JYHAD: Social Charm?!?

Whoa, now, wait a sec. I always read this card as your vampire gain- ing one pool if successful, not you, but I guess this isn't what was decided at the tournament. Tom, which is true? If the latter, then good lord... A /common/ card costing nothing to use that not only screws your prey but increases your blood pool as well? True that it's Stealth 0 and requires Sup. presence for the pool gain, but both are easily fixed and with all the bonuses, why ever use investments again? Plus the way I read it seems to make more sense. Your vampire goes out and seduces someone or someones important to your opponent's power base, and drains them dry if they're charming enough. Why would blood go to you? Actually, *sigh*, I just thought of a justification for that. Still, I don't have to like it... if it was uncommon or rare, that'd be one thing, but as is here's the /only/ minion card I can think of that would gain pool for it's master, and it's cheap and common. -- Clint, perhaps just sore 'cause he's building a combat deck, but feh.

Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: > Whoa, now, wait a sec. I always read this card as your vampire gain- > ing one pool if successful, not you, but I guess this isn't what was > decided at the tournament. Tom, which is true?... "pool" always refers to a player's "blood", not a vampire's blood. If a superior Social Charm is successful, then the acting player gains 1 pool in addition to doing the bleed. > True that it's Stealth 0 > and requires Sup. presence for the pool gain, but both are easily fixed > and with all the bonuses, why ever use investments again? Investments don't require your minions to act (and thus be unavailable for blocking, risk getting into combat, etc.) > Plus the way I read it seems to make more sense. Your vampire goes > out and seduces someone or someones important to your opponent's power > base, and drains them dry if they're charming enough. Why would blood > go to you? Because you're winning over those politicians, bankers, or whatever to supporting your network of resources. > but as is here's the /only/ minion card I can think of that would gain pool > for it's master, and it's cheap and common. Just because something is the only card that would do something doesn't mean you're interpreting it incorrectly... Tom Wylie rec.games.deckmaster Network Representative for aahz@hal.com Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

In article <940829.201055.3348@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>, Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: > Whoa, now, wait a sec. I always read this card as your vampire gain- > ing one pool if successful, not you, but I guess this isn't what was > decided at the tournament. Tom, which is true? If the latter, then good > lord... A /common/ card costing nothing to use that not only screws your > prey but increases your blood pool as well? True that it's Stealth 0 > and requires Sup. presence for the pool gain, but both are easily fixed > and with all the bonuses, why ever use investments again? > A) Because it is an action. Which means that you have to play it right away and your prey will know that and be able to decide to block accordingly. In addition, the card itself gives no stealth bonus, which means that he/she almost certainly will block unless all minions are tapped or something. B) Investments, being master cards can only be countered by an appropriate master card or other ability that specifically counters master cards. And, since they are not locations, I only know of one card that does this. So, it would seem that the blood from an investment would be much more guaranteed than that from the presence card. C) Chances are if you've been holding a stealth card, they have probably been holding an intercept card and waiting for an appropriate use. D) I think investments might be common. I know blood doll is at least, because I agonize about my utter lack regularly. > Plus the way I read it seems to make more sense. Your vampire goes > out and seduces someone or someones important to your opponent's power > base, and drains them dry if they're charming enough. Why would blood > go to you? > I believe that even though it's called a "blood pool", your blood is more supposed to represent your influence than your actual blood. Scott storm@tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <342dmo$9q3@tamsun.tamu.edu>, Edward S Shaw <storm@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrote: >In article <940829.201055.3348@cougar.cc.oxy.edu>, >Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: >> Whoa, now, wait a sec. I always read this card as your vampire gain- >> ing one pool if successful, not you, but I guess this isn't what was >> decided at the tournament. Tom, which is true? If the latter, then good >> lord... A /common/ card costing nothing to use that not only screws your >> prey but increases your blood pool as well? True that it's Stealth 0 >> and requires Sup. presence for the pool gain, but both are easily fixed >> and with all the bonuses, why ever use investments again? >> >A) Because it is an action. Which means that you have to play it right >away and your prey will know that and be able to decide to block accordingly. >In addition, the card itself gives no stealth bonus, which means that he/she >almost certainly will block unless all minions are tapped or something. > Which is why you throw in your umpteen stealth cards... then it won't matter when your opponent sees the action. He can't block anyway. Remember the post where he said his deck was able to fuel a +2 stealth bleed every round? >B) Investments, being master cards can only be countered by an appropriate >master card or other ability that specifically counters master cards. And, >since they are not locations, I only know of one card that does this. So, >it would seem that the blood from an investment would be much more guaranteed >than that from the presence card. > See above. A +2 stealth bleed is pretty guaranteed, and you don't have to skip your master action to get blood for it like an Investment. >C) Chances are if you've been holding a stealth card, they have probably >been holding an intercept card and waiting for an appropriate use. > So you play one of the other 3 stealth cards in your hand. Unless someone specifically built their deck for intercept, they'll run out before you do... >D) I think investments might be common. I know blood doll is at least, >because I agonize about my utter lack regularly. > No argument, but see my gripe clarification below. CLARIFICATION: The tourney results chill me. Out of five top decks, only one non-bleed oriented deck made it. And that only to fourth. And vot- ing had no place in these games... personally, I find the political actions to be one of the most enjoyable and unique features of the game - but as far as winning with a political deck, looks like you're out of luck... I mean, at least thank god that the only cards allowing you to gain pool in the minion phase are politic... Oh, wait. Here's one that gives you a nasty bleed and a gain. Stack stack stack. *toss in some stealth cards and Presence and Obfuscate skills* I'm ready (and so is everyone else if they want a ghost of a chance of being able to compete. The game has suddenly switched from one of politics and biding time and alliance and betrayal, to one of *whomp*, you're dead. Next...? I thought Jyhad would've avoided this, where Magic didn't, but the old Channeled Fireball spectre has reared its head again... So maybe it's not the one card I'm really griping on, just the whole yawning chasm that showed itself... Jyhad has now become a homogenized power speed game where everyone stacks their deck with unblockable bleeds, or dies. Not very fun...

There are at least two cards that make you bleed someone other than your intended target. Just stack your deck with these. It dosn't matter who kills your prey, YOU still get the victory for it :] But yes, I agree, there are WAY to many +bleed cards, and not enough ways to block the bleeds. Just too damn hard to get intercept compared to stealth. I don't see a blanket card restriction [no more than four of any 1 card etc.] helping at all since the ratio will stay the same. Unlike Magic, Jyhad is a game of ratios because of the fact you are always drawing. I think that if a bleed will be hitting you for more than 1, it should be at -1(per 2pts of bleed) stealth. I really hate getting bled for 8 or 9... [vampire at +1, +2 for manipulations +3 for conditioning, +1 laptop] etc. -- These are just my opinions, unless I forgot to lock my terminal again... White Player: God is angry [casts WoG]. Blue Player: God is counterspelled. Pierre: It's not the end of the world. THIS, [shows Nevinyrral's Disk] is the end of the world! [BWAHAHAHA] -- Jason Grundy au646@freenet.carleton.ca --

In article <940831.123953.17749@cheshire.cc.oxy.edu>, Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: > CLARIFICATION: The tourney results chill me. Out of five top decks, only > one non-bleed oriented deck made it. And that only to fourth. And vot- > ing had no place in these games... personally, I find the political > actions to be one of the most enjoyable and unique features of the > game - but as far as winning with a political deck, looks like you're > out of luck... I mean, at least thank god that the only cards allowing > you to gain pool in the minion phase are politic... > > Oh, wait. Here's one that gives you a nasty bleed and a gain. Stack > stack stack. *toss in some stealth cards and Presence and Obfuscate > skills* I'm ready (and so is everyone else if they want a ghost of > a chance of being able to compete. > > The game has suddenly switched from one of politics and biding time > and alliance and betrayal, to one of *whomp*, you're dead. Next...? > > I thought Jyhad would've avoided this, where Magic didn't, but the > old Channeled Fireball spectre has reared its head again... > > So maybe it's not the one card I'm really griping on, just the > whole yawning chasm that showed itself... Jyhad has now become > a homogenized power speed game where everyone stacks their > deck with unblockable bleeds, or dies. Not very fun... Me too. I think the game balance in Jyhad is missing something severely. Also note the disturbing trend in the TYPES of cards that won the tourney. I personally only own three Obfuscate minion cards, and two of them are concealed weapon. There is no way I could possibly build an Obfuscate deck! In addition to that, the two clans I have the most Vampyres for are Gangrel and Brujah; I own only one Tremere at all... I think the balance is skewed enough that it will eventually come down to very simple strategies: 1. Get lots of cheap vampyres out fast enough that you bleed your opponent through execessive force. 2. Get vampyres out and use lots of nigh unstoppable bleeds. Any other concept seems to lose. Voting is cute, but relatively pointless in the long run. Equipment, IMHO, is effectively a waste because it spends an action, and it's been my experience that, in this game, once you get behind a little, the rest of the game is a "see how long you take to die" type of thing. I will probably not invest too much more money; perhaps a booster or two if I feel lucky. All in all I'm somewhat disappointed in this game. I really hope that Netrunner is better, since that's my preferred genre anyway. ...Paul -- + + + + + + + + + + + Paul, cleggp@rpi.edu. yIlImQo'qu' Don't Panic! alt.galactic-guide yIlaD "When doth life leave the weary? 'Tis not death I fear, but the end of living." -- Paul

In article <940831.123953.17749@cheshire.cc.oxy.edu>, Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: > > So maybe it's not the one card I'm really griping on, just the > whole yawning chasm that showed itself... Jyhad has now become > a homogenized power speed game where everyone stacks their > deck with unblockable bleeds, or dies. Not very fun... > > True. I agree with everything you said if you're playing a total stealth/bleed deck. And, yeah, missing your master phase can be aggravating. But, if someone played a deck like this with me, I'd add intercept and combat cards then block one of their bleeds once and kick the *&^%) out of their vampire. Repeat until their vamps are in torpor since they don't have much of anything except stealth and bleeds. Then either play a vote or just wander over with my measly gangrel with a laptop. Repeat this until they get someone out of torpor or whatever. Then wait for them to attack. Block with another intercept that you had a chance to horde while the other player was getting out of torpor, add diablerie or straight out death via aggravated damage if bored. Something worth trying at least, instead of just deciding that stealth and bleeds win the game and giving up... Scott storm@tamsun.tamu.edu

Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: ( discussion of Social Charm, a bleed action that can add 1 to your pool if successful) ( another writer said it would be blocked) > Which is why you throw in your umpteen stealth cards... then it won't > matter when your opponent sees the action. He can't block anyway. Remember > the post where he said his deck was able to fuel a +2 stealth bleed every > round? Actually, WotC apparantly thought about that particular problem. No clan combines Presence and Obsfucate (what you need for stealthly Social Charm) and only three vampires combine both, all expensive and mostly good at other things. > ( further concerns that the game gives too much advantage to bleed decks) Very legitimate concerns, but the jury is still out. There may well be other strategies. I've seen ideas for Renegade Garou decks that would have turned my stealthy bleed vampires into blood soup. I still see no good way to stop decks with bleeds made unstoppable with Majesty at superior (end combat, pay 1 blood to untap, repeat until defender runs out of blockers) as they can also Majesty out of blocks or Garou attacks. Any card limit will end that strategy, though, as you need LOTS of Majesty cards (probably 1/3 to 1/2 your deck).

In article <343d7s$he0@search01.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curtadams@aol.com> wrote: >Clinton Richard Wolf <wolf@oxy.edu> wrote: >( discussion of Social Charm, a bleed action that can add 1 to your pool >if successful) >( another writer said it would be blocked) > >> Which is why you throw in your umpteen stealth cards... then it >won't >> matter when your opponent sees the action. He can't block anyway. >Remember >> the post where he said his deck was able to fuel a +2 stealth bleed >every >> round? > >Actually, WotC apparantly thought about that particular problem. No clan >combines Presence and Obsfucate (what you need for stealthly Social Charm) >and only three vampires combine both, all expensive and mostly good at >other things. > Problem being of course that Discipline skill cards are common... just toss in all the Obf/Pres you need - three gives you a Sup.Presence / Ob combo on the lowliest of Caitiff... less if they already possess part of the puzzle >> ( further concerns that the game gives too much advantage to bleed >decks) > >Very legitimate concerns, but the jury is still out. There may well be >other strategies. I've seen ideas for Renegade Garou decks that would >have turned my stealthy bleed vampires into blood soup. I still see no >good way to stop decks with bleeds made unstoppable with Majesty at >superior (end combat, pay 1 blood to untap, repeat until defender runs out >of blockers) as they can also Majesty out of blocks or Garou attacks. Any >card limit will end that strategy, though, as you need LOTS of Majesty >cards (probably 1/3 to 1/2 your deck). I think card limits are definitely something to be thought hard on, at least for tourneys... I'm sure the winning decks had far more than four of each of the cards they used in their strategy...

wolf@oxy.edu (Clinton Richard Wolf) writes: > Oh, wait. Here's one that gives you a nasty bleed and a gain. Stack > stack stack. *toss in some stealth cards and Presence and Obfuscate > skills* I'm ready (and so is everyone else if they want a ghost of > a chance of being able to compete. Nah, I'll just put in a few Telepathic Misdirections and Deflections, and now my predator gets to bleed everyone else instead of me. While they squabble, maybe I'll gradually pump myself up with Hunt+Blood Doll, so that when there are just two of us left (and TM and D are no longer usable), I'll be able to finish him off in a fairly standard way. He'll already be weakened from *his* predator using Social Charm. > The game has suddenly switched from one of politics and biding time > and alliance and betrayal, to one of *whomp*, you're dead. Next...? I think this pronouncement may be premature. I confess to being a mediocre gamer, but even I (like most players, I think) independently discovered the MtG Red Direct Damage deck before I thought of any good counters to it. Maybe Jyhad already has some way of combatting Social Charmers, and we just haven't figured it out yet. Even if it'you've found a genuine flaw in the game, I have a feeling that the good folks at WotC are working on a card right now that'll combat this. Imagine a Master card, "Diplomatic Immunity", where you pay one pool and tap the card to make any bleed fail? Or a "Teflon Skin" reaction card that has the same effect? I think in the wake of "Blood Moon", it's clear that WotC will design new cards to counteract abusable cards. -- Brian Scearce bls@sector7g.eng.sun.com The entire software industry runs on coffee just as much as it runs on electricity. -- Dan Sorenson

cleggp@magritte.its.rpi.edu (...Paul) writes: >Me too. I think the game balance in Jyhad is missing something severely. >Also note the disturbing trend in the TYPES of cards that won the tourney. >I personally only own three Obfuscate minion cards, and two of them are >concealed weapon. There is no way I could possibly build an Obfuscate >deck! In addition to that, the two clans I have the most Vampyres for are >Gangrel and Brujah; I own only one Tremere at all... I got the opposite set of cards as you - small statistics are great, huh? >I think the balance is skewed enough that it will eventually come down to >very simple strategies: 1. Get lots of cheap vampyres out fast enough >that you bleed your opponent through execessive force. 2. Get vampyres >out and use lots of nigh unstoppable bleeds. If you do this to me, I'll send a vampire or two into torpor each turn - those cheap guys are too crunchy. This means you're going to have to waste _two_ actions, one to get Weenie Drac out of torpor (bonus two blood loss to boot), and one to hunt cause he's got no blood. Or at least, you'll spend some time hunting, even if you barely escape torpor. How will I do this? Weapons cards can be worth the action it takes to put them out. Or, play potence and thaumaturgy cards in combat. "But", you exclaim, "I've got a lot of +1 stealth cards, so you can't stop me!". Wrong. Drop a decent vampire on a Sport Bike. Use some "+1 intercept" vampires. Have one of the several common auspex cards handy that give + intercept. These have the added advantage of being able to harrass your vampires doing "safe" things, like rescuing Weenie Dracs from torpor, calling votes, hunting (ouch!), or grabbing weapons. >Any other concept seems to lose. Voting is cute, but relatively pointless >in the long run. Equipment, IMHO, is effectively a waste because it spends >an action, and it's been my experience that, in this game, once you get >behind a little, the rest of the game is a "see how long you take to die" >type of thing. Hmm. You aren't thinking creatively. How about the common vote cards that deal damage directly to other players, often at +1 stealth? There's several. If you don't put some votes in your deck, my vampires suddenly can do actions that are the equivalent to +2 or +3 stealthed bleeds! And don't forget the multiplayer aspect. If someone gets out a little too far ahead in a multiplayer game, and tries to hole up, the other players are complete morons if they don't harrass him a little. Go play a few games of Illuminati for practice. In short, I think that people are making too big a deal of one tourny result. One that we don't even know the scoring system for! One that had no "tourny rules" restricting deck construction! Also, you all aren't thinking very hard about how to beat these "scary" decks. What this comes down too - I wanna play you for ante, fella! >I will probably not invest too much more money; perhaps a booster or two if >I feel lucky. All in all I'm somewhat disappointed in this game. I really >hope that Netrunner is better, since that's my preferred genre anyway. Don't need too much money - I've spent < $20 (starter +5 boosters), and feel I have more than enough cards. Did a fair bit of trading, of course. In this respect, it's better than Magic, as one can make a reasonably competetive deck without as much of an investment. I too am looking forward to Netrunner. Word a while ago was that it was the "next" game - why did Jyhad come out first, and when can we expect Netrunner? Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

In article <CvGy7J.4vp@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Alec Habig <ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote: >cleggp@magritte.its.rpi.edu (...Paul) writes: > >>I think the balance is skewed enough that it will eventually come down to >>very simple strategies: 1. Get lots of cheap vampyres out fast enough >>that you bleed your opponent through execessive force. 2. Get vampyres >>out and use lots of nigh unstoppable bleeds. > >If you do this to me, I'll send a vampire or two into torpor each turn - those >cheap guys are too crunchy. This means you're going to have to waste _two_ >actions, one to get Weenie Drac out of torpor (bonus two blood loss to boot), >and one to hunt cause he's got no blood. Or at least, you'll spend some time >hunting, even if you barely escape torpor. How will I do this? Weapons cards >can be worth the action it takes to put them out. Or, play potence and >thaumaturgy cards in combat. > >"But", you exclaim, "I've got a lot of +1 stealth cards, so you can't stop >me!". Wrong. Drop a decent vampire on a Sport Bike. Use some "+1 intercept" >vampires. Have one of the several common auspex cards handy that give + >intercept. These have the added advantage of being able to harrass your >vampires doing "safe" things, like rescuing Weenie Dracs from torpor, calling >votes, hunting (ouch!), or grabbing weapons. > A common enough thought, God knows I'm trying to put together an Intercept deck right now and hoping for the radio station with each new pack I buy... Still, problems with it. Bleed decks don't vote, don't hunt, and don't use weapons. Also, with "Weenie Dracs" no need to rescue... just plop out another or a copy of the first and let the torpored one burn from the contest. Getting weapons requires your vamps to tap, and while tapped let three weenies with conditioning through to bleed you for 6. Next round, they bleed you for four at least, since you can only hope to block one. Sport bikes are uncommon, and cost pool to equip (same with weapons), leaving you that much closer to oustage. The only vampire that gains Intercept is Andreas, and he has to pay blood for it. Also, remember your vampires have to be untapped to play any Auspex reaction cards, which means you'll have to put in quite a few WWEF's if you want to be doing anything but sitting around waiting to be struck at. This isn't saying it won't work, but it's just not as easy as you make it out to be... the average player with 150 or so total cards might have two Sport Bikes at the most. >>Any other concept seems to lose. Voting is cute, but relatively pointless >>in the long run. Equipment, IMHO, is effectively a waste because it spends >>an action, and it's been my experience that, in this game, once you get >>behind a little, the rest of the game is a "see how long you take to die" >>type of thing. > >Hmm. You aren't thinking creatively. How about the common vote cards that >deal damage directly to other players, often at +1 stealth? There's several. >If you don't put some votes in your deck, my vampires suddenly can do actions >that are the equivalent to +2 or +3 stealthed bleeds! > You're tapping vampires to vote - your Ancilla Empowerment does 3 to him. Then his three weenies do 6 back to you... that's why vote decks lost, crea- tivity had nothing to do with it (unfortunately.) Remember also that each vote you put in is one less intercept card... >And don't forget the multiplayer aspect. If someone gets out a little too far >ahead in a multiplayer game, and tries to hole up, the other players are >complete morons if they don't harrass him a little. Go play a few games of >Illuminati for practice. > I never liked Illuminati... probably because it was set up the same way, with everyone having to gang up on the Bavarians or they'll win. In any case, six bleed decks fighting it out is still six bleed decks fighting it out, and boring as hell. >In short, I think that people are making too big a deal of one tourny result. >One that we don't even know the scoring system for! One that had no "tourny rules" restricting deck construction! Also, you all aren't thinking very hard about how to beat these "scary" decks. What this comes down too - I wanna play >you for ante, fella! > I hope you've seen from this post that I at least have been thinking pretty hard on how to beat them - the only way to go looks like an Intercept deck, and a tourney with half Intercept/half Bleed is almost as noisome a concept as all Bleed. I knew that people would instantly cry 'Telepathic Misdirection! or 'Sport Bikes!' as cure alls, but to make a difference you're going to have to stack them at least as much as he's stacking those bleeds, making for basically an unimaginitive arms race. I realize that limits on deck construction haven't been set yet... call this a plea for attention so that some will be, soon, and creativity actually will become a factor again. Otherwise, sure I'll play you for ante with a bleed deck - and unfortunately, most probably win in spite of all your neat tricks. I'm certainly not giving up on the game... but these are concerns I feel are legitimate and need to be addressed.

In article <342o49$4lo@bmerha64.bnr.ca> idecoop@bnr.ca (Jason) writes: > There are at least two cards that make you bleed someone other than your >intended target. Just stack your deck with these. It dosn't matter who >kills your prey, YOU still get the victory for it :] > But yes, I agree, there are WAY to many +bleed cards, and not enough ways >to block the bleeds. Just too damn hard to get intercept compared to stealth. >I don't see a blanket card restriction [no more than four of any 1 card etc.] >helping at all since the ratio will stay the same. Unlike Magic, Jyhad is a >game of ratios because of the fact you are always drawing. > I think that if a bleed will be hitting you for more than 1, it should be >at -1(per 2pts of bleed) stealth. I really hate getting bled for 8 or 9... >[vampire at +1, +2 for manipulations +3 for conditioning, +1 laptop] etc. > Tsk, tsk, tsk. Trying to match stealth with intercept at a 1:1 ratio isn't going to work. The game was designed in favor of offense to keep play moving. Besides, that kind of linear response isn't nearly subtle enough for a Methuselah. Possible options: Bleed faster than you're bled. or Ration your defenses. Save intercepts and Telepathic counters for the big bleeders, let standard vamps without Dominance or equipment through rather than waste a rare card like Eagles' Sight. or (my favorite) Split your forces. The high-bleed vamps tend to fight like wimps. Take a few less bleeders and stock Gangrel, Brujah or Nosferatu, plenty of guns, Bum's Rush, Garou or Vamp Hunters, Haven Dioscovered etc. If you have a high-auspex vamp capable of lots of interception, give him or her a big weapon so that successful interception=one enemy vamp in torpor. On your turn, use minion-targeting cards and such to send your combat monsters against his high-influence society types and loonies. Laptop and Bonding vs. Basilia=bedtime for some unfortunate ventrue or Malkavian. Vamp society is a charming blend of manipulative intrigue and bestial fury. Be sure to tap both these sources.

wolf@oxy.edu (Clinton Richard Wolf) writes: > A common enough thought, God knows I'm trying to put together an Intercept > deck right now and hoping for the radio station with each new pack I buy... > > Still, problems with it. Bleed decks don't vote, don't hunt, and don't use > weapons. Also, with "Weenie Dracs" no need to rescue... just plop out another > or a copy of the first and let the torpored one burn from the contest. Costing you some pool too, albeit a small amount. > Getting weapons requires your vamps to tap, and while tapped let three > weenies with conditioning through to bleed you for 6. Next round, they > bleed you for four at least, since you can only hope to block one. Sport > bikes are uncommon, and cost pool to equip (same with weapons), leaving > you that much closer to oustage. The only vampire that gains Intercept > is Andreas, and he has to pay blood for it. Also, remember your vampires > have to be untapped to play any Auspex reaction cards, which means you'll > have to put in quite a few WWEF's if you want to be doing anything but > sitting around waiting to be struck at. Yep. One takes a hit while getting one's vamps set to kick some butt. After that, it goes the other way. Another useful vampire to counter this strategy - Justine. Last night I was lucky enough to get her out early with a sport bike (of which, I indeed have 2 out of about 150 cards :). The other guy happened to get out a raft of weenies. Justine torporized them all within a few turns. Lucky, I admit. But something to consider. And aren't there a few other vampires that get extra abilities vs. younger vampires or something? Don't recall offhand. > I hope you've seen from this post that I at least have been thinking pretty > hard on how to beat them - the only way to go looks like an Intercept deck, > and a tourney with half Intercept/half Bleed is almost as noisome a concept > as all Bleed. I knew that people would instantly cry 'Telepathic Misdirection! > or 'Sport Bikes!' as cure alls, but to make a difference you're going to > have to stack them at least as much as he's stacking those bleeds, making > for basically an unimaginitive arms race. I realize that limits on deck > construction haven't been set yet... call this a plea for attention so that > some will be, soon, and creativity actually will become a factor again. > Otherwise, sure I'll play you for ante with a bleed deck - and unfortunately, > most probably win in spite of all your neat tricks. Yep. Add the simple rule "no more than 4 of one card", and the Mr. Stealthy Bleeder can't keep it up, as he needs to burn cards each time he wants to get an uncontested bleed. While equipment takes an action, it's reusable (until that damn gangrel sends a Canine Horde or whatever at it - grr). Perhaps I haven't seen the problem yet because no one here has enough cards to severely stack a deck yet. And we'll undoubtably play with a four card limit should the need actually arise. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.