely different > conversations (ex. One about balance, once about reworded cards, one about the > proposed rule change, one about usenet ettiquite, etc.) I simply cannot answer > everyone individually - it would lead to there being five separate > conversations. I quote whole paragraphs, so that people will know what it is > the other person said. I try to quote who said the paragraph, but sometimes, > it is not worth my time. I understand what you are saying here and sympathize, but I don't really see how your solution to the problem is effective. That is, if you are planning to address points from five completely different conversations, how does bundling the replies into one message really save time and/or effort over just replying to the relevant parts of the five different threads? From the viewpoint of an observer using a threaded newsreader (Google - yes, I suck), it's impossible to follow your arguments. Additionally, I'm forced to follow arguments I'm not interested in, as you keep bundling them back in. Which, incidentally, ensures that your thread(s) will never die. > >>Having to fight with your posts to work out what's from where is *not* a good > way to get people to take your arguments seriously. You really need to make > things as easy as possible for the reader. > > I really don't care who said what. I don't know you outside of Usenet, James. > Only the context and point they are trying to make is important to me. Well, you know, I _do_ care who said what, and I find it kind of baffling that you can be so dense about this. You say context and the point are what is important (to you) one sentence after saying that you don't care about context (and thus a large part of the point). What do you mean by context if not who said what in the course of what line of argument, both of which you've made very difficult to trace? > Now, that we are DONE with this particular part of the conversation which has > NOTHING to do with rules changes, balance, etc, let's stop wasting time and get > back to the point. You may be done with it, but I suspect that other readers are just going to be done with you. While netiquette does not have anything directly to do with the points at hand, to say it has nothing at all to do with them is as disingenuous as saying that the language a conversation is held in has nothing to do with a listener's comprehension of the ideas discussed. If you can't, won't, or don't follow the conventions of the Usenet you can hardly be surprised when other users stop listening to you or consider you an ass. > I had written: Much as I might like to contribute to the on-topic 'debate' I'm going to resist. Why? Because I can no longer follow the arguments without spending way too much effort. Hope that helps, Alex PS: > James, I do not want to make an enemy of you. But pointing out grammatical > inconsistencies in my posts only bothers me. Much to his credit James has so far resisted a critique of your grammar and/or spelling. It's your logic he's trying to firm up. And you should be bothered by logical inconsistencies in your own arguments. And if by grammar you meant 'semantics', well, 'semantic inconsistency' seems like it should be a euphemism for something.

In message <ahi3co$tdk8t$1...@ID-153359.news.dfncis.de>, Timothy F. Bowen <TimB...@columbus.rr.com> writes: >What is USEFOR? Is this some kind of joke I don't understand? No. USEFOR is the name of the working group (or whatever the actual title du jour is) currently redrafting and recodifying Usenet mechanisms for the future, incorporating (largely) best current practise and extensible mechanisms for the future (e.g. introducing new archiving headers, for instance). http://www.landfield.com/usefor/ is a useful archive of most of their work, which is progressing slowly but steadily. With regards new features, a lot of time will be taken to implement these in a wide-spread fashion, but a lot of it is pretty much backwards compatible. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <ahhsc9$t82dt$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> mumbled something about: >In my opinion, the game is more balanced when it's at least as >hard as it is now to burn vampires with agg damage. It seems >clear to me that the original conception of the game involved >usually needing to risk a blood hunt (ie diablerize) if you >wanted to burn vampires by hitting them with aggravated damage, >and to me that feels appropriate: it shouldn't be *too* easy >to burn vampires. It's not even that hard to burn vampires... Influence Lazverinus. Bleed for 3 with Threats, or... play Forced Awakening/Enhanced Senses. Once in combat, play Unflinching Persistence as necessary to catch someone (note incidental prevention! hurrah!). Play Immortal Grapple (if necessary). Play Pushing the Limit. Play Claws of the Dead. Play Taste of Vitae (sometimes). Presto, you gain 2 blood, and your opponent goes POOF! if they had 4 or less. Add occasional Torn Signpost for flavor and more body parts. The neat advantage here is: even if they don't burn, your opponent still goes to torpor. If you don't need to burn them, leave out the Claws. If you're fighting a full 10-cap, you can leave out Pushing the Limit and save yourself the blood. Sure, Fortitude screws that up. But otherwise it'd be too good. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<ZWGyKeKD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <3D3B7717...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> writes: > >Threading is a feature. Period. > > So it should be used properly. Period. I believe his point is that any threaded newsreader (including Google) makes it quite obvious who is being replied to. It can be argued that anyone using a threaded newsreader shouldn't require strict attributation to understand who is saying what. For those using non-threaded newsreader, which just display all messages one after the other, not sorted into threads, attributation and proper quoting is more important. Unfortunately, this isn't a democracy, it's a public forum, and while individuals can complain, other individuals can pretty much do what they want. It is nice if everyone gets along, but it cannot be enforced, and demanding that someone obey the "rules" of an inherantly unruled medium seems a bit futile. JSpektr

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020721231623...@mb-ch.aol.com>... > You are always asking me to cite references and examples - where's yours that > says that Majesty is broken? Majesty is a less powerful card than Skin of > Rock. With Skin of Rock: it does not take my strike (allowing me to "hit" > opposing minion), is playable as much as needed, and does not have as many > counters against it. If we make Majesty cost 1 blood, Skin of Rock must too in > order to maintain balance. I have to take issue with you here. Majesty will stop the following cards: Absorb the Mind Blessing of Durga Syn Blood Fury Blood Rage Blood Sweat Coma Dagon's Call Drain Essence Entombment Exuding Blood Fast Hands Fractured Armament Kraken's Kiss Personal Scourge Shattering Blow Soul Burn Theft of Vitae Tongue of the Serpent Vascular Explosion Weakness Skin of Rock, on the other hand, will not. To me, that makes Majesty a more powerful card. I'm sure you'd much rather play a Majesty than a Skin of Rock after an opposing vampire plays a Coma or Entombment, yes? I don't, however, think Majesty needs to be de-powered. Unfortunately, according to the new preview, it has been. JSpektr JSpektr

Jspektr Wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Along the same argument, I could say that if an opposing minion played Immortal Grapple, then obviously Skin of Rock would be the better card. There will always be cards that supercede and counter other cards. Balance is an issue of a card's effect compared to it's cost in relativity to the other cards. Majesty and Skin of Rock both have similar effects, they are preventive of burning blood from the opposing minion's strikes. However, the cost of Majesty is now greater than Skin of Rock. This puts Skin of Rock "at a higher point of curve" than Majesty. Skin of Rock is now clearly a better card and therefore overpowered. In order to maintain balance with the new Majesty, it must now cost 1 blood. Don't forget that Skin of Rock does not require a strike, is playable as much as needed, and allows one to hit the opposing minion while preventing damage. Majesty does not. Of course, the will always be some card at the top of the curve. Concert Tour is now higher on the curve then the Fifth Tradition. Another thing that bothers me about the new Majesty, is while the S:CE now costs a blood, the untap is free. This puts cards like Freak Drive underpowered, so they must be lowered to costing 0 blood as well. Soon enough, we will have balance! When computer hack cost 1 blood, and does not give the +1 bleed, we will know we have succeded in creating a perfectly balanced game.

Josh Wrote: >The VTES agg damage rule is certainly a little simpler than the >current rule (which isn't exactly the same as the Jyhad rule, >but pretty close). But it also makes agg damage quite a bit more >powerful (in terms of ease of burning vampires) than the current >rule. For example, the Ivory Bow, by itself, could burn vampires >(who were at 0 blood) under the VTES rule. The Ivory Bow is >undercosted at 1 pool even with current agg-damage rules - it's >*way* undercosted with the VTES rule. Likewise, Protean Claws- >type cards are pretty hard to burn vamps with currently; it's a >lot easier under the VTES rule. > >In my opinion, the game is more balanced when it's at least as >hard as it is now to burn vampires with agg damage. It seems >clear to me that the original conception of the game involved >usually needing to risk a blood hunt (ie diablerize) if you >wanted to burn vampires by hitting them with aggravated damage, >and to me that feels appropriate: it shouldn't be *too* easy >to burn vampires. Josh, it certainly is easier to burn vamps with an ivory bow with the V:TES rule, because with the current rule, it is impossible to burn a vamp with just an Ivory Bow. However, I still wouldn't call it just plain easy. The opposing vampire must be at 0 blood, the damage cannot be dodged or prevented, and the opposing minion cannot gain any blood, or the vamp does not burn. You say the Ivory Bow is undercosted. It costs 1 pool, where both Society of Leopold and Anathems do not cost any pool, and can burn vamps without ever getting into combat. Does this mean that we need to wallpaper Society of Leopold and Anathema? No, a simple rule change could restore much balance.

In message <196f2577.02072...@posting.google.com>, jspektr <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: >> So it should be used properly. Period. > >I believe his point is that any threaded newsreader (including Google) >makes it quite obvious who is being replied to. Not when people like Awazzzz break it, it doesn't, no. It is also true that Usenet propagation delays and breakages can cause some articles to go missing. (This is true of most news-servers every once in a while.) As such, citing who you're replying to is most useful - this makes it quick and easy to see, in context, what was written, by whom, when, irrespective of whether an article is available at any given news-server. It is worth bearing in mind that anyone accessing the web through an academic news server or a work news server, during their free time, will often find posts on a 3 day expiry. All it takes is a day off on a Friday or Monday, or a busy day Friday, or whatever, to render threads completely unintelligible if people don't put in some effort with their posts. The idea is to make the life of the reader - which can be hundreds of people - easy, by putting in thirty seconds work yourself. You know what came from where, from whom, and can do it by following-up to the right posts in thirty seconds. Other people don't, and in a busy thread that may be dozens or hundreds of articles to check - including some you haven't read, quite possibly, because in a threaded environment, that may be in a thread dozens of posts away, but someone has decided to cite someone else, in another thread, making a point that followed on from other posts which you haven't read, in order to save themselves about ten seconds work. This generally isn't the best way to make the life of the reader easy. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020723011030...@mb-mp.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Josh, it certainly is easier to burn vamps with an ivory bow with the V:TES >rule, because with the current rule, it is impossible to burn a vamp with just >an Ivory Bow. Correct. When Ivory Bow was designed, it was impossible to burn a vampire with just an Ivory Bow. Irrespective of anything else in combat, the first aggravated point of any packet of damage torporised a vampire. As such, it was utterly impossible to *ever* burn a vampire using an Ivory Bow - the aggravated damage just couldn't burn them, ever. This is how the card was designed. Under current rules, you can combine the Ivory Bow with, say, a source of environmental damage. For instance, a Wolf Companion style retainer (there are an assortment of them). >However, I still wouldn't call it just plain easy. The opposing >vampire must be at 0 blood, the damage cannot be dodged or prevented, and the >opposing minion cannot gain any blood, or the vamp does not burn. The card was balanced, cost-wise, with it being impossible to burn vampires. It can burn vampires, currently, under a difficult set of circumstances, and is still a good card. Why does it need to be made even better? >You say the >Ivory Bow is undercosted. It costs 1 pool, where both Society of Leopold and >Anathems do not cost any pool, and can burn vamps without ever getting into >combat. Does this mean that we need to wallpaper Society of Leopold and >Anathema? You misunderstand how costing works. You also misunderstand how Anathema works. Cost ---- Costing is a combination of *many* factors. Simple pool and blood costs are not the only cost. For example, a minion card may cost 1 pool. Let's take a Vial of Elder Vitae as an example - a card which is playable, without being generally massive. Vial of Elder Vitae takes up 1 slot in your library and 1 slot in your hand before you play it, if you draw it. You may then discard it, or play it. These are pretty much constants across all cards. They form the base of inherent cost. Practically every card has that. Burn Option cards in Bloodlines have a reduced cost in terms of time in hand and discarding - that's what makes them cheaper and more attractive, since they don't take up the same space as standard cards, so if you don't get your scarce bloodline vampire out, you can throw the card very quickly. (Of course, overloading on them will still slow you down, especially if you *do* get the vampire out.) A card may then be costed additionally to 1 pool. It might require a specific clan. This requires having members of a specific clan out, which restricts its use, or makes it more lucky (for instance, in cross- clan decks). For instance, Patronage may be regarded as roughly similar to Vial of Elder Vitae. They both take one action to bring out, and both have transient effects. True, Vial of Elder Vitae's can be kept for later, but it can also be stolen or destroyed (though such things tend to happen by accident, rather than a deck necessarily planning for stealing equipment, unless a meta-game shifts heavily). But Patronage gives you an extra action, which can be fiendishly powerful. A deck may plan around "Well, he's got four vampires, I can block three of the bleeds, and even if it has one last vote I can cope" - and then suddenly find itself with five vampires to deal with. Extra actions are powerful. So the card is restricted with a clan restriction, making it harder to use. It is *also* restricted with an age restriction - you need two vampires out (so a combat deck can cause you problems) and one of them needs to be older than the other (less problematic, if you have two out, nine times out of ten). And is only playable once per turn. The effect is powerful, but the cost becomes more than just the pool cost, and so the card is roughly balanced. Other similar and varied costs may be employed. For instance, if we look at Treasured Samadji, that's a similar card. 1 pool, equipment. Permanent effect - unlike Vial of Elder Vitae which needs to be burned. However, it's unique (unlike Vial of Elder Vitae, which can be played multiple times) and requires a clan. Anything that requires a vote means you have to bring out lots of vote related resources to pass the vote, or face problems as people vote it down if its not in their interests. Sure, diplomacy is possible - but it's not a guarantee. If your prey is playing the *other* vote deck, it's difficult - they're not going to support you. You have to bring out voting vampires, you have to bring out vote locations (Ventrue HQ and similar), or pack your deck with vote related cards (Awe, Bewitching Oration, whatever), or have lots of goodies to offer other people ("Support this and I'll...") which weakens your deck focus and so on. Master cards work differently. Each card competes for a very limited resource - master phase actions. These are generally in short supply, though an end-game may result in many short, fast turns, as players cautiously advance, leaving defences untapped. The Parthenon is expensive, as are other resources - Anson, Rumours of Gehenna, and so on. Cards compete for master card slots, so can only be played one per turn. Different power levels can be established, as a result, because of this different cost. Clan requirements, uniqueness, pool costs, whatever - they can all be employed too. Anathema -------- Anathema is very specifically combat related. They need to be *in combat* to burn. As a result, your deck will need to be able to survive at least one combat. This is as a specific result of Anathema's card text. As a result, a dedicated combat deck should be able to beat you (because you are having to devote some time to the vote, whilst he is having to devote all his time to the combat), and a lot of combat defence should be able to stall you. (It might not stall other players, who get an advantage, but if the targeted vampire dies, you get some advantage anyway.) One possible option, which I've never seen explored, goes as follows, however. Call Anathema (needs a Prince or Justicar). Call Free States Rant (needs an independent vampire). You can kill a vampire outside of combat. *Then* you go into one combat, and ping them there. Matt Green has done some sterling work in the past with Gratiano and Lucita. The idea of bringing out Gratiano - because his additional vote would work in the sub-referendum, thus guaranteeing a Priscus vote for three, which is a lot in the Free States Rant referendum, which throws everything to cock - and using Lucita to call the Free States Rant vote is well understood. If we bring out Lucita, Gratiano and Marcus Vitel, using Marcus for his Praxis and Fifth Tradition: Horse Brutality/Minion Tap, even if it does get downgraded. Assuming they don't Majesty/Earth Meld/whatever (Immortal Grapple), you can thrown down Darkness Within. And you can get more pool back from the Anathema, to pay for whoever. Hmm.... Anathema is, however, balanced by a number of factors. First of all, it's a vote. Then it needs to be called by a Prince or Justicar - if you can take down that/those Prince(s) or Justicar(s), the vote simply cannot be called. Then the vote needs to pass - if you can play Delaying Tactics, that buggers them for a turn, if you're playing a vote deck, you're going to make life difficult by failing the vote or they're going to have to *really* work to pass it (and remember, they may well be playing some combat in the deck too, so every vote card becomes that little bit harder to get). Then they need to enter combat with that vampire (and even a Rush deck can benefit from the odd Wake or two), which might hard - though they may be using Archon, since they have Princes and Justicars, but then that competes for even more vote tactics. (A few Havens or Bum's Rushes or whatever are likely to still be in such a deck.) Then they have to get you down to zero blood, which may be difficult if you're playing cannily, and have some defence available - Majesty (if you have more than one blood, or it could burn you), Ex Nihilo (difficult), Skin of Rock/Skin of Steel (escapable by using Theft of Vitae or something, but a Tremere vote/rush deck would be difficult, similarly the Assamites would have trouble). And they can still fight back, if they're a combat deck. If you go in to burn them, they can still throw Torn Signposts back at you. Or Horrid Forms. Or .44 Magnums (and then you need to hit them at range) - even better with Concealed Weapon. Or... there are lots of possibilities. And lots of decks are mindful of combat, either actively or defensively, which means it isn't just a walk in the park. No, a combat deck doesn't hold all the aces against Anathema. But Anathema doesn't hold all the aces against a combat deck. They're not supposed to. They're *supposed* to be balanced against one another. And you've stated that combat decks don't need to upgraded, so one assumes that they're roughly balanced. Combat decks get a lot of secondary resource ability. Bleed decks get a lot of primary resource ability. Vote decks can straddle the two, as their composition dictates, but since both primary and secondary resource manipulation will need the same back-up for a vote deck - that of vote passing - but the actual referendum will only need one card, combining heavy primary resource manipulation (Parity Shift, Autarkis Persecution, Ancilla Empowerment, Consanguineous Boon, Kine Resources Contested - that sort of card) with minor secondary resource manipulation (Banishment, Free States Rant (potentially), Sacrifice (ow, my eyes, Derange, ow, ow), Protect Thine Own, Peace Treaty, Disputed Territory), together with some of the just plain screwy vote cards (Kindred Restructure, say) gives it a lot of flexibility. I can't think of a neater way to balance such a game. It's extremely neatly done, as far back as Jyhad - though they didn't predict that combat defence would be quite so prominent with multiple Majesty or multiple Earth Meld (the primary sources of S:CE at the time). But that's been rectified neatly since, with many forms of combat empowering cards. >No, a simple rule change could restore much balance. You haven't demonstrated that balance is missing, to be restored. You have stated: "I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered." This is the very antithesis of what you are arguing. You are arguing that they need to be balanced up, when they aren't underpowered. You have demonstrated that the current rule makes burning vampires harder to do. This is a given, that's what it's designed to do. You haven't demonstrated: - that having vampires harder to burn unbalances combat strategies to be underpowered. You have stated that you "do not think combat decks are underpowered", which is the reverse of this proof. - that re-arranging the aggravated damage rules in the manner you suggest won't break them. Ivory Bow was designed so that it couldn't burn things on its own, which it still can't. Starshell Grenade Launcher was designed with the current rules- set. Improvised Flamethrower was designed with the current rules-set. True Faith was designed with the current rules-set. Sword of the Righteous was designed with the current rules-set. Elemental Stoicism was designed with the current rules-set. Domain of Evernight was designed with the current rules-set. Conflagration was designed with the current rules-set. Concordance was designed with the current rules set. Compress was designed with the current rules-set. Armor of Terra was designed with the current rules-set. Mythic Form was designed with the current rules-set. Ex Nihilo was designed with the current rules set. Masquer was designed with the current rules set. Are you sure that those cards weren't costed, designed, tested and balanced knowing what the current rules set is, and compensating for it in their design? I ask you again: Demonstrate that the current rules set *needs* to be balanced in the fashion you suggest. Demonstrate that balance is missing. Just that burning vampires takes time and effort is not indicative of imbalance, when that's what the rules have been designed for. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020723005625...@mb-mp.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >always be cards that supercede and counter other cards. Balance is an issue of >a card's effect compared to it's cost in relativity to the other cards. This much is correct. However, the rest of your post is the most insane piece of crack-smoking I've seen in a long time. >Majesty and Skin of Rock both have similar effects, Only by the most enormous stretch of imagination. One ends combat, one prevents damage. Their similarity ends at "defensively-oriented combat card", of which there are what, a gazillion or so? >However, the cost of Majesty is now greater >than Skin of Rock. This puts Skin of Rock "at a higher point of >curve" than Majesty. Skin of Rock is now clearly a better card and therefore >overpowered. In order to maintain balance with the new Majesty, it must now This is a bunch of unbelievable horseshit, and it has OBVIOUSLY been carefully contrived to support your pathetically misguided opinions. Let's look at the FACTS, shall we? Skin of Rock's cost: inferior Fortitude, 1 card slot in deck Majesty's cost: inferior Presence, 1 card slot in deck, 1 blood Both cards are relatively "in-discipline" -- Fortitude is a damage-prevention discipline, while Presence effects relate to charm/appearance. Skin of Rock prevents one point of damage. Against almost any deck that is actually trying to hit you, this isn't going to make any difference. In many cases, it is totally worthless and unplayable (theft of vitae, blood sweat, majesty). Yes, that's right -- if someone doesn't hit you, you can't play prevention cards! Majesty ends combat. Against MANY decks trying to hit you, this is going to make all the difference. In a few cases, it is totally worthless and unplayable. It is clear that Majesty's defensive ability is far greater than Skin of Rock's. Therefore, Majesty costing a blood is perfectly appropriate. >cost 1 blood. Don't forget that Skin of Rock does not require a strike, is >playable as much as needed, and allows one to hit the opposing minion while Two false assumptions. You can only play as many Skin of Rock as points of damage you were hit for. If nobody hits you, you jam up on them... because the other false assumption neglects to note that you can play as many as needed, at an ever-increasing cost of "more in your deck". >at the top of the curve. Concert Tour is now higher on the curve then the >Fifth Tradition. More unbelievable, contrived horseshit. Fifth Tradition (rumored) will restore 4 blood to another vampire IMMEDIATELY, at a cost of 1 blood, requiring a Prince/Justicar, of which there are 34 known with more on the way. Concert Tour will restore the acting vampire fully, on its next untap, at a cost of 1 blood, requiring a Daughter of Cacophony, of which there are only 5. HOWEVER, only one Daughter can actually gain more blood with Concert Tour than with Fifth Tradition -- this is Gael Pilet, who can gain a whole *5* blood. It is obvious that 5th Tradition currently is, and will remain, significantly more useful than Concert Tour. For further comparison, we examine Renewed Vigor, which provides functionality equivalent to Fifth Tradition, except it fills the vampire up completely. Renewed Vigor can only be played by 2 vampires in the entire game, both of whom are scarce and therefore cannot easily be in play at the same time. Fifth Tradition is still SLIGHTLY better than Renewed Vigor, due to the large risk of contesting and/or running up against the "scarce" rule! >Another thing that bothers me about the new Majesty, is while the S:CE now >costs a blood, the untap is free. This puts cards like Freak Drive >underpowered, so they must be lowered to costing 0 blood as well. Soon Majesty superior: burn one blood to untap, only in combat, and if you didn't get killed in the combat Freak Drive superior: burn one blood to untap after an action. Nobody can deny that it is far easier to take an action than it is to successfully enter AND survive combat. >give the +1 bleed, we will know we have succeded in creating a perfectly >balanced game. Sam, we appreciate your efforts to confuse the issue and make a lot of pointless noise, but really, it would be very nice if you'd actually bother to learn something about the game first. You claim to have been around, but frankly, you don't seem to really understand jack shit about what you're speaking of. I know several new players who manage to understand more than you do. If you're going to attempt to make "logical" arguments, then I suggest avoiding hyperbole and hysteria. They really detract from the semblance of crushing logic that you have totally failed to display for us. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Along the same argument, I could say that if an opposing minion played Immortal > Grapple, then obviously Skin of Rock would be the better card. There will > always be cards that supercede and counter other cards. Balance is an issue of > a card's effect compared to it's cost in relativity to the other cards. > Majesty and Skin of Rock both have similar effects, they are preventive of > burning blood from the opposing minion's strikes. However, the cost of Majesty > is now greater than Skin of Rock. This puts Skin of Rock "at a higher point of > curve" than Majesty. Skin of Rock is now clearly a better card and therefore > overpowered. In order to maintain balance with the new Majesty, it must now > cost 1 blood. Don't forget that Skin of Rock does not require a strike, is > playable as much as needed, and allows one to hit the opposing minion while > preventing damage. Majesty does not. I would say that you are incorrect. Skin of Rock at inferior only prevents one point of damage only in combat (therefore is not played as much as needed as it is often needed outside of combat) where the net effect of Majesty is to prevent all the damage, which effectively equals Skin of Steel which also costs a blood. So there is some parity here. Of course, the will always be some card > at the top of the curve. Concert Tour is now higher on the curve then the > Fifth Tradition. Except that Concert Tour has to be played on the acting vampire and Fifth has to be played on another vampire. Also Concert Tour is only playable by a Daughter of Cacophony, of which, the largest is a six. So the maximum net gain with out increasing the capacity of the DoC or Clan Impersonation is 5. Also you have to wait until your next untap phase to gain the blood, which means that you can't use it in the middle of a bunch of Freak Drives to refill and continue Freak Driving. There are only 5 Daughters of Cacophony and they all have the same core disciplines with the exception of ani and chi. Where as, there are currently 33 Princes/Justicars and they are a few in every Camrilla Clan which effectively gives you access to all the "core" disciplines of the game to mix it with. > Another thing that bothers me about the new Majesty, is while the S:CE now > costs a blood, the untap is free. Only at superior This puts cards like Freak Drive > underpowered, so they must be lowered to costing 0 blood as well. I think you are intentionally exaggerating, but I will respond. Freak Drive allows you to act multiple times each turn, where as, Magesty only allows you to get blocked Multiple times each turn. That is a signifigant difference. Soon > enough, we will have balance! When computer hack cost 1 blood, and does not > give the +1 bleed, we will know we have succeded in creating a perfectly > balanced game. Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me otherwise. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <20020723011030...@mb-mp.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >opposing minion cannot gain any blood, or the vamp does not burn. You say the >Ivory Bow is undercosted. It costs 1 pool, where both Society of Leopold and >Anathems do not cost any pool, and can burn vamps without ever getting into >combat. Does this mean that we need to wallpaper Society of Leopold and >Anathema? No, a simple rule change could restore much balance. More contrived stupidity from our latest dipshit. Society of Leopold is a unique Master card, requiring a Master Phase Action -- something that is roughly equivalent to one pool. (could have played Ascendance instead). Anathema is a political action requiring a Prince/Justicar that must be passed as well as called... and unfortunately for you, someone STILL has to enter combat with the Anathema'd minion in order to burn it. Neither Society of Leopold nor Anathema will send vampires to torpor, whereas the Ivory Bow will. However, the Ivory Bow can be equipped by any minion, including Smudge. See the balance? Simply put, though, the primary reason to not make vampires easier to burn is that it adds that much more risk to playing large vampires. The game is already excessively weenie-riffic; we don't need to push it any more in that direction. Consider whether it's worse to get one of five 2-caps burned, or your single 10-cap? Right first try. Going back to the V:TES rules simply makes it far less worthwhile to even TRY to play with big vamps, because the weenie hordes will get you every time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <evd%8.144279$JU3.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, XZealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes: >Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me otherwise. He won't. :( He's king of soundbites which all sound cool, but won't sit down and work through theory and practice. :( This is a pity, as I'd really like to see someone who *can* do that sit down and challenge various points of status quo, honestly and with motivation, rather than someone (me, Legbiter, Lasombra, Halcyan, Xian, Derek, Noal, yourself, whoever) being appointed Devil's advocate. Proper, theoretically robust debate is a *good* thing, it keeps you on your toes. Going over the same soundbites or presenting the same arguments again (a la the periodic "I've got a great new idea about this card limit thing") doesn't, it just forces people into repetitive ways of thinking. (Which is why I've left a day or two on some of the posts, so that I don't just repeat everything I wrote in the last one, in new and different ways.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020723011030...@mb-mp.aol.com... > > Josh, it certainly is easier to burn vamps with an ivory bow with the > V:TES rule, because with the current rule, it is impossible to burn a > vamp with just an Ivory Bow. However, I still wouldn't call it just > plain easy. The opposing vampire must be at 0 blood, the damage cannot > be dodged or prevented, and the opposing minion cannot gain any blood, > or the vamp does not burn. You say the Ivory Bow is undercosted. It > costs 1 pool, where both Society of Leopold and Anathems do not cost > any pool, and can burn vamps without ever getting into combat. Does > this mean that we need to wallpaper Society of Leopold and Anathema? > No, a simple rule change could restore much balance. But it looks to me like balance already exists. Society of Leopold and Anathema have their own compensating drawbacks: Society will only burn an empty vampire if played while it's empty; otherwise it just burns one blood each turn and the card might get moved to another vampire (quite possibly one of your own vamps). Anathema requires passing a vote, and then to burn a vampire you also have to reduce the Anathematized vamp to 0 blood in combat. Ivory Bow, once in play, lets you send vamps to torpor (which generally costs them 2 blood) each time you get in combat, and the possibility of burning empty vamps will exist for the entire game. Aggravated damage is by no means weak with the current agg damage rules. As such, I see no reason to change it. Josh ivory bowman

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<3omZF2qB...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > (Which is why I've left a day or two on some of the posts, > so that I don't just repeat everything I wrote in the last one, in new > and different ways.) That's how Peter argues, and it seems to work okay. :) I think what we need to do is elect Josh the Devil's Advocate, and pay him to challenge the status quo. (One of the side benefits here being that I would get to taunt him more.) Xian ...except for that whole CL thing, way back when...

In message <dbc1153.02072...@posting.google.com>, Xian <xb...@qwest.net> writes: >I think what we need to do is elect Josh the Devil's Advocate, and pay >him to challenge the status quo. (One of the side benefits here being >that I would get to taunt him more.) Can I be the crotchety evil one in the corner, who just says "I told you so" occasionally? Oh, hang about, I already do that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hello all, again I am putting responses to multiple messages in the same post. If you don't like it, well then I'm sorry. But when 3 people all respond all at 7am PDT, what can I do. However, I will quote everyone this time. Thank you for listening. Derek Ray Said: <lunqjukhn6i3s5r5k...@4ax.com >>This much is correct (my views on the definition of card balance). However, the rest of your post is the most insane piece of crack-smoking I've seen in a long time. >>(Majesty and Skin of Rock Have similar effects) Only by the most enormous stretch of imagination. One ends combat, one prevents damage. Their similarity ends at "defensively-oriented combat card", of which there are what, a gazillion or so? I'm not going to deny it. The things I say are pretty insane - I mean having to pay 1 blood to prevent 1 damage is silly, not having to pay to untap is silly. But just as silly is the recosting of Majesty. Rebalancing one card effects the balance of the game as a whole. If not having to pay to untap is silly, then the New Majesty is silly. If having to burn a blood to prevent a damage is silly, then playing majesty for effects less than two is now silly. Basically, if you make 1 S:CE card cost 1 blood, all S:CE cards must cost 1 blood. If S:CE is less viable than damage prevention, then there is a balance problem. I already think that Fortitude RULES!! This is debatable of course, but in my own experience, my 3cap fortitude weenie deck does better than my 3cap presence deck, or my 3cap obfuscate deck. Basically, in the other two decks, my vamps run out of blood for whatever reason and wind up hunting or in torpor, while with a stack of Skin of Rock, my vamps never go down and continue to sweep across the table. Again, this is debatable. Derek Ray Said: >>This is a bunch of unbelievable horseshit, and it has OBVIOUSLY been carefully contrived to support your pathetically misguided opinions. Let's look at the FACTS, shall we? Skin of Rock's cost: inferior Fortitude, 1 card slot in deck Majesty's cost: inferior Presence, 1 card slot in deck, 1 blood. Both cards are relatively "in-discipline" -- Fortitude is a damage-prevention discipline, while Presence effects relate to charm/appearance. Skin of Rock prevents one point of damage. Against almost any deck that is actually trying to hit you, this isn't going to make any difference. In many cases, it is totally worthless and unplayable (theft of vitae, blood sweat, majesty). Yes, that's right -- if someone doesn't hit you, you can't play prevention cards! Majesty ends combat. Against MANY decks trying to hit you, this is going to make all the difference. In a few cases, it is totally worthless and unplayable. I know it sounds crazy - rebalancing cards is crazy. And while unarguably has been carefully contrived to support my pathetic opinions, I am afraid that it isn't horseshit. Rebalancing one card has numerous effect on the balance of the game as a whole. Now check this out, ALL cards have the cost of a slot in the deck. Some cards are more playable than others, and therefore you use more slots with those cards. Now, If one is controlling the acting minion who goes into combat - which would you rather play - a Majesty that costs 1 blood and counters nothing because the opposing minion hasn't declared a strike yet, or Skin of Rock which allows you to hit your opponent see what he is going to do and prevent it? Derek Said: >>You can only play as many Skin of Rock as points of damage you were hit for. If nobody hits you, you jam up on them... because the other false assumption neglects to note that you can play as many as needed, at an ever-increasing cost of "more in your deck". If I am not taking any damage, then I'd say my deck is doing what it is supposed to do. Now Majesty one might have to play as an acting minion without drawing the other person's strike card from their hand - thereby making a player put more of the in the deck - and just to delay the strike's play. Derek Wrote: More unbelievable, contrived horseshit. Fifth Tradition (rumored) will restore 4 blood to another vampire IMMEDIATELY, at a cost of 1 blood, requiring a Prince/Justicar, of which there are 34 known with more on the way. Concert Tour will restore the acting vampire fully, on its next untap, at a cost of 1 blood, requiring a Daughter of Cacophony, of which there are only 5. HOWEVER, only one Daughter can actually gain more blood with Concert Tour than with Fifth Tradition -- this is Gael Pilet, who can gain a whole *5* blood. It is obvious that 5th Tradition currently is, and will remain, significantly more useful than Concert Tour. For further comparison, we examine Renewed Vigor, which provides functionality equivalent to Fifth Tradition, except it fills the vampire up completely. Renewed Vigor can only be played by 2 vampires in the entire game, both of whom are scarce and therefore cannot easily be in play at the same time. Fifth Tradition is still SLIGHTLY better than Renewed Vigor, due to the large risk of contesting and/or running up against the "scarce" rule! Just because there are less vampires that can play a broken card, does not make it less broken. For example, I can have Arika impersonate a Salubri and play Renewed Vigor. Derek Said: >>Majesty superior: burn one blood to untap, only in combat, and if you didn't get killed in the combat Freak Drive superior: burn one blood to untap after an action. Nobody can deny that it is far easier to take an action than it is to successfully enter AND survive combat. Sure, the circumstances are different, but the effect is the same. The vampire untaps. Untapping always cost a blood before, but now we have a card that "untaps for free." This results in an imbalance of the untapping effect. If my vampire has PRE and is playing Majesty - there is no reason not to untap - it is free. If I control a vamp with FOR and have a Freak Drive in my hand, I might not play it because I can't or won't pay the cost right now. Derek Wrote: >>Sam, we appreciate your efforts to confuse the issue and make a lot of pointless noise, but really, it would be very nice if you'd actually bother to learn something about the game first. You claim to have been around, but frankly, you don't seem to really understand jack shit about what you're speaking of. I know several new players who manage to understand more than you do. If you're going to attempt to make "logical" arguments, then I suggest avoiding hyperbole and hysteria. They really detract from the semblance of crushing logic that you have totally failed to display for us. Derek, I know the point I bring up are far fetched, but I do back them up with logical arguments. I use hysteria as propoganda (after all I am trying to encourage players away from CE), but the relevant points are brought up. Rebalancing a card will have consequences on the total balance of a game, and yes, sometimes these consequences are more insane than we want to face. This is the end of my response to Derek's post. Archon of the swamp wrote: Message-id: evd%8.144279$JU3.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com >>I would say that you are incorrect. Skin of Rock at inferior only prevents one point of damage only in combat (therefore is not played as much as needed as it is often needed outside of combat) where the net effect of Majesty is to prevent all the damage, which effectively equals Skin of Steel which also costs a blood. So there is some parity here. Well, you can't play Majesty out of combat either. V:TES is a game where cards in hand are instantly replaced (unless otherwise noted on card). If I play a Skin of Rock, I can continue to draw cards and play additional skins of rock. There is no limit as to how many Skins of Rock in a deck (well up to 90, the whole deck.) This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. Majesty requires a strike, so I cannot play another one until I get another strike. Majesty cannot be used offensively, where Skin of Rock allows me to play pulled fangs. >>I think you are intentionally exaggerating, but I will respond. Freak Drive allows you to act multiple times each turn, where as, Magesty only allows you to get blocked Multiple times each turn. That is a signifigant difference. I am intentionally exaggerating, I feel it helps me prove my points about rewording, recosting, rebalancing, and otherwise wallpapering cards. But thank you for bringing up this point. Are you saying that Untapping inside of combat should be free and untapping outside of combat should cost 1 blood? Since untapping inside of combat is free, can we make a Celerity card that costs 1 blood and says This vampire gains an additional strike - untap this vampire; as above but with 2 additional strikes? Archon of the Swamp wrote: >>Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me otherwise. Well, computer hack does not cost a blood, nor does it require a clan, title, or discipline. The only costs are a card slot in the deck, and not being able to replace it until after its resolution. Other cards with the sam effect have greater requirements. Besides, we're not just wallpapering broken cards anymore, all it takes is a card to move to the "top of the usage curve." I have seen Computer hack used a lot in tournaments. This is the end of my responses to Archon of the Swamp's post

In message <20020723183018...@mb-mb.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >Hello all, again I am putting responses to multiple messages in the same post. >If you don't like it, well then I'm sorry. And following up to entirely the wrong one. Again. Shall I come round to your house at 3 in the morning and blare music out loud because it suits me, rather than respecting standards and conventions? Or are you just so important that everyone has to dance to your tune? Hint: every time you do this, you make yourself look more and more like "This is how I do it. If you don't like it, sod off because I'm more important than you. Yeah, I know I could spend thirty seconds fixing this, but I'm too busy right now so you lot can all spend time sorting it out for me. Isn't that jolly?" When you *want* change to occur, the best way to do it is to invest that extra thirty seconds so that other people don't have to. If you continue ignoring this, I will have to conclude that what you actually want to do is ignore standards and conventions, annoy people and make yourself look extremely selfish in the process, because you can't be arsed to spend thirty seconds with a news-reader fixing what will take other people time and effort to sort out. This may be a bad thing. It is likely to make your arguments attract less positive comments, as people associate them with your anti-social behaviour. (Hint: You might not care who wrote what. Other people do. People accumulate reputations. That's why LSJ's posts have always been so authoritative - because he has a reputation. This is why your posts will be dismissed - because you will develop a reputation.) You have already had people point this out to you. This is *FREE CLUE*. Free clue is good. Actually paying attention to it is even better. Why not just spend an extra thirty seconds following up to the right posts? Are you *really* that important that you can just re-write Usenet to suit yourself? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<im68GtDx...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <196f2577.02072...@posting.google.com>, jspektr > <jsp...@sprynet.com> writes: > >> So it should be used properly. Period. > > > >I believe his point is that any threaded newsreader (including Google) > >makes it quite obvious who is being replied to. > The idea is to make the life of the reader - which can be hundreds of > people - easy, by putting in thirty seconds work yourself. You know I don't disagree with that at all. I'm merely pointing out that for anyone with web access, many of the factors you bring up are moot. Google archives almost all (it misses a few, but rarely, at least in my experience) messages on Usenet back by more than a decade, and it threads them in a format that makes it very easy to tell who said what and what is being replied to, regardless of proper attribution or the lack thereof. Do I think that is a good reason to abandon attribution and proper quoting? Not necessarily, no. But I also understand why some people think it's unecessary, because to them *it is.* Perhaps the question is: how many people accessing Usenet don't have web access or a graphical browser? Is it really that large a number? If pretty much everyone has access to Google, then this shouldn't be an issue, should it? JSpektr

In message, <ogpqju8r38r166h4m...@4ax.com> Derek Ray writes: >>More contrived stupidity from our latest dipshit. Look, Derek, just because I am not afraid to take on controversial issues does not make me a dip. Are you sure you want to be insulting someone you have never met? >>Society of Leopold is a unique Master card, requiring a Master Phase Action -- something that is roughly equivalent to one pool. (could have played Ascendance instead). This is asinine reasoning. Just because I could gain 4 blood with a Fifth Tradition, does that make evey action card worth 4 blood? >>Anathema is a political action requiring a Prince/Justicar that must be passed as well as called... and unfortunately for you, someone STILL has to enter combat with the Anathema'd minion in order to burn it. That's all true, but not only does one burn a vampire with anathema, they also gain pool equal to its capacity. Ivory Bow cannot burn a vampire, cannot gain you any pool, and cost 1 pool. >>Neither Society of Leopold nor Anathema will send vampires to torpor, whereas the Ivory Bow will. This reasoning is so asinine, one might think I said it. Burning a vamp is better tha sending it to torpor. >>However, the Ivory Bow can be equipped by any minion, including Smudge. See the balance? I can also make smudge a Prince and call anathema. >>Simply put, though, the primary reason to not make vampires easier to burn is that it adds that much more risk to playing large vampires. The game is already excessively weenie-riffic; we don't need to push it any more in that direction. I agree that the bigger vampires should remain more powerful than the weenines. However, a big vamp is less likely to burn than a weenie with this rule, because it comes into play with more blood on it. >>Consider whether it's worse to get one of five 2-caps burned, or your single 10-cap? Right first try. Going back to the V:TES rules simply makes it far less worthwhile to even TRY to play with big vamps, because the weenie hordes will get you every time. I played with the V:TES rule during the V:TES days, I was able to play with big vamps just fine.

Josh Wrote in message: <ahjs7t$rrn7t$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de> >>But it looks to me like balance already exists. Society of Leopold and Anathema have their own compensating drawbacks: Society will only burn an empty vampire if played while it's empty; otherwise it just burns one blood each turn and the card might get moved to another vampire (quite possibly one of your own vamps). Anathema requires passing a vote, and then to burn a vampire you also have to reduce the Anathematized vamp to 0 blood in combat. Under the proposed rule change, Ivory Bow would also burn a vamp only when it was at 0 blood. >>Ivory Bow, once in play, lets you send vamps to torpor (which generally costs them 2 blood) each time you get in combat, and the possibility of burning empty vamps will exist for the entire game. Aggravated damage is by no means weak with the current agg damage rules. As such, I see no reason to change it. Josh, I never said agg was weak. I just think that it would be better as a higher cost/effect. I don't think that this rule change would harm the game's balance - Ivory Bow still cost the same in the V:TES days. Anyways, I completely respect your opinion Josh. You are a fine Usenetter. Sam

James Coupe ja...@zephyr.org.uk takes time out of his busy day to write in message: Date: 7/23/02 4:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: <aS9y7YLu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk> >>When Ivory Bow was designed, it was impossible to burn a vampire with just an Ivory Bow. Irrespective of anything else in combat, the first aggravated point of any packet of damage torporised a vampire. As such, it was utterly impossible to *ever* burn a vampire using an Ivory Bow - the aggravated damage just couldn't burn them, ever. This is how the card was designed. Under current rules, you can combine the Ivory Bow with, say, a source of environmental damage. For instance, a Wolf Companion style retainer (there are an assortment of them). The card was balanced, cost-wise, with it being impossible to burn vampires. It can burn vampires, currently, under a difficult set of circumstances, and is still a good card. Why does it need to be made even better? It is not just Ivory Bow that will be made better by the proposed rule change, but all cards with agg damage. These cards, as you say, can burn vampires under a difficult set of circumstances. But, I am not sure the set of circumstances described would actually burn a vampire. The environmental damage would be normal damage - it does not become agg. You need 2 points of agg to burn a vampire, therefore under these circumstances it is still not possible to burn an opposing minion with an Ivory Bow. Still, with the right cards - it should still be possible - ivory bow, ghoul retainer, starshell grenede launcher. All together this combo costs 5 pool. Anathema does not cost any pool. >>You misunderstand how costing works. You also misunderstand how Anathema works. >>Cost - Costing is a combination of *many* factors. Simple pool and blood costs are not the only cost. For example, a minion card may cost 1 pool. Let's take a Vial of Elder Vitae as an example - a card which is playable, without being generally massive. Vial of Elder Vitae takes up 1 slot in your library and 1 slot in your hand before you play it, if you draw it. You may then discard it, or play it. These are pretty much constants across all cards. They form the base of inherent cost. Practically every card has that. Burn Option cards in Bloodlines have a reduced cost in terms of time in hand and discarding - that's what makes them cheaper and more attractive, since they don't take up the same space as standard cards, so if you don't get your scarce bloodline vampire out, you can throw the card very quickly. (Of course, overloading on them will still slow you down, especially if you *do* get the vampire out.) James, you are right, all non-burn-option cards have this cost. Therefore it creates no balance issue. >>A card may then be costed additionally to 1 pool. Or more than 1 pool. >>It might require a specific clan. This requires having members of a specific clan out, which restricts its use, or makes it more lucky (for instance, in cross-clan decks). For instance, Patronage may be regarded as roughly similar to Vial of Elder Vitae. They both take one action to bring out, and both have transient effects. True, Vial of Elder Vitae's can be kept for later, but it can also be stolen or destroyed (though such things tend to happen by accident, rather than a deck necessarily planning for stealing equipment, unless a meta-game shifts heavily). But Patronage gives you an extra action, which can be fiendishly powerful. A deck may plan around "Well, he's got four vampires, I can block three of the bleeds, and even if it has one last vote I can cope" - and then suddenly find itself with five vampires to deal with. Extra actions are powerful. So the card is restricted with a clan restriction, making it harder to use. It is *also* restricted with an age restriction - you need two vampires out (so a combat deck can cause you problems) and one of them needs to be older than the other (less problematic, if you have two out, nine times out of ten). And is only playable once per turn. The effect is powerful, but the cost becomes more than just the pool cost, and so the card is roughly balanced. Other similar and varied costs may be employed. James, of course there are other costs besides pool costs. The Ivory Bow has costs beyond it's 1 pool. It requires a card slot, it requires an action (or another card) to bring into play, combat must occur, other cards must be added to it for it to burn a vampire. >>Anathema is very specifically combat related. They need to be *in combat* to burn. As a result, your deck will need to be able to survive at least one combat. This is as a specific result of Anathema's card text. As a result, a dedicated combat deck should be able to beat you (because you are having to devote some time to the vote, whilst he is having to devote all his time to the combat), and a lot of combat defence should be able to stall you. (It might not stall other players, who get an advantage, but if the targeted vampire dies, you get some advantage anyway.) When you build a deck, you make sure you can provide all the necessary requirements for playing the cards in it. I personally like the Euro-Brujah for Anathema. With Anathema one also gains pool to the vampire's capacity. While it is not guaranteed that the person playing anathema is going to get this pool, their deck will probably be designed to attempt to get it. Maybe someone is playing with a better combat deck than yours, maybe not. At least the deck will be prepared to go to combat and gain the pool. You burn a vampire AND gain pool equal to it's capacity. Ivory Bow has all the same requirements and costs except for the title and vote. It also has the 1 pool cost which Anathema does not. It cannot burn vampires or gain pool. >>No, a combat deck doesn't hold all the aces against Anathema. But Anathema doesn't hold all the aces against a combat deck. They're not supposed to. They're *supposed* to be balanced against one another. And you've stated that combat decks don't need to upgraded, so one assumes that they're roughly balanced. Combat decks get a lot of secondary resource ability. Bleed decks get a lot of primary resource ability. Vote decks can straddle the two, as their composition dictates, but since both primary and secondary resource manipulation will need the same back-up for a vote deck - that of vote passing - but the actual referendum will only need one card, combining heavy primary resource manipulation (Parity Shift, Autarkis Persecution, Ancilla Empowerment, Consanguineous Boon, Kine Resources Contested - that sort of card) with minor secondary resource manipulation (Banishment, Free States Rant (potentially), Sacrifice (ow, my eyes, Derange, ow, ow), Protect Thine Own, Peace Treaty, Disputed Territory), together with some of the just plain screwy vote cards (Kindred Restructure, say) gives it a lot of flexibility. Going after one's secondary resources (vampires) keeps them from going after their prey's primary resource (pool) . This is why I think that the strategies are balanced against each other and combat does not need upgrading. However, decks that attack the secondary resource could be more effective at destroying the secondary resource without harming this balance. One could still protect their secondary resources. This is why combat defense and blood gain is essential to keeping the balance of the strategies. >>I can't think of a neater way to balance such a game. It's extremely neatly done, as far back as Jyhad - though they didn't predict that combat defence would be quite so prominent with multiple Majesty or multiple Earth Meld (the primary sources of S:CE at the time). But that's been rectified neatly since, with many forms of combat empowering cards. V:TES is an extremely balanced game. It is just in the nature of the mechanics alone. Vampires cost pool and transfers. Playing cards and ousting your prey requires vampires. It is such a balanced game that it has maintained the NCL rule, the no-banned policy, and crypt balance. However, some of the cards did not fit into the balance - they were poorly designed. These cards were reworded or recosted to fit into the design. But exact balance is never going to occur. Some cards will always get more tournament play than others. Majesty is a card that has been a staple card in the game since its inception. Since it is one of the first cards - it defines what balance is. It's cost and effect set the pace. It never was out of balance. >>You haven't demonstrated that balance is missing, to be restored. They are rebalancing cards - I don't personally think that balance is mising, but obviously someone does. I think that there must be a better way of restoring a balance issue than recosting or rewording staple cards. >>You have stated: "I personally do not think combat decks are underpowered." This is the very antithesis of what you are arguing. You are arguing that they need to be balanced up, when they aren't underpowered. No James, you have obviously not been listening, Combat decks, in my opinion are not underpowered, and that is not the basis for the proposed rules change. The basis for the rules change is that adding effect to cards that use agg as an effect and adding cost to cards that use agg as a cost would balance them better cost vs. effect when compared with other cards. >>You have demonstrated that the current rule makes burning vampires harder to do. Okay James, whatever >>You haven't demonstrated: - that having vampires harder to burn unbalances combat strategies to be underpowered. You have stated that you "do not think combat decks are underpowered", which is the reverse of this proof. - that re-arranging the aggravated damage rules in the manner you suggest won't break them. I have said that all deck archetypes were still viable when the V:TES rule was in effect. >>Ivory Bow was designed so that it couldn't burn things on its own, which it still can't. Starshell Grenade Launcher was designed with the current rules-set. Improvised Flamethrower was designed with the current rules-set. True Faith was designed with the current rules-set. Sword of the Righteous was designed with the current rules-set. Elemental Stoicism was designed with the current rules-set. Domain of Evernight was designed with the current rules-set. Conflagration was designed with the current rules-set. Concordance was designed with the current rules set. Compress was designed with the current rules-set. Armor of Terra was designed with the current rules-set. Mythic Form was designed with the current rules-set. Ex Nihilo was designed with the current rules set. Masquer was designed with the current rules set. Are you sure that those cards weren't costed, designed, tested and balanced knowing what the current rules set is, and compensating for it in their design? Ahh, finally, someone asks the right question!! Yes, these cards were costed, designed, tested, and balanced in the current rules set. And yes, changing the rule would add to the cost or effect of the card the possibility of burning the vampire, and now that the examples mention it, the possible additional effect of avoiding said burning. I think it would be a change for the better. It would add more exitement and drama to the game. And would not deter from the balance of the game. The possibility that one's vamp might burn from playing Daring the Dawn, does not take away from it's effect - it does not wallpaper the card. And while the rule would add to the effect of Ivory Bow without increasing its cost - the card would still not be broken. >>I ask you again: Demonstrate that the current rules set *needs* to be balanced in the fashion you suggest. Demonstrate that balance is missing. Just that burning vampires takes time and effort is not indicative of imbalance, when that's what the rules have been designed for. There are cards that can burn vamps (ie anathema, society of leopold) that can burn vamps with little cost. Agg damage is never free and cannot burn a vamp without being added to.

who cares the cards are cool or not cool end of story if you think they are too cheap use them if not don't I have never used an Ivory bow because I ain't fortutunate enough to posess one. Niko "Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020724033015...@mb-fz.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

In message <ogpqju8r38r166h4m...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >Society of Leopold is a unique Master card, requiring a Master Phase >Action -- something that is roughly equivalent to one pool. (could have >played Ascendance instead). I tend to prefer Blood Doll as my basic reference for a lot of master cards. Or potentially Minion Tap - since Blood Doll and Minion Tap are effectively the right card for slightly different decks. Throw in Tribute to the Master, too. It's not, then, quite so simple to say "1 pool", for which Ascendance is extremely useful, but it tends to represent the cost a little better - for which I'd tend to say that Blood Doll (etc.) is better than Ascendance and so slightly more than 1 pool for the playing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020724014111...@mb-fz.aol.com... > In message, <ogpqju8r38r166h4m...@4ax.com> Derek Ray writes: > > >>More contrived stupidity from our latest dipshit. > [snip] > Are you sure you want to be insulting someone you have never met? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Xian ...amused...

In message <20020724014111...@mb-fz.aol.com>, awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) mumbled something about: >In message, <ogpqju8r38r166h4m...@4ax.com> Derek Ray writes: > >>>More contrived stupidity from our latest dipshit. > >Look, Derek, just because I am not afraid to take on controversial issues does >not make me a dip. Are you sure you want to be insulting someone you have >never met? Yes, absolutely. I've insulted a large number of people in the past whom I've never met, and I am 100% certain that there is no good reason for you to be the exception. In fact, I'm about 110% certain, because you REALLY NEED to be told off as the ignoramus you are. There, I did it again. Your move. >>>Society of Leopold is a unique Master card, requiring a Master Phase >Action -- something that is roughly equivalent to one pool. (could have >played Ascendance instead). > >This is asinine reasoning. Just because I could gain 4 blood with a Fifth >Tradition, does that make evey action card worth 4 blood? No. However, action cards are not as easily baselined as Master Phase Actions are. You can only have one MPA a turn, barring a small number of special effects that change that. There is an MPA that is free and gains you one pool, and is almost never seen because there are many other cards that are better. Therefore it makes a suitable baseline; "how does this card compare to Ascendance?" Baselining an action is much more complicated, since there could be a multiple of said actions per turn, and it will be constantly changing. However, there are a certain number of "default" actions any minion can take, and baselining against THOSE is perfectly viable: hunt and bleed. So we can add the baseline for actions and action cards as follows; "how does this action compare to hunting and/or bleeding for 1?" In this case, 5th Tradition compares quite favorably to hunting. >>>Anathema is a political action requiring a Prince/Justicar that must be >passed as well as called... and unfortunately for you, someone STILL has >to enter combat with the Anathema'd minion in order to burn it. > >That's all true, but not only does one burn a vampire with anathema, they also >gain pool equal to its capacity. Ivory Bow cannot burn a vampire, cannot gain >you any pool, and cost 1 pool. Right, but it's not just the person who called the Anathema who can gain the pool. That provides a sufficient element of risk to balance (not to mention the three separate requirements you must meet in order to even burn an Anathema'd vamp). >>>Neither Society of Leopold nor Anathema will send vampires to torpor, >whereas the Ivory Bow will. > >This reasoning is so asinine, one might think I said it. Burning a vamp is >better tha sending it to torpor. Now, now, Sammy boy, you're missing some very obvious points here. Burning a vamp may be better than sending it to torpor, but the Ivory Bow will send to torpor vamps that it CANNOT burn. Society of Leopold and Anathema will not do this -- meaning that a vamp you target with SoL or Anathema and don't burn is still around to take actions against you, or block, or Deflect, or... It's a very important distinction -- have you played the game recently? >>>However, the Ivory Bow can be equipped by any minion, including Smudge. >See the balance? > >I can also make smudge a Prince and call anathema. Requires a Praxis: Seizure card in your deck, and also requires some means of passing the vote with Smudge -- not quite as easy as you think. Smudge equipping the Ivory Bow, though, is still only a 1-card cost in your deck. >>>Simply put, though, the primary reason to not make vampires easier to >burn is that it adds that much more risk to playing large vampires. The >game is already excessively weenie-riffic; we don't need to push it any >more in that direction. > >I agree that the bigger vampires should remain more powerful than the weenines. > However, a big vamp is less likely to burn than a weenie with this rule, >because it comes into play with more blood on it. OK, have you actually tried playing the game against competent people? Let me break this down to you in words of two syllables: Amount Of Blood Does Not Matter. Most combat decks are prepared to knock a full 8-cap into torpor. (baseline here; Torn Signpost/Blur) While your full 10-cap can survive it, do you think the 10-cap will remain at full blood the whole game? No, of course not. You'll be spending that blood or Minion Tapping some of it back, because NO 10-cap is worth 10 pool. So much for the "lots of blood = live longer" theory. The problem is, the 10-cap still takes 10 transfers to bring out... so even if you manage to Minion Tap some of the pool cost back before it gets burned, you're still unable to act until you get another target out. >>>Consider whether it's worse to get one of five 2-caps burned, or your >single 10-cap? Right first try. Going back to the V:TES rules simply >makes it far less worthwhile to even TRY to play with big vamps, because >the weenie hordes will get you every time. > >I played with the V:TES rule during the V:TES days, I was able to play with big >vamps just fine. Yeah, but Sam, I don't think you're a competent player, and therefore your "i was able to!!" is going to get discounted. I don't think you ever had to play against weenie POT decks packing Pulled Fangs and burning every vamp they sent to torpor. I don't think you ever watched POT/pro do almost the same thing. And I don't think you ever played with big vamps against strong players who were out to WIN the game and really knew how to do it. When you do, you start to realize just how much of a liability big vampires are, and how much of your deck has to be built around support for them, and making up for the action disadvantage against weenies. Making vampires easier to burn would just make it that much harder for big vamps -- now you have to be SURE they don't hunt, or some weenie with an Ivory Bow (or Claws) and a KRCG is going to toast you. There. I insulted you again. Now what, Sam? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > No. However, action cards are not as easily baselined as Master Phase > Actions are. You can only have one MPA a turn, barring a small number > of special effects that change that. There is an MPA that is free and > gains you one pool, and is almost never seen because there are many > other cards that are better. Therefore it makes a suitable baseline; > "how does this card compare to Ascendance?" > > Baselining an action is much more complicated, since there could be a > multiple of said actions per turn, and it will be constantly changing. > However, there are a certain number of "default" actions any minion can > take, and baselining against THOSE is perfectly viable: hunt and bleed. > So we can add the baseline for actions and action cards as follows; "how > does this action compare to hunting and/or bleeding for 1?" > > In this case, 5th Tradition compares quite favorably to hunting. Baselining a carded action should be done with a carded action. Bleeding at +1 with Computer Hacking, for instance. For blood gain, one might compare equipping with Blood Tears and then burning it, although BT has more flexibility (keep it around until later if you're full or if you want to prevent aggravated damage, for instance) and has the occassional contesting concern (although usually the already-in-play copy would be burned by use during the attempt to equip the new copy, or just before in the case where you control the other copy). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

[ quoted text not captured ] Google has significant problems with its usage. For instance, some people use headers of the form: From: <some...@trap.somewhere.invalid> Reply-to: <a.r...@address.for.this.example> Google won't obey those for replies, unless you go into the original format etc., which isn't terribly useful. Google is very slow. Posts made elsewhere can take hours to turn up. This means that a thread that evolves in a matter of a few hours, with a dozen people taking part, can be delayed hugely. You can't see the responses to your article for another period of time. Google requires you to be online. Downloading news to a local spool and reading it there, offline, can be extremely useful. Since you can set it up to download everything you want at the start, that can happen in a minute or two (or more, depending on how many groups you read) and then disconnect. With Google, you have to be online the whole time. This isn't a cost issue (though that can have an effect) but, for people using modems (as many people still do), this can be tying up their phone line for a significant period of time. Google - because of popular demand (it's notable that it was showing the articles shortly after it bought the spools from Deja, it was showing these posts) - has problems with anyone who uses X-No-Archive which is perfectly valid for all sorts of reasons. Google also won't respect Cancels, which are also valid for all sorts of reasons, but this is becoming increasingly common on servers, due to cancel attacks and the like. You don't get to keep an archive of your own posts, for your own purposes. And so on. Google is perfectly adequate for some usage patterns, but not for other people. Working on a principle of "It works like this on Google" is generally flawed. And even if you're using Google, you still have to work out who's saying what if attributions aren't kept and threading is randomly abused. That doesn't change. It's just the same as using a local spool. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4rdtjuov4rm64a8md...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes: >Making vampires easier to burn would just make it that much harder for >big vamps -- now you have to be SURE they don't hunt Well, we could pull their fangs, if it would help? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3D3EBFB1...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >> In this case, 5th Tradition compares quite favorably to hunting. > >Baselining a carded action should be done with a carded action. >Bleeding at +1 with Computer Hacking, for instance. It depends. There's less of a cost here with library inclusion and discard and time in hand, of course, because it's a cardless action. By virtue of being a cardless action, it's available to all vampires[0] so at any point you can do it. However, they do both compete for the resource of vampire actions. (Primarily vampires, anyway.) Looking at an action from a point of view of "This one is free and I can do it without it costing a library resource" and "This one costs 1 blood, requires a Prince or Justicar and gives me lots of blood" is a useful comparison for many players. As with my thoughts on Delaying Tactics, which go "Am I better off including this or including something else?", the thought of "Will I better off *taking* this action, or using a default action and including Blood Doll/Delaying Tactics/Direct Intervention/Sudden Reversal/Archon Investigation?" isn't an altogether invalid one. [0] Yes, there are restrictions on some vampires or the Blood Curse etc. But talking in general. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Archon of the swamp wrote: Message-id: > evd%8.144279$JU3.60...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com > > >>I would say that you are incorrect. Skin of Rock at inferior only prevents > one point of damage only in combat (therefore is not played as much as needed > as it is often needed outside of combat) where the net effect of Majesty is to > prevent all the damage, which effectively equals Skin of Steel which also costs > a blood. So there is some parity here. > > Well, you can't play Majesty out of combat either. Okay, we agree on this. Combat cards can only be played inside combat, not "playable as needed" as you said in your post. V:TES is a game where cards > in hand are instantly replaced (unless otherwise noted on card). If I play a > Skin of Rock, I can continue to draw cards and play additional skins of rock. > There is no limit as to how many Skins of Rock in a deck (well up to 90, the > whole deck.) That's funny, You are telling me that getting punched for more than you can prevent with one skin of rock is better than playing a majesty and avoiding the strike altogether. Are you a masochist who like to see his minions get the crap pummeled out of them or are you out of your mind? > This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. Only if you have the multiple cards in hand or draw into them as you play them, which is not a given. > Majesty requires a strike, so I cannot play another one until I get another > strike. If you actually play a Majesty then it will resolve before all other strikes whose damage you would have been able to prevent with a Skin of Rock, so therefore it is better Majesty cannot be used offensively, where Skin of Rock allows me to > play pulled fangs. Not if you get hit for six and you only have your one skin of rock. > >>I think you are intentionally exaggerating, but I will respond. Freak Drive > allows you to act multiple times each turn, where as, Magesty only allows you > to get blocked Multiple times each turn. That is a signifigant difference. > > I am intentionally exaggerating, I feel it helps me prove my points about > rewording, recosting, rebalancing, and otherwise wallpapering cards. How has Majesty been wallpapered? Will you never use it again because of a cost of 1 blood? Will you make a spot in your wallpaper collection beside your Phobia's ? But thank > you for bringing up this point. Are you saying that Untapping inside of combat > should be free and untapping outside of combat should cost 1 blood? No, I am not saying that. You are the one saying that since Majesty untaps you only once combat has been instigated and Freak Drive has no such limitation. Since > untapping inside of combat is free, can we make a Celerity card that costs 1 > blood and says This vampire gains an additional strike - untap this vampire; as > above but with 2 additional strikes? That would be vastly overpowered. Your point is ludicrous and non-sensical since Blur costs the same but doesn't do as much. > Archon of the Swamp wrote: > > >>Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me otherwise. > > Well, computer hack does not cost a blood, nor does it require a clan, title, > or discipline. This is true, and there are many other disciplineless cards. The only costs are a card slot in the deck, and not being able > to replace it until after its resolution. Other cards with the sam effect have > greater requirements. Such as what cards? Besides, we're not just wallpapering broken cards > anymore, all it takes is a card to move to the "top of the usage curve." I > have seen Computer hack used a lot in tournaments. So have I, but not nearly the amount of Governs, Legals, or Scouting Missions. So what was your point? [ quoted text not captured ]

archon of the swamp wrote: <i_D%8.7279$Og3.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> >we agree on this. Combat cards can only be played inside combat, not >"playable as needed" as you said in your post. I play them as i need them during combat >That's funny, You are telling me that getting punched for more than you can >prevent with one skin of rock is better than playing a majesty and avoiding >the strike altogether. Are you a masochist who like to see his minions get >the crap pummeled out of them or are you out of your mind? Card for card, majesty has more effect than Skin of Rock. But as an overall strategy, Skin of Rock will win every time. >> This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. > >Only if you have the multiple cards in hand or draw into them as you play >them, which is not a given. > >> Majesty requires a strike, so I cannot play another one until I get >another >> strike. > >If you actually play a Majesty then it will resolve before all other strikes >whose damage you would have been able to prevent with a Skin of Rock, so >therefore it is better If I am the acting minion, I will have to play majesty before my opponent declares his strike - thereby countering nothing. >Majesty cannot be used offensively, where Skin of Rock allows me to >> play pulled fangs. > >Not if you get hit for six and you only have your one skin of rock. > >> >>I think you are intentionally exaggerating, but I will respond. Freak >Drive >> allows you to act multiple times each turn, where as, Magesty only allows >you >> to get blocked Multiple times each turn. That is a signifigant >difference. >> >> I am intentionally exaggerating, I feel it helps me prove my points about >> rewording, recosting, rebalancing, and otherwise wallpapering cards. > >How has Majesty been wallpapered? Will you never use it again because of a >cost of 1 blood? Will you make a spot in your wallpaper collection beside >your Phobia's ? Actually, I am so sick of the rewording, recosting BS that I am probably puuting all my cards in the wallpaper collection. >But thank >> you for bringing up this point. Are you saying that Untapping inside of >combat >> should be free and untapping outside of combat should cost 1 blood? > >No, I am not saying that. You are the one saying that since Majesty untaps >you only once combat has been instigated and Freak Drive has no such >limitation. > > Since >> untapping inside of combat is free, can we make a Celerity card that costs >1 >> blood and says This vampire gains an additional strike - untap this >vampire; as >> above but with 2 additional strikes? > >That would be vastly overpowered. Your point is ludicrous and non-sensical >since Blur costs the same but doesn't do as much. So, if that would be overpowered, then there is something wrong with a free untap in combat. > >> Archon of the Swamp wrote: >> >> >>Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me >otherwise. >> >> Well, computer hack does not cost a blood, nor does it require a clan, >title, >> or discipline. > >This is true, and there are many other disciplineless cards. > >The only costs are a card slot in the deck, and not being able >> to replace it until after its resolution. Other cards with the sam effect >have >> greater requirements. > >Such as what cards? Any similar cards with a higer cost. Concordance requiring serpentis for one. >Besides, we're not just wallpapering broken cards >> anymore, all it takes is a card to move to the "top of the usage curve." >I >> have seen Computer hack used a lot in tournaments. > >So have I, but not nearly the amount of Governs, Legals, or Scouting >Missions. So what was your point? Governs cost 2 blood, Legals cost 1 blood, Scouting missions cost 1 blood. Computer hack costs 0 blood. You see, Mr. Archon, once you wallpaper some cards, then all cards must be wallpapered to retain balance. wallpaper < "the curve" < broken. Since we cannot mainatin cards in the curve, then they must all be recosted into wallpaper in order to have them at an equal cost/effect with the wallpaper cards.

"Awazzzz" <awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20020724170636...@mb-bg.aol.com... > archon of the swamp wrote: > <i_D%8.7279$Og3.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com> > > >we agree on this. Combat cards can only be played inside combat, not > >"playable as needed" as you said in your post. > > I play them as i need them during combat Ah, DURING COMBAT, but not "as needed" outside of combat. You cannot prevent damage from Rutors Hands, Catatonic Fears, or other sources outside of combat. > >That's funny, You are telling me that getting punched for more than you can > >prevent with one skin of rock is better than playing a majesty and avoiding > >the strike altogether. Are you a masochist who like to see his minions get > >the crap pummeled out of them or are you out of your mind? > > Card for card, majesty has more effect than Skin of Rock. But as an overall > strategy, Skin of Rock will win every time. What is this strategy you speak of? Skin of Rock is just a card and a fairly basic one at that. I would go with Majesty weenie presence any day over almost any strategy involving Skin of Rock. > >> This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. > > > >Only if you have the multiple cards in hand or draw into them as you play > >them, which is not a given. > > > >> Majesty requires a strike, so I cannot play another one until I get > >another > >> strike. > > > >If you actually play a Majesty then it will resolve before all other strikes > >whose damage you would have been able to prevent with a Skin of Rock, so > >therefore it is better > > If I am the acting minion, I will have to play majesty before my opponent > declares his strike - thereby countering nothing. Actually your opponent will waste all pre-range and manuever cards, and if you are defending your opponent wastes all pre-range, manuever and strike cards. > >Majesty cannot be used offensively, where Skin of Rock allows me to > >> play pulled fangs. > > > >Not if you get hit for six and you only have your one skin of rock. > > > >> >>I think you are intentionally exaggerating, but I will respond. Freak > >Drive > >> allows you to act multiple times each turn, where as, Magesty only allows > >you > >> to get blocked Multiple times each turn. That is a signifigant > >difference. > >> > >> I am intentionally exaggerating, I feel it helps me prove my points about > >> rewording, recosting, rebalancing, and otherwise wallpapering cards. > > > >How has Majesty been wallpapered? Will you never use it again because of a > >cost of 1 blood? Will you make a spot in your wallpaper collection beside > >your Phobia's ? > > Actually, I am so sick of the rewording, recosting BS that I am probably > puuting all my cards in the wallpaper collection. Oh, I see. Well, at least you will know where to find them. Could you explain that organizational style to me? > >But thank > >> you for bringing up this point. Are you saying that Untapping inside of > >combat > >> should be free and untapping outside of combat should cost 1 blood? > > > >No, I am not saying that. You are the one saying that since Majesty untaps > >you only once combat has been instigated and Freak Drive has no such > >limitation. > > > > Since > >> untapping inside of combat is free, can we make a Celerity card that costs > >1 > >> blood and says This vampire gains an additional strike - untap this > >vampire; as > >> above but with 2 additional strikes? > > > >That would be vastly overpowered. Your point is ludicrous and non-sensical > >since Blur costs the same but doesn't do as much. > > So, if that would be overpowered, then there is something wrong with a free > untap in combat. You're right. There is something wrong with a free untap in combat. > > > >> Archon of the Swamp wrote: > >> > >> >>Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me > >otherwise. > >> > >> Well, computer hack does not cost a blood, nor does it require a clan, > >title, > >> or discipline. > > > >This is true, and there are many other disciplineless cards. > > > >The only costs are a card slot in the deck, and not being able > >> to replace it until after its resolution. Other cards with the sam effect > >have > >> greater requirements. > > > >Such as what cards? > > Any similar cards with a higer cost. Concordance requiring serpentis for one. Concordance is actually a Daimonion card and a whip ass one at that. The outferior is actually a bleed at +1 stealth. You're wrong. Please try again. > >Besides, we're not just wallpapering broken cards > >> anymore, all it takes is a card to move to the "top of the usage curve." > >I > >> have seen Computer hack used a lot in tournaments. > > > >So have I, but not nearly the amount of Governs, Legals, or Scouting > >Missions. So what was your point? > > Governs cost 2 blood, Legals cost 1 blood, Scouting missions cost 1 blood. > Computer hack costs 0 blood. Govern only costs 1 blood but gives +2 bleed and Legal is the same. Scouting mission costs 0 blood. Where do you get your information from? You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? > You see, Mr. Archon, once you wallpaper some cards, then all cards must be > wallpapered to retain balance. wallpaper < "the curve" < broken. Since we > cannot mainatin cards in the curve, then they must all be recosted into > wallpaper in order to have them at an equal cost/effect with the wallpaper > cards. Actually, Mr. Awazzzzzz, your allegations are baseless and have been refuted, once again. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<smI%8.8109$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... > You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? > > > You see, Mr. Archon, once you wallpaper some cards, then all cards must be > > wallpapered to retain balance. wallpaper < "the curve" < broken. Since > we > > cannot mainatin cards in the curve, then they must all be recosted into > > wallpaper in order to have them at an equal cost/effect with the wallpaper > > cards. > > Actually, Mr. Awazzzzzz, your allegations are baseless and have been > refuted, once again. Are you telling that all cards in the game are perfectly balanced against each other? Is the rebalancing going to stop with Cam Ed? Has Majesy been ruining many games for you?

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<smI%8.8109$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... > Ah, DURING COMBAT, but not "as needed" outside of combat. You cannot > prevent damage from Rutors Hands, Catatonic Fears, or other sources outside > of combat. Dude, you have got to be kidding me. You cannot do these things with Majesty either > > What is this strategy you speak of? Skin of Rock is just a card and a > fairly basic one at that. I would go with Majesty weenie presence any day > over almost any strategy involving Skin of Rock. Well, as I have said, with Skin of Rock, you can play it as much as needed (during combat) thereby preventing all the opposing minion's damage, while not taking up one's strike - allowing you t strike at the opposing minion. > > >> This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. > > If I am the acting minion, I will have to play majesty before my opponent > > declares his strike - thereby countering nothing. > > Actually your opponent will waste all pre-range and manuever cards, and if > you are defending your opponent wastes all pre-range, manuever and strike > cards. Ooh, and how much damage will I prevent from pre-range and maneuver cards using Majesty? > > >How has Majesty been wallpapered? Will you never use it again because of > a > > >cost of 1 blood? Will you make a spot in your wallpaper collection > beside > > >your Phobia's ? > > > > Actually, I am so sick of the rewording, recosting BS that I am probably > > puuting all my cards in the wallpaper collection. > > Oh, I see. Well, at least you will know where to find them. Could you > explain that organizational style to me? Well, my current collection of Jyhad cards is difficult to play with the new cards (crypt restrictions, layout changes, and the cards don't do what they say they do) So, I am giving up on this game - but not before I've had my say - this is not my last rant. > You're right. There is something wrong with a free untap in combat. > > > > > > >> Archon of the Swamp wrote: > > >> > > >> >>Ha, Ha, Ha, that's funny. Computer Hack is balanced. Prove me > otherwise. > > >> > > >> Well, computer hack does not cost > > >> greater requirements. > > > > > >Such as what cards? > > > > Any similar cards with a higer cost. Concordance requiring serpentis for > one. > > Concordance is actually a Daimonion card and a whip ass one at that. The > outferior is actually a bleed at +1 stealth. You're wrong. Please try > again. But if you are using serpentis, where does the blood cost come in? With the +1 stealth, the +1 bleed, or the fact that you cannot increase the bleed above one? I can gin the +1 stealth with form of serpent, which is an action modifier, which I can use on a bleed action, or whatever action I want, do not have to play it unless I need it, and does not limit the amount of bleed I can do during the action- clearly a better card for serpentis. > Govern only costs 1 blood but gives +2 bleed and Legal is the same. > Scouting mission costs 0 blood. Where do you get your information from? > You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? Whoops, I'm sorry, I guess that disproves everything I've said. Please disregard this thread.

"Sam" <Awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:a8b0e61c.02072...@posting.google.com... > "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<smI%8.8109$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... > > > You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? > > > > > You see, Mr. Archon, once you wallpaper some cards, then all cards must be > > > wallpapered to retain balance. wallpaper < "the curve" < broken. Since > > we > > > cannot mainatin cards in the curve, then they must all be recosted into > > > wallpaper in order to have them at an equal cost/effect with the wallpaper > > > cards. > > > > Actually, Mr. Awazzzzzz, your allegations are baseless and have been > > refuted, once again. > > Are you telling that all cards in the game are perfectly balanced > against each other? I never made that assertion. That was your assertion. Is the rebalancing going to stop with Cam Ed? I doubt it, since none of the cards for the Gangrel have been printed, but I imagine that the Cam Ed is where you will see most of it end. > Has Majesy been ruining many games for you? Yes, as a matter of fact it has, you see in the beginning back when it was called JYHAD I was a Tremere devotee much like the newsgroup's own beloved Xian. Magesty hosed that clan, wholesale. Then I became a combat junkie, but I had no Immortal Grapples. So majesty ruined that for me again. Then I figured if I couldn't beat them then I would join them. Hence came the monstrosity known as Oblige Noblisse which was a old-style Misdirection, bloat, power-bleed beast which actually stomped the first tournament I ever went to. Hell, I wasn't even that good with it. If you want to see someone play an abusive weenie presence deck, then show up at Dragon Con and get Mike Pearlman to play one of his Presence Weenie specials when you are not expecting it. Majesty just isn't that fun, but it is powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sam" <Awa...@aol.com> wrote in message news:a8b0e61c.0207...@posting.google.com... > "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<smI%8.8109$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... > > > Ah, DURING COMBAT, but not "as needed" outside of combat. You cannot > > prevent damage from Rutors Hands, Catatonic Fears, or other sources outside > > of combat. > > Dude, you have got to be kidding me. You cannot do these things with > Majesty either Obviously, but you stated that you could play Skin of Rock "as needed", you never strike outside of combat so obviously you can't play Majesty, but you do take damage outside of combat, therefore you might want to prevent it, which there is no card that allows you to. > > What is this strategy you speak of? Skin of Rock is just a card and a > > fairly basic one at that. I would go with Majesty weenie presence any day > > over almost any strategy involving Skin of Rock. > > Well, as I have said, with Skin of Rock, you can play it as much as > needed (during combat) thereby preventing all the opposing minion's > damage, while not taking up one's strike - allowing you t strike at > the opposing minion. Also as I have refuted that you can only play the cards which you have in hand. This is not a guarantee with skin of rock. Also striking at the opposing minion is only viable if you intend to actually to do something with it. Does your metagame so completely lack combat that you actually get away with a Skin of Rock/ Pulled Fangs combo on a regular basis? I would like to see that. Where is your playgroup? > > > >> This allows me to prevent as much combat damage as needed. > > > > If I am the acting minion, I will have to play majesty before my opponent > > > declares his strike - thereby countering nothing. > > > > Actually your opponent will waste all pre-range and manuever cards, and if > > you are defending your opponent wastes all pre-range, manuever and strike > > cards. > > Ooh, and how much damage will I prevent from pre-range and maneuver > cards using Majesty? None, in general (Weather Control excepted) pre-range and maneuver cards don't do damage, but they do take up deck space and are therefore finite resources. Majesty makes one waste those resources. Hence, majesty is superior in many respects to Manuever and Pre-Range cards. <snip blah, blah, blah> , my current collection of Jyhad cards is difficult to play with > the new cards (crypt restrictions, layout changes, and the cards don't > do what they say they do) So, I am giving up on this game - but not > before I've had my say - this is not my last rant. Would you like Sorrow's phone number? You two crying ninnies can comiserate with each other. I have never seen you post before 3 or 4 weeks ago. I could care less if you dropped off the face of the Usenet. > > Concordance is actually a Daimonion card and a whip ass one at that. The > > outferior is actually a bleed at +1 stealth. You're wrong. Please try > > again. > > But if you are using serpentis, where does the blood cost come in? > With the +1 stealth, the +1 bleed, or the fact that you cannot > increase the bleed above one? Where the cost comes in is that it is an outferior. The card is a daimonion card. It is designed for bali. The serpentis function is a add on, which creates versatility in the card, which is where the cost comes in. This card does three things, standard serpentis cards only do two. If you use it for the daimonion powers then Concordance kicks ass. If you use it for serpentis then there are better cards out there. Am I getting through to you? I can gin the +1 stealth with form of > serpent, which is an action modifier, which I can use on a bleed > action, or whatever action I want, do not have to play it unless I > need it, and does not limit the amount of bleed I can do during the > action- clearly a better card for serpentis. Wow! thats brillant! Maybe you could use the two together to get +2 stealth with a mono-serpentis deck and avoid all that hypothetical +1 intercept hanging aroung. > > Govern only costs 1 blood but gives +2 bleed and Legal is the same. > > Scouting mission costs 0 blood. Where do you get your information from? > > You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? > > Whoops, I'm sorry, I guess that disproves everything I've said. > Please disregard this thread. Apology accepted, [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020724033015...@mb-fz.aol.com>... >>It is not just Ivory Bow that will be made better by the proposed rule change, but all cards with agg damage. These cards, as you say, can burn vampires under a difficult set of circumstances.<< How is getting a vampire to 0 blood a "difficult set of circumstances"? >>But, I am not sure the set of circumstances described would actually burn a vampire. The environmental damage would be normal damage - it does not become agg. You need 2 points of agg to burn a vampire, therefore under these circumstances it is still not possible to burn an opposing minion with an Ivory Bow.<< If the vampire was at 0 blood, the 1 point of normal/environmental damage would send the vampire to torpor. It also takes 1 damage from the Ivory bow; it must burn a blood to prevent its destruction since it is already on the way to torpor. Having no blood -> poof. >>Still, with the right cards - it should still be possible - ivory bow, ghoul retainer, starshell grenede launcher. All together this combo costs 5 pool. Anathema does not cost any pool.<< I'll work just fine with an Ivory Bow and a Carrion Crows; grand total of 1 pool. >>James, of course there are other costs besides pool costs. The Ivory Bow has costs beyond it's 1 pool. It requires a card slot, it requires an action (or another card) to bring into play, combat must occur, other cards must be added to it for it to burn a vampire.<< These same restrictions apply to your vaunted Anathema, with the additional issue of Anathama requiring a Prince/Justicar and then the passing of a referendum. >>Ivory Bow has all the same requirements and costs except for the title and vote. It also has the 1 pool cost which Anathema does not. It cannot burn vampires or gain pool.<< You are trivializing the "except for the title and vote". The vampire has to have a specific title, it has to take the political action successfully and then make sure the referendum passes. >>Majesty is a card that has been a staple card in the game since its inception. Since it is one of the first cards - it defines what balance is. It's cost and effect set the pace. It never was out of balance.<< The problem is, when Majesty was first designed there were fewer vampires that could use it. Majesty was balanced in the beginning. Now that so many (specifically so many small-capacity) vampires are able to use it to effectively end combat at inferior has put Majesty above the power curve. Think of the card costs involved- beating the hell out of a vampire most often requires several cards. Barring the few specific ways made to combat Strike: Combat Ends (all of which besides Immortal Grapple and Psyche! were from sets after Majesty's initial printing), Majesty only requires one card to negate all that hard work a vampire put into trying to beat the hell out of you. If a card is going to offer that much card and time advantage, it would seem to require a non-renewable cost of some kind. For example, Skin of Steel (like Majesty) can negate several combat cards by preventing all the damage from a strike. Deflection can negate several bleed-related/action modifier cards. Both have a non-renewable cost, to balance this fact so they cannot be as easily cycled. >>The basis for the rules change is that adding effect to cards that use agg as an effect and adding cost to cards that use agg as a cost would balance them better cost vs. effect when compared with other cards.<< Well, Daring the Dawn would instantly become wallpaper compared to Day Operation, since Daring the Dawn would remove 1 blood at superior, and can still be blocked by allies. How is that "balancing better"? Except for a few cornercases where you're having fun with Masochism, Day Operation would be better in every situation. With the current rule, the cards have a comparable drawback- Daring doesn't remove blood from the vamipre at superior, while Day Op always has a cost of 1 blood. Day Op is completely unblockable however. It's a balanced situation. So, I think you need to show that using agg as a cost needs to be "balanced better cost vs. effect". >>I have said that all deck archetypes were still viable when the V:TES rule was in effect.<< Do you have any statistical information to support this claim? >>I think it would be a change for the better. It would add more exitement and drama to the game. And would not deter from the balance of the game.<< It would make combat more "dangerous", I will agree. However, making it more "exciting and dramatic" is completely subjective. For me, staying out of torpor is exciting enough, getting vampires burned constantly would be frustrating and annoying. >>The possibility that one's vamp might burn from playing Daring the Dawn, does not take away from it's effect - it does not wallpaper the card.<< Actually it does, as shown above. Unless you're using Masochism, Day Operation would be a better card in every way. >>And while the rule would add to the effect of Ivory Bow without increasing its cost - the card would still not be broken.<< No, but it would likely hop up to the top of the power curve. While you may feel that this change is more "exciting", it needs to be shown why it is "necessary". Rules changes should not be made lightly and certainly not because it would make one person's time in combat more "exciting". >>There are cards that can burn vamps (ie anathema, society of leopold) that can burn vamps with little cost. Agg damage is never free and cannot burn a vamp without being added to.<< Agg damage most certainly can burn a vampire without being added to: Burning Wrath, Walk of Flame, Breath of the Dragon, Flamethrower, Improvised Flamethrower, Escaped Mental Patient, Dragon's Breath Rounds, Body Flare, Mythic Form, Body of Sun, Taste of Death, Song in the Dark, Blood Agony, Blood of Acid, Body Arsenal, Burst of Sunlight, Compress, Conflaguration, Eruption of Vitae, and a whole mess of melee weapons can burn a vampire without being added to. Several of these cards (Dragon's Breath, Burst, Walk) have no blood or pool costs. They may have opportunity costs, but so do Society and Anathema. -Snapcase

>- New rules question >From: "XZealot" x_ze...@bellsouth.net >Date: 7/25/02 6:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <HsT%8.12842$N> "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message >news:<smI%8.8109$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... >> >> > Ah, DURING COMBAT, but not "as needed" outside of combat. You cannot >> > prevent damage from Rutors Hands, Catatonic Fears, or other sources >outside Yes, during Combat I can play Skin of Rock as needed. >> Dude, you have got to be kidding me. You cannot do these things with >> Majesty either > >Obviously, but you stated that you could play Skin of Rock "as needed", you >never strike outside of combat so obviously you can't play Majesty, but you >do take damage outside of combat, therefore you might want to prevent it, Preventing Damage is also an effect from S:CE. >Also as I have refuted that you can only play the cards which you have in >hand. This is not a guarantee with skin of rock. Also striking at the >opposing minion is only viable if you intend to actually to do something >with it. Does your metagame so completely lack combat that you actually get >away with a Skin of Rock/ Pulled Fangs combo on a regular basis? I would >like to see that. Where is your playgroup? > I live in Denver - home of the anarchs - thanks for asking. Majesty one also cannot play if one does not have it in their hand - ?? >> Ooh, and how much damage will I prevent from pre-range and maneuver >> cards using Majesty? > >None, in general (Weather Control excepted) pre-range and maneuver cards >don't do damage, but they do take up deck space and are therefore finite >resources. Majesty makes one waste those resources. Hence, majesty is >superior in many respects to Manuever and Pre-Range cards. Wrong again - Majesty prevents no damage from Weather Control ><snip blah, blah, blah> > >, my current collection of Jyhad cards is difficult to play with >> the new cards (crypt restrictions, layout changes, and the cards don't >> do what they say they do) So, I am giving up on this game - but not >> before I've had my say - this is not my last rant. > >Would you like Sorrow's phone number? You two crying ninnies can comiserate >with each other. > >I have never seen you post before 3 or 4 weeks ago. I could care less if >you dropped off the face of the Usenet. Just for knowledge, I did extensive ranting durning the 7/7 rulings (as Fantasy15@aol) - in fact I suggested some of the re-rewrites that became the compromise that settled 7/7. After that I did not have much use for posting - I posted once saying - Hey LSJ I am having a lot of fun with SW, FN, BL - thanks a lot!!! Now, I am back, because I feel that CE ruins everything - including SW, FN, & BL. >Where the cost comes in is that it is an outferior. The card is a daimonion >card. It is designed for bali. The serpentis function is a add on, which >creates versatility in the card, which is where the cost comes in. This >card does three things, standard serpentis cards only do two. If you use it >for the daimonion powers then Concordance kicks ass. If you use it for >serpentis then there are better cards out there. How many vamps are there with both serpentis and Daimonion? Putrefecation at the presence level gives a S:CE for 1 blood - just like new majesty - yet it is a tripple card. What we have here is known as a paradox. >Wow! thats brillant! Maybe you could use the two together to get +2 stealth >with a mono-serpentis deck and avoid all that hypothetical +1 intercept >hanging aroung. Yes, but as you have said, this requires more card slots and the other card to be in your hand which, you cannot count on. >> > You can't even read a card. How can you read a computer screen? >> >> Whoops, I'm sorry, I guess that disproves everything I've said. >> Please disregard this thread. > >Apology accepted, Thank you

Awazzzz wrote: > Preventing Damage is also an effect from S:CE. S:CE doesn't prevent damage. It ends combat before damage from a strike (or other "during strike resolution effect") can be inflicted. [ quoted text not captured ]

>The problem is, when Majesty was first designed there were fewer >vampires that could use it. Majesty was balanced in the beginning. >Now that so many (specifically so many small-capacity) vampires are >able to use it to effectively end combat at inferior has put Majesty >above the power curve. This is BS. There are more minions who can play Skin of Rock now too, does this put it higher on the power curve? >With the current >rule, the cards have a comparable drawback- Daring doesn't remove >blood from the vamipre at superior, while Day Op always has a cost of >1 blood. Day Op is completely unblockable however. It's a balanced >situation This is also BS. The ally drawback is minimal. Daring the Dawn should cost (at least) 1 blood to play, and alos the possibilty of burning from it. Daring the Dawn was created under the V:TES rule - and it is no longer balanced in the game. >>>I have said that all deck archetypes were still viable when the >V:TES rule was >in effect.<< > >Do you have any statistical information to support this claim? No, there is no way I am doing a tournament archive report to prove that I could win with a sneek bleed, combat, corruption counter, whatever deck back then and I still can now. I'm sure the percentages have changed, but the game has never been completely broken. >No, but it would likely hop up to the top of the power curv Look, there will never be true balance in the game - there will always be a "top of the curve" > >Agg damage most certainly can burn a vampire without being added to: >Burning Wrath, Walk of Flame, Breath of the Dragon, Flamethrower, >Improvised Flamethrower, Escaped Mental Patient, Dragon's Breath >Rounds, Body Flare, Mythic Form, Body of Sun, Taste of Death, Song in >the Dark, Blood Agony, Blood of Acid, Body Arsenal, Burst of Sunlight, >Compress, Conflaguration, Eruption of Vitae, and a whole mess of melee >weapons can burn a vampire without being added to. Several of these >cards (Dragon's Breath, Burst, Walk) have no blood or pool costs. >They may have opportunity costs, but so do Society and Anathema. > >-Snapcase All of these cards already do additional agg damage - and you pay dearly for that second point.

> >Obviously, but you stated that you could play Skin of Rock "as needed", you > >never strike outside of combat so obviously you can't play Majesty, but you > >do take damage outside of combat, therefore you might want to prevent it, > > Preventing Damage is also an effect from S:CE. It is roughly equivalent, but S:CE does not actually prevent damage, obviously. The reference to Skin of Steel was to show equality in costing, not actual identical effect. You are really reaching here. Do you actually think that you can turn my own arguements against me? > >Also as I have refuted that you can only play the cards which you have in > >hand. This is not a guarantee with skin of rock. Also striking at the > >opposing minion is only viable if you intend to actually to do something > >with it. Does your metagame so completely lack combat that you actually get > >away with a Skin of Rock/ Pulled Fangs combo on a regular basis? I would > >like to see that. Where is your playgroup? > > > > I live in Denver - home of the anarchs - thanks for asking. I would like to know where this non-combat group exists. You know in case I am in the area. Majesty one also > cannot play if one does not have it in their hand - ?? Obviously, but it only takes one majesty to equal your multiple skin of rock, depending on how much you get hit for. > >> Ooh, and how much damage will I prevent from pre-range and maneuver > >> cards using Majesty? > > > >None, in general (Weather Control excepted) pre-range and maneuver cards > >don't do damage, but they do take up deck space and are therefore finite > >resources. Majesty makes one waste those resources. Hence, majesty is > >superior in many respects to Manuever and Pre-Range cards. > > Wrong again - Majesty prevents no damage from Weather Control Are you retarded or are you just some gerbil attached to a keyboard? That is what I just said (note the Weather Control excepted). Do you know what excepted means you ignoramus. > Just for knowledge, I did extensive ranting durning the 7/7 rulings (as > Fantasy15@aol) - in fact I suggested some of the re-rewrites that became the > compromise that settled 7/7. That's nice. Did you threaten to quit then too? Or is this some new tactic you picked up? How do you feel about those changes now, several years later in hindsight? After that I did not have much use for posting - > I posted once saying - Hey LSJ I am having a lot of fun with SW, FN, BL - > thanks a lot!!! Now, I am back, because I feel that CE ruins everything - > including SW, FN, & BL. You haven't even seen the set. How can you say this? > >Where the cost comes in is that it is an outferior. The card is a daimonion > >card. It is designed for bali. The serpentis function is a add on, which > >creates versatility in the card, which is where the cost comes in. This > >card does three things, standard serpentis cards only do two. If you use it > >for the daimonion powers then Concordance kicks ass. If you use it for > >serpentis then there are better cards out there. > > How many vamps are there with both serpentis and Daimonion? Putrefecation at > the presence level gives a S:CE for 1 blood - just like new majesty - yet it is > a tripple card. We are not talking about Majesty. >What we have here is known as a paradox. > 5 vampires have Daimonion. 20% of the Baali have it (i.e. one out of five). 20% is signifigant. Unfortunantly there are only 5 Baali. How is this a paradox (which if you didn't know is a seemingly contradictory statement)? > >Wow! thats brillant! Maybe you could use the two together to get +2 stealth > >with a mono-serpentis deck and avoid all that hypothetical +1 intercept > >hanging aroung. > > Yes, but as you have said, this requires more card slots and the other card to > be in your hand which, you cannot count on. I said that in reference to holding a hand of 7 cards, not in reference to deck construction. What a munchin remark.. Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020725153935...@mb-fz.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >>The problem is, when Majesty was first designed there were fewer >>vampires that could use it. Majesty was balanced in the beginning. >>Now that so many (specifically so many small-capacity) vampires are >>able to use it to effectively end combat at inferior has put Majesty >>above the power curve. > >This is BS. There are more minions who can play Skin of Rock now too, does >this put it higher on the power curve? You need to compare like with like. Majesty is not the same as Skin of Rock. Attempting direct comparisons, without some detailed explanations and caveats is going to end in failure. As other people have repeatedly pointed out, your comparisons are failing because you're attempting to force a point that isn't there. >This is also BS. The ally drawback is minimal. Daring the Dawn should cost >(at least) 1 blood to play, and alos the possibilty of burning from it. Daring >the Dawn was created under the V:TES rule - and it is no longer balanced in the >game. Demonstrate this soundbite. The card is slightly more powerful, yes, as it is harder to burn yourself with it. Demonstrate that this means it is "no longer balanced". Hint: That it is slightly more powerful than it was is not, in and of itself, proof. Comparisons with Ivory Bow are also likely to fail if you don't take into account the differences between the cards, which is extremely likely to be the case. It can still be within entirely acceptable parameters, even after an upgrade. It is also true that allies are a *lot* more viable now than they ever have been. There are some damn fine ally possibilities, for dedicated ally decks, or casual decks. >>>>I have said that all deck archetypes were still viable when the >>V:TES rule was >>in effect.<< >> >>Do you have any statistical information to support this claim? > >No, there is no way I am doing a tournament archive report to prove Well, there's your problem. You want a rule change, right? And rules changes don't happen without good reason. And good reason includes proof. If you can't be bothered to prove it - or to find someone who wants the rule change who will prove your point for you - you're never going to make a change. Rules changes need proof. Otherwise they're just the whining you complained about. >I'm sure the percentages have changed, but the game >has never been completely broken. Would you care to take part in a pre-7/7 environment with players skilled enough to abuse DBR, ToR3 and RtoI to the max? The game shifted *hugely* towards strategy/counter-strategy being the only viable options. Emphasis on the capability, not what your group would do in such an environment. >>No, but it would likely hop up to the top of the power curv > >Look, there will never be true balance in the game - there will always be a >"top of the curve" And Majesty is, in the Design Team's view, outside of acceptable parameters. Acceptable parameters can be drawn up by said team, for their own use. >>Agg damage most certainly can burn a vampire without being added to: >>Burning Wrath, Walk of Flame, Breath of the Dragon, Flamethrower, >>Improvised Flamethrower, Escaped Mental Patient, Dragon's Breath >>Rounds, Body Flare, Mythic Form, Body of Sun, Taste of Death, Song in >>the Dark, Blood Agony, Blood of Acid, Body Arsenal, Burst of Sunlight, >>Compress, Conflaguration, Eruption of Vitae, and a whole mess of melee >>weapons can burn a vampire without being added to. Several of these >>cards (Dragon's Breath, Burst, Walk) have no blood or pool costs. >>They may have opportunity costs, but so do Society and Anathema. > >All of these cards already do additional agg damage - and you pay dearly for >that second point. Yes. That's the point. Aggravated damage is supposed to be able to burn a vampire, but with a cost behind it - that of big vampires, cards played, pool costs, disciplines required. All sorts of costs. You are repeatedly stating that the current rules make it harder to burn vampires than the V:TES Rules Book rules. This is correct. This is also *entirely intentional*. This wasn't an accident. What you are repeatedly refusing to do is prove that this is broken. All you're doing is proving that the changes did what they were supposed to do. And given that you won't actually prove that what they were supposed to do is wrong, in some fashion, (that isn't just "I want to burn vampires easily"), you're not going to change anything. The rules are working just how they were supposed to. [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020725153935...@mb-fz.aol.com>... > There are more minions who can play Skin of Rock now too, does > this put it higher on the power curve? You seem to have a fixation with Skin of Rock. Skin of Rock prevents 1 damage at inferior. Majesty completely ends combat at inferior. Majesty has a _much_ more powerful effect card-for-card if combat avoidance is what you want to do. Majesty gives weenie presence bleed decks a complete and costless way to avoid combat. What powerful weenie deck uses large amounts of Skin of Rock as its combat avoidance method? > The ally drawback is minimal. Daring the Dawn should cost > (at least) 1 blood to play, and alos the possibilty of burning from it. > Daring the Dawn was created under the V:TES rule - and it is no longer > balanced in the game. Then explain to me why I should use it over Day Operation in your "old vtes rule is better" system. There is no possibility of burning from Day Operation. They both remove the same amount of blood from the vampire. And Day Operation cannot be blocked by allies (a cornercase but still existent drawback). >>>I have said that all deck archetypes were still viable when the >>>V:TES rule was in effect. > > >Do you have any statistical information to support this claim? > > No Then your above claim can be ignored. > Look, there will never be true balance in the game - there will always be a > "top of the curve" Right. The idea is to keep the things at the "top of the curve" from being the "best option every single time". > All of these cards already do additional agg damage - and you pay dearly for > that second point. How is paying a blood for the superior of Conflaguration "paying dearly"; or maneuvering to throw a White Phosphorus Grenade? Your claim was that agg damage cannot burn vampires without extra effects. It is quite clear that this is not the case. There are _some_ agg damage cards that cannot burn vampires without extra effects. Ivory Bow is one of them. This is tempered by the fact that Ivory Bow is useable by every single vampire and ally in the game that can equip with weapons, and is useable on every strike they perform, and only costs 1 pool. Some agg damage cards cannot burn vampires. If you want to burn more vampires, use effects that produce more agg damage. -Snapcase

"XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<jtY%8.14602$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... > > Preventing Damage is also an effect from S:CE. > > It is roughly equivalent, but S:CE does not actually prevent damage, > obviously. The reference to Skin of Steel was to show equality in costing, > not actual identical effect. You are really reaching here. Do you actually > think that you can turn my own arguements against me? Look, Archon, I am not trying to piss you off, I've aready conceded the thread, this is just to tie up loose ends. S:CE cancels a strike card and the resulting damage (cancel damage vs. prevent damage) One cannot use Majesty tocancel dmamge from an action modifier. I know it's an odd point - this conversation has gotten way out there. > I would like to know where this non-combat group exists. You know in case I > am in the area. My metagame is not non-combat oriented. My metagame is more balned than the tournament metgame due to our 5cl rule. My metagame hasnothing to do with it because I m talking about the tournament metagame. > Majesty one also > > cannot play if one does not have it in their hand - ?? > > Obviously, but it only takes one majesty to equal your multiple skin of > rock, depending on how much you get hit for. > > > >> Ooh, and how much damage will I prevent from pre-range and maneuver > > >> cards using Majesty? > > > > > >None, in general (Weather Control excepted) pre-range and maneuver cards > > >don't do damage, but they do take up deck space and are therefore finite > > >resources. Majesty makes one waste those resources. Hence, majesty is > > >superior in many respects to Manuever and Pre-Range cards. > > > > Wrong again - Majesty prevents no damage from Weather Control > > Are you retarded or are you just some gerbil attached to a keyboard? That > is what I just said (note the Weather Control excepted). Do you know what > excepted means you ignoramus. Please re-read the above - I asked you which pre-strik cards yu could prevent damage from with Majesty - and you replied none except for Weater Control - but Majesty will do nothing against this card - > > Just for knowledge, I did extensive ranting durning the 7/7 rulings > That's nice. Did you threaten to quit then too? Or is this some new tactic > you picked up? How do you feel about those changes now, several years later > in hindsight? No, I did not threaten to quit - I did not have to - I had VEKN polling players and organizing against the new on man rules team. It is not a tactic - I feel that this new expansion will make my current collection less desirablefor playability and I don't want to start over with a "new" game of V:TES. After 7/7 the rules and card text no longer was a constant. In orde to play Jyhad - one must now memorize what a card does - this was fine with a couple of broken cards (RTI, TOR3,) but set a precedent that has n been slowed down. I think 7/7 cased more overall confusion than it did for game balance. > After that I did not have much use for posting - > > I posted once saying - Hey LSJ I am having a lot of fun with SW, FN, BL - > > thanks a lot!!! Now, I am back, because I feel that CE ruins everything - > > including SW, FN, & BL. > > You haven't even seen the set. How can you say this? Look, I have seen cards from the set and have read what changes are occuring. I don't have to eat shit to know that shit don't taste good. An action card does not look like my action cards nor does a Brujah look like any of the Brujas I own. If I wanted to teach a new payer how to play this type of crap will only confuse what is an already complicated game, and the movement of the symbols does not help this either. The crypt restrictions prevent me from playing with these vampires and my Jyhad vampires togeher, and when group 4 comes out I will notb able to pay a single vmpire I currently own with them. Eventually, a grouping (ex group 4-5) will out do the group 1-2 and group 2-3. Whn this happens, it will be like a broken card that effectivey bans inferior cards from play - except that it will be for an entire grouping of vampires. However, this thread is not about crypt restrictions or card design - it is about crd balanc and howt is effected by changing the rules of the game. > > >Where the cost comes in is that it is an outferior. The card is a > daimonion > > >card. It is designed for bali. The serpentis function is a add on, > which > > >creates versatility in the card, which is where the cost comes in. This > > >card does three things, standard serpentis cards only do two. If you use > it > > >for the daimonion powers then Concordance kicks ass. > > How many vamps are there with both serpentis and Daimonion? Putrefecation > at > > the presence level gives a S:CE for 1 blood - just like new majesty - yet > it is > > a tripple card. > > We are not talking about Majesty. No, we are talking about concordace which you say is okay to be underbalanced with other serpentis cards because it is a mulit-discipline card - but Putrefecation is also a multi disciplie card whose efect is parallel with the current power levels of presence. > 5 vampires have Daimonion. > 20% of the Baali have it (i.e. one out of five). 20% is signifigant. > Unfortunantly there are only 5 Baali. How is this a paradox (which if you > didn't know is a seemingly contradictory statement)? I was talking about the paradox of Concordance Vs. Putrefecation. 1 vampire = 20% of the Bali, but it only equalls .3% of total vamps. > I said that in reference to holding a hand of 7 cards, not in reference to > deck construction. What a munchin remark.. Yeah, munchin! But usually when I am buildng a deck, I am planning on having 7 cards in my hand. Where are we going with this thread? Thank you for listenig, Sam

In message <15337c97.0207...@posting.google.com>, Snapcase <capta...@yahoo.com> writes: >If you >want to burn more vampires, use effects that produce more agg damage. Pedant: Or that provide sufficient normal damage to wound the vampire, before the agg damage kicks in. e.g. Basilia + Carrion Crows. Do I have an obsession with Carrion Crows? Probably the only downside to Carrion Crows is that Gratiano can't play it. Do I have an obsession with Gratiano? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <a8b0e61c.0207...@posting.google.com>, Sam <Awa...@aol.com> writes: >My metagame is not non-combat oriented. My metagame is more balned >than the tournament metgame due to our 5cl rule. This might be your problem. Bear with me. This isn't an xCL rant. Balanced, not balanced, fun, not fun, cheesy, not cheesy, Mr Suitcase or Mr Handbag. There have been all sorts of arguments about xCL limited environments over the years. Bottom line: xCL creates environments which are quite different to NL environments. People play them for whatever reasons they choose. It may be useful to determine a better word than "balanced" to describe the environment, however, due to its many multiple meanings in different contexts already. (If you want to have a discussion about the benefits and problems of xCL, that's probably best off in a brand new thread.) However, you have a house rule that, as one of its consequences, makes it harder to access additional damage or large sources of aggravated damage. This can be seen trivially: All 5CL decks and all 5CL combinations of cards are accessible under NL. So even with the easiest possible access (picking exactly the right vampires with exactly the right disciplines), that access can be made easier under NL since there are, currently, insufficient cards in the same discipline to make the best possible NL distribution possible under xCL, where x is a low number. e.g. Under your deck, you can have 5 Ivory Bows (which is probably more than enough). However, you can only have 5 Carrion Crows. So, you might pick 2 Ivory Bows, 5 Carrion Crows, 3 Wolf Companions, maybe. Under the official rules, I might pick 8 Carrion Crows, 2 Ivory Bows. Or 10 Carrion Crows. For me, accessing a burn situation is now slightly easier - I don't have to spend actions on Wolf Companions or Murder of Crows (Murder might be better for ranged damage, here). Or I might pick to play it exactly as you do. I have options, and some of those options are going to make the situation easier, in any given situation. So, under official rules, accessing the burn condition for an opposing vampire in a given deck can be significantly easier. Your House Rule, as one of its consequences, makes it harder to be burned - accessing the cards is just that bit more difficult than it is under NL. Under your House Rule, changing the rules back to the V:TES rule might not imbalance things. However, rules changes are made for the official environment, both rulebook and tournament in different situations (the two of which will finally merge). In the official environment, burning vampires is *already* easier than it is in your environment. Changing the rule back to the V:TES print rule will make it easier *again*. Your house rule pulls the power level of aggravated damage in general down - due to the difficulty. You then add to it with another rules change, which might put it back to balanced. In the official environment, however, it is already seen as balanced. Decks can and do use it, but decks don't need to use it. When the option for it is there, it is rarely a no-brainer. Decks using it do not win or lose disproportionately. And so on. Changing the rules will then push the power level *up* from the current de facto balance in the official situation. This pushes it towards unbalanced. Unfortunately, you are arguing for a change in the *official* environment because your House Rule weakens something in a way you didn't expect or foresee. You may be better off adjusting your House Rule to a fashion you are happy with. Those playing the official rules seem to be having no problems with aggravated damage. You, playing your House Rule, are having problems with it. This leaves an obvious avenue for investigation - your house rule. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I would like to know where this non-combat group exists. You know in case I > > am in the area. > > My metagame is not non-combat oriented. My metagame is more balned > than the tournament metgame due to our 5cl rule. My metagame > hasnothing to do with it because I m talking about the tournament > metagame. This changes everything. I have read James Coupe's response and it is all true. You might want to stop hurting your own players with a 5CL rule, but that is just my own opinion. The few places that I have seen CL work is where there is a communal source of cards, or where players don't realize how much damage XCL does to the metagame of VTES. > Please re-read the above - I asked you which pre-strik cards yu could > prevent damage from with Majesty - and you replied none except for > Weater Control - but Majesty will do nothing against this card - You are correct. I misread. My apologies. But that still doesn't lower the trump value of Majesty. > > > Just for knowledge, I did extensive ranting durning the 7/7 rulings > > That's nice. Did you threaten to quit then too? Or is this some new tactic > > you picked up? How do you feel about those changes now, several years later > > in hindsight? > > No, I did not threaten to quit - I did not have to - I had VEKN > polling players and organizing against the new on man rules team. It > is not a tactic - I feel that this new expansion will make my current > collection less desirablefor playability and I don't want to start > over with a "new" game of V:TES. After 7/7 the rules and card text no > longer was a constant. In orde to play Jyhad - one must now memorize > what a card does - this was fine with a couple of broken cards (RTI, > TOR3,) but set a precedent that has n been slowed down. I think 7/7 > cased more overall confusion than it did for game balance. The new set isn't really for players with established colletions. It is actually for the new players with all the most recent rulings printed on the card. You won't have to explain to a newbie, "Oh, I'm sorry that card doesn't do that anymore". You will have to remember it for yourself though. > Look, I have seen cards from the set and have read what changes are > occuring. I don't have to eat shit to know that shit don't taste good. Is VTES shit now? > An action card does not look like my action cards nor does a Brujah > look like any of the Brujas I own. If I wanted to teach a new payer > how to play this type of crap will only confuse what is an already > complicated game, and the movement of the symbols does not help this > either. The crypt restrictions prevent me from playing with these > vampires and my Jyhad vampires togeher, and when group 4 comes out I > will notb able to pay a single vmpire I currently own with them. And when will group 4 be coming out? It is not Anarchs. > Eventually, a grouping (ex group 4-5) will out do the group 1-2 and > group 2-3. Whn this happens, it will be like a broken card that > effectivey bans inferior cards from play - except that it will be for > an entire grouping of vampires. However, this thread is not about > crypt restrictions or card design - it is about crd balanc and howt is > effected by changing the rules of the game. That is what this thread is about. > > We are not talking about Majesty. > > No, we are talking about concordace which you say is okay to be > underbalanced with other serpentis cards because it is a > mulit-discipline card - but Putrefecation is also a multi disciplie > card whose efect is parallel with the current power levels of > presence. I am not saying it is underbalanced. You are. There are no serpentis cards that as an action bleed at +1 stealth. It is a perfectly viable card if you are going Mono-Serpentis, but it is inferior to other cards availible to the Followers of Set (no, really, I wrote their newsletter for a while) which are not serpentis. Night Moves is one of those cards. > > 5 vampires have Daimonion. > > 20% of the Baali have it (i.e. one out of five). 20% is signifigant. > > Unfortunantly there are only 5 Baali. How is this a paradox (which if you > > didn't know is a seemingly contradictory statement)? > > I was talking about the paradox of Concordance Vs. Putrefecation. 1 > vampire = 20% of the Bali, but it only equalls .3% of total vamps. Well if you are going to compare Concordance to Putrefecation. You will find that only 1 out of the Samedi have presence. Reg Driscol is that man. Actually it is 1 in 6 which is and even lower 16.66%, but still only .3% of the total vampires, which I will agree without checking. > > I said that in reference to holding a hand of 7 cards, not in reference to > > deck construction. What a munchin remark.. > > Yeah, munchin! But usually when I am buildng a deck, I am planning on > having 7 cards in my hand. So how many skin of rock does that make? > Where are we going with this thread? I don't know, but I do know that I have played with Howard DeStefano in Houston. He is from around your parts, and he says you guys are okay. [ quoted text not captured ]

Awa...@aol.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<a8b0e61c.0207...@posting.google.com>... > "XZealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<jtY%8.14602$ND5.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com>... [posting via google, but I checked the group before I left for work] > > I would like to know where this non-combat group exists. You know in case I > > am in the area. Bring the pain, Norm. :) > My metagame is not non-combat oriented. My metagame is more balned > than the tournament metgame due to our 5cl rule. My metagame James has already addressed this much more eloquently than I would have, so I'm mostly going to leave this alone. However, unless you have read (and reread at least once) the FOCS (http://www.thelasombra.com/vtes_focs.htm), and have something new to say, do not make any claims about CL being "more balanced" than anything. (Jeff, do you think you could link the FOCS from the main page? Or did I just miss it?) > hasnothing to do with it because I m talking about the tournament > metagame. In pretty much everyone's experience, people that regularly play xCL are not well-informed enough (or do not have enough NCL playing time) or sufficiently experienced to speak reasonably about "the tournament metagame". Unless you play in almost as many tournament games as you do xCL games, then maybe. Maybe. [snip] > Please re-read the above - I asked you which pre-strik cards yu could > prevent damage from with Majesty - and you replied none except for Nice semantics nitpick. Majesty doesn't prevent any damage. Go you. > Weater Control - but Majesty will do nothing against this card - There are a number of pre-range cards that do damage (Carrion Crows, etc.), but none of them (except Weather Control) actually do damage during the pre-range step. Majesty effectively "prevents" the damage from these cards. [7/7] > No, I did not threaten to quit - I did not have to - I had VEKN > polling players and organizing against the new on man rules team. It VEKN polling players? What? I have no idea what you're talking about. Organizing against LSJ? I don't remember that really going anywhere. Except for that whole NJL thing, which is pretty much done with as a separate rules-making body, now that new cards are in print. > is not a tactic - I feel that this new expansion will make my current > collection less desirablefor playability and I don't want to start > over with a "new" game of V:TES. How will it make it "less desirable for playability"? I'm pretty sure that a number of the old vampires will still make the grade. Additionally, I suspect that the design team has created new "fourth discipline" groupings for most of the clans, so certain strategies will be easier with the old vampires than with the new ones. > After 7/7 the rules and card text no longer was a constant. Card text was never really a constant. There were other changes before that. None quite as major, but there *were* prior changes. > In orde to play Jyhad - one must now memorize > what a card does - this was fine with a couple of broken cards (RTI, > TOR3,) but set a precedent that has n been slowed down. I think 7/7 There have been very few major rewrites without new cards being printed to support them since 7/7. Even then, there have been very few rewrites since then. I believe that it has, in fact, slowed down. And hey, aren't you the guy arguing for a major rules change, re: agg damage? How does that fit with not wanting major changes elsewhere? > Look, I have seen cards from the set and have read what changes are > occuring. I don't have to eat shit to know that shit don't taste good. Umm. Okay. Note that a lot of the changes are still just rumored. > An action card does not look like my action cards nor does a Brujah > look like any of the Brujas I own. If I wanted to teach a new payer > how to play this type of crap will only confuse what is an already > complicated game, and the movement of the symbols does not help this If you want to teach a new player, you could, of course use just new cards initially (or just old cards initially), and that would ease the confusion. > either. The crypt restrictions prevent me from playing with these > vampires and my Jyhad vampires togeher, and when group 4 comes out I > will notb able to pay a single vmpire I currently own with them. Yup. That's right. There needs to be some way to maintain balance among the different discipline matches. > Eventually, a grouping (ex group 4-5) will out do the group 1-2 and > group 2-3. Whn this happens, it will be like a broken card that How so? If the current design team sticks to the same costing method, later groupings will match (in power) all previous ones (except the earliest vampires). Who knows, maybe they'll reprint improved Jyhad/V:tES vampires as Group 5? > Where are we going with this thread? To hell. Straight to hell. Xian

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:SWXQcjSq...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <15337c97.0207...@posting.google.com>, Snapcase > <capta...@yahoo.com> writes: > >If you > >want to burn more vampires, use effects that produce more agg damage. > > Pedant: > > Or that provide sufficient normal damage to wound the vampire, before > the agg damage kicks in. e.g. Basilia + Carrion Crows. Do I have an > obsession with Carrion Crows? > > > Probably the only downside to Carrion Crows is that Gratiano can't play > it. Do I have an obsession with Gratiano? > (ALERT: attempted joke) Not alone that, but Rake cannot play it either! What a lousy card... (End of joke alert. You can return from your bomb shelter) Patrick

> Sam wrote: > Hi Sam! How are things in Boulder? I'll bet you guys are missing Neil, eh? Are you going to GenCon? I haven't decided yet. I've enjoyed reading all the vehement posts you've been writing lately. You really are pissed off, eh? I thought I'd jump in here to say hello and make a few comments... (snip) > it's an odd point - this conversation has gotten way out there. Yeah, but that's what makes it interesting... maybe. :o) > > I would like to know where this non-combat group exists. You know in case I > > am in the area. > > My metagame is not non-combat oriented. My metagame is more balned > than the tournament metgame due to our 5cl rule. My metagame > hasnothing to do with it because I m talking about the tournament > metagame. I've been having a lot of fun playing without card limits since moving away from Boulder. There aren't as many people playing Jyhad in Houston and it was a bit tough to adjust to new deck strategies, but I think it's much better overall. Besides, didn't you guys start playing with card limits becasue the game was out of print? Now it's back in full force and cards are available all over the place. No boxes of Sabbat for $10 though... Doh! Matt got a heck of deal that day! :o) I know you do both (card limits and no card limit), but you might want to try to get all the guys to switch over if they have been playing in more tournaments lately. It makes it much easier to tweak a deck and get a feel for how it's going to work at the tournament. Just a thought... > I feel that this new expansion will make my current > collection less desirable for playability and I don't want to start > over with a "new" game of V:TES. I think a lot of people would agree with you here. The new cards will probably devalue our older cards a bit (maybe a lot?) and make the game look kind of strange to newer players. It may not matter much in a couple of years (after several new expansions), but it will be annoying for a while. New look, more rule changes, card changes, etc. It's all a bit much. BUT, the game will probably go on and it will work out in the end. Better to have new cards than no cards, eh? Remember when Wizards of the Coast quit printing V:TES? I wasn't around then, but you guys seemed pretty bummed whenever you talked about it... Personally, I would be a lot more happy with all of the changes if I could exchange my current cards for new ones in the new format. It may not be the best format they could have come up with, but at least all the cards would look the same. Anyone want to trade new cards for old ones when the Camarilla Edition comes out? Just let me know. (the following was slightly edited - I hope I maintained the main points) > After the 7/7 changes, card text was no longer consistant. > In order to play Jyhad, one must now memorize the newest version of a card > to know what it actually does. This was fine when it was only a couple of > broken cards (RTI, TOR3,) but those changes set a precedent that has > gotten out of hand. I think the ramifications from 7/7 have caused more > overall confusion than it benefited the game balance. It is pretty lame that the cards keep changing. On the other hand, I actually don't like how dark some of the old Jyhad cards are and I won't miss any of the really bad artwork. And remember that any kind of change is probably good news compared to a dead game. At least White Wolf is making an effort to print more cards, maintain a balance, and improve the game... all in a manner that doesn't make the old cards unplayable (no real tier 1 tier 2 problems... not yet anyway). It seems to me that they are trying to do the right thing while also making a profit. That's a tough line to walk, and I'm hoping that they have made improvements that will help balance the game overall. Some of the rumored chages seem to be fairly good. We'll know soon enough... BTW - What does "7/7" stand for? > > After that I did not have much use for posting - > > > I posted once saying - Hey LSJ I am having a lot of fun with SW, FN, BL - > > > thanks a lot!!! Now, I am back, because I feel that CE ruins everything - > > > including SW, FN, & BL. White Wolf improved Jyhad/V:TES with Sabbat War, Final Nights, and Bloodlines (IMHO). That hasn't changed. The new cards won't ruin anything as long as you simply decline to buy the new ones (we are always free to stop buying the cards). Why not just skip the new set and keep playing with your current decks? That's still possible, right? I've heard of a few groups that are going to play with old cards only. That's always an option. > > You haven't even seen the set. How can you say this? > > Look, I have seen cards from the set and have read what changes are > occurring. I don't have to eat shit to know that shit don't taste good. > An action card does not look like my action cards nor does a Brujah > look like any of the Brujahs I own. If I wanted to teach a new payer > how to play this type of crap will only confuse what is an already > complicated game, and the movement of the symbols does not help this > either. The crypt restrictions prevent me from playing with these > vampires and my Jyhad vampires together This is all true and White Wolf is taking a big gamble in changing the format so drastically. It wasn't necessary to change the format, but what is done is done and there may be some benefits that we won't know about until we use the cards (after the release). Maybe not, but I suspect that a lot of people will actually like the changes once they get used to them. And new players may not care at all... BTW - The Nosferatu Stuff has recently put up a picture of a vampire card with a slightly different format on his web site and it looks a little better than White Wolf's version (IMHO). So it was possible to come up with a better format AND that means there may be more and more changes of that sort in the future (good or bad, change will occur). What I don't understand is why the cards often have a format problem (text is too small, it's centered in a strange way, misspellings, strange costing, bad wording, etc.) I wish there was a way for the player base to make comments on the format of the cards before they went to print. Maybe that would help reduce some of the errors. There are a lot of smart and talented people playing this game. I wish White Wolf could find a better way to tap into that knowledge base. Dare to dream! ;o) , and when group 4 comes out I > will not be able to pay a single vampire I currently own with them. It would be extraordinarily stupid for White Wolf to come out with a group "4" expansion anytime soon. That would be financial suicide. Actually, I'm hoping that they were smart enough to include some group "2" vampires in the Camarilla Edition. If they put one up on the preview, that would allay a lot of fears surrounding this base set. A huge collective sigh would soon follow. Or they could at least put a few group "2" vampires in the Anarchs expansion. Printing just a handful of them would appease a lot of people that are worried about the direction the game is going. And moving on to group "4" will cause some of the people that are hanging on by a thread to walk away. Personally, I'm in a wait-and-see mode. I'm looking forward to some of the new vampires and I'm hoping that the new cards are cool. I'm trying to stay optimistic... > Eventually, a grouping (ex group 4-5) will out do the group 1-2 and > group 2-3. Maybe. Maybe not. That definitely won't happen if the Camarilla Edition bombs and White Wolf quits publishing new card for the game (always a possibility). Whn this happens, it will be like a broken card that > effectivey bans inferior cards from play - except that it will be for > an entire grouping of vampires. However, this thread is not about > crypt restrictions or card design - it is about crd balanc and howt is > effected by changing the rules of the game. Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. ;o) (snip nitpicking) > Where are we going with this thread? You guys got lost a while ago. I think you have a good point, but it's not coming across clearly. (IMHO) The main issue seems to be this: Why not make a single rule change instead of changing a lot of cards? A change in the rules doesn't require text/card changes. As long as the new rule is sensible and maintains balance, then that's better than printing a bunch of new cards with different costs, new text, etc. That way the cards are still the same and there are no problems with memorizing errata for the cards or explaining such things to new players. That's about it, right? On the other hand, I don't have a problem with majesty costing a blood. Seems ok to me. I usually used it at superior anyway, so it's not that big a deal for me. And anything that handicaps annoying little weeinie decks is actually great. Most of the rumored changes sound alright. I would have increased the blood gain for 5th tradition a bit, but a limit seems smart. It just means that I won't take as much blood off of Queen Anne (or her new Camarilla Edition counterpart, whoever that may be). Instead, I'll take off the new limit (is it five?) Anyway, the point(s) you've made seem quite valid in many respects. At least you're trying to get involved and keep the conversation going. It may be making a few people mad, but I would much rather have a small debate now rather than after the Anarchs set comes out and it's too late to make any changes. > Thank you for listening, > Sam Good talking to you again Sam. If you want to send me a sideline e-mail, use the address above ( hdma...@hotmail.com ) Cheers, Howard PS Remember that time we all went to the strip bar for that bachelor party? I have memories of that night that still crack me up now and then... kind of blurry memories, but that's to be expected. ;o)

James (who is annoyong me more and more) wrote. >>This might be your problem. Bear with me. This isn't an xCL rant. No, it is not an XCL rant. I was telling "Archon" (who makes good arguments, James, and actually reads the posts which he is arguing against) asked me about my metagame. And I told him. I also stated that I was just telling him about my metagame and that it has nothing to do with this rant because this rant applies to the NCL game. Just because I have a xCL playgroup does not mean I do not play in NCL games and tournaments. You are so ready to jump on my case about anything that you continue to post before you comprehend. I feel that just because someone has a xCL playgroup does not mean that they cannot play, comprehend, and examine the NCL game. When I mention that something I say has nothing to do with the thread that means there is no reason to argue with me about it. James, you'd better start reading posts before you start flapping your mouth.

Xxealot - Archon Hey man - it's been great debating with you - but the debate is getting too circular for me - and the topic is lost. I'm glad to see Howard is still involved with the game - he's a great guy - say hello for me.

capta...@yahoo.com (Snapcase) wrote in message: >Date: 7/25/02 7:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time >Message-id: <15337c97.0207...@posting.google.com> > the game. > >Then explain to me why I should use it over Day Operation in your "old >vtes rule is better" system. There is no possibility of burning from >Day Operation. They both remove the same amount of blood from the >vampire. And Day Operation cannot be blocked by allies (a cornercase >but still existent drawback). Just for information: in the old game damage from DaringDawn was preventable by Blood Tears.

James Coupe wrote: > <aVaiMAEe...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk> > >In message <20020725153935...@mb-fz.aol.com>, Awazzzz ><awa...@aol.com> writes: >>This is BS. There are more minions who can play Skin of Rock now too, does >>this put it higher on the power curve? > >You need to compare like with like. Majesty is not the same as Skin of >Rock. Attempting direct comparisons, without some detailed explanations >and caveats is going to end in failure. As other people have repeatedly >pointed out, your comparisons are failing because you're attempting to >force a point that isn't there. > Look james, this is an ongoing conversation. it has been going on for many many messages now. We have been comparing Majesty and Skin of Rock for some time now. I don't feel that I have to reitterate all the points I have brought up in the previous messages to continue the debate. If you want to know why we are comparing Skin of Rock and Majesty - look back in the messages - This is not the first time in this thread that the cards have been compared. I really wish you would take my advice and read before you keep flapping your mouth.

Awazzzz wrote: > Just for information: in the old game damage from DaringDawn was preventable > by Blood Tears. Incorrect. The damage from Daring the Dawn has always been explicitly unpreventable by card text. [ quoted text not captured ]

awa...@aol.com (Awazzzz) wrote in message news:<20020726182500...@mb-cd.aol.com>... > Just for information: in the old game damage from DaringDawn was preventable > by Blood Tears. Original card text for Daring the Dawn (Sabbat version): for: Vampires cannot block this action. This vampire takes 2 aggravated damage (NOT PREVENTABLE) after this action is complete. FOR: As above but this vampire takes 1 aggravated damage.

> Then explain to me why I should use it over Day Operation in your "old > vtes rule is better" system. There is no possibility of burning from > Day Operation. They both remove the same amount of blood from the > vampire. And Day Operation cannot be blocked by allies (a cornercase > but still existent drawback). Because Day Operation can only be played as the action is announced, at basic. Because a vampire with only 1 blood will not be able to play Govern + Day Operation, or Force of Will + Day Operation, etc., whereas either card works with Daring the Dawn. > How is paying a blood for the superior of Conflaguration "paying > dearly"; or maneuvering to throw a White Phosphorus Grenade? Your > claim was that agg damage cannot burn vampires without extra effects. It isn't the blood that makes Conflagration cost-intensive, it's the infernal cost. To burn a vampire with it, you must use a Baali or an Infernal Pact. Maneuvering to throw a White Phosphorus Grenade takes equipping the card (action or disguised weapon), 1 pool, and a maneuver, as well as the WPG card. 3 card combo to do 2 agg. Really, agg wasn't changed because combat suddenly started winning games, but because of the standard "power level" of individual cards. 1 agg damage means your opponent loses 2 blood and an action (to leave torpor). That's worth a good 3 points, and Claws of the Dead costs 1 for basic Protean and 1 blood, plus you don't do your normal 1 damage. 3 cost generating 3 effect, fair. Old rules, the opponent burned 1 blood more or was burned, 3 cost for 4 effect. See? -- Brian

On 26 Jul 2002 08:49:08 -0700, xb...@qwest.net (Xian) wrote: >However, unless you have read (and reread at least once) the FOCS >(http://www.thelasombra.com/vtes_focs.htm), and have something new to >say, do not make any claims about CL being "more balanced" than >anything. (Jeff, do you think you could link the FOCS from the main >page? Or did I just miss it?) The FOCS is linked from the Message Boards page, as it is written about the arguments that keep re-appearing on the various VTES forums for no good reason. http://www.thelasombra.com/boards.htm Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On 26 Jul 2002 15:09:54 -0700, hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote: >BTW - What does "7/7" stand for? The July 7th, 1998 Rules Team Rulings. See also: Definition of Shit Storm See also: Formation of NJL http://www.thelasombra.com/rules/RTR7-7.htm http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35A2827C.41C6%40wizards.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020726183039...@mb-cd.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >I really >wish you would take my advice and read before you keep flapping your mouth. *sigh* I have read the other posts. Other people have repeatedly pointed out why your comparison of Skin of Rock and Majesty is failing to work in any useful fashion. Could you take some advice and actually post some *proof* of your statements, and not just another "aggravated damage MUST BE UPGRAPED"[0] soundbite? You haven't provided proof, ever. And you refuse to. Other people can and do provide proof. But you won't. Yet you accuse others of flapping their mouths. Interesting. Demands for rules changes without evidence, proof, significant theory, questions about pan-game balance, acknowledgements of multiple strategies that aren't combat or solely combat that still need to be balanced and so forth would seem to be an awful lot of typing for no reason since, without such considerations, no change will ever be made. [0] Intentional, and with acknowledgements to the Discworld MUD and its long history there. -- James Coupe PGP 0x5D623D5D you say one or two amusing things, but so EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 did Herman Goering (does that sidestep Godwin?) 13D7E668C3695D623D5D - SomeBlokeCalledRapunzelSyndrome

In message <80bafd85.02072...@posting.google.com>, Brian <firstco...@aol.com> writes: >It isn't the blood that makes Conflagration cost-intensive, it's the >infernal cost. To burn a vampire with it, you must use a Baali or an >Infernal Pact. Pedant: A combination involving Vial of Elder Vitae and Sanguine Instruction is also possible, if card intensive, especially given the need for the Infernal trait for the use of a number of Daimoinon cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20020726181418...@mb-cd.aol.com>, Awazzzz <awa...@aol.com> writes: >You are so ready to jump on my case >about anything that you continue to post before you comprehend. If you would post reasoning and proof, rather than "Change damage like this because <here's a soundbite>", I could comprehend much more readily. However, you have: - said combat is balanced (so, erm, why are you trying to unbalance it again?) - provided soundbite after soundbite - refused all suggestions of offering proof If all people have to go on is your soundbites and the lack of proof you proffer, people will misunderstand this. This is due to psychic powers not currently operating over TCP/IP. -- James Coupe [ quoted text not captured ]

thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote: > On 26 Jul 2002 15:09:54 -0700, hdma...@hotmail.com (HD) wrote: > >BTW - What does "7/7" stand for? > > The July 7th, 1998 Rules Team Rulings. > > See also: Definition of Shit Storm > See also: Formation of NJL It really seems like the fine art of revolution has died. Back in 1998, we really knew how to throw a fit and take our ball and go home. All the people bitching about the CE changes and vowing to quit the game will probably be back within six months. For example, Sam "Awazzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" who's said he's already quit the game. If that was true, why continue to post in a newsgroup that's dedicated to the game? It's like saying that you've quit smoking, but continue to participate in the Marlboro Fan Club. I've seen a few people about talking about an alternative league. I don't care if I sound condescending, but I don't think any of them are capable of organizing a sustainable opposition. The problem is that the game will move on without them. When the MJL (later NJL) formed there hadn't been any new cards in 2 years and 2 years later, shortly after new cards were released, we joined back into the community at large because our core concern, errata being released by new printed editions of cards rather than online only, had been addressed. Realistically, we were going to be losing all of our leverage and had to negotiate with LSJ while we arguably still had some. None of the people complaining have provided _any_ logical proof that the set grouping rule would unbalance the game or that the game would be balanced without it. If I'm wrong, show me. I want to see numbers and graphs and I don't want to see the ridiculous alternative of "don't print new vampires". The value of your old cards in the secondary market isn't the responsibility of White Wolf. If you bought V:TES cards because of their market value, rather than their usefulness in a deck, then you are an idiot. V:TES cards aren't worth shit and never have been. For those of you still whining, let me quote Eric Cartman. Quit your bitching. If you're not willing to back your complaints with action, there's no point in pressing the buttons on your keyboard. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit

In message <bb705c59.02072...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes: >For those of you still whining, let me quote Eric Cartman. Dog shit taco? [ quoted text not captured ]