Well, everyone, today I got my box of AH, and I was quite pleasantly
surprised. I threw together a quick Assamite deck and a Followers of Set
deck, and had quite a good time. Basic comments:
- The art is wonderful. Card stock feels good as well.
- The Ravnos and Giovanni were finally given more of a mood. Previously
these clans seemed lacking in the "exactly what is this clan supposed to
do(ewitcstd)" feel that the other clans had.
- Both the Followers of Set and the Assamites have the "ewitcstd" feel
to them.
- The cards seemed playtested! I don't mean to sound silly, but there
was a definate feel of thorough playtesting that didn't exist in Dark
Sovereigns and the new VTES cards. Hats off!
I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
with more problems. ;)
Haven fun everyone!
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) z*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> Well, everyone, today I got my box of AH, and I was quite pleasantly
> surprised. I threw together a quick Assamite deck and a Followers of Set> deck, and had quite a good time. Basic comments:- The cards seemed playtested! I don't mean to sound silly, but there> was a definate feel of thorough playtesting that didn't exist in Dark
> Sovereigns and the new VTES cards. Hats off!
>
> I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
> horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
> Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> with more problems. ;)
I dunno about ALL the cards being so well playtested.. the Tomb of Ramses III
seems EXCEEDINGLY powerful... we had one person bring out Democritus for free
on the third turn of a game around here, as well as bringing out Arika!
Aside from that card, though, and maybe Return to Innocence (I can't imagine
how rude that card's going to be.. especially in bleed decks...), I can't
complain too much about the set.. the artwork is far superior to the older
cards, the cards all seem exceedingly useful (unlike some DS cards..), and
the new clans all seem to be fairly playable.
Incidentally, if anyone has a lot of AH cards to trade, I'm looking for a
few...
Tomb of Ramses III (2 or 3 of these..:)
Cairo Int'l Airport
Return to Innocence
Dreams of the Sphinx
Silence of Death
I've got a bunch of AH cards to trade, or older stuff... just drop me a line
if you've got any of the above to spare...
WyldStar
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 May 1996, WildStar wrote:>
> > The Corrupter wrote:
>
> > > I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
> > > horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
> > > Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> > > trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> > > with more problems. ;)
>
> > I dunno about ALL the cards being so well playtested.. the Tomb of Ramses III
> > seems EXCEEDINGLY powerful... we had one person bring out Democritus for free
> > on the third turn of a game around here, as well as bringing out Arika!
>> I am not sure (I could be misremembering the card), but I believe that
> the Tomb of Ramses III is as follows:
> Unique Master (3 Pool): For each influence onto _this_ chosen vampire,
> add a blood from the bank.
>
> Hence Democritus (10 capacity) would cost 8 pool to get out (3 for Tomb,
> 5 to get out).
>
> Of course, I could be misremembering the card.
Nope.. it says for each blood you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire.. and
if it's a big one.. and you have no intention of bringng it back soon.. you
could just keep transferring blood back.. which is really kind of sickening..
because for every blood you put on it.. it gets two.. (ick...)..
>
> > Aside from that card, though, and maybe Return to Innocence (I can't imagine
> > how rude that card's going to be.. especially in bleed decks...), I can't
> > complain too much about the set..
>> [Return to Innocence: (4 blood) Bleed at +x, X is vampire's capacity,burn
> the vampire if successful]
> The magnitude of the cost of this one (burn the vampire) leads me to
> believe that this card, though a good end-game card is very useless in
> early game. Thus, it is not an overly powerful card, as if it comes into
> your hand early in the game, the card wastes hand space.
Agreed.. which is why I don't nearly have as much of a problem with this card
as I do with the Tomb.. :)... someone got the really rude idea of playing
this with Malkavian Dementia once in an Assamite obfuscate deck.. that was
really hideous...
WyldStar
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960530024946.605H-100000@pentode>,
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>Well, everyone, today I got my box of AH, and I was quite pleasantly
>surprised. I threw together a quick Assamite deck and a Followers of Set
>deck, and had quite a good time. Basic comments:
>>- The art is wonderful. Card stock feels good as well.
The art is cool.
>- The Ravnos and Giovanni were finally given more of a mood. Previously
>these clans seemed lacking in the "exactly what is this clan supposed to
>do(ewitcstd)" feel that the other clans had.
Agreed.
>- Both the Followers of Set and the Assamites have the "ewitcstd" feel
>to them.
Agreed.
>- The cards seemed playtested! I don't mean to sound silly, but there
>was a definate feel of thorough playtesting that didn't exist in Dark
>Sovereigns and the new VTES cards. Hats off!
Hmmm...not sure I agree with this altogether. Several of the cards seem
designed to take away the current combat balance that the Gangrel and
Brujah enjoy and give combat superiority to the Gangrel:
Scorpion Sting (Req. Animalism): Strike: +1 Hand Damage. AS ABOVE, AND
THIS STRIKE CANNOT BE DODGED.
Shadow of the Wolf (Req. Protean): Only usable before range is chosen.
This vampire gets an additional strike with +1 hand damage during this
round of combat. AS ABOVE, WITH AN OPTIONAL PRESS.
So Protean/Animalism/Fortitude (Gangrel) combat gets new and more
interesting ways to hurt Cel/Pot combat, but are there new ways to get
around For or avoid Agg. damage for Cel/Pot? Perhaps they're in some
rare cards from the set that I don't have yet?
It'll take some playing to figure out if this set gives combat
dominance to Gangrel like it appears (IMHO) it will. Overall, I actually
like the set quite a bit. Some of the new vamps are very cool (though it
looks like Brujah should have gotten an extra vamp to make up for
Vasilis...that's one vamp I can not imagine ever including in a Brujah
deck...). First impressions (in addition to the above)? Is it just me,
or is "Illusions of the Kindred" just too powerful? 2 blood cost to end
a combat and bring a free vamp in (even for one combat) to do the
fighting? Cool card for Ravnos, but is it balanced?
All of this is just first impressions, of course. It may turn out that
all my fears are groundless (can a vamp with Protean and Animalism Wolf
Claw a Scorpion Sting? If so, the card is just nuts...). Even with the
cards I'm concerned with however, I don't see anything like Thoughts
Betrayed (of course, I missed that on first read as well...).
-Elfholme
--
******************************************************************************
This bit of wisdom has been brought to you by:
Mark Havener
Lord of
elfh...@netcom.com
Wood Elf King (and Jyhad player extraordinaire!)
******************************************************************************
On Thu, 30 May 1996, The Corrupter wrote:
> Well, everyone, today I got my box of AH, and I was quite pleasantly
> surprised. I threw together a quick Assamite deck and a Followers of Set
> deck, and had quite a good time. Basic comments:
>
> - The art is wonderful. Card stock feels good as well.> - The Ravnos and Giovanni were finally given more of a mood. Previously
> these clans seemed lacking in the "exactly what is this clan supposed to
> do(ewitcstd)" feel that the other clans had.> - Both the Followers of Set and the Assamites have the "ewitcstd" feel
> to them.> - The cards seemed playtested! I don't mean to sound silly, but there
> was a definate feel of thorough playtesting that didn't exist in Dark
> Sovereigns and the new VTES cards. Hats off!
>> I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
> horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
> Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> with more problems. ;)
I heard that there was only 2 weeks of playtesting. If that is true, I
wouldn't take my hat off. I'll wait until I get my cards & see.
On Thu, 30 May 1996, WildStar wrote:
> The Corrupter wrote:> > I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
> > horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
> > Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> > trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> > with more problems. ;)> I dunno about ALL the cards being so well playtested.. the Tomb of Ramses III
> seems EXCEEDINGLY powerful... we had one person bring out Democritus for free
> on the third turn of a game around here, as well as bringing out Arika!
I am not sure (I could be misremembering the card), but I believe that
the Tomb of Ramses III is as follows:
Unique Master (3 Pool): For each influence onto _this_ chosen vampire,
add a blood from the bank.
Hence Democritus (10 capacity) would cost 8 pool to get out (3 for Tomb,
5 to get out).
Of course, I could be misremembering the card.
> Aside from that card, though, and maybe Return to Innocence (I can't imagine
> how rude that card's going to be.. especially in bleed decks...), I can't
> complain too much about the set..
[Return to Innocence: (4 blood) Bleed at +x, X is vampire's capacity,burn
the vampire if successful]
The magnitude of the cost of this one (burn the vampire) leads me to
believe that this card, though a good end-game card is very useless in
early game. Thus, it is not an overly powerful card, as if it comes into
your hand early in the game, the card wastes hand space.
>the artwork is far superior to the older> cards, the cards all seem exceedingly useful (unlike some DS cards..), and
> the new clans all seem to be fairly playable.
Much agreement...
> Incidentally, if anyone has a lot of AH cards to trade, I'm looking for a
> few...
Maybe we can help each other out. You (and anyone else) can email me if
interested... ( I bought a box)
> Tomb of Ramses III (2 or 3 of these..:)
> Cairo Int'l Airport
> Return to Innocence
> Dreams of the Sphinx
> Silence of Death
>
> I've got a bunch of AH cards to trade, or older stuff... just drop me a line
> if you've got any of the above to spare...
>
> WyldStar
>
>
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 31 May 1996, Ken Mikolaj wrote:
[I wrote:]
> > Thank you
> > Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> > trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> > with more problems. ;)> I heard that there was only 2 weeks of playtesting. If that is true, I
> wouldn't take my hat off. I'll wait until I get my cards & see.
If it was only two weeks, it must have been extremely intensiev
playtesting (I guess, at least).
In any case, thanks again, Tom.
An aside, Tom:
I know you don't have any power in this, but is it possible you could
inquire into the possibility of having a full-time Jyhad staffmember at
WotC? In all honesty, with that kind of support (even if only one
person), I think that things would bode much better for player opinion
and playtesting in general.
Any other opinions?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Corrupter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 May 1996, WildStar wrote:
>
> > The Corrupter wrote:
>
> > > I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's> > > horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you> > > Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
> > > trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
> > > with more problems. ;)
>> > I dunno about ALL the cards being so well playtested.. the Tomb of Ramses III
> > seems EXCEEDINGLY powerful... we had one person bring out Democritus for free
> > on the third turn of a game around here, as well as bringing out Arika!
>
> I am not sure (I could be misremembering the card), but I believe that
> the Tomb of Ramses III is as follows:
> Unique Master (3 Pool): For each influence onto _this_ chosen vampire,
> add a blood from the bank.
>
> Hence Democritus (10 capacity) would cost 8 pool to get out (3 for Tomb,
> 5 to get out).
>
> Of course, I could be misremembering the card.
>
> > Aside from that card, though, and maybe Return to Innocence (I can't imagine
> > how rude that card's going to be.. especially in bleed decks...), I can't
> > complain too much about the set..
>
> [Return to Innocence: (4 blood) Bleed at +x, X is vampire's capacity,burn
> the vampire if successful]
> The magnitude of the cost of this one (burn the vampire) leads me to
> believe that this card, though a good end-game card is very useless in
> early game. Thus, it is not an overly powerful card, as if it comes into
> your hand early in the game, the card wastes hand space.
Ah, but what if you have a lot of them? And a lot of soul gems? And all your vampires
are the same age. And some master skill cards?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Yeah, but imagine the combo of Return to Innocence and Malkavian
Dementia...if your predator is playing with malks, steal that nasty old
Ozmo and bleed your prey for 8. :) A plus all the way around. :)
-ben
--
Ben Matthews
General Studies
The University of Texas at Dallas
(214) 883-2354
Ken Mikolaj <ke...@eden.com> wrote:
>> I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
>> horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
>> Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
>> trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
>> with more problems. ;)>I heard that there was only 2 weeks of playtesting. If that is true, I
>wouldn't take my hat off. I'll wait until I get my cards & see.
The external playtesting was rather limited, due to the usual sorts of
start-the-process snafus. Internal playtesting was much more extensive.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
WildStar <Wyld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I am not sure (I could be misremembering the card), but I believe that
>> the Tomb of Ramses III is as follows:
>> Unique Master (3 Pool): For each influence onto _this_ chosen vampire,
>> add a blood from the bank.
>>
>> Hence Democritus (10 capacity) would cost 8 pool to get out (3 for Tomb,
>> 5 to get out).>Nope.. it says for each blood you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire.. and
>if it's a big one.. and you have no intention of bringng it back soon.. you
>could just keep transferring blood back.. which is really kind of sickening..
>because for every blood you put on it.. it gets two.. (ick...)..
Which basically makes it an inefficient version of Art Museum and its ilk:
It costs more to get out.
It requires a total of 5 transfers to net 1 pool.
So you can't even get 1 pool every turn without Information Highway, etc.
And trying it while you're at 1 pool just ousts you.
You're also hosed if you ever decide you need that vampire.
No big deal.
[ quoted text not captured ]
The new AH cards look really cool. The seem to have a better card stock
than both VTES and DS, and I am yet to see any cards that really scare me
yet.
I came across a two cards that have superior texts but no discipline
requierment on them. Purity of the Beast (sort of a anti-ally bums rush
with bonus hand damage) is probably Animalism, and there was another one
whos name I can't remember (doh) that looked like it was Quietus. Anyone
know?
There are a bunch of cards that help out Gangrel combat, which I
appreciate. There is Scorpion Sting, an Ani +1 damage strike that can't
be dodged, which will help the Gangrel in the anti-anti-combat deck role.
Uncontrollable Rage, Pro(2 blood) play before combat for +1/+2 aggro hand
damage till end of action, will help them burn other vamps.
That Kiss of Ra card won't help the Gangrel much, as if you block the
Gangrel you are probably going to torpor anyway, but it will help out the
Venrue Bleed deck immensely. Do you let them bleed you for 4 or do you
get someone sent to torpor? Kind of scary, but not too scary
.
Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
"Nothing vanishes without a trace.
Burn it!"
-Smoking Man
DOUGDWISE wrote:
>
> WyldStar,
> For somebody who is worried and has a complaint about a card (Tomb of
> Ramses III) you sure do have it high on your want list (and "2 or 3 of
> these"?) ;-)
> Let's just let the cards survive a few weeks of the intensive playtesting
> that we will all be giving them and then we can decide if a card is too
> powerful for our groups and needs some house rule adjustment or outright
> banning.
> I don't have my AH cards yet but I hope to see them by Wednesday or so.
> Hope they are as good looking and as fun as you guys have been indicating.
> Doug Dunaway
:-) Well.. if they're going to make the card.. I'm certainly going to play
with it.. >:).. if not to use it, at least to contest other people who are
trying to.. I never want to see Democritus and Arika out on the third turn
again.. heh
I finished yanking all the bugs out of my AH spoiler list.. and included the
vampyres in the list now.. point your browser at
http://www.netcom.com/~wyldstar/home.html if you want it...
WyldStar
The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote:
>Well, everyone, today I got my box of AH, and I was quite pleasantly
>surprised. I threw together a quick Assamite deck and a Followers of Set
>deck, and had quite a good time. Basic comments:
>
>- The art is wonderful. Card stock feels good as well.
Couldn't agree with you more!!
>- The Ravnos and Giovanni were finally given more of a mood. Previously
>these clans seemed lacking in the "exactly what is this clan supposed to
>do(ewitcstd)" feel that the other clans had.
LOL, Yes once again true.
>- Both the Followers of Set and the Assamites have the "ewitcstd" feel
>to them.
>- The cards seemed playtested! I don't mean to sound silly, but there
>was a definate feel of thorough playtesting that didn't exist in Dark
>Sovereigns and the new VTES cards. Hats off!
>
Well... yet to be determined but at first glance of the 15 packs I but
some definiatly interesting cards to say the least.
>I Considered myself pleasantly surprised, because frankly, given WotC's
>horrendous dealing with Jyhad, I expected yet another bungle. Thank you
>Tom for proving that your assurances about playtesting, etc., could be
>trusted. I am sure that soon, however, you will have us hounding you
>with more problems. ;)
>
I wouldn't read this news group if there wasn't alittle hounding going
on!
>Haven fun everyone!
>
Ditto
Errol T.
Agreed, the cards look really cool!
> There are a bunch of cards that help out Gangrel combat, which I
> appreciate. There is Scorpion Sting, an Ani +1 damage strike that can't
> be dodged, which will help the Gangrel in the anti-anti-combat deck role.
> Uncontrollable Rage, Pro(2 blood) play before combat for +1/+2 aggro hand
> damage till end of action, will help them burn other vamps.
Actually, I am of the opinion that Scorpion sting will help the nossies
out a little bit more than the Gangrel (obviously it will help the
Gangrel, but I still think it will help the nossies more), nothing is
worse than blasting away for eight points of damage only to have someone
casually dodge it, and walk away unscathed.
--
R. Brian Smith
tam...@nurk.com
"To date, your phone tips have led to the capture
of 400 dangerous fugitives ‹ not one alien, not
one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . .
GET WITH IT PEOPLE!"
-Gillian Anderson
In article <4ot5eh$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote:
>That Kiss of Ra card won't help the Gangrel much, as if you block the
>Gangrel you are probably going to torpor anyway, but it will help out the
>Venrue Bleed deck immensely. Do you let them bleed you for 4 or do you
>get someone sent to torpor? Kind of scary, but not too scary
>.
>
>Peter D Bakija
>PD...@aol.com
>
When fighting Gangrel you used to be able to move to range, dodge, end combat,
now you don't even get to use Elysium. Torpor was not a sure thing, enough
Kiss of Ra and Restoration to pay for it (oh look, they both use fortitude)
and you just need to hope your predator does not block you with a famous vamp.
-naff
On 1 Jun 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote:
Wyldstar wrote:
[Re: Tomb of Ramses III]
> >Nope.. it says for each blood you transfer to an uncontrolled vampire.. and
> >if it's a big one.. and you have no intention of bringng it back soon.. you
> >could just keep transferring blood back.. which is really kind of sickening..
> >because for every blood you put on it.. it gets two.. (ick...)..> Which basically makes it an inefficient version of Art Museum and its ilk:
> It costs more to get out.
> It requires a total of 5 transfers to net 1 pool.
> So you can't even get 1 pool every turn without Information Highway, etc.
> And trying it while you're at 1 pool just ousts you.
> You're also hosed if you ever decide you need that vampire.> No big deal.
What about the scenario where I put it on a vampire early and never bring
it into my controlled area, but merely transfer off of it when I have
extra transfers. Effectively, I never spend anything on influence,
making it similar to (pardon the Magic comparison) living artifact for
blood lost to influence.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> > On Thu, 30 May 1996, WildStar wrote:> > > Aside from that card, though, and maybe Return to Innocence (I
> > > can't imagine how rude that card's going to be.. especially in bleed
> > > decks...), I can't complain too much about the set..
I wrote:
> > [Return to Innocence: (4 blood) Bleed at +x, X is vampire's capacity,burn
> > the vampire if successful]
> > The magnitude of the cost of this one (burn the vampire) leads me to
> > believe that this card, though a good end-game card is very useless in
> > early game. Thus, it is not an overly powerful card, as if it comes into
> > your hand early in the game, the card wastes hand space.
The Man in Black wrote:
> Ah, but what if you have a lot of them? And a lot of soul gems? And all
> your vampires are the same age. And some master skill cards?
If you have a lot of them you waste a lot of deck space in the early
game. If you have a lot of soul gems, you waste a lot of deck space with
multiple copies of uniques. If all your vampires are the same age (big,
in order to get use out of the bleed card), not only will you be spending
a lot of pool on your first vampire, but you will likely not be able to
get out two vampires at once, relying on 1 vampire out. If you do have
two out, you will be vulnerable. A combat monster will make it difficult
for you to use the card in the first place (4 blood cost), and a fast
bleeder/voter will send you away.
Overall, I feel it is a useful, though not broken card.
BTW, did I use to see you post a number of (useful) articles on
Storyteller newsgroups...?
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Thu, 30 May 1996, WildStar wrote:
[Re: Return to Innocence, bleed a +Capacity, burn the bleeder]
> someone got the really rude idea of playing
> this with Malkavian Dementia once in an Assamite obfuscate deck.. that was
> really hideous...
I see it being worse in a Setite deck where I steal (with Temptation) a
vampire of yours for a turn, and then burn it. I already did something
similar where I stole and diablerized a vampire of my own (that I stole
from someone else), and then had them vote to destroy itself.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 3 Jun 1996, Daniel Garan wrote:
> In article <4ot5eh$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote:
> >That Kiss of Ra card won't help the Gangrel much, as if you block the
> >Gangrel you are probably going to torpor anyway, but it will help out the
> >Venrue Bleed deck immensely. Do you let them bleed you for 4 or do you
> >get someone sent to torpor? Kind of scary, but not too scary
> >> >Peter D Bakija
> >PD...@aol.com
>
> When fighting Gangrel you used to be able to move to range, dodge, end combat,
> now you don't even get to use Elysium. Torpor was not a sure thing, enough
> Kiss of Ra and Restoration to pay for it (oh look, they both use fortitude)
> and you just need to hope your predator does not block you with a famous vamp.
>
> -naff
I agree, Kiss of Ra is entirely too powerful. Unless someone has vampires
with fortitude to block you, it's automatic torpor when you block. For
Gangrels this isn't too bad because in most cases they can torpor you
anyway when you block, but Ventrue should not be able to torpor someone
this easily. They are already very good at bleeding and voting, they
should not suddenly be a combat threat due to this one card. I could see
maybe letting it do 4 or 5 damage for the superior version, but automatic
torpor is just too much.
---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu
Ignore the superior version of Purity of the Beast, and of Summon the Serpent,
neither of which wound up being a discipline card.
[ quoted text not captured ]
R. Brian Smith wrote:
>Actually, I am of the opinion that Scorpion sting will help >the nossies
>out a little bit more than the Gangrel (obviously it will >help the
>Gangrel, but I still think it will help the nossies more), >nothing is
>worse than blasting away for eight points of damage only >to have someone
>casually dodge it, and walk away unscathed.
I must dissagree that Sting of the Scorpion helps out the Nosferatu more
than the Gangrel (yes, the Nosferatu are screwed in general, but not in
this specific instance). The Nosferatu have been able to use Immortal
Grapple all along (The Nosferatu's greatest ally. I use 7 in my deck.),
which prevents Dodge, Strike:Combat Ends, Guns, Thaumaturgy Strikes,
Sengir Daggers, and anything else that is not a hand strike. They also
can use Hidden Lurker (thankfully and officially now a Action Modifier) to
prevent any of that foolishness. Immortal Grapple makes Potence combat
viable. If Ebanezer Roush Tears off a Signpost, has Fists of Death, and
punches you with his Undead Strength backed Claws of the Dead, and you are
not Immortally Grappled, you can Dodge or S:CE. If you are Immortally
Grappled, you futily punch him for one and then get burned by 7 points of
aggro damage. IG even gives you a Press, just in case you have Fortitude.
The Gangrel's greatest weakness is that there is nothing that they can do
against a deck that is built to avoid combat. The Gangrel are completely
useless against S:CE and Dodges, asumming that you have as many Dodges as
I have Presses (which isn't unlikely). If the Gangrel could reliably use
Immortal Grapple, that would not be a problem, but as Potence is not one
of their main Clan Disciplines, they are at a disadvantage if they try to
capitalize upon it. Sting of the Scorpion at least gives them a Clan
common strike that can not be dodged, which removes the "All Dodge, all
the time" deck problem.
The Nosferatu don't really need Sting of the Scorpion if you can get
Immortal Grapples. If you can't (they are rare, but few people understand
their power. Go con your friends out of theirs today.), give the
Nosferatu Sting of the Scorpion. Yes, it is a good card, but the Gangrel
needed it far more than the Nosferatu.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Paul Schaaf wrote:
> I agree, Kiss of Ra is entirely too powerful. Unless someone has vampires
> with fortitude to block you, it's automatic torpor when you block. For
> Gangrels this isn't too bad because in most cases they can torpor you
> anyway when you block, but Ventrue should not be able to torpor someone
> this easily. They are already very good at bleeding and voting, they
> should not suddenly be a combat threat due to this one card. I could see
> maybe letting it do 4 or 5 damage for the superior version, but automatic
> torpor is just too much.
I see it a little bit differently. The card costs 4 pool. That's quite
a hefty loss. In addition, to play this card, you need to be using older
vampires or be "diluting" your deck with more Fortitude skill cards. In
addition, it would be quite obvious who can do the icky version.
Finally, a number of vampires have fortitude who are not Gangrel, Ravnos,
or Ventrue.
An excellent card, but a card that can be nearly useless at times. Due
to its limited use and cost, I don't think it too out of line.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peter D Bakija (pd...@aol.com) wrote:
: The Gangrel's greatest weakness is that there is nothing that they can do: against a deck that is built to avoid combat. The Gangrel are completely
: useless against S:CE and Dodges, asumming that you have as many Dodges as
: I have Presses (which isn't unlikely). If the Gangrel could reliably use
: Immortal Grapple, that would not be a problem, but as Potence is not one
: of their main Clan Disciplines, they are at a disadvantage if they try to
: capitalize upon it. Sting of the Scorpion at least gives them a Clan
: common strike that can not be dodged, which removes the "All Dodge, all
: the time" deck problem.
[Sniped Nossie Stuff]
: Peter D Bakija
: PD...@aol.com
I'm a bit suprise that nobody has meintioned
Dog Pack (Retainer) 2 Pool/Gangrel
Retainer with 1 life.
Minions opposing the minion with this retainer cannot play "combat ends"
as a strike.
Illus. Randy Gallegos
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this card
Peter, obviously a boost? but is it enough of one?
Nikolaus ;)
--
_________________________________________________________
|* Nik Olver. Email: np-o...@uwe.ac.uk *|
| Escape the NECROMUNDAn Underhive at |
|*__ http://zen.btc.uwe.ac.uk/~np-olver/Welcome.html __*|
In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960605143625.442C-100000@pentode>,
sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu says...
>
>On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Paul Schaaf wrote:
>>> I agree, Kiss of Ra is entirely too powerful. Unless someone has
vampires
>> with fortitude to block you, it's automatic torpor when you block.
Initially this should not be too big a problem. I purchased
two boxes of Ancient Hearts, and only acquired 4 Kiss of Ra.
It will be expensive to hold a handful of this card.
On 7 Jun 1996, Jasper Phillips wrote:
> > I'm a bit suprise that nobody has meintioned> >Dog Pack (Retainer) 2 Pool/Gangrel
> >Retainer with 1 life.
> >Minions opposing the minion with this retainer cannot play "combat ends"
> >as a strike.> Uggg. A nice effect, but is it worth _two_ pool?
Easily in a rush deck. Combine this with Scorpion Sting (animalism hand
strike that cannot be dodged) and a Gangrel Rush deck becomes disgusting.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1996Jun7.1...@pat.uwe.ac.uk>,
N Olver <np-o...@uwe.ac.uk> wrote:
> Peter D Bakija (pd...@aol.com) wrote:
>: The Gangrel's greatest weakness is that there is nothing that they can do
>: against a deck that is built to avoid combat. The Gangrel are completely
>: useless against S:CE and Dodges, asumming that you have as many Dodges as
>: I have Presses (which isn't unlikely). If the Gangrel could reliably use
>: Immortal Grapple, that would not be a problem, but as Potence is not one
>: of their main Clan Disciplines, they are at a disadvantage if they try to
>: capitalize upon it. Sting of the Scorpion at least gives them a Clan
>: common strike that can not be dodged, which removes the "All Dodge, all
>: the time" deck problem.
> [Sniped Nossie Stuff]
>: Peter D Bakija
>: PD...@aol.com
>> I'm a bit suprise that nobody has meintioned
>
>Dog Pack (Retainer) 2 Pool/Gangrel
>Retainer with 1 life.
>Minions opposing the minion with this retainer cannot play "combat ends"
>as a strike.>Illus. Randy Gallegos
>
> I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this card
>Peter, obviously a boost? but is it enough of one?
> Nikolaus ;)
Uggg. A nice effect, but is it worth _two_ pool?
-Jasper
--
/\ Jasper Phillips (Pit Fiend) ______,....----,
/VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|==================="""""""""""" ___,..-'
`^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|======================----------""""""
\/ http://www.cs.orst.edu/~philljas/
On 7 Jun 1996, Dick Johnson wrote:
> >On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Paul Schaaf wrote:> >> I agree, Kiss of Ra is entirely too powerful.> Initially this should not be too big a problem. I purchased> two boxes of Ancient Hearts, and only acquired 4 Kiss of Ra.
> It will be expensive to hold a handful of this card.
Rarity is never something that should try to hold back a card in Jyhad.
While rare cards may useful and powerful, they also
should have an appropriate cost. If rarity is the only thing holding a
card back, that may be OK for Magic, but for Jyhad that means a mistake
was made in the creation of that card.
As for Kiss of Ra, I'm not so sure it is a problem. It is costly, needs
to be used at superior to be really damaging, requires fortitude (and is
thus telegraphed), can be stopped by fortitude (which a number of
vampires have, even if not from their traditional clan disciplines), and
costs 3 blood.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, N Olver wrote:
> Peter D Bakija (pd...@aol.com) wrote:
> : The Gangrel's greatest weakness is that there is nothing that they can do
> : against a deck that is built to avoid combat.
I like Owl Companion. Remember Rotschreck if played defensively, as per
card text (and unlike current Official Rulings)
> I'm a bit suprise that nobody has meintioned> Dog Pack (Retainer) 2 Pool/Gangrel
> Retainer with 1 life.
> Minions opposing the minion with this retainer cannot play "combat ends"
> as a strike.> I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this card
> Peter, obviously a boost? but is it enough of one?
WOW!
An excellent card. I think that answers your problem, Peter.
[ quoted text not captured ]
That Dog Pack is SOOOO cool. When I wrote my above post defending the
notion that Scorpion Sting helps out the Gangrel more than the Nosferatu,
I was unaware that Dog Pack existed. I feel so vindicated now. It is as
if some one was reading all my posts :-)
The Gangrels biggest problem was always that they were totally useless in
the face of a combat negation deck. No matter how many Bum Rushes and
Lucky Blows and Claws of the Dead you had, you could do nothing against a
deck with alot of S:CE or Dodges. Now with the Dog Pack and a handfull of
Scorpion Sting, the Gangrel are once again the combat horror they should
have always been (and I don't even really play the Gangrel. Just Zack and
Badger in my Nosferatu deck with 7 Immortal Grapples.)
As to it costing 2 pool, hey, if it makes your deck viable again, what
Gangrel is going to complain? 2 pool is not a huge ammount, when you
consider you can get a Magnum or a KRGC for 2, and a Dog Pack in a Gangrel
combat deck will probably get much more mileage out of a Dog Pack than a
gun deck will get out of a Magnum.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Easily in a rush deck. Combine this with Scorpion Sting (animalism
> hand strike that cannot be dodged) and a Gangrel Rush deck becomes
> disgusting.
And after all that work to make my Gangrel deck an effective
intercept deck... sigh. Well, you'll be seeing me doing my darndest to
get a hold of Dog Packs, Scorpion Stings, and Uncontrollable Rages and
try Gangrel Rush once again. Anyone want to trade?
James
PS: I'm actually really happy. Rush combat is so much more gratifying
anyway...
--
James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't worry; base 8 is just like base 10, if you're missing
two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"