LSJ: mirror image/form of mist

Can I get an explanation as to why Form of Mist is considered an action modifier at superior when it is a combat card, and yet Mirror Image isn't, even when it is both a combat and action modifier card? Considering that both do the exact same thing at superior, this is incongruent for no good reason. http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3DC7C991.8DF8A44A%40white-wolf.com T

In message <76d1d5ef.0303...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >Can I get an explanation as to why Form of Mist is considered an >action modifier at superior when it is a combat card, and yet Mirror >Image isn't, even when it is both a combat and action modifier card? > >Considering that both do the exact same thing at superior, this is >incongruent for no good reason. Form of Mist adds stealth at superior. Mirror Image doesn't. Stealth modifies the action. Continuing the action just continues the action. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

Derek Ray wrote: > In message <76d1d5ef.0303...@posting.google.com>, > talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: > > >>Can I get an explanation as to why Form of Mist is considered an >>action modifier at superior when it is a combat card, and yet Mirror >>Image isn't, even when it is both a combat and action modifier card? >> >>Considering that both do the exact same thing at superior, this is >>incongruent for no good reason. > > > Form of Mist adds stealth at superior. > Mirror Image doesn't. > > Stealth modifies the action. > Continuing the action just continues the action. Correct. The other reason is that Form of Mist has errata making it an action modifier. Mirror Image doesn't. But I assume TalonZ was asking why there was a disparity in errata-issuing, not in resulting card function. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E79B8BF...@white-wolf.com>... > > Stealth modifies the action. > > Continuing the action just continues the action. > > Correct. > > The other reason is that Form of Mist has errata making it an action > modifier. Mirror Image doesn't. But I assume TalonZ was asking why > there was a disparity in errata-issuing, not in resulting card function. So how is an action modified by playing freak drive or hidden lurker? The action has already been concluded. Frankly the ability to end combat and continue the action after it has been blocked ad infinitum is nauseating. And quite possibly broken imo. As to the stealth issue, it was late and I forgot that. T

Talonz wrote: > So how is an action modified by playing freak drive or hidden lurker? By playing the action modifier. > The action has already been concluded. Frankly the ability to end > combat and continue the action after it has been blocked ad infinitum > is nauseating. And quite possibly broken imo. I'll keep a look out for the tournament reports that indicate that Mirror Image is too powerful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Mar 2003, Talonz wrote: > So how is an action modified by playing freak drive or hidden lurker? > The action has already been concluded. Frankly the ability to end > combat and continue the action after it has been blocked ad infinitum > is nauseating. And quite possibly broken imo. Do you mean 'broken' in theory, or are you talking specifically about MI? Because, if you mean MI, then I disagree. One Wake stops it cold. It doesn't add any stealth. It can't be a bleed action. It costs one to play. Sure, it's a good card, but certainly not broken. If you have any Ravnos players up your way who are managing to "nauseate" you , how about asking them to send me some decklists, cause I'd sure like to see them. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) wrote in message news:<76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Don't forget 1 wake beats an unlimited amount of mirror images :P -Bram Vink

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<3E7A10DC...@white-wolf.com>... > Talonz wrote: > > So how is an action modified by playing freak drive or hidden lurker? > > By playing the action modifier. > And yet a FOM, a combat card is erratted to be an action modifier, yet the mirror image, already a combat/action modifier, is not an action modifier at superior. This is inconsistent. Seeing as both extend an otherwise ended action, that would seem to merit both as having modified that action. I brought up the above freak drive/hidden lurker because they both trigger when the action has ended. Which is supposed to have happened when combat ends from a block, but mirror image modifies the action to continue. > I'll keep a look out for the tournament reports that indicate that > Mirror Image is too powerful. Considering that one minion can tap out every minion you have with X mirror images in one action that you want to block, I'd consider it exceedingly powerful when it is not limited to 1 per action as other action modifiers are, yes. T

Talonz wrote: :: Considering that one minion can tap out every minion you have with :: X mirror images in one action that you want to block, I'd consider :: it exceedingly powerful when it is not limited to 1 per action as :: other action modifiers are, yes. and it's supposed to cost a blood each time the acting vampire plays Mirror image Before whining : consider playing cards fromthe following list. Immortal Grapple, thoughts betrayed,dog pack > can't play Mirror image Psyche, Telepathic Tracking > nullifies the "continue action" clause Obedience, voice of madness > no combat Fast Reaction > nullifies the "continue action" clause Read the winds > you can block all the mirror images you want without tapping Wake, forced awakening > you can block all the mirror images while being tapped If your deck contains none of the above, well, go to hell....

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >And yet a FOM, a combat card is erratted to be an action modifier, yet >the mirror image, already a combat/action modifier, is not an action >modifier at superior. This is inconsistent. FoM has been errata-ed because it was overly strong left as it was. Mirror Image has not been seen as overly strong, as it is. This is consistent. > Seeing as both extend an >otherwise ended action, that would seem to merit both as having >modified that action. When has Mirror Image been causing balance related problems? It will probably merit errata then. >I brought up the above freak drive/hidden lurker because they both >trigger when the action has ended. By virtue of them being action modifiers, the action has not ended. (Though the effects may have resolved.) Reactions and action modifiers have to be played during an action. (Rewind Time being the specific card text exception.) > Which is supposed to have happened >when combat ends from a block, Rubbish. Cat's Guidance is a reaction card which is played after the combat resulting from a block. The additional hand damage (and aggravated damage) from Uncontrollable Rage works until the end of the action, including block combats. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<R4eRCcBh...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > FoM has been errata-ed because it was overly strong left as it was. > > Mirror Image has not been seen as overly strong, as it is. > > This is consistent. > No. Both have considerbaly powerful effects in one card, that of ending combat and continuing an action after a successful block, rendering a previouslly unsuccessful action possible successful. FOM adds stealth on top of this, making it more powerful than MI, but MI remains a powerful card itself because of these effects. In fact, I would say that MI is more powerful currently exactly because of this interpretation that it can be played multiple times on the same action. > When has Mirror Image been causing balance related problems? It will > probably merit errata then. > Irrespective of your opinion on its balance issues, it warrants the same erratta that FOM has because it does modify the action. > > >I brought up the above freak drive/hidden lurker because they both > >trigger when the action has ended. > > By virtue of them being action modifiers, the action has not ended. > (Though the effects may have resolved.) > Actually the action has ended. This is a specefic requirement of both these cards. T

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<R4eRCcBh...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > > Which is supposed to have happened > >when combat ends from a block, > > Rubbish. > > Cat's Guidance is a reaction card which is played after the combat > resulting from a block. The additional hand damage (and aggravated > damage) from Uncontrollable Rage works until the end of the action, > including block combats. By the way I can only assume you completely misinterpreted my comment above. That being, once a combat resulting from a block has ended, so has the action (barring action modifiers of course and apparently MI). T

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<R4eRCcBhRDf+Ew >p...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > >> FoM has been errata-ed because it was overly strong left as it was. >> >> Mirror Image has not been seen as overly strong, as it is. >> >> This is consistent. > >No. I'm afraid you'll find you're simply wrong. FoM has been shown to be overly powerful (in the opinion of the Rules Team etc.) and so was errata-ed. When has Mirror Image been shown to be overly powerful? It hasn't. So it hasn't received errata. These are simple facts. >Both have considerbaly powerful effects in one card, Potentially, yes. >that of >ending combat and continuing an action after a successful block, >rendering a previouslly unsuccessful action possible successful. FOM >adds stealth on top of this, making it more powerful than MI, Correct. So far, this extra power has pushed FoM into errata category. Mirror Image - not having this extra power - has not been pushed into the errata category. >but MI >remains a powerful card itself because of these effects. However, it is not as powerful as Form of Mist pre-errata. Hence Form of Mist was re-written and Mirror Image was not. Cards are not errata-ed for being *powerful*. They're errata-ed for being *too powerful*. Form of Mist provided Strike: Combat Ends, +1 stealth and action continuing. To neuter this, it was provided with an action modifier restriction. Mirror Image provides Strike: Combat Ends and action continuing. It *doesn't* provide +1 stealth. It also costs 1 blood. So it is clearly not as powerful as Form of Mist was. Being weaker, it is quite possibly below the errata threshold. So far, no-one has shown it to be anything else. >In fact, I >would say that MI is more powerful currently exactly because of this >interpretation that it can be played multiple times on the same >action. It's certainly possible that it's so, yes. Pre-emptive errata is usually ill-thought out errata, however. However, it is clearly not as powerful as Form of Mist *was*. It may potentially be more powerful than Form of Mist currently is. That doesn't mean that it's too powerful, however. >> When has Mirror Image been causing balance related problems? It will >> probably merit errata then. > >Irrespective of your opinion on its balance issues, it warrants the >same erratta that FOM has because it does modify the action. Complete bullshit. That's not why cards merit errata. >> >I brought up the above freak drive/hidden lurker because they both >> >trigger when the action has ended. >> >> By virtue of them being action modifiers, the action has not ended. >> (Though the effects may have resolved.) >> > >Actually the action has ended. No, it hasn't. >This is a specefic requirement of both >these cards. No, it isn't. I suggest reading card text. Hidden Lurker requires a combat between an acting minion and a blocking minion to have finished (so you are after it). This is NOT a requirement of the action having ended. The action *cannot* have ended, or else action modifiers would not be playable. Freak Drive is usable *at the end*, not after the action has ended. Rather, after the action has resolved. >> Cat's Guidance is a reaction card which is played after the combat >> resulting from a block. The additional hand damage (and aggravated >> damage) from Uncontrollable Rage works until the end of the action, >> including block combats. > >By the way I can only assume you completely misinterpreted my comment >above. That being, once a combat resulting from a block has ended, so >has the action Rubbish. The action doesn't end until the action ends. That is not the same as a block-combat ending. >(barring action modifiers of course and apparently MI). Or Cat's Guidance, for instance. Cat's Guidance is played after the block combat. Ergo the action hasn't ended. [ quoted text not captured ]

First off, if you can't be polite, don't bother replying. James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<4oAbm$kZgaf...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > >> This is consistent. > > > >No. > > I'm afraid you'll find you're simply wrong. > Again, no. My argument is two-fold; that MI is powerfull, too powerfull to remian unlimited on a single action, and that to keep it as an non-action mod when a nearly exact copy of the same effect has been ruled an action mod is inconsistent. You continue to argue merely the former without recognizing the latter. > > > Cards are not errata-ed for being *powerful*. They're errata-ed for > being *too powerful*. > And/or for printing errors, inconsistincies, etc. > > >In fact, I > >would say that MI is more powerful currently exactly because of this > >interpretation that it can be played multiple times on the same > >action. > > It's certainly possible that it's so, yes. Pre-emptive errata is > usually ill-thought out errata, however. > Indeed? How about I design a card that allows me to win the game when played. Can you see from its application that it clearly needs erratta, or must you be shown from multiple tourney records? > > > >Actually the action has ended. > > No, it hasn't. > "6.2.3. Resolve the Action If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to take the action is burned and the blocking minion is tapped and enters combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of the action do not take place when the action is blocked." Once that combat is over, the action is over. If you wish to argue that there is a window between combat ending and as a consequence the action ending, that's fine. But that's the entire point, any effects beyond ending the combat are in fact modifying the action. > > >This is a specefic requirement of both > >these cards. > > No, it isn't. I suggest reading card text. > > Hidden Lurker requires a combat between an acting minion and a blocking > minion to have finished (so you are after it). > Resulting from an action that has ended via that combat. > > Freak Drive is usable *at the end*, not after the action has ended. > Rather, after the action has resolved. > Semantics. The action has ended. Only the cardtext allows you to 'tag on' these new effects to an ended action. > > Rubbish. The action doesn't end until the action ends. That is not the > same as a block-combat ending. > Well one can argue that the action has ended the minute the acting minion was blocked, and rightly so given the above rulestext quoted. But obviouslly there are several *action modifiers* that avoid this via cardtext. The point being that MI is the apparent exception to this rule. T

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >First off, if you can't be polite, don't bother replying. Let me break something to you. If you can't handle people speaking roughly to you, then you are in for a great shock when you encounter the real world. Be thankful it's only USENET. When your boss tells you that he doesn't like your idea, that he thinks it's wrong, and he's going to go with his own idea, what will you say then? Will you tell him to be polite or not to bother talking to you? If you do, I hope you enjoy the unemployment line. >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<4oAbm$kZgaf...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > >> I'm afraid you'll find you're simply wrong. > >Again, no. My argument is two-fold; that MI is powerfull, too >powerfull to remian unlimited on a single action, and that to keep it >as an non-action mod when a nearly exact copy of the same effect has >been ruled an action mod is inconsistent. > >You continue to argue merely the former without recognizing the >latter. And you need to dispose of the former completely. The portion of your argument that declares MI to be "too powerful" is simply ludicrous, at best. A single Wake suffices to block any number of Mirror Images, with absolutely no cost to the Woken vampire -- because Mirror Image ends combat, which does no damage to the blocker, who should then feel free to repeatedly block until the actor runs out of Mirror Image. The sole benefit to Mirror Image not being an action modifier is the ability to play Mirror Image twice in two successive combats, and potentially continuing the action beyond that. This only affects decks which rely on leaving vampires untapped to block and do not pack Wakes or other untap-like effects; such decks are already vulnerable to a number of other, more powerful effects like Anarch Troublemaker. Conceivably one could cycle Mirror Images out of one's hand until one got hold of a Fata Morgana, Daring the Dawn, or other card to make the action finally succeed -- the potential benefit to this is negligible, especially considering the card costs a blood. Thus, the initial portion of your argument is refuted. Please discard it in future replies, as you simply don't have a leg to stand on here. Now, on to the second portion of your argument. This is a much sounder base from which to form your opinion, but there are still a number of visible flaws in your arguments. First, Mirror Image and Form of Mist are not identical effects. Mirror Image costs a blood and is restricted to non-bleeding actions; Form of Mist is free, provides +1 stealth, and can be used on any action. If you consider that the 'action modifier' status of Form of Mist is a deliberate restriction, then the one-blood cost is a clear matchup for an equivalent restriction -- especially considering the effect is not as powerful as Form of Mist. Second, Mirror Image does not change anything about the action. It is still the same action, it continues at the same stealth/intercept values as before, it does not provide any additional benefits after the action is completed -- nothing has changed about the action. Form of Mist provides an obvious change to the action itself: the +1 stealth. Third, the "inconsistency" argument is obviated by my initial counterargument; the fact that they are different effects provides sufficient logical basis for them to be covered by different card classes. Note that there are three separate, yet distinct differences between the two effects. Fourth, there are long-standing policies concerning errata which, summed up, state "as little as necessary". If Mirror Image received errata, then Shadow Body, Chameleon's Colors, and Flow within the Mountain (all of which are combat-only cards) would also require similar errata, as they also all produce "continue the action" effects. It is worth noting that each of these cards also costs a blood, and two of these cards also have the "non-bleeding" restriction, making them all better matches for Mirror Image than Form of Mist. For a card which isn't even overpowered to begin with (see point #1), generating widespread errata is clearly a Bad Idea. If you can break it, I suggest you do so and then post the deck; but I don't see any way to break the card, due to the 1-blood cost and non-bleeding restriction. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talonz wrote: > How about I design a card that allows me to win the game > when played. You won't design anything,and that's better for all of us. If mirror image by itself can win you a game, please explaine us how.

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, Talonz <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: >First off, if you can't be polite, don't bother replying. If you can't be bothered to learn the game, don't bother replying. You are repeatedly and consistently corrected on your misunderstandings of the finer points of the game. You repeatedly and consistently ignore them and continue to run in opposite directions. Without the understanding that you repeatedly eschew, you cannot make progress, except by accident. Repeated threads show you have a habit of being wrong, and being unable to accept that you are wrong when corrected. You sit there demanding that your interpretation is correct. It isn't. Learn to accept that and move on, with a better understanding of the rules. >> >> This is consistent. >> > >> >No. >> >> I'm afraid you'll find you're simply wrong. >> > >Again, no. You are missing the point entirely. (This is a common theme for you. The point is over here, so you run away from it as fast as possible, with huge creaking sounds of goalposts being pushed at the same time.) The consistency in the issuing of the errata is that Form of Mist was too powerful and warranted it. Mirror Image was not too powerful, and didn't warrant it. Issuing errata for Mirror Image at that point would be unnecessary, as a result. This is consistent with the game as a whole; it is inconsistent to errata cards that don't warrant it. These are simple facts. Form of Mist has been shown (to the satisfaction of the Rules Team) to need errata; Mirror Image hasn't. So far, you haven't provided any compelling evidence about Mirror Image either. >My argument is two-fold; that MI is powerfull, too >powerfull to remian unlimited on a single action, Which tournaments is it dominating? It is worth noting that practically every too powerful card becomes taken up by schools of decks. Practically every 'broken' card in existence has been abused in quick time. Temptation of Greater Power is the obvious one that wasn't, and Betrayer - but Betrayer *couldn't* be, until Sabbat was released. So what tournaments is Mirror Image dominating, or nearly so (the decks may still need some tweaks)? (Proof by experience.) Given that Mirror Image does not provide stealth (one handicap) and costs blood (a second handicap) is its effect more powerful than Form of Mist, which is free (without that handicap) and with additional stealth (a benefit) but is limited to one per action (its single handicap)? Can you provide compelling evidence that a blood cost and no stealth is significantly weaker than an action modifier restriction? This would be proof by theory. Many broken cards require whole shifts of decks to cater to them - for instance, Return to Innocence, pre-errata Thoughts Betrayed. Mirror Image, in the first instance, is foiled by anti-Strike: Combat Ends. If you play Immortal Grapple (a common facet of the combat game), you cannot have Mirror Image played against you, for instance. Additionally, Wake with Evening's Freshness and Forced Awakening foil Mirror Image, without extra work. (And if you could put in extra stealth, you may well have been better off playing it *before* you got blocked, and skip the Mirror Image entirely.) These are common facets of the game also, because you build all decks knowing that you could be tapped by a Mind Numb, a Misdirection or an Anarch Troublemaker, and knowing that if you can both take actions *and* react (for a bounce, for a block, for a Delaying Tactics etc.) you can do much more than if you leave yourself untapped. Then there's the fact that, feeding back into anti-S:CE above, there are several forms of defence that will shatter a Mirror Image also - Psyche! and Telepathic Tracking will both kick in before the continue action effect, causing it to fizzle. So... so far, we have multiple common defences against it, that are both useful and multi-functional. That would be a good proof that decks would have to completely restructure themselves to defend against it. Then we try to consider the card in the context of other cards that end up generating the same-ish effect, in other ways. (Proof by analogy.) Mirror Image doesn't provide any stealth, so effectively it just taps a blocker - assuming you manage to pull it off. That could be generated by a Master Card such as Misdirection or Anarch Troublemaker. (Single card, master phase, possible pool cost.) Similarly, block denial could be achieved with Seduction. Now, at superior this isn't going to *actually* tap the vampire, but it might as well do, for that action, unless something like Fast Reaction is going to be pulled out of the bag. (Possible, but unlikely.) Seduction is a single card, no blood cost, but it does get the action modifier restriction. But it's also in Dominate, a highly potent discipline. In context, Chimerstry is a secondary-resource manipulator, whereas Dominate goes a lot more for primary resources. Dominate is the more 'offensive' discipline (in terms of offence, rather than terms of being considered nasty, horrible and smelly - though it does that too, sometimes), both offensively (bleed modifiers) and defensively (bleed bounce), along with a fair chunk of secondary resource manipulation, whereas Chimerstry is almost solely dedicated to secondary resources. In total, also, Dominate is available to uber-lots of vampires, whereas Chimerstry is available to only a few vampires. ELDB is telling me that CHI is only available on 13 vampires, whereas DOM is on 95. Considered in context, then, we can allow for Mirror Image being more slightly powerful than Seduction. So we move on, what else can we compare it with? Call of the Hungry Dead isn't a bad one. At inferior, it's free. Mirror Image is one blood. At superior, it's burn one blood, Mirror Image is one blood. In most circumstances, that wouldn't make much difference BUT both the Giovanni (not the only Necromancers but...) and the Ravnos do benefit from Path of Bone and Path of Paradox, and the Path of Bone won't work on Call of the Hungry Dead, but Paradox will on Mirror Image. And Path of Paradox isn't bad for the Ravnos - especially since some of their cards are rather expensive. And unlike the Giovanni, they stand a reasonable chance at defending it, with their intercept and stealth denial. So there's a minor plus there, which could work out to be a rather reasonable plus, in context. Of course, block denial is slightly different to action continue, but we're doing proof by analogy. And it can work out similar, in that the action carries on without that vampire blocking. And Call of the Hungry Dead is more powerful, in that it stops you going into combat and no amount of Wake with Evening's Freshness will let you block with that vampire when it's played. Not going into combat is, these days, not a thing to be sniffed at - this also occurs with Seduction, above - block avoidance = no combat = safer. People are playing anti-S:CE (uh-oh) and pro-combat. Psyche! with blurred guns and the like. I'd rather have Call in that instance. Similar comparisons could be made with Elder Impersonation, which is in a different discipline - oh, and that costs 1 blood all the time, no cost reduction for Obfuscate. Chimerstry and Necromancy work kind of well as comparisons, even post-Bloodlines (with lots of new Necromancers) in that they're relatively toolboxy disciplines - but of course, Necromancy teams up with Dominate, whereas Chimerstry gets Animalism and Fortitude, neither of which are as powerful singly as Dominate. So, Necromancy gets to avoid combat entirely, Chimerstry doesn't. But Chimerstry does get the bonus points of being able to use it reactively (i.e. when rushed, or when blocking) just for the Strike: Combat Ends, which Necromancy doesn't - though the Ravnos, having Fortitude, Chimerstry and Animalism, aren't exactly lacking combat defence anyway. It does get to reduce the cost, in tandem with Path of Paradox. And it can tap a vampire, but Wake is perfectly valid as a response to this (though you could play it again), which it isn't for Call of the Hungry Dead (so CotHD circumvents a very common defensive card). *And* though CotHD is slightly weaker at inferior, it's also free at inferior. And CotHD tandems well with Dominate, which Mirror Image doesn't so well. CHI/dom is limited to three vampires (min. 8 cap) NEC/dom is on 15, starting at 5 capacity (2 5 caps, one is scarce) PRO/dom is on 6, starting at 6 capacity Just as a random point of reference. And PRO/dom may well get some mileage out of Anarchs. (I can't see *too* many of them happening. But maybe one or two.) AND Mirror Image can't be used to continue on bleed actions. Whereas Call of the Hungry Dead and Form of Mist can not only be played on bleed actions, they team up nicely with them. And bleed actions really are the most fundamental in the game, being cardless and offensive. So, by analogy, in context, we're having real trouble making Mirror Image that much more powerful than other cards which end up with similar functionality, by different means. It's repeatable, yes, but it doesn't tandem up with wildly offensive bleeding - indeed, it CAN'T. It puts you at the risk of combat, without the benefit of extra stealth, like Form of Mist, and so can be foiled by a single Wake. We're hardly overwhelmingly busted, by any set of proof that I can find. And if I *could* find some, I'd happily argue for them. But we're missing proof, we're missing theory, we're missing huge recycling of the game to accommodate it, and it seems to fit with other similar cards. Oh yes, the *OTHER* proof. Proof by assertion. "This card is too powerful because I say it is." Surprisingly, that one doesn't work. >and that to keep it >as an non-action mod when a nearly exact copy of the same effect has >been ruled an action mod is inconsistent. > >You continue to argue merely the former without recognizing the >latter. It's has been *ERRATA*-ed to an action modifier. Errata. Not ruling. Errata. There is a difference. It would aid you to understand the difference. Errata affects the given card only. That the errata was picked with a useful mnemonic in mind is neither here not there. (Akin to Rutor's Hand's cost, way back in the 6/23 and 7/7 rulings, being given a nice way of remembering it.) Errata is *significantly* different from a ruling. Whereas rulings are, by their nature, extensible, errata is not. Errata affects one card, rulings often present a class of text to regard in one specific light, or another. >> Cards are not errata-ed for being *powerful*. They're errata-ed for >> being *too powerful*. >> > >And/or for printing errors, Mirror Image has not been shown to have a printing error. >inconsistincies, etc. Mirror Image seems perfectly consistent with Shadow Body. So, that'll be no need for errata then. >> It's certainly possible that it's so, yes. Pre-emptive errata is >> usually ill-thought out errata, however. > >Indeed? How about I design a card that allows me to win the game when >played. Thankfully, you do not have responsibility for designing cards. >Can you see from its application that it clearly needs >erratta, or must you be shown from multiple tourney records? Two basic problems here: 1) You are bizarre enough to think that "+75 stealth action. You win the game. No-one may use any effects on this action. No-one may attempt to block this action. No-one may play Direct Intervention on this action." is comparable with Mirror Image. This is a level of argument that should be ignored. There are many, many shades of grey before you get to a card which is obviously the end of the world. Mirror Image is not one. 2) You are having trouble with the word "usually". I said "usually ill- thought out errata". Because usually they are. See, for instance, the many jump-up-and-down claims that have been made for all sorts of cards over the years. http://groups.google.com/ Each of the ones that has been errata-ed has been errata-ed after a fairly significant period of time and thought. >> >Actually the action has ended. >> >> No, it hasn't. >> > >"6.2.3. Resolve the Action >If the action is successful (all block attempts were unsuccessful), >then the cost of the action is paid and the effects of the successful >action take place. If the action is blocked, then any card played to >take the action is burned and the blocking minion is tapped and enters >combat with the acting minion (see Combat, sec. 6.4). The effects of >the action do not take place when the action is blocked." > >Once that combat is over, the action is over. Incorrect. [RTR 19970630] "9) You may play action modifiers only during your actions, and reactions only during other players' actions. " Since Hidden Lurker is playable *after* the combat, we are still in an action. [LSJ 20020522] "Can't play modifiers if there's no action." Since you can play Hidden Lurker, there is an action. >If you wish to argue >that there is a window between combat ending and as a consequence the >action ending, that's fine. There is. You are arguing that after combat is over, the action is over. That's wrong. >But that's the entire point, any effects >beyond ending the combat are in fact modifying the action. So? There is no ruling that anything that impacts upon an action is an action modifier. There are many obvious examples to the contrary. Master cards, reactions, actions with specific text, cards on the vampire, and so on. >> >This is a specefic requirement of both >> >these cards. >> >> No, it isn't. I suggest reading card text. >> >> Hidden Lurker requires a combat between an acting minion and a blocking >> minion to have finished (so you are after it). >> > >Resulting from an action that has ended via that combat. The action has NOT ended via that combat. A block renders it unsuccessful. It does not end the action. If the action had ended, it would not be possible to play Action Modifiers. >> Freak Drive is usable *at the end*, not after the action has ended. >> Rather, after the action has resolved. >> > >Semantics. You might like to think so. This is actually about understanding the rules. You are arguing that a false interpretation of the rules is a true interpretation of the rules. You are fundamentally WRONG. Blocks do not end an action, they render it unsuccessful. The end of a block combat does not end an action, the action is still there. This is not semantics. These are the rules. >The action has ended. No, it hasn't. LSJ makes clear that action modifiers are not playable when there isn't an action. The action has not ended. > Only the cardtext allows you to >'tag on' these new effects to an ended action. Not true. Repeated rulings show that the action does not end immediately on the block-combat ending. >> Rubbish. The action doesn't end until the action ends. That is not the >> same as a block-combat ending. >> > >Well one can argue that the action has ended the minute the acting >minion was blocked, One would be wrong. >and rightly so given the above rulestext quoted. The rules text quoted above shows the difference between an action being successful and unsuccessful, unblocked or blocked. It does not show the difference between the action being there and the action not being there. A blocked action is still an action in progress, and resolving. >But obviouslly there are several *action modifiers* that avoid this >via cardtext. The point being that MI is the apparent exception to >this rule. MI is not an exception in the slightest. There is no rule anywhere to say that any effect that impacts on an action is an action modifier. Uncontrollable Rage just says "to the end of the action". If you wish to argue, as you are trying here, that the action ends the moment that the acting minion was blocked, Uncontrollable Rage would not be usable in the block combat - which it is. [LSJ 19980102 - Robert Goudie poses the question about Iliana being blocked with Uncontrollable Rage, and the damage does carry on into the combat.] Also: [LSJ 20010316] In response to Damnans, asking: "What happens when a vampire enters combat with another minion via Bum's Rush modified by an Uncontrollable Rage, and the opposing minion plays S:CE, and the acting vampire plays superior Psyche! to start combat again?." We get (further down the thread): The resolution of the Bum's Rush action was combat. That combat is over. But before the action ends, players get the opportunity to play other effects, like Cats Guidance, Freak Drive, Psyche!, Hidden Lurker, etc. So, after resolution, the action is still there. But the example is successful resolution. How does this impact on blocks? [LSJ 20021217] There's still a question of when the "taint" is applied and, in the case of Mask, to whom. That's whence the question. The taint is applied to the minion who is the acting minion when the action resolves (successfully, blocked, ended, or otherwise). The block and ensuing combat is, therefore, part of the resolution of an unsuccessful action - it's just a different type of resolution to a successful action. But per [LSJ 20010316], resolution doesn't end the action. So after blocking, the action is still there. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, James Coupe wrote: > The consistency in the issuing of the errata is that Form of Mist was > too powerful and warranted it. Mirror Image was not too powerful, and > didn't warrant it. Perhaps this is buried in the thread somewhere amidst explanations of exactly *why* FoM was too powerful left as it was. But since I haven't seen it stated explicitly myself, I will do so: Were it not for the erratta, a vampire could play FoM at superior for S:CE, continue the action at +1 stealth, then another to continue at +2 stealth, then another for +3 stealth, and so on until intercept is overwhelmed (and not that you'd need that many when combined with the effect of tapping a blocker). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<5+d7zMVu...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, Talonz > <talo...@hotmail.com> writes: > >First off, if you can't be polite, don't bother replying. > > If you can't be bothered to learn the game, don't bother replying. > Sorry Coupe but you are not the font of wisdom you seem to think you are. You are not interested in the discussion so much as you are in namecalling and denigration. That is petty and useless. There is no point in further discussion as you cling to one minor issue and cannot expand your discussion to broader issues. Nuff said, moving on. T

talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) wrote in message news:<76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] And you are, Talonz51? Spouter of shit perhaps, font of wisdom no. You are just a whiney little crybaby :( who doesn't seem to be willing to admit that you are wrong. I dunno, maybe you do it on purpose (act like a dickhead I mean). I haven taken great pleasure in discussing many of your posts with my flatmate (who plays, but doesn't read the newsgroup) and having a great old laugh at your opinions/ideas/suggestions in this thread. To pick out a few of the more glaring pieces of foolishness... >Frankly the ability to end >combat and continue the action after it has been blocked ad infinitum >is nauseating. And quite possibly broken imo. Yeah, maybe it is annoying if you don't happen to have a card in your card to stop it (such as one of the _many_ that have already been mentioned in this thread), but hardly more so than many other cards in the game. I guess I should just stop playing Illusion of the Kindred and get my guys pummeled by the grapple combat, eh? AFter all, an obviously broken card such as MI will easily save me from that ever happening, it's just _that_ powerful. You stupid fucking moron. :) As for broken. Well, if you are getting smashed by a mirror image deck on a regular basis, then a) either you _suck_ at vtes or b) you need to get some more cards. Maybe you should spend some of this pointless time you spend being a dick, on buying some more cards, fixing up your decks and getting in some practice. >Considering that one minion can tap out every minion you have with X >mirror images in one action that you want to block, I'd consider it >exceedingly powerful when it is not limited to 1 per action as other >action modifiers are, yes. I don't claim to be an expert, or even particularly well-versed in the intricacies of the game, but even I can understand the simple explanations that have been put forth by others in this thread. Maybe you are a vtes retard? Perhaps that part of the brain which is associated with understanding vtes is damaged in your case, you fucking tool? :) >Indeed? How about I design a card that allows me to win the game when >played. Can you see from its application that it clearly needs >erratta, or must you be shown from multiple tourney records? What kind of ridulous statement is this (again I say, you tool)? MI isn't such a "win when played" card, so why try and make any comparison?. Say you see an MI for the first time, having had no previous experience with the cards use, you may *think* that it is overpowered, but without evidence it is impossible to say. This is not the case though. In reality, we have strong evidence to suggest that MI is not overpowered as there has been no way found to overly abuse the card. With no proof to the contrary, how can you just sit there and make stupid comments, like "broken imo". Hope you enjoy all those "broken" mirror images when Arika protects spider killer from across the table and there 'aint nothing you can do it. Meaning, find something decent to complain about. 'Nuff said :) -Scrote Just call me petty and useless.

Mirror Image, broken? I'm sorry but i can't see this. Please feel free to post the deck that abuses mirror image, i am interested to see it, as i have played many a game o Jyhad and never seen this card as overpowered. Roger Atkins "Squashed Frog"

kensa...@aol.com (Squashed Frog) wrote in message news:<6c29c5b3.03032...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] End combat and continue an already blocked action. Perhaps 2 of the most powerfull effects in the game. In one card. Now allow this card to be played unlimited times on a single action, by a discipline with access to such cards as reality and sensory deprivation. Insert decklist with multiples of those cards and sprinkle with stealth to taste. Broken? Maybe, maybe not. I never said there weren't any counters to it. But considering its effects and that it does modify an action that was ending to one that continues, much like form of mist, it should be considered an action modifier at superior as well as a combat card, as FOM is. That is the inconsistency I see which makes the card nauseating and senselessly violates the rules against playing more than one of the same action modifer. T

Talonz wrote: > Broken? Maybe, maybe not. I never said there weren't any counters > to it. you're digging deeper and deeper underground pal... stop the nonsense now. You said broken, now it's "maybe, maybe not". so if you changed your mind about this, just repeat after me : "Thank you, gentle people from the newsgroup, thanks to your clear explanation, i finally understand why Mirror Image is not broken. I was wrong, you were right, yeah. Next time we meet i'll buy you a beer and we'll talk about cards and girls (or boys) and life. Thanks again "

On 27 Mar 2003, Talonz wrote: > End combat and continue an already blocked action. Perhaps 2 of the > most powerfull effects in the game. In one card. Now allow this card > to be played unlimited times on a single action, by a discipline with > access to such cards as reality and sensory deprivation. Insert > decklist with multiples of those cards and sprinkle with stealth to > taste. Have you played many Ravnos decks? I have, and *the* biggest design challenge for this clan is blood management. The one blood cost is fantastically non-negligible. And it can't be a bleed, so you most likely are MI'ing some Chimestry action or other that you'd better have the blood to pay for after all the MI's, or it was for nothing (OK, you managed to tap a bunch of guys). The real strength of MI lies in its versatility, since it can be played as a combat card with a FoM-like effect, or simply used as straight +1 stealth, something FoM lacks. > But considering its effects and that it does modify an action that was > ending to one that continues, much like form of mist, it should be > considered an action modifier at superior as well as a combat card, as > FOM is. You keep asserting this. IMO, FoM was modified based on as much, if not more than, its actual overpowered-ness than some abstract theory of what should be considered an action modifier. Free. Any action. Add another stealth. How long have you been playing this game? I played before it got fixed and, even though we all sucked then, I remember watching the FoM stack. It was gross. > That is the inconsistency I see which makes the card nauseating and > senselessly violates the rules against playing more than one of the > same action modifer. It *may* be inconsistent from the perspective of what qualifies a card as an action modifier. It's perfectly consistent from the perspective of toning down over-powered cards. Really, the best thing you can do for your argument at this point is post a deck. I got your point about not needing to demonstrate the "I win" card, but the brokenness of MI is nowhere near that clear, and should be demonstrated if we're to take it seriously at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030327...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > > Have you played many Ravnos decks? Yup. > I have, and *the* biggest design > challenge for this clan is blood management. The one blood cost is > fantastically non-negligible. Gabrin rocks. More so than the path of paradox even. > And it can't be a bleed, so you most likely > are MI'ing some Chimestry action Yeah, nasty stuff like reality and sensory dep. > > You keep asserting this. IMO, FoM was modified based on as much, if not > more than, its actual overpowered-ness than some abstract theory of what > should be considered an action modifier. Sure, but either the switch to action modifer was the correct choice or not. If it addressed both the power of the card and clarified that it did modify the action and thus should be treated as such, then the change was an appropriate one. If the erratta was only to address the power of the card than perhaps another solution would have been better. > > It *may* be inconsistent from the perspective of what qualifies a card as > an action modifier. That's what I'm talking about. Its mechanically inconsistent to have the two cards with same effect(continue an action through a block) not be both considered action modifiers. That's bothersome, and can lead to misuse (and did in FOM's case). > It's perfectly consistent from the perspective of > toning down over-powered cards. > Well sort of, but I'm not really disputing that. See above about how FOM was addressed. > Really, the best thing you can do for your argument at this point is post > a deck. I got your point about not needing to demonstrate the "I > win" card, but the brokenness of MI is nowhere near that clear, and should > be demonstrated if we're to take it seriously at all. > Thats if I wish to prove that MI is broken because of its power, which wasn't what my original post was about. Honestly, several people are so worked up over nothing. I like MI, it just seemed obvious to me that it should be limited as an action modifer and as FOM is. As a potential deck though, consider this; 4 Gabrin Natalia Joaquina Khalil some other CHIM/ani vamps 2 path of paradox 2 fortune tellers shop 1 campground hunting ground 1 giants blood 4 blood doll 8 sens dep 6 reality 6 sensory overload 16 mirror image 10 fata morgana 6 red herring 3 rom gypsy 4 restoration 8 terror frenzy 8 amria 4 freak drive 1 tasha morgan 1 JS simmons

On 28 Mar 2003, Talonz wrote: > Gabrin rocks. More so than the path of paradox even. He does indeed rock; I was trying to avoid bringing the discussion down to what one vampire can do, though. > That's what I'm talking about. Its mechanically inconsistent to have > the two cards with same effect(continue an action through a block) not > be both considered action modifiers. That's bothersome, and can lead > to misuse (and did in FOM's case). I don't have any of the tools handy at the moment, bu MI isn't the only S:CE/continue action effect besides FoM. None of the others provide stealth, IIRC, so really, FoM is the odd man out. You know what? I think we should table this discussion for about a month. Form of Mist hasn't been printed since before Scott came on board in an official capacity, I believe, and it may be that it will be reprinted in some other form. I have no knowledge of this, but it could be that it could lose its status as an action modifier, but gain additional text that achieves the same effect. Who knows, but the game's seen a lot of tweaks as the new designers have had a chance to revisit old cards, and it may be that this possible inconsistency has already been resolved. > As a potential deck though, consider this; > > 4 Gabrin > Natalia > Joaquina > Khalil > some other CHIM/ani vamps There's only one left, if you are trying to go down in capacity. The average capacity of the vampires you need to make this thing run go a long way towards ensuring that there are a large number of decks that will still beat it. You're a regular, you've read my posts, nuff said. > 2 path of paradox > 2 fortune tellers shop > 1 campground hunting ground > 1 giants blood > 4 blood doll 10/90... you're low-balling your mastercards, but if you can - as you posit - get a broken effect out of it, then I guess that'd be worth it. > 8 sens dep > 6 reality > 6 sensory overload > 16 mirror image > 10 fata morgana > 6 red herring > > 3 rom gypsy > 4 restoration Restoration seems good on the surface, until you realize that most of your star players only have for. I'd actually weenie-fy my crypt a bit more, and add two Chimestry skill cards and two Ravnos Carnivals to get my masters up to something a little more playable > 8 terror frenzy > 8 amria Nice. I've opted to rely on my double-duty stealth/S:CE to live, and dumped about half these slots on IotK for the guys who seriously want to beat my ass. > 4 freak drive > 1 tasha morgan > 1 JS simmons I'd drop the gypsies and the retainers, and funnel those seven slots into more Freak Drives and Red Herrings. Anway, nice deck, I can see it winning its share of games, but nowhere near broken. Oh, and you forgot to add Week of Nightmares. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > I don't have any of the tools handy at the moment, bu MI isn't the only > S:CE/continue action effect besides FoM. None of the others provide > stealth, IIRC, so really, FoM is the odd man out. Chameleon's Colors 1 blood [SPI] Only usable at long range. Strike: combat ends. If this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. Flow Within the Mountain 1 blood [VIS] Strike: combat ends. If this vampire was blocked while performing an action, the action continues as if unblocked. Shadow Body 1 blood [OBT] [S:CE], and if this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. Toreador's Bane Only usable in combat with a Toreador, Toreador antitribu, ally or younger vampire. [mel] Strike: combat ends, and if this vampire was blocked while performing an action other than a political action or bleeding, the action continues as if unblocked. [MEL] Strike: combat ends, and the action continues as if unblocked. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030327...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... >> >> Have you played many Ravnos decks? > >Yup. Nope. >Honestly, several people are so worked up over nothing. I like MI, it >just seemed obvious to me that it should be limited as an action >modifer and as FOM is. And what is obvious to you is not necessarily "obvious" to the rest of the world. Indeed, it seems likely that what is obvious to you is an incorrect assessment of the situation. I notice you haven't had the balls to address my previous arguments. >As a potential deck though, consider this; > >4 Gabrin >Natalia >Joaquina >Khalil >some other CHIM/ani vamps > >2 path of paradox >2 fortune tellers shop >1 campground hunting ground >1 giants blood >4 blood doll Low on pool gain. What will you do against stealth bleed? >8 sens dep >6 reality >6 sensory overload >16 mirror image >10 fata morgana >6 red herring Maximum 2 stealth on these actions. >3 rom gypsy This brings it up to a possible 3 stealth. Fortune Teller Shop, above, could make it 4 stealth. This deck is already not the correct vehicle for demonstrating Mirror Image's broken-ness. As it stands right now, you are likely to get 2 and 3 stealth on each of these actions. It's a great example of how Mirror Image is a good counter for Second Tradition, but it's not at all a good example of how Mirror Image is broken. What will you do against decks that play Forced Awakening, Enhanced Senses, and Eagle's Sight? That's pretty common these days, you know. You can pitch Mirror Image all day long and never get past them, and since the entire rest of combat is Terror Frenzy/Amria (which costs Gabrin a blood, note), you give them no reason to NOT continue blocking repeatedly... until you draw into a Red Herring, at which point your action fails and doesn't happen again this turn. What will you do against decks that do not even attempt to block? You will rapidly jam up on your stealth, as you have 32 cards usable only when someone is attempting to block. You might get a few VP with this deck, if only because of its ability to completely hose its prey. But I don't see you ever getting a Table Win with this thing, much less showing how much Mirror Image is broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok in response, MI in my opinion is not an action modifier like FoM, as it does_not_modify the action but merely continues it. Obviously in your view it does, fair enough, just differences of opinion. I have a Sense dep deck that runs a bucketload of MI's, and despite being nasty to sit near it is no worse than ur common stealth and bleed deck. You will notice i play specific cards like Illusions for combat rather than rely totally on the combat ends of MI. And also Red Herring as i can get caught if sitting near an intercept specialist deck like Tzimisce. And i agree wholeheartedly that Gabrin rocks, his tap ability of a younger vamp is great :) 14 Sense dep 10 MI 10 Fata Morgana 2 Daring the Dawn 3 Illusions of the Kindred 2 Restoration 5 Rom Gypsey 2 Red Herring 1 Brothers Grimm 2 Pentex Subversion 5 Path of Paradox 3 Fortune tellers Shop 1 Park Hunting Ground 1 Visit from the Capuchin 1 Fragment of the book o Nod 1 Dreams of the Sphinx 2 Chimerstry 1 Coven 1 Powerbase Chicago 1 Barrens 1 Rack 1 High Museum of Art, Atlanta 1 Jake Washington 1 Secure Haven 3 Gabrin 2 Sasha Miklos 2 Joaquina Amaya 2 Salbatore Bokkengro 1 Vedel Esbreno 1 Vaclav Petalengro 1 Khalil Ravana Roger Atkins "Squashed Frog"

"Talonz" <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com... > David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.030327...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > > It *may* be inconsistent from the perspective of what qualifies a card as > > an action modifier. > > That's what I'm talking about. Its mechanically inconsistent to have > the two cards with same effect(continue an action through a block) not > be both considered action modifiers. That's bothersome, and can lead > to misuse (and did in FOM's case). My take on this is that Mirror Image doesn't 'modify' the action. What's different about the action after you play Mirror Image at superior? Nothing. What's different about the action after you play Form of Mist at superior? It's at +1 stealth. It's been modified, see? This is why (IMO) none of the other "S:CE and continue the action" cards have been ruled/errataed/texted to be action modifiers, where Form of Mist has. S:CE and continue the action at +1 bleed would also be a modifier. Make sense? Josh

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:09:02 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >My take on this is that Mirror Image doesn't 'modify' the action. > >What's different about the action after you play Mirror Image at >superior? Nothing. I think that's a salient point, Josh, but I think it's been brought up before, and Talonz has dismissed it without really explaining why. It'd be nice to see a direct response to this point and nothing else, in order to clarify Talonz's position. S:CE and continue "modifies" the combat...it doesn't do anything interesting to the action itself. >What's different about the action after you play Form of Mist at >superior? It's at +1 stealth. It's been modified, see? Right. >S:CE and continue the action at +1 bleed would also be a modifier. >Make sense? To me, at least. :) BTW, I like this idea. Any chance of making it a THA card? Hehe. Xian continue this thread as if unread

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.03032...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu>... > On 28 Mar 2003, Talonz wrote: > > > Gabrin rocks. More so than the path of paradox even. > > He does indeed rock; I was trying to avoid bringing the discussion down to > what one vampire can do, though. > Sure. The point being though that there are numerous ways around the high blood costs of chimerstry these days. > > I don't have any of the tools handy at the moment, bu MI isn't the only > S:CE/continue action effect besides FoM. None of the others provide > stealth, IIRC, so really, FoM is the odd man out. > Oh I know, it was just recently brought to light here with a nasty lockdown deck that the FOM erratta did not apply to MI when I thought it would. > You know what? I think we should table this discussion for about a > month. Form of Mist hasn't been printed since before Scott came on board > in an official capacity, I believe, and it may be that it will be > reprinted in some other form. Very good point. I'm kind of tired of the whole thing myself. > > > As a potential deck though, consider this; > > I'd drop the gypsies and the retainers, and funnel those seven slots into > more Freak Drives and Red Herrings. > Well the gypsies add more permanent stealth to help hammer actions through. The 2 retainers give some permanent bleed to add to the fata morganas once you've locked people down. They also give you something else to do once you fd/herring out of a chim action. > Anway, nice deck, I can see it winning its share of games, but nowhere > near broken. > Sure, but again that wasn't critical to my point on mechanical consistency. Pulling the deck out of thin air and memories of my older lockdown deck was an interesting exercise for a portion of my nightshift though. T

Xian <xi...@visi.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<n8t98vsbs60q1s2ov...@4ax.com>... > On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:09:02 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" > <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >My take on this is that Mirror Image doesn't 'modify' the action. > > > >What's different about the action after you play Mirror Image at > >superior? Nothing. > > I think that's a salient point, Josh, but I think it's been brought up > before, and Talonz has dismissed it without really explaining why. > > It'd be nice to see a direct response to this point and nothing else, > in order to clarify Talonz's position. > Sure; If an action has ended or is ending, and this is changed to continue the action perhaps successfully, then I'd say the action has been changed or modified. Primarily because all actions include resolution, either in success or failure. Certainly we can agree that adding stealth or bleed modifies an action...but how do certain action mods like FD or hidden lurker modify an action? (which I raised as a point previouslly) Neither change the action itself nor the resolution of its success. So where is the line drawn? This is getting rather academic now, but this is what I was trying to raise with the FD/HL question. T

In message <76d1d5ef.03032...@posting.google.com>, talo...@hotmail.com (Talonz) mumbled something about: >Xian <xi...@visi.nospam.com> wrote in message news:<n8t98vsbs60q1s2ov...@4ax.com>... >> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:09:02 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" >> <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >My take on this is that Mirror Image doesn't 'modify' the action. >> > >> >What's different about the action after you play Mirror Image at >> >superior? Nothing. >> >> I think that's a salient point, Josh, but I think it's been brought up >> before, and Talonz has dismissed it without really explaining why. >> >> It'd be nice to see a direct response to this point and nothing else, >> in order to clarify Talonz's position. > >Sure; > >If an action has ended or is ending, and this is changed to continue >the action perhaps successfully, then I'd say the action has been >changed or modified. Primarily because all actions include >resolution, either in success or failure. Mirror Image doesn't automatically cause the action to succeed or fail. All it does is postpone the end of the action, without changing anything about the details of the action. The acting minion is still tapped. The blocking minions are still tapped, though if they've played a Wake, that effect remains in play (unchanged). The stealth is the same. The basic action itself is still the same, with the same target. >Certainly we can agree that adding stealth or bleed modifies an >action...but how do certain action mods like FD or hidden lurker >modify an action? (which I raised as a point previouslly) Neither >change the action itself nor the resolution of its success. Freak Drive modifies the action by untapping the acting minion. Hidden Lurker modifies the action by allowing a non-acting minion to enter combat, and putting restrictions on that combat. >So where is the line drawn? At whether or not something changes the action. [ quoted text not captured ]

This may be the deck that is giving Talonz the headache that spawned the MI discussion. It my not be, but this deck missed 1 possable vp in a small tourney last week, as played by your truly. Deck Name: The Deck Created By: DaveB Description: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 11, Max: 33, Avg: 5.50) ---------------------------------------------- 3 Gabrin ANI CHI dom for 8, Ravnos 1 Khalil Ravana ani CHI for pre 5, Ravnos 2 Salbatore Bokkengro CHI for pro 4, Ravnos 1 Spleen ani chi 2, Ravnos 1 Vedel Esbreno chi for 3, Ravnos 1 Sarisha Veliku ANI chi dom FOR 6, Ravnos 1 Sasha Miklos chi 2, Ravnos 1 Natalia ANI chi dom for 7, Ravnos 1 Kostantin ANI cel CHI dom FOR 9, Ravnos Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (17 cards) 3 Blood Doll 3 Fortitude 2 Minion Tap 1 Park Hunting Ground 2 Path of Paradox, The 2 Pentex Subversion 4 Sudden Reversal Action (23 cards) 2 Army of Rats 1 Arson 5 Computer Hacking 3 Reality 4 Restoration 6 Sensory Deprivation 2 Sensory Overload Action Modifier (14 cards) 8 Fata Morgana 4 Freak Drive 2 Red Herring Reaction (11 cards) 6 Deflection 5 Wake with Evening's Freshness Combat (16 cards) 6 Amria 4 Dodge 6 Skin of Steel Combo (9 cards) 9 Mirror Image This deck was last saved at 11:43:26 PM on 30/03/2003

"DaveB" <Brer...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<fmSha.347682$na.27...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > This may be the deck that is giving Talonz the headache that spawned the MI > discussion. It my not be, but this deck missed 1 possable vp in a small > tourney last week, as played by your truly. > Not a lot of politics I presume? Because as far as I can see, you have 0 cards to keep them in check? I'd be happy to know how you handle that.. Jo

On 31 Mar 2003, wolflord wrote: > Not a lot of politics I presume? > Because as far as I can see, you have 0 cards to keep them in check? Can't speak for Dave, and the closest thing I have to this deck also packs Draba, but *most* political decks rely on large minions. Sensory Deprivation is an effective tool against those kinds of decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.03033...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I see a few here :) 2 Pentex Subversion 3 Reality 6 Sensory Deprivation 2 Sensory Overload -Bram Vink

In message <fmSha.347682$na.27...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>, "DaveB" <Brer...@shaw.ca> mumbled something about: >This may be the deck that is giving Talonz the headache that spawned the MI >discussion. It my not be, but this deck missed 1 possable vp in a small >tourney last week, as played by your truly. *snip deck list* Nobody played with Wakes and +2 intercept? How many times did you actually play two Mirror Images on the same action? How many times would a vampire who had played Wake and +2 intercept have been able to stop that action cold? Again, looking at this deck, I simply do not see that it becomes any less effective if Mirror Image were an action modifier -- or that being able to play two Mirror Images on the same action is at all why this deck is viable. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: || On 31 Mar 2003, wolflord wrote: || ||| Not a lot of politics I presume? ||| Because as far as I can see, you have 0 cards to keep them in ||| check? || || Can't speak for Dave, and the closest thing I have to this deck || also packs Draba, but *most* political decks rely on large || minions. Sensory Deprivation is an effective tool against those || kinds of decks. Sensory deprivation don't tap vampires. yeah, you guessed the first action of a political monkey would be to bannish or protect thine own the hell out of Gabrin and liberating all the sensoried vamps in a single move.

jo.her...@sca.com (wolflord) wrote in message news:<88f9561d.03033...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Ehhh... 6 sensory deprivations?? You havent been hit by one of those i presume... its hard to take political actions while your permanently tapped, and a sensory is quite easy to get through in a deck like this. On a sidenote.. i would include 2-3 delaying tactics for the sole purpose of delaying protect thine own long enough for you to sensory the naughty vampire...

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, reyda wrote: > Sensory deprivation don't tap vampires. Mirror Image off the block. Red Herring some other action. Use Gabrin's special and either Freak Drive, or have one of the supporting cast drop the Sense Dep. But yeah, it doesn't tap them. It isn't the end all, be all, of cards, but it isn't a bad answer to a voting predator. > yeah, you guessed the first action of a political monkey would be to bannish > or protect thine own the hell out of Gabrin and liberating all the sensoried > vamps in a single move. Whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, reyda wrote: > yeah, you guessed the first action of a political monkey would be to bannish > or protect thine own the hell out of Gabrin and liberating all the sensoried > vamps in a single move. Sorry for double-replying, but it has onw occurred to me that I have more to say than "whatever". You're exhibiting "Damnan's Syndrome", where an event that is only a (slim) probability is spoken of as if it were a certainty. OTOH, PTO seems to be all the rage in Europe, judging from comments on this group; I just don't see it much around here, but that may be due to a dearth of 3 cap IC members. OTOOH, an IC is what you'd need to whack Gabrin with a PTO. If you've got the IC, you didn't get chumped into tapping before the SenseDep (perhaps the result of poor play on the part of the Ravnos' player), you have no way to block the vote, and your grand predator isn't inclined to monkey with that action (perhaps the result of poor play on the part of your grand-predator), then yes! At this late date, you may be screwed. Know what? I'd bet those odds every time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, David Cherryholmes wrote: > You're exhibiting "Damnan's Syndrome", where an event that is only a > (slim) probability is spoken of as if it were a certainty. OTOH, PTO > seems to be all the rage in Europe, judging from comments on this > group; I just don't see it much around here, but that may be due to a > dearth of 3 cap IC members. OTOOH, an IC is what you'd need to whack > Gabrin with a PTO. If you've got the IC, you didn't get chumped into > tapping before the SenseDep (perhaps the result of poor play on the part > of the Ravnos' player), you have no way to block the vote, and your grand > predator isn't inclined to monkey with that action (perhaps the result of > poor play on the part of your grand-predator), then yes! At this late > date, you may be screwed. Hey, faux pas come in threes. I got a little sloppy with the pronouns up there, but hopefully it is clear which player "you" is referring to. Clarification included for the non-English speakers that might actually get confused by my poor grammar. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.030331...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] You live in the South. All is forgiven. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"DaveB" <Brer...@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<fmSha.347682$na.27...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > This may be the deck that is giving Talonz the headache that spawned the MI > discussion. > Combo (9 cards) > 9 Mirror Image > Not the deck, just the revelation that MI is not subject to the same ruling (sorry, erratta) that FOM is. T

David Cherryholmes wrote: || On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, reyda wrote: || ||| yeah, you guessed the first action of a political monkey would be ||| to bannish or protect thine own the hell out of Gabrin and ||| liberating all the sensoried vamps in a single move. || || Sorry for double-replying, but it has onw occurred to me that I || have more to say than "whatever". || || You're exhibiting "Damnan's Syndrome", where an event that is only || a (slim) probability is spoken of as if it were a certainty. Damnan's syndrome ? really ? || OTOH, PTO seems to be all the rage in Europe, judging from || comments on this group; I just don't see it much around here, but || that may be due to a dearth of 3 cap IC members. If you want a deck to prove being very strong (or even broken) , play against strong decks. Strong, tournament-caliber decks usually relies on strong vampires and strong cards. Any strong vote deck will contain a handful Banishment. Any camarilla vote deck will contain some protect thine own. Just expect them, as you can expect a rusher to play a Sce hoser like Immortal grapples or Psyche. || what you'd need to whack Gabrin with a PTO. If you've got the IC, || you didn't get chumped into tapping before the SenseDep (perhaps || the result of poor play on the part of the Ravnos' player), you || have no way to block the vote, and your grand predator isn't || inclined to monkey with that action (perhaps the result of poor || play on the part of your grand-predator), then yes! At this late || date, you may be screwed. If your grand predator is not stupid, he knows that he too will be sensory deprived, and odds are that he will accept gabrin to be banished under certain conditions. Also remember that vote decks usually have means to go to the referendum phase (stealth, unblocability) and your grand predator won't always be able to interfere. Just one note : when you are in such a position where your grandprey is a sensorizing ravnos and you have your prey with 2 or 3 fatties sensory deprived, i wonder if they are not harder to kill. The fatties will only wake to deflect and block big actions, and they will bloat using minion taps and golcondas to the max. Not counting that, when you 'll be about to oust her, she will have some free help from the RAvnos player who doesn't want a new, fresh and strong predator. that's why the odds are against you when you play a sensory deprivation deck : more than any other deck, no one will expect you to be his trustful friend till the end =)

> Ehhh... 6 sensory deprivations?? > You havent been hit by one of those i presume... its hard to take > political actions while your permanently tapped, and a sensory is > quite easy to get through in a deck like this. Believe me, I've played decks that packed huge amounts of SD's (14 or more), and they still get whacked on a more than regular basis. As stated by someone else already, waking and having 2 intercept kinda happens to be in almost every fattie political deck. DI also happens to be in there. Hence, I'd be surprised you'd actually be able to put them on the table and keep them there long enough. As for the Pentex: I'm all for that as it's one of my favorites, but its just minion locking, and has nothing to do with withstanding political decks, any more than withstanding any other deck. Also= Gideon Fontaine with a VHQ, Awe and Bewitching=14 votes. I'd say not every political deck is based on large vamps :-)) > On a sidenote.. i would include 2-3 delaying tactics for the sole > purpose of delaying protect thine own long enough for you to sensory > the naughty vampire... This on the other hand I agree with :-) Jo

"reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3e88d9e7$0$3078$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net... > Damnan's syndrome ? really ? > Yep. I've got to agree with The Other Dave... Here's an example: > Any strong vote deck will contain a > handful Banishment. Any camarilla vote deck will contain some protect thine > own. "Any strong vote deck" implies that you cannot make a strong vote deck without using these votes. Its a fallacy, hence a great example of "Damnan's Syndrome". Actually, I misspoke, the fact that in this thread you make mention of a "handful" of Banishment and "some" Protect Thine Own, yet state with certainty in your previous post that this will easily defend the SenseDep tactic is the real example of "D.S." > If your grand predator is not stupid, he knows that he too will be sensory > deprived, and odds are that he will accept gabrin to be banished under > certain conditions. As a Ravnos player, I would _never_ SenseDep cross-table. Ever. It would lead to too many enemies at once. Negotiations will ensue. The wise Ravnos player could likely gain help from grand-pred against Banishing Gabrin with a restatement of a guarantee from Sense Dep, at least so long as the grand-pred remains across the table. > Also remember that vote decks usually have means to go to the referendum > phase (stealth, unblocability) and your grand predator won't always be able > to interfere. > Of course, this is true of all actions... > Just one note : when you are in such a position where your grandprey is a > sensorizing ravnos and you have your prey with 2 or 3 fatties sensory > deprived, i wonder if they are not harder to kill. The fatties will only > wake to deflect and block big actions, and they will bloat using minion taps > and golcondas to the max. Not counting that, when you 'll be about to oust > her, she will have some free help from the RAvnos player who doesn't want a > new, fresh and strong predator. The un-popularity of the Ravnos make such considerations hardly worth worrying about... The only time I've ever played Ravnos with another Ravnos at the deck is when I game with Cherryholmes :-) > that's why the odds are against you when you play a sensory deprivation deck > : more than any other deck, no one will expect you to be his trustful friend > till the end =) Trust is garnered through action, and is a function of the player himself, not the deck... DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, reyda wrote: > If you want a deck to prove being very strong (or even broken) , play > against strong decks. Of course. > Strong, tournament-caliber decks usually relies on > strong vampires and strong cards. What's a strong vampire? What's a strong card? Is Mustaffa strong? Is Computer Hack strong? "Strong" is OK as a term to describe a deck as a unit, but it doesn't smoothly reduce to underlying levels of description. So, I don't know what you meant here. > Any strong vote deck will contain a > handful Banishment. Any camarilla vote deck will contain some protect thine > own. Just expect them, as you can expect a rusher to play a Sce hoser like > Immortal grapples or Psyche. You say these things as if they were universal, static, eternal truths. We'll skip the symbols, but you do know that you are saying there aren't any strong voting decks without Banishment, and that this is trivial to disprove? There's also a subtle difference between the three archetypes you site. Vote decks can oust prey and win tables without Banishment. Camirilla vote decks can oust prey and win tables without PTO. Combat decks can not do the same without consistently winning combats. IG and Psyche are just fantastically good cards, nullifying a whole array of potentially troublesome counter-strategies. Therefore, I *do* expect to see one of those two cards in just about all "strong" combat decks, but that tells me nothing about the probability of seeing a Banishment or PTO. > If your grand predator is not stupid, he knows that he too will be sensory > deprived, and odds are that he will accept gabrin to be banished under > certain conditions. Or, as often as not, he'll be popping wood under the table as you do it and do whatever he can to make it stay. More often than not, actually. Some games, at a certain point in time, collapse in the way you describe, but most of your time is spent playing in conditions where yours and your grandpredator's interests are mutual. > Also remember that vote decks usually have means to go to the referendum > phase (stealth, unblocability) and your grand predator won't always be able > to interfere. True, but then I'm having this discussion with one arm tied behind my back, because I'm defending a deck that focuses on CHI, yet has NO intercept capability whatsoever. > Just one note : when you are in such a position where your grandprey is a > sensorizing ravnos and you have your prey with 2 or 3 fatties sensory > deprived, i wonder if they are not harder to kill. The fatties will only > wake to deflect and block big actions, and they will bloat using minion taps > and golcondas to the max. No, I don't think they are harder to kill. Their minions are SD'd. Maybe they have a Minion Tap in hand, but odds are they don't (and you probably just cut their card cycling in half, perhaps off). If they can perfectly recycle the pool cost of that minion, then their game will be wherever it was going to be anyway, but at two more turns down the road. This is intrinsicly good, and it's best case for the guy getting SD'd. Untap effects, intercept, and Deflection were elements that you already had to deal with anyway, so nothing lost there. FWIW, IME the SD'd guy gets a Blood Doll or, more often, already has a Blood Doll, and he does get slowly sucked dry; that's nothing dramatic. > Not counting that, when you 'll be about to oust > her, she will have some free help from the RAvnos player who doesn't want a > new, fresh and strong predator. I assume you mean this to support the idea that, as the Ravnos' player, your grandpredator may not want to help you? I'd rather just discount this whole idea explicitly. That's just true of too many players and decks, and depends on a certain table arrangement. > that's why the odds are against you when you play a sensory deprivation > deck: more than any other deck, no one will expect you to be his trustful friend till the end =) I don't expect anybody to be my trustful friend to the end; I don't think anyone expects that of me when we play. This is independent of decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

> True, but then I'm having this discussion with one arm tied behind my > back, because I'm defending a deck that focuses on CHI, yet has NO > intercept capability whatsoever. > Thanks for defending the deck David. As is the deck is a pretty tight unit, not a lot of room for intercept. Also.... intercepting inherintly results in a fight. As my strongest combat is hands for 1 I would rather just sit back... Sense Dep key minons... block troubling rushes with little chumps and hack away at my preys pool. It's amazing how much 3 weenie CHI vamps can bleed for with Gabrin untaped. My Prey NEEDS to block what ever Gabrin does so he lets in a bleed for 2... and again... and again.... I when I build decks I find that a deck can do only so much. Fight/Stealth/Intercept - a deck can do 2 of those thing reliably or it can do 1 to the exclusion of both others and it never has to worry about not having the right cards in hand. There are other items you could add to that short list.. Vote/Bleed but these are a "payload" and need a "delevery system". I just didn't want to water down the strengths of the deck with cards that I wouldn't see often enough to count on seeing them when I needed them. I'd rather use other cards to increase my payload or bolster my already in place defences. I have some combat defence and a stealth/pseudo stealth delivery system and I felt why water that down with intercept? Anyway.. build the deck. It's fun, it plays well, cycles nicely, I hardly every handjam with it. DaveB

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, DaveB wrote: > Thanks for defending the deck David. As is the deck is a pretty tight unit, > not a lot of room for intercept. No problem. I like Ravnos, so it's fun talking about playing them. > Also.... intercepting inherintly results > in a fight. As my strongest combat is hands for 1 I would rather just sit > back... Sense Dep key minons... block troubling rushes with little chumps > and hack away at my preys pool. Blocking gets you combat, but stop and think a moment about just how much S:CE you have. You may not want to get in front of minions that can overcome that, but there are plenty who can't. Deck space considerations are valid, but a little intercept is never a bad thing. > It's amazing how much 3 weenie CHI vamps > can bleed for with Gabrin untaped. My Prey NEEDS to block what ever Gabrin > does so he lets in a bleed for 2... and again... and again.... I when I > build decks I find that a deck can do only so much. Then you've had good experiences with this deck. I think your description is still a little on the rosey side, though. > Fight/Stealth/Intercept - a deck can do 2 of those thing reliably or it can > do 1 to the exclusion of both others and it never has to worry about not > having the right cards in hand. "Fight" might also be taken to mean "surviving combat". You've already got, what, twelve cards slots that incidently give you S:CE. You have unintentionally stumbled onto a card that works about three different ways. You might as well use it. There are other items you could add to that > short list.. Vote/Bleed but these are a "payload" and need a "delevery > system". I just didn't want to water down the strengths of the deck with > cards that I wouldn't see often enough to count on seeing them when I needed > them. I'd rather use other cards to increase my payload or bolster my > already in place defences. I have some combat defence and a stealth/pseudo > stealth delivery system and I felt why water that down with intercept? > Anyway.. build the deck. It's fun, it plays well, cycles nicely, I hardly > every handjam with it. I play a similiar one. Mine hardly ever handjams, either, but I've also got Elder Library, two Dreams, Visit from Capuchin, and eight Red Herrings, so it damn well better not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"R. David Zopf" <atomw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b6c4ps$3epa1$1...@ID-183544.news.dfncis.de>... > The un-popularity of the Ravnos make such considerations hardly worth > worrying about... The only time I've ever played Ravnos with another Ravnos > at the deck is when I game with Cherryholmes :-) Lucky man... When I decide to play a ravnos deck (I have to versions I dig up from time to time) there's at least a 50% chance one of the other players (who has at least three ravnos decks that I know of) will play his, and although we usually have two tables parallel to eachother, you'll see us sitting on the same. And when we've got people over from Newark, Cincinnati or further afield... That one time with three Ravnos decks was hilarious, though! Patrick Columbus, OH

On 2 Apr 2003, Patrick van der Reest wrote: > Lucky man... When I decide to play a ravnos deck (I have to versions I > dig up from time to time) there's at least a 50% chance one of the > other players (who has at least three ravnos decks that I know of) > will play his, and although we usually have two tables parallel to > eachother, you'll see us sitting on the same. And when we've got > people over from Newark, Cincinnati or further afield... That one time > with three Ravnos decks was hilarious, though! It happens to me regularly enough, as well. There was a tournament in DC back in November where I was one of three Ravnos decks. They haven't begun to take tournaments with any regularity, yet, but they seem to be making a regular showing. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, reyda wrote: > > > yeah, you guessed the first action of a political monkey would be to bannish > > or protect thine own the hell out of Gabrin and liberating all the sensoried > > vamps in a single move. [...] > You're exhibiting "Damnan's Syndrome", where an event that is only a > (slim) probability is spoken of as if it were a certainty. Hey! I have a syndrome ;-) Greetings, Damnans

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Damnans wrote: > Hey! I have a syndrome ;-) Yes, take it as a compliment. It was certainly meant in the spirit of good fun. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: || On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Damnans wrote: || ||| Hey! I have a syndrome ;-) || || Yes, take it as a compliment. It was certainly meant in the || spirit of good fun. :) I guess not. You used it as it was some mark of stubbornness. don't try to be kind after using someone's name like this.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Damnans wrote: > > > Hey! I have a syndrome ;-) > > Yes, take it as a compliment. It was certainly meant in the spirit of > good fun. :) And that's how I understood it (he, he...) But I also have another syndrome: Infernalism >:-) Greetings, Damnans

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, reyda wrote: > David Cherryholmes wrote: > || Yes, take it as a compliment. It was certainly meant in the > || spirit of good fun. :) > > I guess not. You used it as it was some mark of stubbornness. > don't try to be kind after using someone's name like this. HEY MOM! REYDA GOT ESP IN HIS BOX OF MUTANT KRISPIES AND I WANT SOME TOO! I thought, maybe, we'd left that acrimony in the past and gotten back to discussing V:TES. Speaking of which, do you plan on taking a spare moment to respond to the post, or can we rightly assume you've been educated on the matter? [ quoted text not captured ]

kensa...@aol.com (Squashed Frog) wrote in message news:<6c29c5b3.03032...@posting.google.com>... > Ok in response, MI in my opinion is not an action modifier like FoM, > as it does_not_modify the action but merely continues it. Obviously in > your view it does, fair enough, just differences of opinion. > > I have a Sense dep deck that runs a bucketload of MI's, and despite > being nasty to sit near it is no worse than ur common stealth and > bleed deck. You will notice i play specific cards like Illusions for > combat rather than rely totally on the combat ends of MI. And also Red > Herring as i can get caught if sitting near an intercept specialist > deck like Tzimisce. And i agree wholeheartedly that Gabrin rocks, his > tap ability of a younger vamp is great :) > > 14 Sense dep > 10 MI > 10 Fata Morgana > 2 Daring the Dawn > 3 Illusions of the Kindred > 2 Restoration > 5 Rom Gypsey > 2 Red Herring > > 1 Brothers Grimm > 2 Pentex Subversion > 5 Path of Paradox > 3 Fortune tellers Shop > 1 Park Hunting Ground > 1 Visit from the Capuchin > 1 Fragment of the book o Nod > 1 Dreams of the Sphinx > 2 Chimerstry > 1 Coven > 1 Powerbase Chicago > 1 Barrens > 1 Rack > 1 High Museum of Art, Atlanta > 1 Jake Washington > 1 Secure Haven > > > 3 Gabrin > 2 Sasha Miklos > 2 Joaquina Amaya > 2 Salbatore Bokkengro > 1 Vedel Esbreno > 1 Vaclav Petalengro > 1 Khalil Ravana > > > Roger Atkins > "Squashed Frog" Needs another brother's grimm, maybe another coven too. One more Pentex is also probably a good idea. -Scrote