The Incorrigible Little Boy (immo...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Is there a technical beginning and ending to a master phase, officiall, I
: mean?
: For example, if during my master phase I am supposed to transfer 1 blood
: to some vampire of mine, do I necessarily have to do it BEFORE I play the
: master card? What I'm asking is, does the playing of the master card
: officially end the master phase, or can I move the blood afterwards and
: still consider it the master phase, as long as it's before the next phase?
You can do things in whatever order you want. Your Master phase basically
lasts from the end of your untap phase until just before your first minion
action.
--
Meow!
In article <pkittyD6...@netcom.com>,
Purple Kitty <pki...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>You can do things in whatever order you want. Your Master phase basically
>lasts from the end of your untap phase until just before your first minion
>action.
Hmmmm, I had been told that the playing of the card ends the phase and
that this is why when a blood doll is played etc..that one can not make
use of it, because the phase is over...
shrug...
Mel
Mel-zo-rama (mel...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Purple Kitty <pki...@netcom.com> wrote:: Hmmmm, I had been told that the playing of the card ends the phase and: that this is why when a blood doll is played etc..that one can not make
: use of it, because the phase is over...
The Master phase ends when you have no more Master Phase effects that you
want to perform, and not before. Thus, it is perfectly legal to bring
out a Blood Doll and then use it that same Master Phase.
Shane Travis | If you can't grant someone else's reasoning as
sht...@duke.usask.ca | superior when it plainly is, what's the point
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | of reasoning at all?
| - Harry Turtledove, _Prince of the North_
In <3lh9kq$q...@sif.cs.cornell.edu> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>The usual warning ...>In article <3lg03n$l...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:>>Mel-zo-rama (mel...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>>: Purple Kitty <pki...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>: Hmmmm, I had been told that the playing of the card ends the phase and
>>: that this is why when a blood doll is played etc..that one can not make
>>: use of it, because the phase is over...
>>
>>The Master phase ends when you have no more Master Phase effects that you
>>want to perform, and not before. Thus, it is perfectly legal to bring
>>out a Blood Doll and then use it that same Master Phase.>This is officially correct.>Can somebody enlighten me on what "Master Phase effects" there are in
>the game, other than Blood Dolls and Investments? It seems to be
>that the text on Blood Doll is simply the uncorrected beta text.
From searching the spoilers file, in addition to the ones you mentioned,
I come up with these:
Chantry -- tremere leaves torpor during master phase
Tragic Love Affair -- affects victim's meth during master phase
Rumors of Gehenna -- lets you play 2 master cards
Anson -- (same as above)
I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).
Pat
oma...@convex.com
The usual warning ...
In article <3lg03n$l...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
>Mel-zo-rama (mel...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
>: Purple Kitty <pki...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: Hmmmm, I had been told that the playing of the card ends the phase and
>: that this is why when a blood doll is played etc..that one can not make
>: use of it, because the phase is over...
>
>The Master phase ends when you have no more Master Phase effects that you
>want to perform, and not before. Thus, it is perfectly legal to bring
>out a Blood Doll and then use it that same Master Phase.
This is officially correct.
Can somebody enlighten me on what "Master Phase effects" there are in
the game, other than Blood Dolls and Investments? It seems to be
that the text on Blood Doll is simply the uncorrected beta text.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
oma...@convex.com (Patrick M. O'Malley) writes:
>In <3lh9kq$q...@sif.cs.cornell.edu> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:>>Can somebody enlighten me on what "Master Phase effects" there are in
>>the game, other than Blood Dolls and Investments? It seems to be
>>that the text on Blood Doll is simply the uncorrected beta text.>Chantry -- tremere leaves torpor during master phase>Tragic Love Affair -- affects victim's meth during master phase
>Rumors of Gehenna -- lets you play 2 master cards
>Anson -- (same as above)>I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
>consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
>effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).
Blood doll takes place in the Master Phase because it requires Master
(Methuselah) presence. You can't use a blood doll if you, as a Meth,
were busy Sudden Reversing somebody else - because your not there
to suck on the Doll.
Same (kinda) with Chantry.
Hunting Grounds do not require you to be there (which is also why
they are not usable by Vampires in torpor).
L. Scott
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> As a side note, now that we're talking about sequence of play,
> isn't Army of Rats a balanced card on its own, even if cumulative?
> The card takes effect during the controller's untap, hence is
> delayed one turn. If someone can slip 4 AoR's through, can't he
> have similarly slipped through 4 Bonding's in their place, which
> would be in most ways as deadly as 4 AoR's?
Once more into the breach,
Peace Alan,
I have to disagree, since AoR is a 'permanent' is is more effective than
a Bonding/Threats. Yes, in the endgame, a Dominate bleed mod is more
likely to oust your prey than AoR, but AoR will do more over the whole
course of the game. I will agree that Fame shouldn't be cumulative on
a single minion, but cumulative AoRs would be more powerful than bleed
mods, not that that would be a bad thing (according to Curt).
As a complete aside to that, what is the superior version of AoR?
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
In article <3lnltm$b...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:
>Blood doll takes place in the Master Phase because it requires Master
>(Methuselah) presence. You can't use a blood doll if you, as a Meth,
>were busy Sudden Reversing somebody else - because your not there
>to suck on the Doll.
>Same (kinda) with Chantry.
Well, the investments do require the Meth.'s personal attention
and care (expand a Master card-play), but since Blood Dolls
don't, I can't see why a Meth. can't Sudden Reversal and Blood
Doll, yet can take profit from an investment, create a new
Powerbase, /and/ suck on a Blood Doll.
Similar (kinda) with Chantry - the blood can come from any vampire.
I doubt that the issue about Out-of-Turn Masters was the consideration
when they decided on these `Master Phase effects'. The rules
nowhere mentioned Master Phase effects, and the wording in the
OOT Master rules make it seem likely that /none/ was intended
(except for proper substitutes for a Master card-play, i.e.
investments). If I were the rules editor and `Master Phase
effects' were intended, I would have mentioned that explicitly
in the OOT Master rules (`... and can't use any Master Phase
effects on your next turn').
Also, this may create a small balance problem with these two
rather powerful cards, by allowing them to be used on the
turn that they are played.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lp8hr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>I have to disagree, since AoR is a 'permanent' is is more effective than
>a Bonding/Threats. Yes, in the endgame, a Dominate bleed mod is more
>likely to oust your prey than AoR, but AoR will do more over the whole
>course of the game.
It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
`burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
is too powerful.
Both intercept combat and Rush combat can take care of AoR.
It takes two turns of no opposition for an AoR to do as much
damage as Bonding, and that is barring any other Bleed
modifiers.
Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.
>As a complete aside to that, what is the superior version of AoR?
Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
only at your prey, at +1 stealth.
On a side note, what about making Revised Rampage superior at
+1 stealth? All those Kine Dominance, Far Mastery, Entrancement,
ect. are all at +1 stealth.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
> consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
> effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).
If the Blood Doll affects untap phase, then it becomes less powerful: it
cannot be used on the turn it is played.
papillo the cavailier
In article <3lp8sq$g...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan)
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]> rather powerful cards, by allowing them to be used on the
> turn that they are played.>
> --
> "Live Life with Heart."
i have to say i completely agree with alan. i don't understand why you
couldn't play chantry and take a blood off a blood doll.
harpua
>
> Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
In article <3lpnrh$f...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> pap...@fc.hp.com (Bob Ellison) writes:
>> I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
>> consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
>> effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).>If the Blood Doll affects untap phase, then it becomes less powerful: it>cannot be used on the turn it is played.
Anyone having problems with less powerful Blood Dolls?
:-)
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Since I don't see any killer problems with Blood Dolls operating in the
master phase (some advantages, some disadvantages), I'd say let sleeping
dogs lie.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3lp8hr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >I have to disagree, since AoR is a 'permanent' is is more effective than
> >a Bonding/Threats. Yes, in the endgame, a Dominate bleed mod is more
> >likely to oust your prey than AoR, but AoR will do more over the whole
> >course of the game.
>
> It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
> `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
> is too powerful.
Peace Alan,
"Can be burned" falls into the same catagory as "Fame can be SRed."
Non-combat decks have problems removing AoR. It does not need to
be cumulative.
> Both intercept combat and Rush combat can take care of AoR.
> It takes two turns of no opposition for an AoR to do as much
> damage as Bonding, and that is barring any other Bleed
> modifiers.
Yes, but Bonding rarely sends your prey's minions to torpor.
> Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
> players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
> ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
> Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
> eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.
Gee, I love to depend on my prey for aid.
> >As a complete aside to that, what is the superior version of AoR?
>
> Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
> only at your prey, at +1 stealth.
Doesn't need the (D), but the +1 stealth might work.
> On a side note, what about making Revised Rampage superior at
> +1 stealth? All those Kine Dominance, Far Mastery, Entrancement,
> ect. are all at +1 stealth.
Kine Dominance isn't +1 stealth. Entrancement may not, but I don't know
the card that well. Far Mastery is always +1 stealth (my favorite card!)
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
> consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
> effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).
Blood Dolls working during the untap phase will make them even more more
powerful. Why? Well, Hunting Grounds work during the untap phase as well. As of
the current rules, you can't put more blood on a vamp than it's capacity,
therefore a Blood Dolled vamp will always have less than it's full capacity if
you take blood off it. If the Blood Doll is used in the untap phase however,
the blood could (theoretically) be taken off BEFORE the Hunting Grounds give
the vamps blood. I believe the designers have reasons behind these rules.
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
>only at your prey, at +1 stealth.
Eh? I think this makes mincemeat of any logical discussion on the (D)
symbol - arbitraily assigning it to an obviously undirected action
for the soul purpose of boosting the appeal of the card.
Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <3lp8hr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:: >I have to disagree, since AoR is a 'permanent' is is more effective than
: >a Bonding/Threats. Yes, in the endgame, a Dominate bleed mod is more
: >likely to oust your prey than AoR, but AoR will do more over the whole
: >course of the game.: It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
: `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
: is too powerful.
Yes, BUT...
The two clans which can play AoR are Gangrel and Nosferatu. Let us
assume for the sake of argument that you are playing primarily a Gangrel
deck. Gangrel have: Animalism (get AoR in play, two extra untapping
cards over anything else), Protean (agg damage, among other things) and
Fortitude.
The main problem with gangrel is that they are _really_ weak on bleeding
- their clan hoser reduces this even further. They are strong enough in
other areas, however, that people still play them for their combat
abilities.
Make AoR cumulative, and you have solved Gangrel's only glaring
weakness. Now they are free to put into play as many AoR as they can and
then just sit back and untap (using animalism/WWEF) while waiting for
their prey (or others) to get desparate enough to try and burn the AoR.
Intercept the attempt (using Raven spies/sports bikes) and rip through
the hapless vampire in combat using Fortitude and Protean to their best
effect.
The Gangrel need not even _worry_ about their 'clan hoser' anymore, as
enough AoR will now do the job for them. They don't have to go looking
for fights, as the fights will come to them and the opponents will soon
be in torpor. Lastly (and best of all), once you have 3-5 AoR in play
and oust your prey, they _stay in play_ and bleed the heck outta your
former grandprey, and so on down the line!
As you can see, I am perfectly content with AoR as it is. Seems balanced
to me...
Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns
sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain
[ quoted text not captured ]
What's the problem here? Since the direction is clearly stated
on the card, it should be clear.
Technically, since what my Rats will be doing is to bite my
prey, with superior Animalism I can direct the Rats in such
a way that it will not be noticed by my predator. Not far
from being logical.
There is still the problem that the victim of Charnas may not
be able to block ...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lqlj3$n...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>Make AoR cumulative, and you have solved Gangrel's only glaring
>weakness. Now they are free to put into play as many AoR as they can and
>then just sit back and untap (using animalism/WWEF) while waiting for
>their prey (or others) to get desparate enough to try and burn the AoR.
>Intercept the attempt (using Raven spies/sports bikes) and rip through
>the hapless vampire in combat using Fortitude and Protean to their best
>effect.
I agree with you, Shane. That's the only reason I use AoR in my
Gangrel deck. With ganrel, either you have to take the combat to them,
or make them come to you. AoR is perfect for that as written, less so
when not cumulative (but still usable). If non-cumulative carries to
V:tES, I'd like to see the superior do 2 damage to the prey.
| If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--*
| PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu
| ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------
"Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK
In article <3lq94r$d...@thekk.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>If the Blood Doll affects untap phase, then it becomes less powerful: it
>>cannot be used on the turn it is played.>
>Anyone having problems with less powerful Blood Dolls?
I've never thought that blood dolls were too powerful. As a
matter of fact, I would be disappointed if they moved to untap. It
wouldn't hurt game balance that much (although it would tend to cause
more delays), but it's just fine where it is.
Our games are never slow enough that anyone can do the BD-hunt
trick. More often, you'll find yourself putting blood out onto the BD
rather than sucking it off.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> [suspicion that DTR mis-ruling Army of Rats deleted]>> AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
>> `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
>> is too powerful.
I'm following up two articles at once; I hope that isn't confusing.
In article <3lrsja$5...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>"Can be burned" falls into the same catagory as "Fame can be SRed."
>Non-combat decks have problems removing AoR. It does not need to
>be cumulative.
A non-combat deck without stealth? How can such deck ever perform
/any/ action without getting blocked and beaten up? Such decks
don't exist, except by beginners with small collections of cards.
A deck that can't do anything against a Rats horde deck would
be pretty helpless against S&B (or even Bleeding Tremeres),
unless it uses bleed bounce or
Telepathic Counter defense (strategies which use tons of only 1 or 2
cards, in the same way as AoR horde).
Burning AoR is not the same as SR. Burning AoR is always availiable,
unlike SR. Fame `competes' with other Masters, among which Fame is
one of the most powerful (if not /the/ one). AoR `competes' with other
actions, among them Computer Hacking, cardless bleeds and Bum's Rush.
The Rats Horde strategy also `competes' with the Malks. S&B strategy.
>> Both intercept combat and Rush combat can take care of AoR.
>> It takes two turns of no opposition for an AoR to do as much
>> damage as Bonding, and that is barring any other Bleed
>> modifiers.>Yes, but Bonding rarely sends your prey's minions to torpor.
Does AoR? If a deck can't block 3-4 AoR's (in addition to
not being able to burn them after they come into play),
it similarly can't block 3-4 Bonding's. Pretty much toast.
>> Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
>> players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
>> ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
>> Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
>> eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.>Gee, I love to depend on my prey for aid.
I'm /so/ surprised that a Diplomacy player who is supporting
cross-table bleeds can't appreciate the rich inter-player
action that would be invoked by cumulative AoR's. Aren't
you the person that first said it is sometimes necessary
for an `unlucky' player (with an unable grand-predator)
to get aid from across the table (cross-table bleeding his
predator)?
>> Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
>> only at your prey, at +1 stealth.>Doesn't need the (D), but the +1 stealth might work.
I'm wary of making superior AoR at +2 stealth; that may be more
powerful than making it unblockable by predator. Anyway, this
is just a (quickly) conjured idea. If we're actually giving AoR a
Superior version, we'll need more careful thought and testing.
>> On a side note, what about making Revised Rampage superior at
>> +1 stealth? All those Kine Dominance, Far Mastery, Entrancement,
>> ect. are all at +1 stealth.>
>Kine Dominance isn't +1 stealth.
Right. I made a mistake. :-P
> James R. McClure Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------
In article <3lqlj3$n...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
>The two clans which can play AoR are Gangrel and Nosferatu.
Yes, Nosferatu. To begin with, Nosferatu aren't really good at
anything. Stealth + Potence? What's the use, other than to
play AoR, and keep it in play? (I know you can do stealth
Rush, but the `wasted' Animalism discipline hurts.)
>The main problem with gangrel is that they are _really_ weak on bleeding
>- their clan hoser reduces this even further. They are strong enough in
>other areas, however, that people still play them for their combat
>abilities.
Brujahs fight as good as Gangrel (2 combat disciplines), yet they
have the Presence bleeds. The problem is, Animalism is about
useless, with AoR reduced and its untaps matched/beaten by Wakes.
>Make AoR cumulative, and you have solved Gangrel's only glaring
>weakness. Now they are free to put into play as many AoR as they can and
>then just sit back and untap (using animalism/WWEF) while waiting for
>their prey (or others) to get desparate enough to try and burn the AoR.
This is not as rude as S&B, which, once done, the prey doesn't even
get a chance to try to burn. Gangrel AoR isn't much worse than
Brujahs coming at you with Legal Manipulations.
You may say that Gangrels with Rats Hordes are all-round, but so are
Tremere (Intercept combat + Dominate Bleeds) and Toreador (Intercept
combat + Presence Bleeds). Gangrel intercept can't catch real Stealth,
and Gangrel combat is vulnerable against Fortitute and long-range
Tremeres. Gangrels putting an AoR horde in play using Protean
untaps (or equivalent) may be a problem, but that is a problem
of untap cards in general, not of AoR.
>Intercept the attempt (using Raven spies/sports bikes) and rip through
>the hapless vampire in combat using Fortitude and Protean to their best
>effect.
Let's see ... your vampires can't intercept the AoR's + Protean
stealth, can't stealth through Animalism intercept, and
are "hapless" in combat against Gangrel which are using
AoR's and intercept, aside from combat. No intercept, no
stealth, and no combat. What does your deck do, at all?
>The Gangrel need not even _worry_ about their 'clan hoser' anymore, as
>enough AoR will now do the job for them.
Brujahs don't really have to worry about their Clan Hoser either;
they can Dodge or Majesty. AoR is always delayed one turn, and
is not too hard to be burnt if you can put only 1 or 2 out.
>They don't have to go looking
>for fights, as the fights will come to them and the opponents will soon
>be in torpor. Lastly (and best of all), once you have 3-5 AoR in play
>and oust your prey, they _stay in play_ and bleed the heck outta your
>former grandprey, and so on down the line!
If the grandprey just sits there and wait for the Rats to come and get him,
he deserves to be ousted. Anybody can (D) burn the Rats, especially
the grandprey with a predator who is already busy with the rats.
Unlike bleeds, which can strike suddenly and hit you for 4 pool,
AoR's have to sit on the table one turn before they takes
effect.
AoR torporize opponents which have neither stealth nor combat.
In other words, opponents which can never present any threat
if their prey has /any/ intercept. I don't think that a strategy
that can torporize (no matter how effectively) such opponents
is `too powerful'.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the>> `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
>> is too powerful.>"Can be burned" falls into the same catagory as "Fame can be SRed.">Non-combat decks have problems removing AoR. It does not need to
>be cumulative.
No, SR requires a special card and must be done as Fame is cast. AOR burn
requires neither of these. Stealth fries the rats too.
I think they should have been burnable allies. Then every clan has a
reasonable defense -
Tremere - intercept combat or Far Mastery
Malkavian - stealth or Far Mastery
Nosferatu - stealth or rush combat
Brujah - rush combat or Entrancement
Toreador - intercept combat or Entrancement
Ventrue - Far Mastery or Entrancement
Gangrel - rush combat
Plus any voting deck could Kindred Segregate or Consanginuous Condem.
>> Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
>> players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
>> ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
>> Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
>> eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.>Gee, I love to depend on my prey for aid.
We played AOR cumulative, when the game came out (hey, it's what the card
says-). We had no problems with it. It was potent, yes, but
significantly less so than S&B - about on a par with votes. Also, things
worked just as Alan said. Frequently the AORer had to fight the whole
table.
Depending on your prey for aid is great, when you can actually DEPEND on
it - and here you can.
Side note - ousting your predator often doesn't help you. Dealing to save
your predator is a very good strategy when your grand-predator is
powerful. The hostility engendered by predation often makes us forget
this.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>>> Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
>>> only at your prey, at +1 stealth.>>Doesn't need the (D), but the +1 stealth might work.>I'm wary of making superior AoR at +2 stealth; that may be more
>powerful than making it unblockable by predator. Anyway, this
>is just a (quickly) conjured idea. If we're actually giving AoR a
>Superior version, we'll need more careful thought and testing.
This is only for my Ally idea:
AOR Animalism Ally
(normal)
For each AOR in play during your untap, your prey loses 1 pool.
Any minion may enter combat with the Army as a (D) action.
1 life, 0 hand damage, 0 bleed. May not use any combat cards or
equipment.
(superior) As above, but may use combat cards.
[i.e., can dodge, lucky blow, press, and maneuver]
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Any advantage this may give you would (mostly) be offset by allowing
you to take a blood off in the first turn, when the Blood Doll card
is played.
Consider this example: a capacity 7 vampire has 5 blood on it.
You have Hunting Ground out. You play Blood Doll on it. You
have two choices (among others):
1. refrain from taking a blood off this turn; put HG blood and
take it off every turn hereafter. Result: vampire always
has 5 blood on it.
2. take blood off this turn; put HG blood and take it off every
turn hereafter. Result: vampire always has 4 blood on it,
but you have one more pool than 1. above.
Most players would choose option 2, for 1 more pool. (Pool is `usually'
more important than blood on vampire.)
Now consider your case, where a capacity 5 vampire has 5 blood
on it. HG is out, and Blood Doll is played.
Under current rulings, the result is exactly the same as 2. above.
Option 1 is not availiable, because you cannot put HG blood on
a full vampire.
If Blood Doll becomes an Untap phase effect, the result would be
exactly the same as 1. above. Option 2. is no longer availiable,
because under this ruling you cannot take a blood off in the
first turn.
Thus, making Blood Doll an Untap Phase effect doesn't give any
significant advantage, unless someone believes that result 1.
is much better than result 2.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3ls1uv$d...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3lq94r$d...@thekk.cs.cornell.edu>,
>Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:>>Anyone having problems with less powerful Blood Dolls?> I've never thought that blood dolls were too powerful.> [...]> Our games are never slow enough that anyone can do the BD-hunt
>trick. More often, you'll find yourself putting blood out onto the BD
>rather than sucking it off.
Jyhad is a complex game. Experienced players can build faster,
more effective decks. On the other hand, some groups of ex-Magic
players who are incapable of understanding the game mechanics
may feel that the Blood Doll is too powerful. One group I know
has a specific limit of 1 Blood Doll per deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lsk6k$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>I think they [Army of Rats] should have been burnable allies.>Then every clan has a
>reasonable defense -
>
>Tremere - intercept combat or Far Mastery
>Malkavian - stealth or Far Mastery
>Nosferatu - stealth or rush combat
>Brujah - rush combat or Entrancement
>Toreador - intercept combat or Entrancement
>Ventrue - Far Mastery or Entrancement
^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Gangrel - rush combat>Plus any voting deck could Kindred Segregate or Consanginuous Condem.
Wait here, Curt. Relying on a couple of rare cards as a defense
against a common card strategy isn't very $$$-poor friendly.
Ventrue are vulnerable to Bleeds when down to 2 players
(no bleed bounce); they can, however, meet Gangrels in combat.
That doesn't exactly take care of the Rats, but would
be causing the Gangrel's hand to `jam' with Claws cards.
A little permanent intercept will also help greatly.
He can also use votes to `reward' players who burn the
rats for him.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:>> This is only for my Ally idea:>>> AOR Animalism Ally>>> (normal)
>> For each AOR in play during your untap, your prey loses 1 pool.
>> Any minion may enter combat with the Army as a (D) action.
>> 1 life, 0 hand damage, 0 bleed. May not use any combat cards or
>> equipment.
Oops, forgot to mention- may not take actions or block
>> (superior) As above, but may use combat cards.>>> [i.e., can dodge, lucky blow, press, and maneuver]>This is an interesting idea. What would be the pool cost to create/
>recruit an AoR ally.
My idea was to keep it at zero cost, like the current AOR and like the
Arms Dealer. However, the 0 cost is not fundamental to the idea; if the
AOR horde is a balance problem then the cost could be made 1 pool.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:>> I forgot to say that the Rats cannot block (very important) or take any
>> actions.>Why shouldn't they be able to block? If the defending Meth wants to
>expend his AoR to protect himself from an attack, then s/h/it should be
>able to. I agree that the AoR ally shouldn't be able to act, but it
>should be able to defend.
Since they cost 0 and harm your prey, allowing them to block too would
probably make them too tough. In addition, I wanted to make it as close
as possible to the current AOR.
I think your idea is more directed at making them a more-or-less normal
ally, as opposed to my goal of recasting AOR with an ally definition. As
AOR becomes more like a normal ally (cost to recruit, takes actions to
bleed, can block, etc.) it does become more readily tested, because it is
more like other well-tested things. I'm trying to bring it into the
standard rules just enough that standard defenses (in this case, vs.
allies) come into play, but no more.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
> AOR Animalism Ally
>
> (normal)
> For each AOR in play during your untap, your prey loses 1 pool.
> Any minion may enter combat with the Army as a (D) action.
> 1 life, 0 hand damage, 0 bleed. May not use any combat cards or
> equipment.> (superior) As above, but may use combat cards.
>
> [i.e., can dodge, lucky blow, press, and maneuver]
>> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>
Here's another idea:
AOR Animalism Ally
1 Life, 1 Bleed, 0 Damage
cost = 0 pool
During your untap phase, AoR bleeds your prey at +0 stealth. If blocked,
an untapped minion other than the AoR can enter combat with the blocking
minion instead of the AoR. This taps both the AoR and your minion
entering combat.
---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3lpnrh$f...@tadpole.fc.hp.com> pap...@fc.hp.com (Bob Ellison) writes:
> >> I agree that Blood Doll's effect should take place during the untap phase,
> >> consistent with Blood Puppy, the Powerbases, and most other "once per turn"
> >> effects (Smiling Jack, Sabbat Threat, hunting grounds, and so on).
>> >If the Blood Doll affects untap phase, then it becomes less powerful: it
> >cannot be used on the turn it is played.
>> Anyone having problems with less powerful Blood Dolls?
Peace Alan,
I don't feel that BD is too powerful. I believe the card to be balanced
and effective as it stands.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> >> It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
> >> `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
> >> is too powerful.
>
> >"Can be burned" falls into the same catagory as "Fame can be SRed."
> >Non-combat decks have problems removing AoR. It does not need to
> >be cumulative.
>
> No, SR requires a special card and must be done as Fame is cast. AOR burn
> requires neither of these. Stealth fries the rats too.
Peace Curt,
How about "the combat weak clans would be at a significant disadvantage
when facing cumulative AoRs."
> I think they should have been burnable allies. Then every clan has a> reasonable defense -
>
> Tremere - intercept combat or Far Mastery
> Malkavian - stealth or Far Mastery
> Nosferatu - stealth or rush combat
> Brujah - rush combat or Entrancement
> Toreador - intercept combat or Entrancement
> Ventrue - Far Mastery or Entrancement> Gangrel - rush combat
I don't consider having to get certain rare action cards a "reasonable
defense." I do love Far Mastery, but they are hard to get.
> >> Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
> >> players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
> >> ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
> >> Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
> >> eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.
>
> >Gee, I love to depend on my prey for aid.
>
> We played AOR cumulative, when the game came out (hey, it's what the card
> says-). We had no problems with it. It was potent, yes, but
> significantly less so than S&B - about on a par with votes. Also, things
> worked just as Alan said. Frequently the AORer had to fight the whole
> table.
>
> Depending on your prey for aid is great, when you can actually DEPEND on
> it - and here you can.
I'm not saying that it would or wouldn't happen, just that some clans would
be effectively unable to remove/defend against cumulative AoR.
> Side note - ousting your predator often doesn't help you. Dealing to save
> your predator is a very good strategy when your grand-predator is
> powerful. The hostility engendered by predation often makes us forget
> this.
I'll totally agree that 95+% of the time destroying/allowing the destruction
of your predator is bad. I often go out of my way to help my predator/hinder
my grand-pred, especially if I am close to ousting my prey.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
> This is only for my Ally idea:
>> AOR Animalism Ally
>
> (normal)
> For each AOR in play during your untap, your prey loses 1 pool.
> Any minion may enter combat with the Army as a (D) action.
> 1 life, 0 hand damage, 0 bleed. May not use any combat cards or
> equipment.
> (superior) As above, but may use combat cards.
>
> [i.e., can dodge, lucky blow, press, and maneuver]
Peace Curt,
This is an interesting idea. What would be the pool cost to create/
recruit an AoR ally.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> Dumb, dumb, dumb,>
> I forgot to say that the Rats cannot block (very important) or take any
> actions.
Peace Curt,
Why shouldn't they be able to block? If the defending Meth wants to
expend his AoR to protect himself from an attack, then s/h/it should be
able to. I agree that the AoR ally shouldn't be able to act, but it
should be able to defend.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
[ quoted text not captured ]
sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote:
>
> Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
> : In article <3lp8hr$s...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> : >I have to disagree, since AoR is a 'permanent' is is more effective than
> : >a Bonding/Threats. Yes, in the endgame, a Dominate bleed mod is more
> : >likely to oust your prey than AoR, but AoR will do more over the whole
> : >course of the game.
>> : It depends. AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the> : `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
> : is too powerful.
>> Yes, BUT...
>
> The two clans which can play AoR are Gangrel and Nosferatu. Let us
> assume for the sake of argument that you are playing primarily a Gangrel
> deck. Gangrel have: Animalism (get AoR in play, two extra untapping
> cards over anything else), Protean (agg damage, among other things) and
> Fortitude.
>> The main problem with gangrel is that they are _really_ weak on bleeding
> - their clan hoser reduces this even further. They are strong enough in
> other areas, however, that people still play them for their combat
> abilities.
>> Make AoR cumulative, and you have solved Gangrel's only glaring
> weakness. Now they are free to put into play as many AoR as they can and
> then just sit back and untap (using animalism/WWEF) while waiting for
> their prey (or others) to get desparate enough to try and burn the AoR.> Intercept the attempt (using Raven spies/sports bikes) and rip through
> the hapless vampire in combat using Fortitude and Protean to their best
> effect.
The same holds true, to a somewhat lesser extent, with Nosferatu. They
have Animalism for extra intercept/untap; Potence isn't Protean, but it's
better than a kick in the head (sometimes it IS a kick in the head); and
Obfuscate means that they can do sneaky things in combat, like whip out
a SMG/Flamethrower.
> The Gangrel need not even _worry_ about their 'clan hoser' anymore, as> enough AoR will now do the job for them. They don't have to go looking> for fights, as the fights will come to them and the opponents will soon
> be in torpor. Lastly (and best of all), once you have 3-5 AoR in play
> and oust your prey, they _stay in play_ and bleed the heck outta your
> former grandprey, and so on down the line!
Well written, Shane. Thanks for making my point better than I could. And
"they" say Canadian schools are poor. 8^)
> As you can see, I am perfectly content with AoR as it is. Seems balanced
> to me...
I agree, AoR is fine as it stands.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lsev9$2...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>A non-combat deck without stealth? How can such deck ever perform
>/any/ action without getting blocked and beaten up? Such decks
>don't exist, except by beginners with small collections of cards.
What about a Ventrue voting deck? Little if any stealth other
than that provided by Politicall Actions, purely defensive in combat.
There's someone who'd hate to have AoR as his predator, but bleed bounce
would be highly likely.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lsu1l$2...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>Anyone having problems with less powerful Blood Dolls?>>> I've never thought that blood dolls were too powerful.>>Jyhad is a complex game. Experienced players can build faster,
>more effective decks. On the other hand, some groups of ex-Magic
>players who are incapable of understanding the game mechanics
>may feel that the Blood Doll is too powerful. One group I know
>has a specific limit of 1 Blood Doll per deck.
Just because newbies have problems with it, we should make it
less useful for them? Again, I could live with it if V:tES's BD took
effect during untap, but I would be very disappointed if the reason was
so that we could placate newbies who don't understand the game. Let's
not pander to the munchkin crowd, please.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3ltae2$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:>>(CurtAdams) writes:>>>Ventrue - Far Mastery or Entrancement>>Wait here, Curt. Relying on a couple of rare cards as a defense>>against a common card strategy isn't very $$$-poor friendly.>A legitimate point. Do you think Ventrue have enough vote tactics
>(Ancilla Empowerment works too) to handle this, or would this be a hole in
>my general principle that every clan should have a counter to any common
>strategy?
Yes. They can also use diplomacy - "If you don't send /one/ Malk
to burn the rats, /all/ Malks. will soon be tapped ..."
"Dramatic Upheavel" and "Kindred Restructure" would also help.
Rats don't target Ventrue, they just target prey :-)
Since Ventrue don't really worry about combat against Gangrel,
their voting ability generally give them an advantage over
Gangrel, who have more of the deck devoted to combat than
Ventrue, but to little effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 5 Apr 1995, CurtAdams wrote:
> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
> >Wait here, Curt. Relying on a couple of rare cards as a defense
> >against a common card strategy isn't very $$$-poor friendly.
>
> A legitimate point. Do you think Ventrue have enough vote tactics
> (Ancilla Empowerment works too) to handle this, or would this be a hole in
> my general principle that every clan should have a counter to any common
> strategy?
>> Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Plus, I like the idea of seeing a vampire going out and stomping out a
bunch of rats (or maybe how Louis took care of them in Interview ;-).
My two blood counters,
Marty Runyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there
must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your
beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."
- The Doctor, "Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of Earth"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty "Anjin" Runyon <run...@robles.callutheran.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>In article <3lqc39$r...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes:>>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:>>>Suggestion for Revised: superior AoR is a (D) action, directed
>>>only at your prey, at +1 stealth.>>Eh? I think this makes mincemeat of any logical discussion on the (D)>>symbol - arbitraily assigning it to an obviously undirected action
>>for the soul purpose of boosting the appeal of the card.>What's the problem here? Since the direction is clearly stated
>on the card, it should be clear.>Technically, since what my Rats will be doing is to bite my
>prey, with superior Animalism I can direct the Rats in such
>a way that it will not be noticed by my predator. Not far
>from being logical.
Bringing the AoR into play is simply not a directed action. Making an
unseeable action (with the benefit of Day Operation, which makes sense)
is counter to the game design.
Doing anything to your area (hunting, rescuing your vamps, equiping,
recruiting, employing, AoR, 3rd Trad, 4th Trad, 5th Trad, Sup. EK,
Sup GtU, etc.) is not directed, by definition.
L. Scott
Here's another idea:
>AOR Animalism Ally>1 Life, 1 Bleed, 0 Damage>cost = 0 pool>During your untap phase, AoR bleeds your prey at +0 stealth. If blocked,>an untapped minion other than the AoR can enter combat with the blocking
>minion instead of the AoR. This taps both the AoR and your minion
>entering combat.
>>Paul Schaaf
>sch...@u.washington.edu
This is the "AOR as standard ally approach". It's guaranteed to be
tunable. My recommendations re this:
1) If it ain't auto-rushable, give it a pool cost.
2) Since the "untapped minion" business is basically the same as Nosferatu
Hidden lurker, I think you don't need the ability.
The advantage of this general approach is that the Nosferatu can sheild
wimpy allies better than Gangrel, and most people think the Nosferatu need
more help than Gangrel.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> >> [suspicion that DTR mis-ruling Army of Rats deleted]
> >> AoR can be burnt. If it does not have the
> >> `burn' clause, I agree that even the non-cumulative version
> >> is too powerful.
>> In article <3lrsja$5...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >"Can be burned" falls into the same catagory as "Fame can be SRed."
> >Non-combat decks have problems removing AoR. It does not need to
> >be cumulative.
>
> A non-combat deck without stealth? How can such deck ever perform
> /any/ action without getting blocked and beaten up? Such decks
> don't exist, except by beginners with small collections of cards.
> A deck that can't do anything against a Rats horde deck would
> be pretty helpless against S&B (or even Bleeding Tremeres),
> unless it uses bleed bounce or
> Telepathic Counter defense (strategies which use tons of only 1 or 2
> cards, in the same way as AoR horde).
Peace Alan,
What I meant is that saying that you can stop AoR IF you are a 'combat-clan'
or IF you have Obfuscate is the same as saying you can stop Fame IF you
put SRs in your deck. What about Ventrue, Toreador, & Tremere (yes, Tremere).
Ventrue: definitely not a combat clan. Fortitude may save you from torpor,
but don't count on it.
Toreador: only a combat clan when armed with weapons. Since even Amimalisms
weak intercept can stop a Toreador weapon deck from getting equiped, Toreadors
can't stop AoR.
Tremere: Yes, Tremere are better at range, but you have to get to range.
Tremere have no defense against aggr dam (other than an all out dodge) and
don't do "big" strikes until the second round of combat. Yes, ToV is nice,
but you're still in torpor if s/h/it claws you, extra blood or not.
A non-combat deck w/o stealth: my Toreador deck. It is loaded with Toreador
specific cards like Aching Beauty, Resplendent Protector, & Scorn of Adonis.
All my combat cards are dodges, maneuvers, and Majesties. If the Gangrel
player has at least as many minions in play as I do, I'll never be able to
remove an AoR, unless he lets me. Such decks DO EXIST [and I am neither a
beginner nor have a small collection]. No, my Toreador deck is OK vs. S&B,
as I have a fair amount of Auspex cards. I am not worried about B&B either
as I can dodge the really nasty strikes. The problem is I am having to spend
all my actions to remove the AoR an my predator just sits there and waits
for me to come and get my lumps. With S&B/B&B at least my predator has to
tap him/her/itself to hurt me, making s/h/it more vulnerable to his/her/its
predator.
> >> Both intercept combat and Rush combat can take care of AoR.
> >> It takes two turns of no opposition for an AoR to do as much
> >> damage as Bonding, and that is barring any other Bleed
> >> modifiers.
>
> >Yes, but Bonding rarely sends your prey's minions to torpor.
>
> Does AoR? If a deck can't block 3-4 AoR's (in addition to
> not being able to burn them after they come into play),
> it similarly can't block 3-4 Bonding's. Pretty much toast.
Yes, AoRs can force your prey to send his minions into the meat grinder
that passes for your minions. My Toreador deck could easily block 3-4
Bondings, but would greatly fear 3-4 AoRs.
> >> Also, when the AoR horde begins to get out of hand, other
> >> players will interfere. No one likes his predator to be
> >> ousted when his grand-predator has 6 AoR's in play.
> >> Your predator will start to intercept (or burn) your AoR's
> >> eventually, to prevent you from getting the 6 pool.
>
> >Gee, I love to depend on my prey for aid.
>
> I'm /so/ surprised that a Diplomacy player who is supporting
> cross-table bleeds can't appreciate the rich inter-player
> action that would be invoked by cumulative AoR's. Aren't
> you the person that first said it is sometimes necessary
> for an `unlucky' player (with an unable grand-predator)
> to get aid from across the table (cross-table bleeding his
> predator)?
I thought you said this wasn't supposed to be Dippy, Alan. Since it
isn't (I'll trust you on this one), I can't DEPEND on my prey to aid me.
S/H/It may choose to aid me, but I don't like to have to depend on other
players to save my bacon. When you sit down to play are you counting on
the not-your-predator players to save you if something goes wrong?
I'm not debating the fact that it is sometimes necessary to help other
players, I was saying I don't like depending on the other players,
especially my PREY, for aid.
> In article <3lqlj3$n...@tribune.usask.ca> sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
>
> >The two clans which can play AoR are Gangrel and Nosferatu.
>
> Yes, Nosferatu. To begin with, Nosferatu aren't really good at
> anything. Stealth + Potence? What's the use, other than to
> play AoR, and keep it in play? (I know you can do stealth
> Rush, but the `wasted' Animalism discipline hurts.)
As previously posted, Potence is a good combat discipline and against
non-combat decks (a voting deck, perhaps) it will give the Nosf a big
edge.
> >The main problem with gangrel is that they are _really_ weak on bleeding
> >- their clan hoser reduces this even further. They are strong enough in
> >other areas, however, that people still play them for their combat
> >abilities.
>
> Brujahs fight as good as Gangrel (2 combat disciplines), yet they
> have the Presence bleeds. The problem is, Animalism is about
> useless, with AoR reduced and its untaps matched/beaten by Wakes.
The big difference is that the Brujah is acting (tapping minions) to do
damage. This 1) consumes more cards [has to have the cards which could
jam up a combat deck] and 2) by tapping minions to carry out actions every
turn, the Brujah player is weaker when it comes to defense. The Gangrel
player doesn't have to do anything but wait for the snacks to come to him.
> >Make AoR cumulative, and you have solved Gangrel's only glaring
> >weakness. Now they are free to put into play as many AoR as they can and
> >then just sit back and untap (using animalism/WWEF) while waiting for
> >their prey (or others) to get desparate enough to try and burn the AoR.
>
> This is not as rude as S&B, which, once done, the prey doesn't even
> get a chance to try to burn. Gangrel AoR isn't much worse than
> Brujahs coming at you with Legal Manipulations.
Yes, you can stop S&B by crushing the Malks during your turn. This doesn't
work as well against Gangrel since they are effective in combat, that is:
you are spending strike dodging potential aggr strikes vs. doing an extra
two - four damage.
> Let's see ... your vampires can't intercept the AoR's + Protean
> stealth, can't stealth through Animalism intercept, and
> are "hapless" in combat against Gangrel which are using
> AoR's and intercept, aside from combat. No intercept, no
> stealth, and no combat. What does your deck do, at all?
A Ventrue or Toreador vote deck. Also, see above.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3m10l3$j...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> A non-combat deck without stealth? How can such deck ever perform
>> /any/ action without getting blocked and beaten up?>What about Ventrue, Toreador, & Tremere (yes, Tremere).>Ventrue: definitely not a combat clan. Fortitude may save you from torpor,
>but don't count on it.
Ventrue use Bleed Bounce defense against S&B, the only thing (besides
Telepathic counter) that works against Bleeds but doesn't work
against Rats.
>Toreador: only a combat clan when armed with weapons. Since even Amimalisms
>weak intercept can stop a Toreador weapon deck from getting equiped, Toreadors
>can't stop AoR.
They can just intercept the +1 stealth action. They can Dodge, Flash
or Sideslip to avoid the Claws. If a little bit of intercept would
shut down your Toreador deck, how does it defend against Malks?
Malks have better intercept than Gangrels.
>Tremere: Yes, Tremere are better at range, but you have to get to range.
>Tremere have no defense against aggr dam (other than an all out dodge) and
>don't do "big" strikes until the second round of combat. Yes, ToV is nice,
>but you're still in torpor if s/h/it claws you, extra blood or not.
Well, if your Tremeres can't stand up to Gangrel, they're cooked,
whether it's Gangrel Rush or Gangrel rats horde. Tremeres can wear
Flak Jackets or simply out-manuever and ToV. They can even simply
intercept the Rats and run away.
>A non-combat deck w/o stealth: my Toreador deck. It is loaded with Toreador
>specific cards like Aching Beauty, Resplendent Protector, & Scorn of Adonis.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can't get through Burn Rats actions with those? You can't
simply intercept the Rats with the Resplendent Protector?
>All my combat cards are dodges, maneuvers, and Majesties.
^^^^^^^^^
You can't simply block all the rats and run away and untap with
those? Against Combat Ends, a Gangrel rats deck will soon
jam with Combat cards. No more rats and no more untaps.
>If the Gangrel
>player has at least as many minions in play as I do, I'll never be able to
>remove an AoR, unless he lets me.
If rats get through your deck, how do you defend against S&B?
If you're playing a run-away-from-combat deck, you should
be able to intercept the rats, and run away. If he gets one
through, you can just try to burn every turn with Aching Beauty.
>No, my Toreador deck is OK vs. S&B,
>as I have a fair amount of Auspex cards. I am not worried about B&B either
^^^^^^
>as I can dodge the really nasty strikes. The problem is I am having to spend
^^^^^
>all my actions to remove the AoR an my predator just sits there and waits
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for me to come and get my lumps. With S&B/B&B at least my predator has to
>tap him/her/itself to hurt me, making s/h/it more vulnerable to his/her/its
>predator.
Are you asserting that rats are not an interceptable action?
That Claws (without even the additional strikes) cannot be
Dodged? That he doesn't have to tap to get the rats into play?
And he doesn't have to tap to block you, thus making him more
vulnerable against his predator? If he has so many
Cat's Guidance's and Wakes that he can defend against
both you and his predator, I'd doubt how he get enough space
for all those Rats, in addition to fighting well ...
Maybe the Protean untaps can cause a problem, but IMO that's
a problem of the Protean untaps, not that of the rats ...
>Yes, AoRs can force your prey to send his minions into the meat grinder
>that passes for your minions. My Toreador deck could easily block 3-4
>Bondings, but would greatly fear 3-4 AoRs.
... because you intentionally do not block the Rats, just to
show how hard it is for a run-away deck to burn them, after
they get into play?
>When you sit down to play are you counting on
>the not-your-predator players to save you if something goes wrong?
>I'm not debating the fact that it is sometimes necessary to help other
>players, I was saying I don't like depending on the other players,
>especially my PREY, for aid.
They're not intentionally helping me; they're helping themselves,
by burning the Rats before they come around the table to get them.
>The big difference is that the Brujah is acting (tapping minions) to do
>damage. This 1) consumes more cards [has to have the cards which could
>jam up a combat deck] and 2) by tapping minions to carry out actions every
>turn, the Brujah player is weaker when it comes to defense. The Gangrel
>player doesn't have to do anything but wait for the snacks to come to him.
Yeh. They don't have to tap to put the rats in play. They
don't have to tap to block Burn Rats actions.
>> Let's see ... your vampires can't intercept the AoR's + Protean
>> stealth, can't stealth through Animalism intercept, and
>> are "hapless" in combat against Gangrel which are using
>> AoR's and intercept, aside from combat. No intercept, no
>> stealth, and no combat. What does your deck do, at all?>A Ventrue or Toreador vote deck. Also, see above.
Toreadors can intercept the AoR. If they can't, they'll be
similarly meat against S&B.
Ventrues do have a problem, but should be able to find a way
to `encourage' other players to burn the rats, using their
voting ability. If they can find a little permanent intercept,
they can even block the rats (Claws are /way/ too exspensive
to be tried to use against Ventrues).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lsmgb$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>This is only for my Ally idea:
>
>AOR Animalism Ally
>
>(normal)
>For each AOR in play during your untap, your prey loses 1 pool.
>Any minion may enter combat with the Army as a (D) action.
>1 life, 0 hand damage, 0 bleed. May not use any combat cards or
>equipment.
Me: "Okay, start of my minion phase, my Army of Rats will Computer
Hack you."
Prey: "Hey, how can a bunch of rodents Computer Hack?"
Me: "They use a mouse! HA HA HAAAAA!"
Bemusedly,
Bill
--
"I find that most philosophical discussions are psycho- // Bill Gilliland
logically useful but, in the end, when you look back //
historically at what was being said, and being said // "Semprini?" OY! OUT!
with such vigour, it's almost always - to a degree - //
nonsense!" (Richard Feynman) // ska...@u.washington.edu
Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>During your untap phase, AoR bleeds your prey at +0 stealth. If blocked,
>an untapped minion other than the AoR can enter combat with the blocking
>minion instead of the AoR. This taps both the AoR and your minion
>entering combat.
Interesting, but it doesn't even remotely resemble the current AoR.
This is a way to stomp people with your minions, not cause your prey to lose
pool.
--
Aaron Mandelbaum
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3m10l3$j...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> >> A non-combat deck without stealth? How can such deck ever perform
> >> /any/ action without getting blocked and beaten up?
>
> >What about Ventrue, Toreador, & Tremere (yes, Tremere).
> >Ventrue: definitely not a combat clan. Fortitude may save you from torpor,
> >but don't count on it.
>
> Ventrue use Bleed Bounce defense against S&B, the only thing (besides
> Telepathic counter) that works against Bleeds but doesn't work
> against Rats.
Peace Alan,
So, you agree that Ventrue would be toast.
> >Toreador: only a combat clan when armed with weapons. Since even Amimalisms
> >weak intercept can stop a Toreador weapon deck from getting equiped, Toreadors
> >can't stop AoR.
>
> They can just intercept the +1 stealth action. They can Dodge, Flash
> or Sideslip to avoid the Claws. If a little bit of intercept would
> shut down your Toreador deck, how does it defend against Malks?
> Malks have better intercept than Gangrels.
If Toreador (w/o weapon) intercepts Gangrel, s/h/it better be ready to go
to torpor. Really heavy S&B Malk has very little intercept (at least this
is what I gather from those people who fear Malk S&B).
> >Tremere: Yes, Tremere are better at range, but you have to get to range.
> >Tremere have no defense against aggr dam (other than an all out dodge) and
> >don't do "big" strikes until the second round of combat. Yes, ToV is nice,
> >but you're still in torpor if s/h/it claws you, extra blood or not.
>
> Well, if your Tremeres can't stand up to Gangrel, they're cooked,
> whether it's Gangrel Rush or Gangrel rats horde. Tremeres can wear
> Flak Jackets or simply out-manuever and ToV. They can even simply
> intercept the Rats and run away.
The original point was that at least when the Gangrels are 'forced' to tap
to bleed/rush you, then they are doing something and their predator can
then attack them. If they are sitting back behind a wall of rats waiting
for you to (D) the AoRs, then their predator is going to have a very difficult
time accomplishing anything.
> >A non-combat deck w/o stealth: my Toreador deck. It is loaded with Toreador
> >specific cards like Aching Beauty, Resplendent Protector, & Scorn of Adonis.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You can't get through Burn Rats actions with those? You can't
> simply intercept the Rats with the Resplendent Protector?
Resplendent Protector is a retainer, not an ally. It is effectively a living
Flak Jacket for Toreador. If I'm sending all my AB'd Tore's to remove the
AoRs, then I'm not bleeding my prey, which means that I am very likely to
lose (in the end).
> >All my combat cards are dodges, maneuvers, and Majesties.
My deck isn't loaded with Majesties, Alan, just enough to do the block a bleed
and untap routine. I use them as defensive cards.
> You can't simply block all the rats and run away and untap with
> those? Against Combat Ends, a Gangrel rats deck will soon
> jam with Combat cards. No more rats and no more untaps.
That might work, but I don't use enough Majesties to make what you say very
likely.
> >If the Gangrel
> >player has at least as many minions in play as I do, I'll never be able to
> >remove an AoR, unless he lets me.
>
> If rats get through your deck, how do you defend against S&B?
> If you're playing a run-away-from-combat deck, you should
> be able to intercept the rats, and run away. If he gets one
> through, you can just try to burn every turn with Aching Beauty.
Only played my Toreador deck once, I don't know how it would do vs. S&B.
Probably not well, though.
> >No, my Toreador deck is OK vs. S&B,
> >as I have a fair amount of Auspex cards. I am not worried about B&B either
> ^^^^^^
> >as I can dodge the really nasty strikes. The problem is I am having to spend
> ^^^^^
> >all my actions to remove the AoR an my predator just sits there and waits
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >for me to come and get my lumps. With S&B/B&B at least my predator has to
> >tap him/her/itself to hurt me, making s/h/it more vulnerable to his/her/its
> >predator.
>
> Are you asserting that rats are not an interceptable action?
> That Claws (without even the additional strikes) cannot be
> Dodged? That he doesn't have to tap to get the rats into play?
> And he doesn't have to tap to block you, thus making him more
> vulnerable against his predator? If he has so many
> Cat's Guidance's and Wakes that he can defend against
> both you and his predator, I'd doubt how he get enough space
> for all those Rats, in addition to fighting well ...
No, I am not asserting that at all. No, again. No. No. I was making the
point, that other's have agreed with, that once the Gangrel has a couple of AoRs
in play, they don't have to act anymore, except to block. This makes them
much tougher.
> >Yes, AoRs can force your prey to send his minions into the meat grinder
> >that passes for your minions. My Toreador deck could easily block 3-4
> >Bondings, but would greatly fear 3-4 AoRs.
>> .... because you intentionally do not block the Rats, just to> show how hard it is for a run-away deck to burn them, after
> they get into play?
No, where did you get that idea. Against most Gangrel decks, I would happily
tap myself out bleeding my prey as I do not expect a Gangrel deck to out bleed
my Toreador deck. If I am tapped out, then I can't stop the AoRs from coming
into play and once in play, I will have _great_ difficulty in removing them.
> >When you sit down to play are you counting on
> >the not-your-predator players to save you if something goes wrong?
> >I'm not debating the fact that it is sometimes necessary to help other
> >players, I was saying I don't like depending on the other players,
> >especially my PREY, for aid.
>
> They're not intentionally helping me; they're helping themselves,
> by burning the Rats before they come around the table to get them.
Yes, they are helping you also.
> >The big difference is that the Brujah is acting (tapping minions) to do
> >damage. This 1) consumes more cards [has to have the cards which could
> >jam up a combat deck] and 2) by tapping minions to carry out actions every
> >turn, the Brujah player is weaker when it comes to defense. The Gangrel
> >player doesn't have to do anything but wait for the snacks to come to him.
>
> Yeh. They don't have to tap to put the rats in play. They
> don't have to tap to block Burn Rats actions.
I never said either of those things, Alan; why are you being flippant?
> >> Let's see ... your vampires can't intercept the AoR's + Protean
> >> stealth, can't stealth through Animalism intercept, and
> >> are "hapless" in combat against Gangrel which are using
> >> AoR's and intercept, aside from combat. No intercept, no
> >> stealth, and no combat. What does your deck do, at all?
>
> >A Ventrue or Toreador vote deck. Also, see above.
>
> Toreadors can intercept the AoR. If they can't, they'll be
> similarly meat against S&B.
Which has nothing to do whith the point that a Gangrel combat/AoR deck
would eat a Ventrue/Toreador vote deck (and some other decks as well).
> Ventrues do have a problem, but should be able to find a way
> to `encourage' other players to burn the rats, using their
> voting ability. If they can find a little permanent intercept,
> they can even block the rats (Claws are /way/ too exspensive
> to be tried to use against Ventrues).
"If" they find some permanent intercept. They may have a better chance
trying to withdraw.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3m1scn$k...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Well, if your Tremeres can't stand up to Gangrel, they're cooked,
>whether it's Gangrel Rush or Gangrel rats horde. Tremeres can wear
>Flak Jackets or simply out-manuever and ToV. They can even simply
>intercept the Rats and run away.
a tremere outmaneuver a gangrel? let's see: unflinching persistence (sup).
gleam of red eyes. form of the ghost. claws of the dead (sup). nope.
don't see it.
>... because you intentionally do not block the Rats, just to
>show how hard it is for a run-away deck to burn them, after
>they get into play?
this is both specious and ad-hominem; please restrict your argumentation
to that which is stated. uncivil implications will only reduce the
level of discourse.
>They're not intentionally helping me; they're helping themselves,
>by burning the Rats before they come around the table to get them.
query: if a given player has the ability to sneak through the gangrel
to burn the rats that are biting on his predator, why would this player
not wait until the rats have gotten rid of said predator? a stealth
card in the hand or in play as a permanent can be saved for use, and
every minion that taps in an attempt to burn the rats is a minion that
is not bleeding said prey. it is to the prey's advantage to keep the army
in place, keeping some stealth reserves in hand for when the rats come
around to him or herself.
>(Claws are /way/ too exspensive
>to be tried to use against Ventrues).
excuse me? ventrue are fodder.
heckler
--
"A global village is NOT supposed to be an anarchic tyranny of the
discourteous!"
pers...@athena.mit.edu, vox clamans
Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>Here's another idea:>AOR Animalism Ally>1 Life, 1 Bleed, 0 Damage>cost = 0 pool>During your untap phase, AoR bleeds your prey at +0 stealth. If blocked,>an untapped minion other than the AoR can enter combat with the blocking
>minion instead of the AoR. This taps both the AoR and your minion
>entering combat.
Gahh. And let you chose what minion I'm going to fight _after_ I choose
to block??? I don't think so. Try having them bleed at +1 stealth, but
if I cblock the suckers, they're dead. :) Or, if I have animalisim I could
get control of them.... B)
Joe
--
+-----Joe Helfrich...@eden.rutgers.edu-----Morgan Spellweaver-----+
| Internet Submissions Editor, Cantrip Magazine///email for guidelines |
| The CFV's are coming, the CFV's are coming!///vote in the rac* reorg |
+-Upity, aren't ya?--drh---Old at being young, young at being old--BNL-+
In article <3mbcjv$9...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>So, you agree that Ventrue would be toast.
Yes... in the same way that any Venture deck without bleed bounce,
or a Ventrue deck in a two player game, "would be toast".
>If Toreador (w/o weapon) intercepts Gangrel, s/h/it better be ready to go
>to torpor.
If he can't Flash/Sideslip/Dodge/Flak Jacket ... If someone
plays Toreador and puts only Blur's in his deck, he deserves to
be toasted by Gangrel, period. Such Toreador would be totally
toasted by a single Ivory Bow or Flamethrower, similarly.
We're not talking unbalanced decks that have grave weaknesses, James.
>> >A non-combat deck w/o stealth: my Toreador deck. It is loaded with Toreador
>> >specific cards like Aching Beauty, Resplendent Protector, & Scorn of Adonis.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> You can't get through Burn Rats actions with those? You can't
>> simply intercept the Rats with the Resplendent Protector?>
>Resplendent Protector is a retainer, not an ally. It is effectively a living
>Flak Jacket for Toreador.
... which will protect the Toreador from the aggravated damage, when the
Toreador intercepts. Intercepted Rats do not cause loss of pool.
>If I'm sending all my AB'd Tore's to remove the
>AoRs, then I'm not bleeding my prey, which means that I am very likely to
>lose (in the end).
Nor is the Rats Horder, who has to tap to make rats and stay untapped
to defend them. Actually, he won't be blocking your burn rats actions
(with AB) at all. In the end, you don't spend more actions
trying to burn rats than he does creating them. You have to
have as many untapped defenders as his bleeding actions,
if he is a bleeder rather than a rats horde. It all comes to
the same.
You have to stay untapped to defend against combat bleeders like
Tremere anyway. Does having a Tremere or Malk. predator prevent
you from bleeding your prey?
>> >All my combat cards are dodges, maneuvers, and Majesties.>
>My deck isn't loaded with Majesties, Alan, just enough to do the block a bleed
>and untap routine. I use them as defensive cards.
Can't you do a block a rats and untap? How do you block a deck
with 20 Bonding's?
>> You can't simply block all the rats and run away and untap with
>> those? Against Combat Ends, a Gangrel rats deck will soon
>> jam with Combat cards. No more rats and no more untaps.>
>That might work, but I don't use enough Majesties to make what you say very
>likely.
Then how do you defend against a Tremere deck which bleeds with
Bonding's? Are you saying that your deck will be toast against
that? If that is, that doesn't make a Rats Horde deck in particular
too powerful, for being able to defeat a deck which has troubles
against a ton of other deck styles.
>> >If the Gangrel
>> >player has at least as many minions in play as I do, I'll never be able to
>> >remove an AoR, unless he lets me.
>>
>> If rats get through your deck, how do you defend against S&B?
>> If you're playing a run-away-from-combat deck, you should
>> be able to intercept the rats, and run away. If he gets one
>> through, you can just try to burn every turn with Aching Beauty.>
>Only played my Toreador deck once, I don't know how it would do vs. S&B.
>Probably not well, though.
Then don't complain because a Rats Horde deck can toast you.
Rats Horde may even be slower than S&B, in practice.
>> Are you asserting that rats are not an interceptable action?
>> That Claws (without even the additional strikes) cannot be
>> Dodged? That he doesn't have to tap to get the rats into play?
>> And he doesn't have to tap to block you, thus making him more
>> vulnerable against his predator? If he has so many
>> Cat's Guidance's and Wakes that he can defend against
>> both you and his predator, I'd doubt how he get enough space
>> for all those Rats, in addition to fighting well ...>
>No, I am not asserting that at all. No, again. No. No. I was making the
>point, that other's have agreed with, that once the Gangrel has a couple of AoRs
>in play, they don't have to act anymore, except to block. This makes them
>much tougher.
And my point is, a deck that would /both/ let a Gangrel get a couple
of Rats in play, /and/ be unable to remove them, would be toast against
many other decks as well. A couple of stealthed bleeds could make
your life very short.
>> >Yes, AoRs can force your prey to send his minions into the meat grinder
>> >that passes for your minions. My Toreador deck could easily block 3-4
>> >Bondings, but would greatly fear 3-4 AoRs.
>>
>> .... because you intentionally do not block the Rats, just to
>> show how hard it is for a run-away deck to burn them, after
>> they get into play?>No, where did you get that idea. Against most Gangrel decks, I would happily
>tap myself out bleeding my prey as I do not expect a Gangrel deck to out bleed
>my Toreador deck. If I am tapped out, then I can't stop the AoRs from coming
>into play and once in play, I will have _great_ difficulty in removing them.
Well, if cumulative Rats are implemented, you don't have to tap out,
as if playing against any other clan. You don't tap out against
Tremere, do you?
>> >When you sit down to play are you counting on
>> >the not-your-predator players to save you if something goes wrong?
>> >I'm not debating the fact that it is sometimes necessary to help other
>> >players, I was saying I don't like depending on the other players,
>> >especially my PREY, for aid.>> They're not intentionally helping me; they're helping themselves,
>> by burning the Rats before they come around the table to get them.>Yes, they are helping you also.
That's the nice point of it. But they /have to/ do it, or the
Rats horde will get them.
>> >The big difference is that the Brujah is acting (tapping minions) to do
>> >damage. This 1) consumes more cards [has to have the cards which could
>> >jam up a combat deck] and 2) by tapping minions to carry out actions every
>> >turn, the Brujah player is weaker when it comes to defense. The Gangrel
>> >player doesn't have to do anything but wait for the snacks to come to him.
>>
>> Yeh. They don't have to tap to put the rats in play. They
>> don't have to tap to block Burn Rats actions.>
>I never said either of those things, Alan; why are you being flippant?
Because you said that Gangrel rats horde don't have to tap, and can
stay untapped all the time and have maximum defense against predator.
This simply isn't true.
>> >> Let's see ... your vampires can't intercept the AoR's + Protean
>> >> stealth, can't stealth through Animalism intercept, and
>> >> are "hapless" in combat against Gangrel which are using
>> >> AoR's and intercept, aside from combat. No intercept, no
>> >> stealth, and no combat. What does your deck do, at all?
>>
>> >A Ventrue or Toreador vote deck. Also, see above.
>>
>> Toreadors can intercept the AoR. If they can't, they'll be
>> similarly meat against S&B.>
>Which has nothing to do whith the point that a Gangrel combat/AoR deck
>would eat a Ventrue/Toreador vote deck (and some other decks as well).
S&B would eat those decks too, unless they use /very/ heavy bleed
bounce. If you happen to be the S&B's predator, that's your
end, because you won't be able to use your bleed bounce (unplayable
in a 2-player endgame) by
the time he works around the table to become your predator.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3mbcjv$9...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >So, you agree that Ventrue would be toast.
>
> Yes... in the same way that any Venture deck without bleed bounce,
> or a Ventrue deck in a two player game, "would be toast".
Peace Alan,
Bleed bounce has no effect on AoR.
> >If Toreador (w/o weapon) intercepts Gangrel, s/h/it better be ready to go
> >to torpor.
>
> If he can't Flash/Sideslip/Dodge/Flak Jacket ... If someone
> plays Toreador and puts only Blur's in his deck, he deserves to
> be toasted by Gangrel, period. Such Toreador would be totally
> toasted by a single Ivory Bow or Flamethrower, similarly.
> We're not talking unbalanced decks that have grave weaknesses, James.
Flash: Protean provides maneuvers also. Sideslip: Ritual Chalenge or Lucky Blow
can overcome the prevent 1 pt (sup). Dodge:why put a disciplineless card into
a Celerity deck? Flack Jacket: Ritual Chalenge, Lucky Blow, Canine Hordes can
counter this.
No, I'm just saying that IME, Toreadors don't do well against Gangrels when
it comes to combat, unless they have weapons and even then it is a near thing.
> >Resplendent Protector is a retainer, not an ally. It is effectively a living
> >Flak Jacket for Toreador.
>> .... which will protect the Toreador from the aggravated damage, when the> Toreador intercepts. Intercepted Rats do not cause loss of pool.
Will protect the first point. I've seen to many Lucky Blow Gangrel to put
too much faith in a single point of prevention.
> >If I'm sending all my AB'd Tore's to remove the
> >AoRs, then I'm not bleeding my prey, which means that I am very likely to
> >lose (in the end).
>
> Nor is the Rats Horder, who has to tap to make rats and stay untapped
> to defend them. Actually, he won't be blocking your burn rats actions
> (with AB) at all. In the end, you don't spend more actions
> trying to burn rats than he does creating them. You have to
> have as many untapped defenders as his bleeding actions,
> if he is a bleeder rather than a rats horde. It all comes to
> the same.
The point is, Alan, the RH doesn't have to take any more actions once s/h/it
has a couple of AoRs in play. They can just sit there and defend. Without
stealth it may take several times the number of actions the RH spent creating
AoRs trying to remove them. It is not the same.
> You have to stay untapped to defend against combat bleeders like
> Tremere anyway. Does having a Tremere or Malk. predator prevent
> you from bleeding your prey?
Malk, no. If I don't think that I'll be able to intercept him, I'll probably
not try. My deck doesn't have enough intercept to stop a heavy S&B deck.
Tremeres aren't known for their stealth, so I'll probably be able to block
the ones with sup Dom. I am definitely not forced to use my actions to
try to burn an upstream card that is going to oust me, though.
When a bleed mod deck wants to do damage it has to tap minions on a continuing
basis. An AoR deck only need tap a few times then sit back and defend.
> >> >All my combat cards are dodges, maneuvers, and Majesties.
> >
> >My deck isn't loaded with Majesties, Alan, just enough to do the block a bleed
> >and untap routine. I use them as defensive cards.
>
> Can't you do a block a rats and untap? How do you block a deck
> with 20 Bonding's?
Very carefully. I believe that 20 Bondings are worth less than 20 AoR.
Since Bonding requires an action to use, even if I fail to block I'll only
lose two pool. If I fail to block an AoR, I could lose many more pool than
that.
> >> You can't simply block all the rats and run away and untap with
> >> those? Against Combat Ends, a Gangrel rats deck will soon
> >> jam with Combat cards. No more rats and no more untaps.
> >
> >That might work, but I don't use enough Majesties to make what you say very
> >likely.
>
> Then how do you defend against a Tremere deck which bleeds with
> Bonding's? Are you saying that your deck will be toast against
> that? If that is, that doesn't make a Rats Horde deck in particular
> too powerful, for being able to defeat a deck which has troubles
> against a ton of other deck styles.
Tremere are maneuver and press weak. I can go to combat with the "average"
Tremere deck and dodge/maneuver just once and I'm ok. Gangrel have Protean
which provides four different maneuver/press cards. They are much more likely
to force me to stay for additional round. If I block a Tremere and fail to
dodge, the worst I can expect on the first round is three damage. Failing
to dodge a Protean strike is a one-way ticket to torpor.
> >Only played my Toreador deck once, I don't know how it would do vs. S&B.
> >Probably not well, though.
>
> Then don't complain because a Rats Horde deck can toast you.
> Rats Horde may even be slower than S&B, in practice.
I'd expect RH to be much slower than S&B, but what difference does that
make? Why shouldn't I complain when you advocate that AoR should be
cumulative, something that I feel is clearly unnecessary?
FWIW, Alan, what decks do /you/ feel do well against S&B preds?
> >No, I am not asserting that at all. No, again. No. No. I was making the
> >point, that other's have agreed with, that once the Gangrel has a couple of AoRs
> >in play, they don't have to act anymore, except to block. This makes them
> >much tougher.
>
> And my point is, a deck that would /both/ let a Gangrel get a couple
> of Rats in play, /and/ be unable to remove them, would be toast against
> many other decks as well. A couple of stealthed bleeds could make
> your life very short.
That: a few stealthed heavy bleeds could make your life short, is true of
about every deck I have ever seen played, Alan.
So, you're saying, "If you don't play combat intercept, then shame on you!"?
> >No, where did you get that idea. Against most Gangrel decks, I would happily
> >tap myself out bleeding my prey as I do not expect a Gangrel deck to out bleed
> >my Toreador deck. If I am tapped out, then I can't stop the AoRs from coming
> >into play and once in play, I will have _great_ difficulty in removing them.
>
> Well, if cumulative Rats are implemented, you don't have to tap out,
> as if playing against any other clan. You don't tap out against
> Tremere, do you?
No, but I thought we were talking about Gangrel. I'd tap out against Brujah or
Nosferatu also. None of those three has significant bleed potential. No, I
wouldn't tap out against a deck with Dominate (yeah!) as one of its primary
disciplines. Give me some credit, man.
> >> >When you sit down to play are you counting on
> >> >the not-your-predator players to save you if something goes wrong?
> >> >I'm not debating the fact that it is sometimes necessary to help other
> >> >players, I was saying I don't like depending on the other players,
> >> >especially my PREY, for aid.
>
> >> They're not intentionally helping me; they're helping themselves,
> >> by burning the Rats before they come around the table to get them.
>
> >Yes, they are helping you also.
>
> That's the nice point of it. But they /have to/ do it, or the
> Rats horde will get them.
I still don't like the idea that I /have to/ count on my prey for help.
> Because you said that Gangrel rats horde don't have to tap, and can
> stay untapped all the time and have maximum defense against predator.
> This simply isn't true.
Once the AoR(s) are in play, it is true.
> >Which has nothing to do whith the point that a Gangrel combat/AoR deck
> >would eat a Ventrue/Toreador vote deck (and some other decks as well).
>
> S&B would eat those decks too, unless they use /very/ heavy bleed
> bounce. If you happen to be the S&B's predator, that's your
> end, because you won't be able to use your bleed bounce (unplayable
> in a 2-player endgame) by
> the time he works around the table to become your predator.
So, again you're saying, "If you don't play combat intercept, then shame on you!"?
[ quoted text not captured ]
hu...@ecf.toronto.edu (HU IAN) wrote:
> Tremere, on the contrary, are NOT press weak. The trap card alone will
> allow a potent tremere combat deck to hit you for aggravated sooner
> or later... The Gangrel press cards are interesting, but some cost 1 pool.
> Anyways. I've been able to press many a gangrel and hit hard. Of course,
> gangrel has its defenses.
A disciplineless combat card doesn't change the fact that Tremere are press/
maneuver weak. Of their three disciplines: Dominate, Auspex, Thaumaturgy -
only one Auspex card allows a maneuver [sup Spirit's Touch] and one allows
a press to _end_ combat [Read Intentions] and only one Thaumaturgy card
allows maneuvers or presses (to end combat only) [Movement of the Mind].
This qualifies as maneuver/press weak. Just because your deck happens to
have 10 Traps, 10 Hawgs, and 10 Dead-End Alleys does not make Tremere press
strong. You could just as easily be playing Malkavian or Ventrue.
> On the topic of AoR. Degenerate deck just like the typical Gangrel deck.
> Sure, i'll intercept your AoR with my Tremere, but you're bound to form
> of the mist it. O well. And then i'll try to bleed you with my dominate,
> from which you block it with your cat's guidance (or rat's warning or
> I have not beaten a gangrel with my tremere in a long time. On the other
> hand, i'm not willing to go through very boring cards like obedience, etc.
> So, whatever. To each his own.
I consider AoR to be a valid Animalism strategy, I'm just disagreeing with
Alan over AoRs effectiveness vs. certain bleed mods and that AoR doesn't
need to be cumulative (then it would be too powerful).
[ quoted text not captured ]
HU IAN (hu...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: I have not beaten a gangrel with my tremere in a long time. On the other: hand, i'm not willing to go through very boring cards like obedience, etc.
: So, whatever. To each his own.
Theft of Vitae, Drain Essence, Blood Fury, and in some states Blood Rage as
well, are all good thaumaturgy cards that can't be prevented with fortitude.
You can't kill gangrel with these? The Tremere are the _most_ effective clan
against Gangrel, in or out of combat, in my experience. They can block
better, bleed better, and fight better ( but _just_ against gangrel ). Don't
forget Merril, and the Chantry...
Larrx...
la...@bu.edu (Larry Harriman)
Date: 13 Apr 1995 19:28:47 GMT
Message-ID: <3mju1f$i...@news.bu.edu>
HU IAN (hu...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: I have not beaten a gangrel with my tremere in a long time. On the other: hand, i'm not willing to go through very boring cards like obedience,
etc.
: So, whatever. To each his own.
The fundamental card to beating Gangrel with Tremere is Movement of the
Mind. Their claws are short range, your Thefts and Walks and Drains
aren't. You needn't resort to the Obedience crock.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
On the topic of Army of Rats, Tremere, GAngrel, Etc.
Tremere, on the contrary, are NOT press weak. The trap card alone will
allow a potent tremere combat deck to hit you for aggravated sooner
or later... The Gangrel press cards are interesting, but some cost 1 pool.
Anyways. I've been able to press many a gangrel and hit hard. Of course,
gangrel has its defenses.
I am simply saying, however, that tremere are NOT press weak.
On the topic of AoR. Degenerate deck just like the typical Gangrel deck.
Sure, i'll intercept your AoR with my Tremere, but you're bound to form
of the mist it. O well. And then i'll try to bleed you with my dominate,
from which you block it with your cat's guidance (or rat's warning or wahtever that dang superior skill +1 intercept card is). Point is, in one-on-one games,
I have not beaten a gangrel with my tremere in a long time. On the other
hand, i'm not willing to go through very boring cards like obedience, etc.
So, whatever. To each his own.
My point here i sjust that AoR is a degenerate deck, and where i come from,
we gang up on degenerate decks fast...
*shrugs!*
chacun son gout
.
Larrx, you listed some very nice combat cards with tremere. But you tell me.
What am i going to do when i bleed, he blocks, and he earth melds? Et cetera.
Whatever.
In one on one i simply cannot beat the gangrel earthmeld/cat'sguidance/rat'swarning/formofthemist combination.
HU IAN (hu...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: Larrx, you listed some very nice combat cards with tremere. But you tell me.: What am i going to do when i bleed, he blocks, and he earth melds? Et cetera.
: Whatever.
: In one on one i simply cannot beat the gangrel earthmeld/cat'sguidance/rat'swarning/formofthemist combination.
Um...Fast Reaction, if you can manage to block him? Actually, you have a
point there, I wasn't aware that you were up against Gangrel run away combat.
Unfortunately, the only way I've found to beat combat ends: untap decks is
with other combat ends: untap decks. The Tremere can't handle that. Achingly
beatiful, majestic Toreador should have no problem getting rid of the rats.
After all, they have to spend one pool to allow you to untap and try again.
Hardly worth it.
Larrx...
hu...@ecf.toronto.edu (HU IAN) writes:
>Larrx, you listed some very nice combat cards with tremere. But you tell
me.
>What am i going to do when i bleed, he blocks, and he earth melds? Et
cetera.
>Whatever.
>In one on one i simply cannot beat the gangrel
>earthmeld/cat'sguidance/rat'swarning/formofthemist combination.
Oh, he's playing the untap crock. That IS a problem. I've said for a
while that the cheap untap cards can create some serious problems, even
with a clan that (apparently) can't do anything except combat.
Your only chance would be to switch to actions he can't block. Probably
S&B.
You can try Seduction/Blood Bond, but it's kind of iffy here.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
la...@bu.edu (Larry Harriman) writes:
>HU IAN (hu...@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:>: Larrx, you listed some very nice combat cards with tremere. But you
tell me.
>: What am i going to do when i bleed, he blocks, and he earth melds? Et
cetera.
>: Whatever.
>: In one on one i simply cannot beat the gangrel
>: earthmeld/cat'sguidance/rat'swarning/formofthemist combination.>Um...Fast Reaction, if you can manage to block him? Actually, you have a>point there, I wasn't aware that you were up against Gangrel run away
combat.
>Unfortunately, the only way I've found to beat combat ends: untap decks
is
>with other combat ends: untap decks.
Sorry about using you folks for an object lesson, but that is exactly the
point I'm making (elsewhere) about the untap cards. Untapped minions able
to act or block are a fundamental resource in the game, and any card that
allows cheap or free untaps will cause a big problem by allowing a nearly
unlimited resource (cards) to replace a tightly restricted one (available
vampires). As long as the untaps remain so cheap, combat ends and untap
will be a nearly unbeatable strategy.
P.S. Fast reaction is one of the counters for these strategies, but you
only get one round of pounding, and Tremere have a hard time doing enough
damage the first round to make it count.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3mkbap$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>The fundamental card to beating Gangrel with Tremere is Movement of the
>Mind. Their claws are short range, your Thefts and Walks and Drains
>aren't. You needn't resort to the Obedience crock.
I prefer IR Goggles and Fake-Out to MoM. I have a moral
objection to any Thaumaturgy card which allows a Press to End.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3mkbap$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>The fundamental card to beating Gangrel with Tremere is Movement of the
>>Mind. Their claws are short range, your Thefts and Walks and Drains
>>aren't. You needn't resort to the Obedience crock.> I prefer IR Goggles and Fake-Out to MoM. I have a moral
>objection to any Thaumaturgy card which allows a Press to End.
Well, they work too, although the Fake-Outs are a problem when you must
maneuver like crazy. Believe it or not, my Tremere combat decks would
often much rather there wasn't a second round.
I am considered a little off the beam, tho - both my decks with Tremere
are first round combat and press to end; two of my combat decks press to
continue vs. Tremere! I've gotten some real shocked responses when I
threw a press to continue vs. Tremere.
(This was shortly followed by shock from the Tremere player when I threw
Growing Fury and Skin of Steel. Heheheh.)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)