John F Dixon (jod...@badlands.NoDak.edu) wrote:
: Fame is a rad card, granted. When that vampire with a butt lode of fame
: goes into torper- eat him. problem solved! In every game there is going
: to be a bunch of cards that just rock-n-roll. it is a fact of life that
: we all have to deal with. i feel that Jyhad is a great game because the
: hoser cards rock but, there is usually a way around every card. maybe
: we should all just shut up about the hoser cards and start thinking of ways
: around those annoying cards. WwEF if someone puts 10 in there deck, fine
: that just means that they need to get through them before they will get
: to their ivory bow, monacle, or what ever. a good deck can prepare for
: those hose all cards.
Just a response to the Fame comment: Fame has been ruled non-cumulative. It
is only good to have one on a vamp.
In article <3jn5fp$a...@nntp.msstate.edu>,
Charles Richard Robb <cr...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
>Just a response to the Fame comment: Fame has been ruled non-cumulative. It
>is only good to have one on a vamp.
>
But this was overturned. The only card that is non-cumulative is Army
of Rats (due to the text on the card, not some arbitrary decision).
From: aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie)
Subject: Re: More questions folks !!!
Date: 22 Jan 1995 05:44:14 GMT
Message-ID: <3fsrbe$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
>>2. Can you play more than one fame on a Vampire.>
>Yes. Note that this has flipflopped.
[ quoted text not captured ]
excuse my french, but i think the fame thing is bullshit. i think that
four fames on a vampire with fortitude (ie day operation) is just way too
much of an abuse. that's 12+ damage to your prey UNBLOCKABLE. i think
that fame should be a contestable title! or at least removable as a
directed action +1 stealth
harpua
> : Fame is a rad card, granted. When that vampire with a butt lode of fame[ quoted text not captured ]> Just a response to the Fame comment: Fame has been ruled non-cumulative. It
> is only good to have one on a vamp.
Yeah that's right - that's official from WOTC too. Personally, I've never had
a game screwed up or dominated by just 1 card. When it comes right down to it,
almost any card can have a devastating effect at some time, or be utterly
useless at other times. No card is invincible.
Take a powerful vamp with Fame. You can keep the thing tapped with
Misdirections and Consang. Condemnations to stop it blocking and
getting into combat. If it goes to torpor it can be diablerised or
stolen. With Amaranth it won't even get to torpor, and combined with
Ritual of the Bitter Rose you win blood. You could even nail the thing
with enough aggravated damage to burn it. If it uses a Day Operation to
send itself to torpor, that can be blocked by Eagle's Sight (another
WOTC ruling). The vamp could be contested. A Sudden Reversal would stop
the vamp becoming famous in the first place. Use a Hostile Takeover.
Use your imagination. Like I said - no card is invincible.
***Guy***
[ quoted text not captured ]
Not to mention, blocking isn't always a good thing. When I play my
Tremere deck(Which has no rare cards in it), I usually go for an all out
bleed every round. The idea is simple. I want them to block, because,
it will be the last time they ever block(Theft of Vitae -> Press -> Walk
of Flame -> Amaranth). If you have no vampires out in a game, a deck full
o wakes doesn't do you a lot of good, now does it. It is not wise to
assume that any action in the game, such as blocking, is always to one's
benefit.
-tony
[ quoted text not captured ]
However, in your situation, for your opponent, there would only
be a few cards in their hands which may be better than a
WwEF (Bleed bounce, Majesty, etc.) Most other cards (in lieu
of a WwEF in his hand) would not help him any more than a
WwEF, not played, would. So, he doesn't lose anything by having
put a WwEF in his deck. On the contrary, a WwEF can help him
to play those few cards (Telepathic Misdirection, etc.) that may
be helpful.
Sure, he can have a combat deck with a number of Dodges, but in
that case too, the WwEF would help him.
You seldom lose anything by putting 4 (or 8, or 10) WwEF's
in a deck. I'll soon post another article, explaining why
WwEF's are good.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
In article <3jpnac$h...@crl.crl.com>
lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>>>2. Can you play more than one fame on a Vampire.>>
>>Yes. Note that this has flipflopped.
Yeah, you can play it, of course, ok. But, the card reads (the same
reason Army of Rats is non-cumul. [which is how I read it the first
time anyway]) that you lose 3 pool when they go to torpor. So?
If they have 2 fames, so, you still lose 3 pool (that's how we play,
tom can stick his head in a fish :), it doesnt say "lose 3 extra pool"
it distinctly says: lose 3 pool. Same reason Fists of Death, etc.
isnt cumulative. You have *2*. Not 2 more, *2* only. just like
some people confused about Anson/Rumors of Gehenna.
Maybe it's just me :-|
-Geo
In article <17360EC37S...@ukcc.uky.edu>
CLC...@ukcc.uky.edu (Geoff Coovert) writes:
> In article <3jpnac$h...@crl.crl.com>
> lsc...@crl.com (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>
> >>>2. Can you play more than one fame on a Vampire.
> >>
> >>Yes. Note that this has flipflopped.
>
> Yeah, you can play it, of course, ok. But, the card reads (the same
> reason Army of Rats is non-cumul. [which is how I read it the first
> time anyway]) that you lose 3 pool when they go to torpor. So?
> If they have 2 fames, so, you still lose 3 pool
>
>(that's how we play,
> tom can stick his head in a fish :)
>
Excuse me? do we really care what you want to to with Tom or his
rules? Show some maturity. You disagree with him. That's nice of you
to tell us. So you play differently. Glad to your input on your
variation of Jyhad. I encouragr you. BUT KEEP THE NAME CALLING TO THE
GRADE SCHOOLERS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. Give me a break.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Geoff writes:
> >(that's how we play,
> > tom can stick his head in a fish :)
and Felix replies:
> Excuse me? do we really care what you want to to with Tom or his
> rules? Show some maturity. You disagree with him. That's nice of you
> to tell us. So you play differently. Glad to your input on your
> variation of Jyhad. I encouragr you. BUT KEEP THE NAME CALLING TO THE
> GRADE SCHOOLERS WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER. Give me a break.
Just to nitpick, Geoff distinctly put a smiley at the end of his phrase,
so maybe you should switch to decaf, eh?
-ben
--
"I've seen things you wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tann-
hauser gate. All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain."