Essay: Avoiding Enlightenment

On winning strategies and how to apply them. Would you build a dominate deck and not use Deflection/Redirection? Or an auspex deck and not use Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy? Would you have 4+ Princes in your crypt and not use 2nd Tradition? I wouldn't, because those cards win you games- yet at every tournament I go to I see people going for what I have started to call 'the enlightenment victory'. For those of you not aware, in L5R you can win a game by getting all 5 elemental ring cards on the table at once. The rings, individually, do very little yet together they make you win. Every time I go to Watford or Portsmouth (or every other deck list I see posted to the group for that matter) seems to be trying to do this in V:TES. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about, the guy across the table from you busts out his Tremere Convocation, Arcane library, Spirit Summoning Chamber and Wasserschloss Anif, Austria. You start to think 'damnit- that's one VP my prey's just got'. Low and behold the guy goes down with a bemused look on his face saying something like: "Aww, I was so close! Next turn I would've got out Thadius Zho!" Ground breaking. I mean that would've made all the difference right? The other players would take one look at the awesome powerhouse you've assembled and think 'woah- I'm outgunned here'. No. What happened was that the good players on the table saw what you were doing and started to weep openly. I played a game the other night with a guy that can build decks and play well, but found himself at 10 pool with one minion continuously hunting with XTC Laced Blood. Did he influence out another vampire? Nope- he sat there (whilst his predator did nothing to him for four turns) and hunted. His reasoning? He needed that particular vampire to use a particular card combo and now he couldn't do that there was no point influencing another vampire out. Now, don't get me wrong I love the way that there are no 'net decks' in V:TES. There is no 'best deck concept'. The multiplayer aspect and the wide variety of metagaming mean that knowing the environment probably counts for more than in any other CCG. This is no excuse, however, for the standard of decks that I see people playing. Newbies with precons? Fine, not a problem. At least they are learning. Players with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the hell out of my recreational pastime. What are you looking to change the world? Did you think that hey, just this once having a deck with no bleed bounce or intercept will work? I'll give you a clue shall I. No! You'll get boned. But not only will you get boned, you'll distort the table dynamic for other people. I'm willing to accept that people make mistakes in deck choice- as long as they learn from it. However, there are people I play against at every tournament that seem to be incapable of doing so. You can bet your life that they will turn up playing the same old pile of bull that apparently 'beat all my other decks at home' only to get aced in record time by a deck that they will then denounce as 'sleazy'. Newsflash: 'Effective' does not always equal 'sleazy'. Playing dominate cards does not put you in league with the devil. There are some tactics that you much account for when building a deck, like it or not. And the feeling you get when you beat the weenie dominate bleed decks id a lot better than the one you get after being smacked by one for the fifth time in a row. And it doesn't mean to say that your deck can't be creative. V:TES has some of the most varied and creative competitive decks. Don't abuse the privilege. mattgreen.

mgreen02 wrote: > > On winning strategies and how to apply them. > > Would you build a dominate deck and not use Deflection/Redirection? Or > an auspex deck and not use Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy? > Would you have 4+ Princes in your crypt and not use 2nd Tradition? I > wouldn't, because those cards win you games- yet at every tournament I > go to I see people going for what I have started to call 'the > enlightenment victory'. > I don't see what your mail is getting at. The whole point of my going back to Jyhad after a long spell in the Magic Wilderness is just what you are saying should be. There are no net decks, and it is the playing of decks, trying to use cards to obtain new strategies that "no-one has done before". Yes a few stereotypes have been proven to work/fail, but there is nothing to stop this from being tried from a different angle. People are also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic, and more inventive ways of using the cards (new deck ideas) should be the way forward. My most succesful deck ever was a Malky stealth bleed deck with - no deflections! Why, because the strategy was that my predator didn't bleed me for lots, expecting deflections. It worked well. The norm shouldn't exist in this game, because it will end up going like Magic, were at a tournament, everyone is playing one of 3-4 deck types. And so what if it screws up the table mechanics for the other Methuselahs, they should be able to cope, or they lose. The Jyhad is a war that many are playing, but only few can win. Everyone's strategy effects every other Methesulah. An unknown strategy can cause shockwaves in the war, and change the tide of battle. Just my ten pence worth Andy Setite Ruler of Cambridge www.geocities.com/setitesuk -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

<snip> because this has the feeling of a rant, and I don't want to get in the way of a good clean bout of venting. > Now, don't get me wrong I love the way that there are no 'net decks' > in V:TES. There is no 'best deck concept'. The multiplayer aspect and > the wide variety of metagaming mean that knowing the environment > probably counts for more than in any other CCG. This is no excuse, > however, for the standard of decks that I see people playing. Newbies > with precons? Fine, not a problem. At least they are learning. Players > with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the > hell out of my recreational pastime. No offence meant, but I played Assamite politics last sunday and got three VPs at a 5 player table (one with 3 vote decks too). So while you may be annoyed that their deck isn't kicking ass and taking names, if they didn't play that, then next week it wont be better, and if we got the hell out of your recreational pasttime, well it would dry up and be dull, with only tried and true deck concepts ever being played. We almost had that in Madison, got in a rut, didn't really try new things. We snapped out of it thank god. Cameron > What are you looking to change the world? Did you think that hey, just > this once having a deck with no bleed bounce or intercept will work? Weenie Potence... it has neither. > Newsflash: 'Effective' does not always equal 'sleazy'. I agree with this totally, as long as people who play only 'effective' decks don't get pissed off because something new came along and didn't work out this time. That isn't abusing a privilege, its metagaming wrong. > Playing dominate cards does not put you in league with the devil. No, you need a Deal with the devil for that. <grin> Cameron

> Players > with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the > hell out of my recreational pastime. > Just as a side note... last Sunday the Madison playgroup saw TWO assamite vote decks (well, they both voted, whether or not they were "vote" decks is debatable). Were they run down by "effective" decks? NO. They split the table, 3-2. Not an arranged 3-2, a "I killed two of my prey and he killed 2 and me" game. We never even really dealt with each other. Sorry for the narrow reply to a broad essay, but I think you picked the wrong deck to point out as a "dreamer" deck. Aramis

Psssst... Robert Goudie's North American Championship deck had no intercept or bleed bounce, and got 2nd place in the finals. (and most likely would have gotten 1st if time hadn't run out) -Mongrel mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote in message news:<a346f9cb.0108...@posting.google.com>... > On winning strategies and how to apply them. [ quoted text not captured ]

mgreen02 wrote: > On winning strategies and how to apply them. > > Would you build a dominate deck and not use Deflection/Redirection? yes I've done that > Or > an auspex deck and not use Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy? sure why not > > Would you have 4+ Princes in your crypt and not use 2nd Tradition? I've done that too > I > wouldn't, because those cards win you games- lots of cards can win you games I prefer to find them myself rather than be told what cards can and cannot go in my deck <snip> > > Now, don't get me wrong I love the way that there are no 'net decks' > in V:TES. There is no 'best deck concept'. nope just the mattgreen test for what cards belong in what deck > The multiplayer aspect and > the wide variety of metagaming mean that knowing the environment > probably counts for more than in any other CCG. This is no excuse, > however, for the standard of decks that I see people playing. Newbies > with precons? Fine, not a problem. At least they are learning. Players > with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the > hell out of my recreational pastime. I have hundreds possibly thousands of games under my belt .... Assimite politics hmmmmm maybe with a bruise vote angle...... I'll get back to you on that one > > > What are you looking to change the world? Yes I would love to come up with a kick ass tourney winner that no one has ever thought of before > Did you think that hey, just > this once having a deck with no bleed bounce or intercept will work? Potence rush (classically) doesn't have either > > I'll give you a clue shall I. No! You'll get boned. But not only will > you get boned, you'll distort the table dynamic for other people. I'm > willing to accept that people make mistakes in deck choice- as long as > they learn from it. However, there are people I play against at every > tournament that seem to be incapable of doing so. You can bet your > life that they will turn up playing the same old pile of bull that > apparently 'beat all my other decks at home' only to get aced in > record time by a deck that they will then denounce as 'sleazy'. so they won't be around for round 2 probably asking themselves "why do I always get ousted first round?" Perhaps they are new and need some guidance. but I wouldn't worry about them sooner or later they'll get sick of being laughed at and give up the game for good. > > Newsflash: 'Effective' does not always equal 'sleazy'. > > Playing dominate cards does not put you in league with the devil. > There are some tactics that you much account for when building a deck, > like it or not. And the feeling you get when you beat the weenie > dominate bleed decks id a lot better than the one you get after being > smacked by one for the fifth time in a row. And it doesn't mean to say > that your deck can't be creative. V:TES has some of the most varied > and creative competitive decks. Don't abuse the privilege. I'll "abuse" that privilege all night long. that's how I come up with good decks trying things out, pushing the limits, Putting (what are thought to be) crap cards in my decks just to see them in play and often gaining a new appreciation for the cards as well. When Final Nights came out I got one of each precon and a box of boosters. and built each precon as an ultimate clan deck i.e.. everything for that clan and their unique discipline. I played them for about 2 weeks won some VP's but mostly got my ass kicked. however I learned a bunch of combos that I didn't see just looking through the cards I then used what I learned to construct four rather potent decks. on a side note I can sympathize with you on a lack of good opponents. That is the case with me as well. a lot (thankfully not all) of the people I play with are new and I do get tired of explaining why you cant intercept my strike,. But hopefully I am increasing their knowledge of the game so that they will be worthy opponents in the future. There is really nothing that can be done with the chaff players at tournaments I can only hope that they are my prey and I get an easy VP. Then I move on to the next round with better players and better decks. I hope you'll excuse the in your face tone of my post I just feel compelled to respond like that when someone seems to be stifling creativity. Later Eric still thinking about building that assimite political deck

> On winning strategies and how to apply them. [ker-WHACK] > There are some tactics that you much account for when building a deck, > like it or not. And the feeling you get when you beat the weenie > dominate bleed decks id [sic] a lot better than the one you get after being > smacked by one for the fifth time in a row. Well, either you learn from your mistakes, or you don't. You can't legislate problem-solving skills into players. > And it doesn't mean to say > that your deck can't be creative. V:TES has some of the most varied > and creative competitive decks. Don't abuse the privilege. I sympathize with the frustration of a "free VP" cross table, Matt, but you can't legislate that, either, not for single tournaments. (The whole point of the Qualifiers was to make sure that only the best played at the Continental Finals, of course.) What you're saying is "Don't come to play in my tournaments unless you're playing, competitively, to win." You can't really legislate that, either. Sure, goofy "Malkavian role-playing!" should be shot, but they still get to play. If they obviously throw the game, they can be penalized, and if they keep up infractions, they can be banned, I suppose. You just hope they get bored and go away, really, since they're playing the wrong game (you might recommend V:tM instead =). Anyway, rant's a rant, but I think you're either preaching to the choir (e.g.: I've been run over in a Qualifier round by a "toady's" vote carving, which was "playing to qualify" without "playing to win.") or having your ravings fall on deaf ears. Your best bet, sadly, is to do like the best do, and use those players as your OWN "toady" so they can at least help you on their inevitable way out. Outside of that, just count on it, and bring Dramatic Upheaval so those "undeserved" VPs are yours. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote: > Players with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? > Get the hell out of my recreational pastime. I _know_ he didn't just insult my Thamaturgy/Quietus Assamite Prince deck. Noal

The author's statements below fall into a common trap. He is way over-exaggerating the person whom he thinks is seeking the "Enlightenment Victory". See the author's description below. At every tournament I > go to I see people going for what I have started to call 'the > enlightenment victory'. > > For those of you not aware, in L5R you can win a game by getting all 5 > elemental ring cards on the table at once. The rings, individually, do > very little yet together they make you win. Every time I go to Watford > or Portsmouth (or every other deck list I see posted to the group for > that matter) seems to be trying to do this in V:TES. You know the sort > of thing I'm talking about, the guy across the table from you busts > out his Tremere Convocation, Arcane library, Spirit Summoning Chamber > and Wasserschloss Anif, Austria. You start to think 'damnit- that's > one VP my prey's just got'. Low and behold the guy goes down with a > bemused look on his face saying something like: > > "Aww, I was so close! Next turn I would've got out Thadius Zho!" Come on! Do you really believe that there is one guy at every table at every tourney that thinks that casting Thad Zho wins the game? Yes there is going to be people at every tourney who don't have hyper-tuned decks, but (and here is a fact you all better get used to) they are just at the tourney to play Jyhad. Not to be the best player there, not to sweep tables and get VP's, but to play the game against people he's never played before and against deck concepts he may not have come up with himself. > Ground breaking. I mean that would've made all the difference right? > The other players would take one look at the awesome powerhouse you've > assembled and think 'woah- I'm outgunned here'. No. What happened was > that the good players on the table saw what you were doing and started > to weep openly. No. All the hyper-competitive people wept. The good players adapted to the table dynamic and did their best to flourish in it. The truly great player pulled that player aside and offered some good-natured advice after the game. > Now, don't get me wrong I love the way that there are no 'net decks' > in V:TES. There is no 'best deck concept'. The multiplayer aspect and > the wide variety of metagaming mean that knowing the environment > probably counts for more than in any other CCG. This is no excuse, > however, for the standard of decks that I see people playing. How can you say that in the same post where you tell people that if you are playing with X on your vampires you have to play with Y? (your princes/5th tradition comment for example) How can you claim to like the "wide open metagame" aspect of Jyhad yet want to standardize deckbuilding as you do in your opening paragraph, shown below for completeness? <Would you build a dominate deck and not use Deflection/Redirection? Or an auspex deck and not use Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy? Would you have 4+ Princes in your crypt and not use 2nd Tradition? > Newbies > with precons? Fine, not a problem. At least they are learning. Players > with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the > hell out of my recreational pastime. Its statements like these that torque so many people off. LSJ mentioned the decline of courtesy in this newsgroup and this is a great example of what he meant. > What are you looking to change the world? Did you think that hey, just > this once having a deck with no bleed bounce or intercept will work? Others on this thread have shown you why the above statement is ignorant. I shant repeat them. > I'll give you a clue shall I. No! You'll get boned. But not only will > you get boned, you'll distort the table dynamic for other people. I'm > willing to accept that people make mistakes in deck choice- as long as > they learn from it. However, there are people I play against at every > tournament that seem to be incapable of doing so. You can bet your > life that they will turn up playing the same old pile of bull that > apparently 'beat all my other decks at home' only to get aced in > record time by a deck that they will then denounce as 'sleazy'. So what? Jesus! It's a bloody game. People, even at tournaments, play this game to have fun. As for messing with a table dynamic, as long as collusion is not happening then the great player adapts and adjusts. > Newsflash: 'Effective' does not always equal 'sleazy'. This is a true statement. We had a long debate on this group some weeks ago, where I changed my mind and concurred that no deck concept is inherently "cheezy" regardless of redundancy or effectiveness. Many people who still play this game purely for fun (rather for the competition) have a hard time seeing the same Malk stealth bleed deck, or weenie presence deck, or so on, and lash out childishly. You are right to admonish such behavior, but are you any better for telling the fun player to get out of your recreational pasttime? > Playing dominate cards does not put you in league with the devil. > There are some tactics that you much account for when building a deck, > like it or not. And the feeling you get when you beat the weenie > dominate bleed decks id a lot better than the one you get after being > smacked by one for the fifth time in a row. And it doesn't mean to say > that your deck can't be creative. V:TES has some of the most varied > and creative competitive decks. Don't abuse the privilege. > > > mattgreen. Just because competition and winning are the most important things in VTES to you, don't assume everyone must share that belief. In fact, if they all start to, this game will die. Every CCG relies on the 90% of players who play for fun, not the 10% that play for tournament wins. Just my opinion of course. Matt Latham Denizen of the Sewers of Detroit

"Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote > People are > also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic, and more > inventive ways of using the cards (new deck ideas) should be the way > forward. Disagree. Magic's 4 card limit helped level the playing field for those competitors who didn't have an unlimited supply of cards. As did the Type I / Type II distinctions, but in a perverse way (those who had a lot of old cards suffered, those who could afford to constantly accumulate new cards were advantaged, that's what you get when you let WotC control the DCI). Jyhad, with its no card limit, no excluded sets tournamnet environment gives a distinct advantage to those players with a substantial collection, as they have more deck-construction resources available than other players (I own a lot of cards, but I can't come close to making a 10 Disarm weenie potence deck, or a Super Freak Drive deck). I'm not in any way advocating card limits or set exclusion in V:teS, but I do insist that the lack of those characteristics in constructed tournament rules enhances the advantages of players who own more cards. - Jason Bell

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > I sympathize with the frustration of a "free VP" cross table, Matt, but > you can't legislate that, either, not for single tournaments. Hey, as long as we're ranting, let me tell you what really bugs me. What about that player (invariably your grand predator), who has decided to break out his backward facing wall deck? He's keeping all his minions back to block, they don't have any bleed disciplines anyway, so my predator has an all day pass to mess up my deal. And of course my prey is playing his rush deck, that meanie. Oh, sure, and my grand prey is getting bored staring at the wall so he decides to come across the table to blow some stuff up. Hey, that's my The Rack, you crazed lunatic. Ok, I feel better now. - Jason Bell, whose favorite decks these days include Kindred Restructure

> "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote > >> People are >> also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic, and more >> inventive ways of using the cards (new deck ideas) should be the way >> forward. > > Disagree. Magic's 4 card limit helped level the playing field > for those competitors who didn't have an unlimited supply > of cards. As did the Type I / Type II distinctions, but in > a perverse way (those who had a lot of old cards suffered, > those who could afford to constantly accumulate new cards > were advantaged, that's what you get when you let WotC > control the DCI). > > Jyhad, with its no card limit, no excluded sets tournamnet > environment gives a distinct advantage to those players with > a substantial collection, as they have more deck-construction > resources available than other players (I own a lot of cards, but > I can't come close to making a 10 Disarm weenie potence > deck, or a Super Freak Drive deck). And that means you can't win in a tournament? No, it just means you can't win with THOSE decks, because you can't build them. The real question is: do you have enough cards to make a tournament competitive deck? Answer: Quite. > I'm not in any way advocating card limits or set exclusion > in V:teS, (meaning: don't drown me in the continuation of the xCL/NCL wars, all of which I'm ignoring in this baseless assertion) > but I do insist (the baseless assertion part) > that the lack of those characteristics > in constructed tournament rules enhances the advantages of > players who own more cards. Not true. It enhances their OPTIONS. They have more possible tournament competitive decks they can build, but they haven't increased their chances of winning purely by their collections. Your conclusions don't remotely follow from your "evidence." (Why is everyone trying to scare off the new players before the month is out? Is some big tournament coming up or something?) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote >> >> I sympathize with the frustration of a "free VP" cross table, Matt, > but >> you can't legislate that, either, not for single tournaments. > > Hey, as long as we're ranting, let me tell you what really bugs me. Sure, but quote responsibly here; Matt was doing the ranting, I was just sympathizing. =) > What about that player (invariably your grand predator), who has > decided to break out his backward facing wall deck? > He's keeping all his minions back to block, they don't have any > bleed disciplines anyway, so my predator has an all day pass to > mess up my deal. > And of course my prey is playing his rush deck, that meanie. > Oh, sure, and my grand prey is getting bored staring at the wall > so he decides to come across the table to blow some stuff up. > Hey, that's my The Rack, you crazed lunatic. > > Ok, I feel better now. > > - Jason Bell, > whose favorite decks these days include Kindred Restructure That and Dramatic Upheaval being the best "anti-stupid-player" cards in the game, certainly. (Political Flux isn't bad either). But, now I'm curious. I'm player A, B is the rush deck, C is your grand-prey who can't get through D, the wall, and E is free running something-or-other. Assuming B doesn't torp all your voters, and E doesn't intercept you, where do you move everyone when you call the Restructure? What if it's only a Dramatic Upheaval? Who do you switch with? (my gut instinct is: your predator, E, so B can beat on him and D leaves YOU free-running.) [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Freeman wrote: > > > on a side note I can sympathize with you on a lack of good opponents. That > is > the case with me as well. a lot (thankfully not all) of the people I play > with are > new and I do get tired of explaining why you cant intercept my strike,. > But > hopefully I am increasing their knowledge of the game so that they will be > > worthy opponents in the future. > There is really nothing that can be done with the chaff players at > tournaments > I can only hope that they are my prey and I get an easy VP. Then I move on > to > the next round with better players and better decks. > > Can anyone tell me why my posts do this? and how to fix it. I know it makes them hard to read but trust me they don't look like that when I post them and they don't look like that when I look at them in my sent folder. Thanks in advance, Eric

But are you upset at friendly, recreational play or what happens at tournaments? Because I think the two are quite different; depending on the kind of players in the playgroupa and level of competitiveness, it's sometimes preferable to play 'fun' decks, that aren't necessarily lean, mean, fighting machines, but are fun to play and play against; something I prefer in my playgroup. I'd rather play against innovative decks, with new tricks, combos, that make me go "wow, i wish i thought of that" i wouldn't want my playgroup to simply consist only of weenie vote, Malk S&B, Ventrue Bloat, etc. the other 'effective, proven' decks. I expect those at a tournament. tournaments for me are a different story; I goto a tournie to win; or try to so I pull out all the stops. Any deck goes at a tournie though it is fustrating if other ppl don't take the tournament seriously and sort-of screw up table dynamics but there's nothing you can do about it, except to just deal with it. > On winning strategies and how to apply them. > > Would you build a dominate deck and not use Deflection/Redirection? Or > an auspex deck and not use Telepathic Misdirection/My Enemy's Enemy? > Would you have 4+ Princes in your crypt and not use 2nd Tradition? I > wouldn't, because those cards win you games- yet at every tournament I > go to I see people going for what I have started to call 'the > enlightenment victory'. > > [ quoted text not captured ]

> Jyhad, with its no card limit, no excluded sets tournamnet > environment gives a distinct advantage to those players with > a substantial collection, as they have more deck-construction > resources available than other players (I own a lot of cards, but > I can't come close to making a 10 Disarm weenie potence > deck, or a Super Freak Drive deck). > > I'm not in any way advocating card limits or set exclusion > in V:teS, but I do insist that the lack of those characteristics > in constructed tournament rules enhances the advantages of > players who own more cards. You can always borrow the cards you need from other players if they're not going to use them in the tournament. This has been done a lot over here. Someone played a Disarm deck for example and had none (I think) for himself, but he managed to get 6 by borrowing. If he'd wanted more he could have gotten that too. Similar thing can easily be done with other rares except for maybe sabbat-only rares since few people have a full set. But I usually have 2 of each of those, and then various other people have a few together so you could generally get 4-5 of the rare you wanted even in that case. However we're a group of about 12 people counting the players with most cards from two cities (might be even three in the near future). Roger

> I have hundreds possibly thousands of games under my belt > .... Assimite politics hmmmmm > maybe with a bruise vote angle...... > I'll get back to you on that one My way (which is of course the best) [ed. note: that was humor people] pre/obf using alamut and some bleeds, the deck needs tuning, but for the first game I survived a while with a majesty in my hand and no one rushing me because I'm big and scary and assamites just go to long and spit death and I'm not going over there and... and.... You get the idea. The bruise part of bruise and vote just seemed to card intensive. Cameron

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > And that means you can't win in a tournament? No, it just means you > can't win with THOSE decks, because you can't build them. The real question > is: do you have enough cards to make a tournament competitive deck? Answer: > Quite. ... > (meaning: don't drown me in the continuation of the xCL/NCL wars, all > of which I'm ignoring in this baseless assertion) ... > (the baseless assertion part) ... > Not true. It enhances their OPTIONS. They have more possible > tournament competitive decks they can build, but they haven't increased > their chances of winning purely by their collections. > Your conclusions don't remotely follow from your "evidence." ... > (Why is everyone trying to scare off the new players before the month is > out? Is some big tournament coming up or something?) Excepting this response, I'll do my best to steer clear of this hook ridden, painfully obvious, stinky troll. - Jason Bell

Eric Freeman wrote: > Can anyone tell me why my posts do this? and how to fix it. I know it makes > them hard to read > but trust me they don't look like that when I post them and they don't look > like that when I look > at them in my sent folder. You're using Mozilla (Netscape), so you probably have the default "wrap outgoing text messages to 72 columns" set. Either stop hitting RETURN when composing your messages and let Mozilla wrap the text in a USENET-friendly manner (72 columns), Or under "Edit->Preferences->Mail & Newsgroups->Messages", change the setting to something else (999, for instance) (and then hit RETURN yourself every 80 columns or less). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. Some playgroups don't have any reasonable access to original Sabbat, others have only limited access to much of the new product. Mr. Suitcase and his friends still are advantaged. By the by, the last time I personally loaned out cards for a tournament outing, I ended up being out over $1000 (US). Vultures, vultures everywhere. I've gotten more and more angry recently as I've tried to round out crypts only to find that the cards I'd like are Sabbat only, making me double up (crypt) or do without (library). I can't believe that WW decided to do away with Tremere Antitribu in the reprint over some story line consideration (that's what I understand to be the case, anyway). And don't even get me started on the magazine only cards (this was not WW, I imagine). - Jason Bell

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > > - Jason Bell, > > whose favorite decks these days include Kindred Restructure > > That and Dramatic Upheaval being the best "anti-stupid-player" cards in > the game, certainly. (Political Flux isn't bad either). > > But, now I'm curious. I'm player A, B is the rush deck, C is your > grand-prey who can't get through D, the wall, and E is free running > something-or-other. > Assuming B doesn't torp all your voters, and E doesn't intercept you, > where do you move everyone when you call the Restructure? > What if it's only a Dramatic Upheaval? Who do you switch with? (my gut > instinct is: your predator, E, so B can beat on him and D leaves YOU > free-running.) Hey, don't ask me, I was just ranting. The last time I played a deck with Dramatic Upheaval, I planted myself downstream of the rush deck who had alread gotten all his vampires Sensory Deprived, and I ended up making everyone angry when I just sat around making Embraces until I saw someone low enough to switch across the table and oust. Everyone was so mad at me by the end of that 5 hour, 6 player game that I had to promise not to play that deck ever again. - Jason Bell (well, not until the next time)

> You can always borrow the cards you need from other players if they're not > going to use them in the tournament. This has been done a lot over here. > Someone played a Disarm deck for example and had none (I think) for himself, > but he managed to get 6 by borrowing. If he'd wanted more he could have > gotten that too. Similar thing can easily be done with other rares except > for maybe sabbat-only rares since few people have a full set. But I usually > have 2 of each of those, and then various other people have a few together > so you could generally get 4-5 of the rare you wanted even in that case. > However we're a group of about 12 people counting the players with most > cards from two cities (might be even three in the near future). > > Roger i second that in my playing-group we hardly ever build a single tournament deck with just our personal cards i myself usually end up borrowing at least 10 cards for my tournament decks JC

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:bb705c59.01082...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He did Noal.. sic em! Matt

A quick response to Andrwe and Jason regerding the other game: "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<NLAg7.155077$J37.38...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... > "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote > > > People are > > also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic, and more > > inventive ways of using the cards (new deck ideas) should be the way > > forward. > Agree completely, but ignoring cards that are blatently better than other alternatives just to 'wierd' or 'kooky' is foolish IMO. This is the sort of behaviour i'm railing against. The "...i'm playing a Ravnos prince deck to prove how zany and different i am" crowd. As Pat said: maybe they should try the roleplaying game. > Disagree. Magic's 4 card limit helped level the playing field > for those competitors who didn't have an unlimited supply > of cards. As did the Type I / Type II distinctions, but in > a perverse way (those who had a lot of old cards suffered, > those who could afford to constantly accumulate new cards > were advantaged, that's what you get when you let WotC > control the DCI). > > Jyhad, with its no card limit, no excluded sets tournamnet > environment gives a distinct advantage to those players with > a substantial collection, as they have more deck-construction > resources available than other players (I own a lot of cards, but > I can't come close to making a 10 Disarm weenie potence > deck, or a Super Freak Drive deck). > In some ways any thread to this newsgroup, if replied to often enough, will eventually turn into a CL thread. Which is usually bad. With respect Jason, and i appriciate you don't advocate the position, you are not quite on top of this one. MTG's 4cl favours people with more money, not bigger collections. Anyone can amass a large collection of cards- they will just mostly be commons in all likelyhood. The distinction is in the following; which is the easiest to obtain: a) 12 Majesties b) 4 Majesties, 4 Staredown, 4 Catatonic Fear I think you can see what i'm getting at. No, you're right that doesn't help the guy that needs 10 Disarms, but to some extent it becomes symptomatic of any mixed rarity CCG. Thanks for the interest. mattgreen.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:a8Mg7.154642$TM5.27...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck > construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. Actually, Pat refuted it, but you got focused on the parenthetical aside at the bottom. It is perfectly possible to construct full-on tournament competitive decks from the original Jyhad set. If you allow people to include cards from Sabbat War and Final Nights, you can get some VERY good stuff up and going, as now you have access to the Parthenon, Dreams, Direct Intervention, etc. You may not have as many OPTIONS as Mr. Suitcase; for example, I can't build Noal's Derange deck. I don't know many people who can. But I don't consider that I'm going to have less of a chance of winning a tournament because of this. I've also steadily traded away huge chunks of my Lasombra-specific and Obtenebration cards, over time (mostly for Tzimisce and !Malk). This doesn't mean that I'm hosed; it just means I can't play Lasombra (which I decided on when I originally started trading them.) > Some playgroups don't have any reasonable access to original > Sabbat, others have only limited access to much of the new > product. Mr. Suitcase and his friends still are advantaged. Not significantly enough to matter. Kendrick is not a game-breaker. > By the by, the last time I personally loaned out cards for a > tournament outing, I ended up being out over $1000 (US). > Vultures, vultures everywhere. Sounds like a Magic-Enriched Experience to me. I take great care not to leave cards sitting around when near Magic players, especially the younger kids; they'll grab card boxes without bothering to ask themselves "is this even my game?" Nothing more annoying than knowing your cards got nicked by someone who was too stupid to even realize they couldn't do anything with them. I also don't lend cards to people who are going to leave them sitting around. :) > I've gotten more and more angry recently as I've tried to > round out crypts only to find that the cards I'd like are > Sabbat only, making me double up (crypt) or do without > (library). I can't believe that WW decided to do away with > Tremere Antitribu in the reprint over some story line > consideration (that's what I understand to be the case, > anyway). And don't even get me started on the magazine > only cards (this was not WW, I imagine). The magazine-only cards were WotC, yes. Also note that Goratrix and Hannigan have put in an appearance in Final Nights, so the !Tremere have, in fact, shown up again... just in smaller numbers. Following the WoD storyline allows WW to use -that- as a marketing hook to cross over to the ENORMOUS amount of V:tM players, which beats hell out of a whole lot of less-polite marketing hooks used in the past by CCG companies.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns91056C74...@198.99.146.10... > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in > news:a8Mg7.154642$TM5.27...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > > By the by, the last time I personally loaned out cards for a > > tournament outing, I ended up being out over $1000 (US). > > Vultures, vultures everywhere. > > Sounds like a Magic-Enriched Experience to me. I take great care not to > leave cards sitting around when near Magic players, especially the younger > kids; they'll grab card boxes without bothering to ask themselves "is this > even my game?" Nothing more annoying than knowing your cards got nicked by > someone who was too stupid to even realize they couldn't do anything with > them As an aside, are you aware that your CCG cards are covered by your homeowners/renters insurance up to $5000.00. This applies even if they are stolen far from home (say a Magic tourney). My friend got his bag stolen at a tourney, and got High Scrye value for his cards from the insurance company. Thats the only use for price guides on Jyhad cards in my opinion! Matt

On 22 Aug 2001 05:18:28 -0700, jan-christoph...@cre.fr (JC) wrote: >in my playing-group we hardly ever build a single tournament deck with >just our personal cards > >i myself usually end up borrowing at least 10 cards for my tournament >decks Cheaters!! All of you! ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

In message <9m0jt4$vat$1...@nntp1-cm.news.eni.net>, Matt Latham <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> writes >As an aside, are you aware that your CCG cards are covered by your >homeowners/renters insurance up to $5000.00. This applies even if they are >stolen far from home (say a Magic tourney). You could always try claiming individual decks, too, or something, if your collection exceeds that much.... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

"Matt Latham" <mla...@diamondtoolmfg.com> wrote > As an aside, are you aware that your CCG cards are covered by your > homeowners/renters insurance up to $5000.00. This applies even if they are > stolen far from home (say a Magic tourney). My friend got his bag stolen at > a tourney, and got High Scrye value for his cards from the insurance > company. Sigh. Yes, I was aware of that, but somewhere between becoming aware of that by asking my agent and trying to explain the circumstances of the loss got me nothing but hassles, and eventually my idiot agent was accusing me of fraud for asking if I could recover the costs of the cards. My final understanding of the situation, before I gave up in anger and disgust, was that no, if someone besides yourself loses your property, it is not covered by your insurance. All that experience taught me was: 1. I won't loan out my cards anymore, and 2. State Farm is not anything like a good neighbor, nor were they there. - Jason Bell

Derek Ray wrote: > You may not have as many OPTIONS as Mr. Suitcase; for example, I can't > build Noal's Derange deck. I don't know many people who can. Also note that I cannot build a ToGP deck or a GNSP/Posession deck after trtading many of those, and other, rares to obtain 10 of the 11 Deranges in my posession. The 11th came from Lasombra in a Sabbat Draft tournament, who was nice enough to reserve it for me free of charge. This lends credence to my belief that Jyhad players are usually more generous than M:tCH players. > But I don't consider that I'm going to have less of a chance of winning > a tournament because of this. As further proof, count the number of tournament winning decks on Lasombra's page that are authored by me. That's right...zero. I tend to have much more success at sealed and draft tournaments than contructed ones. Maybe I need to make the effort to ring in there at least once. Regards, Noal

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck > > construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. > > Actually, Pat refuted it, No, he didn't. He posted stinky bait. > but you got focused on the parenthetical aside at > the bottom. It is perfectly possible to construct full-on tournament > competitive decks from the original Jyhad set. I would like to invite you check the tread, to determine whether that is in any way related to the discussion. I believe this sub-thread started with: "People are also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic" To which I disagreed, posing that Magic's 4 card limit helps level the playing field for players without enormous card resources. I agree that players can make competitive decks with limited resources, but I also know that limited resources decrease a player's ability to make the best tournament deck he can conceive. This is less true in Magic, because you're not allowed to conceive of a tournament deck with 20 Ancestral Recalls, in fact, you need only own 1, and then only if you intend Type I tournament decks. > If you allow people to > include cards from Sabbat War and Final Nights, you can get some VERY good > stuff up and going, as now you have access to the Parthenon, Dreams, Direct > Intervention, etc. No argument. > You may not have as many OPTIONS as Mr. Suitcase; for example, I can't > build Noal's Derange deck. I don't know many people who can. But I don't > consider that I'm going to have less of a chance of winning a tournament > because of this. If you think you're just as likely to win whether you can make Noal's deck in particular, I have no reason to doubt that. If you think that your tournament chances are unaffected by your level of access to cards, you are wrong. The illustration is elementary at the extreme, all must agree that someone with only a clan deck and three boosters will not fare well in the midst of a constructed deck tournament, and certainly not as well as that same player would fare if provided with additional resources to make the deck better. Perhaps one can delude oneself into believing that this is no longer true as access to card resources increases, but the principle is the same, the effect is just less pronounced. As an example, consider the Magic player who has 4 of every card legal for tournament play, plus lands to his heart's content. He can make any tournament deck of which he can conceive. Compare to the V:tES player with access to 4 of every card legal for tournament play, plus vampires to his heart's content (mmmm, if only). That player cannot make the best deck he can conceive. Thus my disagreement that Magic is more dependent on cardstock than Jyhad. > I've also steadily traded away huge chunks of my > Lasombra-specific and Obtenebration cards, over time (mostly for Tzimisce > and !Malk). This doesn't mean that I'm hosed; it just means I can't play > Lasombra (which I decided on when I originally started trading them.) That's too bad, the Lasombra are a great clan, kind of like Malks on steroids. I intend to make a clan deck, but one in my playgroup likes them, so I've put it off. But his ability to get +3 stealth on bleed actions makes my mouth water, plus intercept and potence combat. Meanwhile, their smaller vampires have made their way into several of my weenie decks. > > Some playgroups don't have any reasonable access to original > > Sabbat, others have only limited access to much of the new > > product. Mr. Suitcase and his friends still are advantaged. > > Not significantly enough to matter. Kendrick is not a game-breaker. However, as I was trying to round out my crypt for a disguised weapon / intercept deck, only to find that I was out of luck, since two of the obf/aus weenies are Lena Rowe and Dan Murdock. The deck is not as good as it could be. Grumble. > Also note that Goratrix and Hannigan have put in an appearance in Final > Nights, so the !Tremere have, in fact, shown up again... just in smaller > numbers. Following the WoD storyline allows WW to use -that- as a > marketing hook to cross over to the ENORMOUS amount of V:tM players, which > beats hell out of a whole lot of less-polite marketing hooks used in the > past by CCG companies. But consider, it does such harm to game balance to hamstring the Tremere that way (and the Tremere weren't exactly doing great in the metagame anyway). And there is already some agreement that game balance should trump story, otherwise there wouldn't be the capacity calculation for abilities and disciplines that was apparently instituted for the newer sets, or the anti-bleed cards that were included in the V:tES reprint. And furthermore, including destroyed-in-the-backstory vampires in the card sets is highly unlikely to scare anyone away from the card game, especially not the role playing cadre. - Jason Bell

In message <GJXg7.162004$J37.40...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> > This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck >> > construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. >> >> Actually, Pat refuted it, > >No, he didn't. He posted stinky bait. How is pointing out (pretty much accurately) that in Jyhad, the ability to access older sets is much less important since the basic necessary cards have been kept in play from which many successful decks can be made, "stinky bait"? This isn't Magic with a "Howling Mines or Die!" "Fireball/Channel or Die!" "Necropotence or Die!" environment - partly engineered (somewhat unintentionally at the start) by the significance of the multi-player environment. Sure, it's harder for a newbie to play a really successful !Tremere deck[0] because they can't access the cards. The environment means that they don't have to. Sure, it's nice if they *can* but they don't need to. Many, many *hugely* competitive decks can be made from solely the cards available in Final Nights and Sabbat War. Virtually all the bread and butter cards - or one of the variants thereupon - can be got hold of. "Trick" cards, corner case cards or old specialised rares are trickier to get hold of for sure, but you don't *need* those to compete - far from it. Are you suggesting that older players, with access to Jyhad, V:TES, Dark Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts and Sabbat (!War) can make decks against which a new player who's bought some Final Nights and some Sabbat War cannot compete with at all? [0] For Matt Green: Assuming such a thing exists. [ quoted text not captured ]

"mgreen02" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote > With respect Jason, and i appriciate you don't advocate the position, > you are not quite on top of this one. MTG's 4cl favours people with > more money, not bigger collections. I've used bigger collections to reflect more of all cards, not just commons or whatever. Sorry for any confusion. Consider who would be advantaged if Magic increased its card limit to 6. > Anyone can amass a large > collection of cards- they will just mostly be commons in all > likelyhood. The distinction is in the following; which is the easiest > to obtain: > > a) 12 Majesties > b) 4 Majesties, 4 Staredown, 4 Catatonic Fear > > I think you can see what i'm getting at. No, you're right that doesn't > help the guy that needs 10 Disarms, but to some extent it becomes > symptomatic of any mixed rarity CCG. Yes, I understand your point, but the 10 Disarm case was my point. It's really difficult to put an a/b case together for Disarm, as there are very few alternate cards that have the same game effect, so try this one: A 12 Freak Drives B 4 Freak Drives, 4 Earth Meld, maybe 4 Form of Mist B is easier to obtain and occasionally is the same effect, A is very difficult indeed to obtain (I don't have 12 Freaks, and I own quite a bit of Jyhad/V:tES base set). Again, I have no interest in seeing any 4CL or XCL in Jyhad, I'm just insisting that player A above has more options in deck building than player B, and thus has the possibility of making better decks. Replace the names of those cards for Magic cards, and those players are equivalent (assuming the 12 Freak freak has as many of the other cards, too). - Jason Bell

In message <cWZg7.162356$J37.40...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >"mgreen02" <mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk> wrote >> With respect Jason, and i appriciate you don't advocate the position, >> you are not quite on top of this one. MTG's 4cl favours people with >> more money, not bigger collections. > >I've used bigger collections to reflect more of all cards, not >just commons or whatever. Sorry for any confusion. >Consider who would be advantaged if Magic increased >its card limit to 6. The point here is difficult, because of the fact that a number of games - like Magic - have worked on the principle that rarity *is* a factor in the power:cost ratio. Jyhad very consciously did not for virtually every card. If you work under the assumption that a rare card, in Magic, will be better than a corresponding common card, you'll find that the rich players again "win" - because, chances are, they've got a few more copies of key rares knocking around than the poorer player who scraped together those 4 copies after much searching. More recent sets may have helped temper this to some extent, my familiarity with recent sets of Magic isn't enough to comment. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:GJXg7.162004$J37.40...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > I would like to invite you check the tread, to determine whether > that is in any way related to the discussion. It is, as a logical extension of it. Hold that thought. > I believe this sub-thread started with: > "People are also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic" > To which I disagreed, posing that Magic's 4 card limit helps > level the playing field for players without enormous card resources. Magic's 4 card limit is the WORST case of bolt-on I've ever seen in my life. Fortunately, I don't have to discuss Magic or defend my opinions thereof, because that's really not relevant at all. =) > I agree that players can make competitive decks with > limited resources, but I also know that limited resources > decrease a player's ability to make the best tournament > deck he can conceive. This is less true in Magic, because That "he can conceive" is a big kicker here; you may wish to alter your wording somewhat. I can't make the best tournament deck I can conceive either, because I lack a Ridiculous Amount(tm) of cards... and also because I can conceive some pretty wack shit. I think it's better to leave it as "able to create *A* tournament-competitive deck" instead, just because - everyone- has limited resources at that point, even Mr. Suitcase. Realistically, someone who has limited resources is going to BE limited in some degree. But resources simply aren't that expensive in V:TES. Jyhad boxes are still going for pretty-damn-cheap. V:TES starter boxes are also going for pretty-damn-cheap. Sabbat War/Final Nights aren't CHEAP, but you do have the pre-cons you can go after... and someone else has suggested simply purchasing two identical pre-cons and stirring well. > If you think you're just as likely to win whether you can make Noal's > deck in particular, I have no reason to doubt that. The thing is, I can make a -different- deck that's equally as competitive as that Derange deck, even though it does something entirely different. If my focus is simply to win the tournament, I shouldn't care what deck I do it with; as long as I can successfully construct a tier 1 deck, I'll have as good a chance as anyone. (Seating arrangements, obviously, will play a large part in things; if I've built a Ventrue Law Firm and sit behind a Tzimisce intercept wall, I'm going to be fucked. But if I sit right behind a weenie OBF Night Moves swarm deck, I'm likely to completely roll over it.) > If you think that your tournament chances are unaffected by your > level of access to cards, you are wrong. The illustration is > elementary at the extreme, all must agree that someone with only a > clan deck and three boosters will not fare well in the midst of a > constructed deck tournament, and certainly not as well as that same > player would fare if provided with additional resources to make the > deck better. No, this is true. But one has to also set a reasonable minimum on the amount of resources a player HAS, too. Someone with only one pre-con and three boosters has spent less than $20 on the game, which is frankly, not a reasonable minimum. This may not be as expensive a game as Magic, but a tournament is not the 'have fun with my 3 friends!' level of the game, either. In pool, a similar analogy is "it's not the stick, it's the shooter." This is true on the face of it; I can pick up a bent bar cue and still soundly trounce the average player. But by the same token, if I walk into a tournament with that bent bar cue, I'm going to be rapidly wishing I had brought my Joss; when the players are equal, the equipment DOES start to matter. This analogy sort of supports both sides of the argument, but points out that you simply can't EXPECT to be tournament-competitive with only the bare minimum of investment. (a bar cue, ironically, costs $10-$20 new.) However, I can walk into that same tournament with my $100 Viking with the extra-tacky bright-red Grateful Dead skeleton decals on it and do just fine, because I've gotten myself up to the REASONABLE minimum of investment. The advantage the Joss gives me is slight, but not TOO significant. However, you can buy two boxes of Jyhad boosters for $60 and be in pretty damn good shape; you'll definitely be able to make SOMETHING that's competitive out of it, and quite a number of other "fun" decks to play in pickup. While all the non-Jyhad toys do HELP, they're still not absolutely necessary. And, for a minor additional outlay, you can put in some of the SW/FN toys from the precons. > any tournament deck of which he can conceive. Compare to the > V:tES player with access to 4 of every card legal for tournament > play, plus vampires to his heart's content (mmmm, if only). That > player cannot make the best deck he can conceive. Thus my > disagreement that Magic is more dependent on cardstock than > Jyhad. Not sure if this is a viable comparison, due to the imposition of an artificial 4CL on the V:TES player. A limited-resource player would probably have something like I've described above... or would have one box of Sabbat War and one of each of the precons. > That's too bad, the Lasombra are a great clan, kind of like > Malks on steroids. I intend to make a clan deck, but one in > my playgroup likes them, so I've put it off. But his ability > to get +3 stealth on bleed actions makes my mouth water, > plus intercept and potence combat. Meanwhile, their > smaller vampires have made their way into several of my > weenie decks. I've hung onto the vampires; no need to trade those away, usually, and it's always nice to have them handy. But really, an awful lot of people are fascinated with the Lasombra, and they start out being a "good" clan anyway. I prefer to latch onto the "not-so-good" stuff and try to make it work; more of a challenge that way. :) > However, as I was trying to round out my crypt for a disguised > weapon / intercept deck, only to find that I was out of luck, > since two of the obf/aus weenies are Lena Rowe and Dan Murdock. > The deck is not as good as it could be. Grumble. It would be my opinion that it wasn't as good as it could be largely *because* you were using Lena Rowe and Dan. =) I built a deck like that using ONLY obf/AUS... I generally -must- have the capacity for Eagle's Sight in my intercept decks, because I hate sitting there like a bump without being able to touch my prey. Of course, this is totally irrelevant. But seriously; while your deck isn't PERFECT, it also isn't a game-breaker for you. You can always use another Dollface, or Zoe, or Victoria, or Roland, or anyone else running around with obf/aus... because lord, there are a snotload of them. =/ > But consider, it does such harm to game balance to hamstring the > Tremere that way (and the Tremere weren't exactly doing great > in the metagame anyway). And there is already some agreement > that game balance should trump story, otherwise there wouldn't > be the capacity calculation for abilities and disciplines that > was apparently instituted for the newer sets, or the anti-bleed > cards that were included in the V:tES reprint. The Tremere are starting to look very, very scary right now. Aisling and Hannigan were vampires the clan desperately needed for their access to THA/AUS... a backbone for Telepathic Tracking decks. Perfect Clarity gave them a very obnoxious offense for their bruise-and-bleed. And Goratrix is just a big thug; after Minion Tap, think "Thoughts Betrayed/Conquer the Beast/Song of Serenity", and then make a big slurping sound while visualising a very surprised, very empty minion. Add in the occasional Drawing out the Beast for flavor; you don't gain as much blood, but you don't have to go through an additional round with a strike-hands-for-1 once they're empty, either. > And furthermore, including destroyed-in-the-backstory vampires > in the card sets is highly unlikely to scare anyone away from the > card game, especially not the role playing cadre. It didn't scare them, but boy, were they ever pissed off; you should've seen the WW forum and V:TES mailing lists. Sheesh. TONS of complaints about "dead" clans getting vampires in Final Nights.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, James Coupe wrote: [snip] > > Sure, it's harder for a newbie to play a really successful !Tremere > deck[0] because they can't access the cards. The environment means that > they don't have to. Sure, it's nice if they *can* but they don't need > to. [snip] > > [0] For Matt Green: Assuming such a thing exists. June 3rd 2001 Constructed - A Taste of Death key: name (total vps prior rounds/vps final round) 1st: Chris Wall (10/2) Weenie Camarilla pre Vote. 2nd: Ben O'Neill (5/2) Trem/TremA Intercept/Succubus 13 player tournament, and the deck was predominately !trem. 2nd isn't too bad. (note: the weeni pre deck got to choose where to sit, and the place it chose was furthest possible from the !trem deck) just thought i'd share, and try and give the !trem a bit of encouragement. they're pretty cool. salem.

mgre...@bcuc.ac.uk (mgreen02) wrote in message news:<a346f9cb.0108...@posting.google.com>... > On winning strategies and how to apply them. > > > > Players > with 40+ games under their belts playing assamite politics? Get the > hell out of my recreational pastime. > > I can scarcely believe my eyes....This from the man who played assamite alamut political deck with no regard to intercept or bounce, but much regard to stealth and managed to get into the final at portsmouth with it?? Shame on you cheese master!! And not forgetting your DIRTY setite filth with again, a similar proportion of Super stealth(TM) and barely a glance at intercept. Tsk. :o)

> Matt Latham -----} Denizen of the Sewers of Detroit : : : Geez Matt, : :............You could be ANYWHERE Glad I live waaay out here in Lansing :-) Bernie

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> > This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck > >> > construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. > >> > >> Actually, Pat refuted it, > > > >No, he didn't. He posted stinky bait. > > How is pointing out (pretty much accurately) that in Jyhad, the ability > to access older sets is much less important since the basic necessary > cards have been kept in play from which many successful decks can be > made, "stinky bait"? If that's what he had said, it might not have been. Unfortunately, that's not what he said, so it was. > Are you suggesting that older players, with access to Jyhad, V:TES, Dark > Sovereigns, Ancient Hearts and Sabbat (!War) can make decks against > which a new player who's bought some Final Nights and some Sabbat War > cannot compete with at all? Where on earth did you get such an idea? My point has been from the beginning that a Jyhad player with more than 4 of every card ever printed can make a marginally better deck than one who has only 4 of each, while this is not true of a Magic player. For this reason, among others, Jyhad is more dependent on "cardstock" (term from originating post) than Magic. But in response to your suggestion, what I will say is that a player with the former resources will have an advantage over the latter, all other things equal. I am bemused that there are folks on this board so hostile to M*gic that they would flame at the very idea that M*gic may have any sort of advantage over Jyhad in any comparative aspect of the games. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > I would like to invite you check the tread, to determine whether > > that is in any way related to the discussion. > > It is, as a logical extension of it. Hold that thought. I can't. Most of what follows is tangential to my basic argument, that Magic's 4 card limit makes the best deck you can conceive closer to your grasp than the best Jyhad deck you can conceive. And by extension, Mr. Jyhad Suitcase is better able to make the best deck he can conceive than you can make yours, and thereby he is advantaged, assuming the two of you are of equal skill. In Magic, you can more easily catch Mr. Suitcase because there is a clear finish line at 4. With Jyhad, there is no such finish line, and acquiring the marginal rare is in some cases very difficult indeed (I don't know how I'm going to get my next Disarm, my next Embrace, or my next Freak Drive). Most of what you wrote hereafter merely soft-pedals my point with tangential issues. I remain amazed that the above point caused anything but nods and shrugs, a tradeoff of doing business in Jyhad's more varied and interesting deck construction environment. > > I believe this sub-thread started with: > > "People are also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic" > > To which I disagreed, posing that Magic's 4 card limit helps > > level the playing field for players without enormous card resources. > > Magic's 4 card limit is the WORST case of bolt-on I've ever seen in my > life. Fortunately, I don't have to discuss Magic or defend my opinions > thereof, because that's really not relevant at all. =) Oh, I think you'll find Jyhad has its own bolt-ons. And so many text changes to cards, it's an embarassment to explain to new players, or worse, old players who I cajole into playing again. "Yeah, sometimes the texts on the cards break the rules, well except for that card, where the rules have changed the text on the card to something else. Uh, that one too." And it is much easier in Magic to reason out the rules, which in many cases just can't be done for Jyhad. "Ok, adding stealth to an action with a combat card counts as an action modifier, but untapping the vampire with a combat card doesn't, even though untapping a vampire with an action modifier does, got it. Well, I sort of got it, what I got is that I have to ask every time." > > However, as I was trying to round out my crypt for a disguised > > weapon / intercept deck, only to find that I was out of luck, > > since two of the obf/aus weenies are Lena Rowe and Dan Murdock. > > The deck is not as good as it could be. Grumble. > > It would be my opinion that it wasn't as good as it could be largely > *because* you were using Lena Rowe and Dan. =) I built a deck like that > using ONLY obf/AUS... I generally -must- have the capacity for Eagle's > Sight in my intercept decks, because I hate sitting there like a bump > without being able to touch my prey. > > Of course, this is totally irrelevant. But seriously; while your deck > isn't PERFECT, it also isn't a game-breaker for you. You can always use > another Dollface, or Zoe, or Victoria, or Roland, While you have your bugaboo with wanting the AUS, I really despise repeating vampires in my crypt. The deck conception was weenie disguised weapon, I did end up including Victoria and Dancin' Dana, but it was not what I wanted the deck to be. > or anyone else running > around with obf/aus... because lord, there are a snotload of them. =/ Excepting the aforementioned Lena and Dan, I count five vampires with 4 capacity or less with both obfuscate and auspex. I can round out a 7 crypt, 5 means I have to super size some vampires. Which would be alright, except those two vampires taunting me from a magazine promotion and Sabbat ante bellum. At least Magic had the decency to make its magazine cards really really crappy (ok, except Mana Crypt, until the new rules). - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:9Qph7.170630$J37.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > >> > I would like to invite you check the tread, to determine whether >> > that is in any way related to the discussion. >> >> It is, as a logical extension of it. Hold that thought. > > I can't. Most of what follows is tangential to my basic argument, > that Magic's 4 card limit makes the best deck you can conceive > closer to your grasp than the best Jyhad deck you can conceive. (shrug) That's a given, though. My logical extension is demonstrating that your point, while valid, is just not as game-breaking as you think it is, nor is it a terribly high barrier to entry to the tournament game for a new player. > Most of what you wrote hereafter merely > soft-pedals my point with tangential issues. I remain Not as tangential as you believe. > amazed that the above point caused anything but nods > and shrugs, a tradeoff of doing business in Jyhad's more > varied and interesting deck construction environment. Everything you said after the comma nails it right on the head; if you want a more varied and interesting environment, remove the limitations. A 4CL is an ENORMOUS limitation and brake on creativity. Look at Hong Kong, for example (before it was given back). Almost no limitations, and ABSOLUTELY a more varied and interesting environment. > Oh, I think you'll find Jyhad has its own bolt-ons. And so many Yeah, and look what happens to Jyhad when you give it a 4CL bolt-on. Same thing as Magic. > text changes to cards, it's an embarassment to explain to new > players, or worse, old players who I cajole into playing again. > "Yeah, sometimes the texts on the cards break the rules, well > except for that card, where the rules have changed the text > on the card to something else. Uh, that one too." As usual, I'll point out that the original set was released in 1994, and it's now 2001. Quite a number of the errata'd cards have been reprinted in current sets,... and now a Camarilla set has been announced. This isn't Magic, which had support from WotC constantly releasing expansions. Errata was the only possible fix to cards for a long time. > And it is much easier in Magic to reason out the rules, which > in many cases just can't be done for Jyhad. > "Ok, adding stealth to an action with a combat card counts > as an action modifier, but untapping the vampire with a > combat card doesn't, even though untapping a vampire > with an action modifier does, got it. Well, I sort of got it, what > I got is that I have to ask every time." You could also just look at the little symbols on the cards; both Majesty and Earth Meld have only a "combat" symbol, and Cat's Guidance has only a "reaction" symbol, and Change of Target only has an "action modifier" symbol. If Form of Mist had an "action modifier" symbol, it would be a lot easier to explain to people. Combo cards (Rapid Change is an excellent example) these days now *do* have both symbols on them, as well as text reading "this can be played as an action modifier or combat card". What you are describing is ALSO not the normal flow of events, by the way. Attempting to hold up Form of Mist (the one card in the ENTIRE set that adds stealth DURING combat) as an example of how ALL the rules in Jyhad are terminally complicated is very, very bad. Form of Mist inherently produces more complications than other cards, and you can very easily say to your new players "This is the only card in the set that does this." > While you have your bugaboo with wanting the AUS, I really despise > repeating vampires in my crypt. The deck conception was weenie > disguised weapon, I did end up including Victoria and Dancin' Dana, > but it was not what I wanted the deck to be. Jason, nobody can help you if you absolutely MUST have perfection every time. Sometimes compromises have to be made. Even those of us with tons of cards have to make compromises. I only have 4 Blood Hunts in my "work box", while I have 11 War Parties. This meant that when I was experimenting trying to make a truly abusive deck, that I was forced to go the Sabbat/Gratiano route instead of the Murat/Gilbert/Greger route. I had to compromise. But I dealt with it (and I'll eventually go back and look through my Jyhad boxes; I KNOW never bothered to sort Blood Hunts out when I originally opened them, so I have more sitting around somewhere). > Excepting the aforementioned Lena and Dan, I count five vampires > with 4 capacity or less with both obfuscate and auspex. I can round > out a 7 crypt, 5 means I have to super size some vampires. Which OR duplicate. While I know you despise duplicating vampires, sometimes it really can be the most effective thing to do. If you're "rounding out" a crypt of 7 anyway, I assume you're using weenie Obfuscators and tacking on AUS skill cards. It might be worth it to throw Isabel de Leon and Aleph in there, simply for the weenie factor and AUS. Sure, they can't get a Disguised Weapon, but they can always just go and equip it by hand... as long as you aren't trying to count on them, you'll still be OK. > would be alright, except those two vampires taunting me from a > magazine promotion and Sabbat ante bellum. At least Magic > had the decency to make its magazine cards really really crappy > (ok, except Mana Crypt, until the new rules). I doubt Dan Murdock is the most difficult vampire to find in the world, despite the ridiculous eBay prices. And trading for a Lena Rowe is not likely to be TOO terribly complicated, if you just look around. Neither of these vampires are game-breakers.

> > or anyone else running > > around with obf/aus... because lord, there are a snotload of them. =/ > > Excepting the aforementioned Lena and Dan, I count five vampires > with 4 capacity or less with both obfuscate and auspex. I can round > out a 7 crypt, 5 means I have to super size some vampires. Which > would be alright, except those two vampires taunting me from a > magazine promotion and Sabbat ante bellum. At least Magic > had the decency to make its magazine cards really really crappy > (ok, except Mana Crypt, until the new rules). > > - Jason Bell They aren't that great of Vampires, Lena has a decent flaw for a pre weenie, and Dan has aus/obf, a combo that you are looking for, sure. But an uncommonly needed one (and one that is available in other places like the Seeker of Aknaten[sp]). I'd suggest rounding out your crypt with obf weenies (lots of them about) and adding AUS masters, because you want supperior AUS anyway. Cameron

> As usual, I'll point out that the original set was released in 1994, and > it's now 2001. Quite a number of the errata'd cards have been reprinted in > current sets,... and now a Camarilla set has been announced. Has it been? Where?? I've only heard WW saying they're considering one, never seen an announcement. Roger

[ quoted text not captured ] Check http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B869DD1...@white-wolf.com... > Roger Carhult wrote: > > > > > As usual, I'll point out that the original set was released in 1994, and > > > it's now 2001. Quite a number of the errata'd cards have been reprinted > > in > > > current sets,... and now a Camarilla set has been announced. > > > > Has it been? Where?? I've only heard WW saying they're considering one, > > never seen an announcement. > > Check http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Ops, I went to check for the pressreleases but missed reading the text in front of my nose =)

> "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >> , Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >>>>> This is true, if one's play group can be included in deck >>>>> construction resources, but I believe my point still holds. >>>> >>>> Actually, Pat refuted it, >>> >>> No, he didn't. He posted stinky bait. I'd say I did both, actually. Rereading your message, I see that I latched on to your (poor) example you used to "prove" your point, which basically said "Because I can't build a 10-Disarm or 20-Freak Drive deck or the like, I'm at a competitive disadvantage (as is most everyone else in my position, a clear majority of players)." This may have not specifically been your point, or may have been. However, either way, it's a ridiculous assumption. You can own exactly zero Freak Drives and zero Disarms, and still win tournaments, da? >> How is pointing out (pretty much accurately) that in Jyhad, the ability >> to access older sets is much less important since the basic necessary >> cards have been kept in play from which many successful decks can be >> made, "stinky bait"? > > If that's what he had said, it might not have been. I don't think I said that, either. I wasn't referring specifically to sets, but the general idea is...well, I just repeated it, up a paragraph. > Unfortunately, that's not what he said, so it was. Well, that leaves an awfully large set of "things I could have said" that wasn't "what James was saying" without specifically being "stinky bait." (God is love, Love is blind, Ray Charles is God...) > My point has been from the beginning that a Jyhad player with more > than 4 of every card ever printed can make a marginally better deck > than one who has only 4 of each, while this is not true of a Magic > player. For this reason, among others, Jyhad is more dependent on > "cardstock" (term from originating post) than Magic. This gets into the nCL arguments, which, as has been proved, all threads on this newsgroup degenerate into. However, with the exception of groups that slapped on a 4CL house rule and then traded, (and I'm not saying they're a minority or a majority; I haven't any clue, and this newsgroup would be a terribly inaccurate cross-section of the VTES-playing population) VTES players don't HAVE "4 of every card." Since there IS a rarity distribution, a guy who has 4 Ivory Bows has LOTS and LOTS of say, Majesty. I guess I just don't see the "point" to "your point." > I am bemused that there are folks on this board so hostile to > M*gic that they would flame at the very idea that M*gic may > have any sort of advantage over Jyhad in any comparative > aspect of the games. $60 will buy you two boxes of Jyhad/VTES, from which you can make a tournament competitive deck (alternately, you can raid the "free commons!" pile in playgroups with at least one Mr. Suitcase). It may not be the most original thing you've ever seen, but it can be effective. Can you plunk down $60 on Magic cards and be able to build a tournament-quality deck? <-- Serious question, not rhetorical; I don't play Magic, so I only have rumor and legend to go by. If not, how is VTES more "dependent" on cardstock? -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > >> > I would like to invite you check the tread, to determine whether > >> > that is in any way related to the discussion. > >> > >> It is, as a logical extension of it. Hold that thought. > > > > I can't. Most of what follows is tangential to my basic argument, > > that Magic's 4 card limit makes the best deck you can conceive > > closer to your grasp than the best Jyhad deck you can conceive. > > (shrug) That's a given, though. My logical extension is demonstrating > that your point, while valid, is just not as game-breaking as you think it > is, nor is it a terribly high barrier to entry to the tournament game for a > new player. <exhale> I never brought game-breaking into it. I was merely trying to contradict the long-past statement about cardstock barriers between the games. Everything that has followed has been a running discussion tangential and double tangential to that point. I once had half a dozen Magic decks built with nothing besides toss-away commons, for play against those of my friends who enjoyed the game, but weren't tournament-level players. Maybe I'll do the same for this game, if it ever has such a following that I can so differentiate between those I play against. > > Most of what you wrote hereafter merely > > soft-pedals my point with tangential issues. I remain > > Not as tangential as you believe. Heh. You sound like some cheap horror radio show host, and I mean that in the most sentimental way, not to be insulting. > > amazed that the above point caused anything but nods > > and shrugs, a tradeoff of doing business in Jyhad's more > > varied and interesting deck construction environment. > > Everything you said after the comma nails it right on the head; if you want > a more varied and interesting environment, remove the limitations. A 4CL > is an ENORMOUS limitation and brake on creativity. I'm not sure about this, and I really doubt it in the case of Magic. A game that ends on turn 1, before the opponent is allowed a turn, is probably a more limited environment than one where there is a 4 card limit. Consider what Jyhad would be if the NRA limitation were removed. > > Oh, I think you'll find Jyhad has its own bolt-ons. And so many > > Yeah, and look what happens to Jyhad when you give it a 4CL bolt-on. Same > thing as Magic. Objection, speculative. > > text changes to cards, it's an embarassment to explain to new > > players, or worse, old players who I cajole into playing again. > > "Yeah, sometimes the texts on the cards break the rules, well > > except for that card, where the rules have changed the text > > on the card to something else. Uh, that one too." > > As usual, I'll point out that the original set was released in 1994, and > it's now 2001. Quite a number of the errata'd cards have been reprinted in > current sets,... and now a Camarilla set has been announced. > > This isn't Magic, which had support from WotC constantly releasing > expansions. Errata was the only possible fix to cards for a long time I'd prefer errata to the murky waters of text changes (gads, did I just sound like Hahn Solo?), particularly considering how abyssmal WW's online support has been in tracking cards with text changes (commonly called "defective game pieces" in the non-TCG industry). > > And it is much easier in Magic to reason out the rules, which > > in many cases just can't be done for Jyhad. > > "Ok, adding stealth to an action with a combat card counts > > as an action modifier, but untapping the vampire with a > > combat card doesn't, even though untapping a vampire > > with an action modifier does, got it. Well, I sort of got it, what > > I got is that I have to ask every time." > > You could also just look at the little symbols on the cards; both Majesty > and Earth Meld have only a "combat" symbol, and Cat's Guidance has only a > "reaction" symbol, and Change of Target only has an "action modifier" > symbol. If Form of Mist had an "action modifier" symbol, it would be a lot > easier to explain to people. Be very careful here. There is no reason why Form of Mist should have an additional Action Modifier symbol to conform to other Action Modifiers (Cloak the Gathering or whatever), while Majesty should not (though it also reproduces an Action Modifier effect, that of Freak Drive). Hey, as long as we're talking about little symbols, why are the discipline symbols on the vampires so darned small? They're the most important thing (unless the special ability is way cool). Discipline symbols should absolutely overwhelm the bottom right quadrant of the card, overlaying the picture of the vampire, which is merely fluff compared to the mechanics of the game. Ask yourself, how many times have you done a double-take on a vampire, realizing too late that it had superior of whatever discipline just screwed you over? Those symbols are tiny, too tiny. > What you are describing is ALSO not the normal flow of events, by the way. > Attempting to hold up Form of Mist (the one card in the ENTIRE set that > adds stealth DURING combat) as an example of how ALL the rules in Jyhad are > terminally complicated is very, very bad. Form of Mist inherently produces > more complications than other cards, and you can very easily say to your > new players "This is the only card in the set that does this." I couldn't disagree with this more. The rationale behind Form of Mist is that it modifies the action, therefore it is an action modifier. Shouldn't other combat cards that modify the action be considered action modifiers? Why not? You'll find that the answer is not due to basic rules mechanics, but due to the fact that rules exist at the pleasure of one person. It is therefore impossible to understand the rules without consulting that one person. That's why I'm here. Not so with Magic. Or at least less so. > > While you have your bugaboo with wanting the AUS, I really despise > > repeating vampires in my crypt. The deck conception was weenie > > disguised weapon, I did end up including Victoria and Dancin' Dana, > > but it was not what I wanted the deck to be. > > Jason, nobody can help you if you absolutely MUST have perfection every > time. This is just the sort of statement that will tend to make me disregard everything that is said afterwards. So I will. - Jason Bell

"Cameron" <orcao...@hotmail.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] I don't really want AUS, I just wanted to surprise some people with an intercept block, equip with something ugly and hit them with it. I did round out the crypt with obf only (Basil, Normal, Dimple), but 2 more aus/obf would have made the deck just so. And to have them out there taunting me, it is just too much to bear. - Jason Bell

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > $60 will buy you two boxes of Jyhad/VTES, from which you can make a > tournament competitive deck (alternately, you can raid the "free commons!" > pile in playgroups with at least one Mr. Suitcase). It may not be the most > original thing you've ever seen, but it can be effective. > Can you plunk down $60 on Magic cards and be able to build a > tournament-quality deck? <-- Serious question, not rhetorical; I don't play > Magic, so I only have rumor and legend to go by. > If not, how is VTES more "dependent" on cardstock? Sorry, pal, it still stinks and I can still see the hook. Try again, or don't. - Jason Bell

> But in response to your suggestion, what I will say is that a player with > the former resources will have an advantage over the latter, all other > things equal. The advantage is illusionary though, because it is in deck diversity, not playability/winningness. For example: Kevin Mergen and myself are both good players (IMHO if you disagree feel free to tell me why), Kevin has more cards than me (by a large margin), I oust Kevin as frequently as he ousts me. (I have no records to back that up, but neither of us dominates the other in gameplay.) What Kevin can do, that I can't, is play a good Tzimitze Deck, or a Good Crypt Machine Deck. It doesn't mean that I can't play intercept, and be successful, or play bleed, and be sucessful. I can, and am, but not with the rare intensive decks (I could play crypt machine, but without Command of the Beast I don't bother.) But that doesn't matter, because I have all the Goven the Unalinged I need. > I am bemused that there are folks on this board so hostile to > M*gic that they would flame at the very idea that M*gic may > have any sort of advantage over Jyhad in any comparative > aspect of the games. What aspect is that? Magic is a good game. I enjoyed playing it pre-Fallen Empires. It was interesting, strategy based, and definatly has a better one on one aspect than Jyhad. But I quit because I couldn't afford to *buy* cards anymore to get the 4 of each good rare needed to compete. OTOH, I had tons of Scribe Sprites, but could only ever use 4 of them. Cameron

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:nCKh7.168756$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote >> $60 will buy you two boxes of Jyhad/VTES, from which you can make >> a tournament competitive deck (alternately, you can raid the "free [...] >> Can you plunk down $60 on Magic cards and be able to build a >> tournament-quality deck? <-- Serious question, not rhetorical; I >> don't play Magic, so I only have rumor and legend to go by. >> If not, how is VTES more "dependent" on cardstock? > > Sorry, pal, it still stinks and I can still see the hook. Just because you don't have a good answer doesn't mean it's a troll, Jason. It just means it's a question you don't have a good answer for.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:dqKh7.168700$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> (shrug) That's a given, though. My logical extension is >> demonstrating that your point, while valid, is just not as >> game-breaking as you think it is, nor is it a terribly high barrier >> to entry to the tournament game for a new player. > > <exhale> I never brought game-breaking into it. I was merely trying If it's not a game-breaker, then why does it matter? EVERYTHING HAS PROBLEMS, JASON. NOTHING IS PERFECT. Welcome to life on this planet. All any of us can do is fix the big fuckups, and ignore/deal with the little ones. > Heh. You sound like some cheap horror radio show host, > and I mean that in the most sentimental way, not to > be insulting. I doubt I'd be insulted even if you had, oddly enough. Want to hear a few bars of "The Cockroach that Ate Cincinnati?" >> Everything you said after the comma nails it right on the head; if >> you want a more varied and interesting environment, remove the >> limitations. A 4CL is an ENORMOUS limitation and brake on creativity. > > I'm not sure about this, and I really doubt it in the case of Magic. > A game that ends on turn 1, before the opponent is allowed a turn, > is probably a more limited environment than one where there is a > 4 card limit. Not as far as deck construction is concerned. And if you're careful, you can make sure that no X-or-anti-X situations are created (cf. RTI and Necropotence), which are the REAL limitations on deck-choice creativity. > Consider what Jyhad would be if the NRA limitation were removed. Um, we've actually already seen it before the NRA limitations; the Sensible Player's Tournament Rules were what developed into the Golden Tenets and then the VEKN standards. The NRA's effect on creativity, however, is not under discussion; the 4CL's effect was. It is mathematically obvious that the number of unique decks you can create under a 4CL is exponentially less than the number you can create under NCL. The rest logically follows. >> This isn't Magic, which had support from WotC constantly releasing >> expansions. Errata was the only possible fix to cards for a long >> time > > I'd prefer errata to the murky waters of text changes (gads, did I All the WotC expansions are out of print. When they're gone, they're GONE. Once the Camarilla set is released, it will no longer be necessary to point people to old V:TES or Jyhad boxes; they can buy the new set and have everything up-to-date on cards in front of them, and I will freely admit to them that while it'll be slightly more expensive, it will save them much hair-tearing while learning the game. Errata is NEVER a preferable option to having a physical card that you can show somebody. I have considered putting current correct-text cards in sleeves and bringing them with me to tourneys before, so that when playing an older version of the card (WWEF is an excellent example), you can SHOW the person a card with the current text for them to refer to, without having to have a deckful of the new cards. > just sound like Hahn Solo?), particularly considering how abyssmal > WW's online support has been in tracking cards with text changes > (commonly called "defective game pieces" in the non-TCG industry). Fortunately, this troll isn't relevant, as this IS the TCG industry. >> You could also just look at the little symbols on the cards; both >> Majesty and Earth Meld have only a "combat" symbol, and Cat's >> Guidance has only a "reaction" symbol, and Change of Target only has >> an "action modifier" symbol. If Form of Mist had an "action >> modifier" symbol, it would be a lot easier to explain to people. > > Be very careful here. There is no reason why Form of Mist should > have an additional Action Modifier symbol to conform to other > Action Modifiers (Cloak the Gathering or whatever), while Majesty > should not (though it also reproduces an Action Modifier effect, > that of Freak Drive). Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifier effect, though; look at Precognizant Mobility, (an action card), Cat's Guidance (a reaction), Alexandra (a vampire), and ALSO refer to all the action cards reading "tap a vampire". Untapping a vampire is also not inherently confusing; it can be represented concisely, clearly and completely by three words: "untap this vampire". There is PLENTY of reason for Form of Mist to have an AM symbol, however; its superior modifies the action in a clear way (+1 stealth), and then the action continues, meaning there is still an action to be modified. Generally, the occurrence of combat signals the conclusion of an action, although Cat's Guidance and Freak Drive both. For reference, Mirror Image (almost the same effect) has an AM symbol on it, and I don't have a Sabbat War version of Shadow Body to check that (was it even reprinted?). > Hey, as long as we're talking about little symbols, why are the > discipline symbols on the vampires so darned small? They're the most You should ask this of whoever does the layout and/or graphic design. > I couldn't disagree with this more. The rationale behind Form of Mist > is that it modifies the action, therefore it is an action modifier. > Shouldn't other combat cards that modify the action be considered > action modifiers? Why not? You'll find that the answer is not due So tell me, what other combat cards modify an action? >> Jason, nobody can help you if you absolutely MUST have perfection >> every time. > > This is just the sort of statement that will tend to make me disregard > everything that is said afterwards. Perfectionism is great, but I refer you to my initial sentence in this post; nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. If you insist upon remaining inside the box, then that's fine; stay there all you like.

In message <G%oh7.170628$J37.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >But in response to your suggestion, what I will say is that a player with >the former resources will have an advantage over the latter, all other >things equal. In that they might be able to "surprise" someone by having 10 playable different decks, perhaps. The new player, with merely, say, two starters and half a dozen boosters has fewer decks to "surprise" someone with, of course. Once a player has been introduced to the game, however, there is a point of "critical mass", or somesuch, whereby they get sufficient cards to build several different decks, some focused, some general, some cross- over and so on. I'd guess at somewhere round 500 cards from my own experiences many years ago, perhaps buying four or five pre-cons and a few boosters, these days. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9Qph7.170630$J37.42...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I can't. Most of what follows is tangential to my basic argument, >that Magic's 4 card limit makes the best deck you can conceive >closer to your grasp than the best Jyhad deck you can conceive. This would work with a number of assumptions: - the "best Jyhad deck you can conceive" would need more than four of any given card (quite possible, indeed likely) - the rarity distributions would be approximately similar (possible, but IMHO unlikely - a lot more rares seem to drive Magic than V:TES) - you continue expanding a card pool, collecting the BJDYCC along the way, rather than continually trading for it (likely in the case of a Mr Suitcase; however, Mr Handbag is quite at liberty to design the best deck theoretically, from borrowed cards, on-line (JOL), using proxies etc. and then buy singles/trade aggressively for it, keeping their overall outlay low and card pool small - combined with V:TES' relatively cheap cost, this would make the BJDYCC, say, thirty dollars, compared to a hundred for Magic, taking random numbers) - that you don't share your cards (whilst this equally applies to Magic, my experiences tend to suggest that a number of Magic players are "hoarders", less likely to share cards) - that the best Jyhad deck *for you* relies on totally specific cards (in Magic, the BDYCC can only function with cards; Jyhad's social element provides another layer of BDYCC) Not that this undermines the point - it's just a case of it helping to take the whole context into account. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <nCKh7.168756$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Sorry, pal, it still stinks and I can still see the hook. If you believe it is "stinky bait" or a troll or somesuch, please define what about it makes it that such that it doesn't look like you're simply evading a question. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote > >> $60 will buy you two boxes of Jyhad/VTES, from which you can make > >> a tournament competitive deck (alternately, you can raid the "free > [...] > >> Can you plunk down $60 on Magic cards and be able to build a > >> tournament-quality deck? <-- Serious question, not rhetorical; I > >> don't play Magic, so I only have rumor and legend to go by. > >> If not, how is VTES more "dependent" on cardstock? > > > > Sorry, pal, it still stinks and I can still see the hook. > > Just because you don't have a good answer doesn't mean it's a troll, Jason. > It just means it's a question you don't have a good answer for. Nope, it means that he attempts to challenge the answer to a question to which I never responded, and (especially in the original troll) was insulting in that challenge. Track the thread, you will understand why this fish will not bite into that particular hook. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> (shrug) That's a given, though. My logical extension is > >> demonstrating that your point, while valid, is just not as > >> game-breaking as you think it is, nor is it a terribly high barrier > >> to entry to the tournament game for a new player. > > > > <exhale> I never brought game-breaking into it. I was merely trying > > If it's not a game-breaker, then why does it matter? EVERYTHING HAS > PROBLEMS, JASON. NOTHING IS PERFECT. Welcome to life on this planet. All > any of us can do is fix the big f*ckups, and ignore/deal with the little > ones. Shouting and cursing are important for some reason, I just can't fathom it. I never claimed that it was particularly important, I just tried to correct a statement with which I disagreed (that Magic depends more upon "cardstock" than Jyhad), then Pat flame/trolled and it became this hullaballoo. Track the thread, all will become clear. > > I'm not sure about this, and I really doubt it in the case of Magic. > > A game that ends on turn 1, before the opponent is allowed a turn, > > is probably a more limited environment than one where there is a > > 4 card limit. > > Not as far as deck construction is concerned. And if you're careful, you > can make sure that no X-or-anti-X situations are created (cf. RTI and > Necropotence), which are the REAL limitations on deck-choice creativity. Um, I don't know what RTI is, but if you think this is about Necropotence, you're about 6 years or more after the real problem decks (Black Lotus, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall as the only 3 cards in a 40 or 60 card deck). > > Consider what Jyhad would be if the NRA limitation were removed. > > Um, we've actually already seen it before the NRA limitations; the Sensible > Player's Tournament Rules were what developed into the Golden Tenets and > then the VEKN standards. Right, now track this thread, Re: NRA as a tack-on for Jyhad like 4cl was a tack-on for Magic. > The NRA's effect on creativity, however, is not under discussion; the 4CL's > effect was. It is mathematically obvious that the number of unique decks > you can create under a 4CL is exponentially less than the number you can > create under NCL. The rest logically follows. Hmm, no it does not logically follow. Without NRA, certain decks are advantaged (anything with untap effects, especially Freak Drive), with no 4cl, certain decks are advantaged. The fact that certain decks are advantaged limits the competitive environment to decks with those characteristics. > > Be very careful here. There is no reason why Form of Mist should > > have an additional Action Modifier symbol to conform to other > > Action Modifiers (Cloak the Gathering or whatever), while Majesty > > should not (though it also reproduces an Action Modifier effect, > > that of Freak Drive). > > Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifier effect, though; look at > Precognizant Mobility, (an action card), Cat's Guidance (a reaction), > Alexandra (a vampire), and ALSO refer to all the action cards reading "tap > a vampire". Untapping a vampire is also not inherently confusing; it can > be represented concisely, clearly and completely by three words: "untap > this vampire". How exciting. None of this explains why the wall between combat cards and action modifiers should be breached for Form of Mist, but not for Majesty or Earth Meld. I also believe that (given the FoM ruling) Majesty at superior should be non-repeatable for the blocking minion. As for the rest of your work, other actions and vampires also involve bleeding or acting with bonuses but don't preclude further bleed or stealth modifiers. > > Hey, as long as we're talking about little symbols, why are the > > discipline symbols on the vampires so darned small? They're the most > > You should ask this of whoever does the layout and/or graphic design. I think I did. You answered, though. > > I couldn't disagree with this more. The rationale behind Form of Mist > > is that it modifies the action, therefore it is an action modifier. > > Shouldn't other combat cards that modify the action be considered > > action modifiers? Why not? You'll find that the answer is not due > > So tell me, what other combat cards modify an action? Earth Meld and Majesty, to name but two (unless you believe for some reason that Freak Drive is not an action modifier). > >> Jason, nobody can help you if you absolutely MUST have perfection > >> every time. > > > > This is just the sort of statement that will tend to make me disregard > > everything that is said afterwards. > > Perfectionism is great, but I refer you to my initial sentence in this > post; nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. If you insist upon > remaining inside the box, then that's fine; stay there all you like. Terrible assumption, I would have again disregarded everything hereafter, had there been anything. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >Sorry, pal, it still stinks and I can still see the hook. > > If you believe it is "stinky bait" or a troll or somesuch, please define > what about it makes it that such that it doesn't look like you're simply > evading a question. Sure, it involves simultaneously the assumption that I had addressed or expressed an opinion about a question to which I did not, and being insulting to me about the assumed answer the troll assumes that I would have had to that question. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifier effect, though; look at > > Precognizant Mobility, (an action card), Cat's Guidance (a reaction), > > Alexandra (a vampire), and ALSO refer to all the action cards reading "tap > > a vampire". Untapping a vampire is also not inherently confusing; it can > > be represented concisely, clearly and completely by three words: "untap > > this vampire". > > How exciting. None of this explains why the wall between combat cards > and action modifiers should be breached for Form of Mist, but not for > Majesty or Earth Meld. "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" Form of Mist modifies the action - it adds stealth to the action. Majesty does not. Earth Meld does not. > I also believe that (given the FoM ruling) Majesty > at superior should be non-repeatable for the blocking minion. How is Majesty related to the FoM "ruling"? It does not modify the action. > As for the rest of your work, other actions and vampires also involve > bleeding or acting with bonuses but don't preclude further bleed or stealth > modifiers. *different* bleed or stealth modifiers. The rule on action modifiers prohibits using the *same* one again (by the same minion). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <401i7.180044$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Nope, it means that he attempts to challenge the answer to a question >to which I never responded, And this makes it "stinky bait" how? People can explore different view-points and ideas to the ones you directly address. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <6u1i7.180353$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> If you believe it is "stinky bait" or a troll or somesuch, please define >> what about it makes it that such that it doesn't look like you're simply >> evading a question. > >Sure, it involves simultaneously the assumption that I had addressed >or expressed an opinion about a question to which I did not, Have you ever encountered the fact that threads drift on Usenet? You make point 1. Responder veers off slightly from point 1, and asks what your thought are on point 2. Point 2 is not point 1. This does not make point 2 "stinky bait". > and >being insulting to me about the assumed answer the troll assumes >that I would have had to that question. That it was carefully phrased with "This is a serious question" type markers would suggest otherwise. YMMV. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Aug 2001 22:49:51 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >The NRA's effect on creativity, however, is not under discussion; the 4CL's >effect was. It is mathematically obvious that the number of unique decks >you can create under a 4CL is exponentially less than the number you can >create under NCL. The rest logically follows. If the game had a 4CL then it wouldn't need the 90 CL. Comparing the theoretical number of decks possible in each case is not easy as the numbers are so huge. It's academic as most of these decks would be unplayable. The folk who play with a card limit commonly do so to promote more variety in their games. I can see their point. If you've seen one NCL presence weenie deck, you've seen them all, right? Andrew

In message <6007310180D37E73.A27EC19F...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >If the game had a 4CL then it wouldn't need the 90 CL. If you're referring to the deck limit as 90CL, the one does not necessarily follow from the other. Some decks sift through cards at an alarming rate. >The folk who play with a card limit commonly do so to promote more >variety in their games. I can see their point. The point, which needs to be carefully delineated, is very unsteady when presented solely as variety. The number of different decks and deck strategies available also contributes to "variety". xCL attempts to stop one trick pony style decks. (It fails because of the Stealth and Bleed archetype, where multiples of most of the important cards can be found.) xCL also stifles variety by making it impossible to see an effective Corruption deck (*slightly* more possible with Venenation and Nefertiti, but still difficult to focus a deck around), or a Betrayer deck or many other decks which rely around specific cards which *don't* have close replacements available. DISCLAIMER: SIMILAR ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE THE OTHER WAY ROUND. >If you've seen one >NCL presence weenie deck, you've seen them all, right? Not really. The beauty of NL is that you can build the deck *you* want. You're not stopped by arbitrary deck construction limits, other than a 90 maximum/60 minimum (which rarely can be said to stifle creativity), and so can tweak and alter the deck as much as you like. Are you packing Marijava Ghouls and Charisma? Will you be going for Legal Manipulations or Social Charm? How about Aire of Elation? Playing with a few Setites to drop the odd Obfuscate card in? People who find a straight-forward deck such as that boring aren't required to play them. It appears that one common misconception is that you *have* to play focused decks (a la a PDB6 rush deck) to compete under NL, which simply isn't true. A toolboxed and, therefore, closer to xCL deck is perfectly competitive. If you don't like people playing boring straightforward decks, they happen under xCL too. A weenie presence deck, of the sort you mention, can be constructed under xCL. 4 Majesty, 4 Staredown, 4 Catatonic Fear. 4 Legal Manipulations. 4 Social Charm. 4 Aire of Elation. 4 Presence. 4 Misdirection. 4 Blood Doll. 4 Propaganda. 4 Intimidation. 4 Media Influence. 4 Entrancement. 4 Enchant Kindred. 4 Mind Numb. An NL deck can be far, far more deviously constructed, requiring far more thought and planning. Do I put in 4 Intimidation and 4 Propaganda. or is 6 and 2 more appropriate? Or 8 and 0? You don't have those issues under NL anywhere near as much. Regardless of any of xCL's other merits or flaws, assertions that it promotes "variety" without *extremely* heavy qualification and examination are mostly misguided. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:tq1i7.180312$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> If it's not a game-breaker, then why does it matter? EVERYTHING HAS >> PROBLEMS, JASON. NOTHING IS PERFECT. Welcome to life on this >> planet. All any of us can do is fix the big f*ckups, and ignore/deal >> with the little ones. > > Shouting and cursing are important for some reason, I just can't > fathom it. Why does the word "fuck" bother you so much? I capitalize to draw your attention to certain words/phrases. It's called emphasis. It indicates what you should be responding to. > I never claimed that it was particularly important, I just tried > to correct a statement with which I disagreed (that Magic depends > more upon "cardstock" than Jyhad), then Pat flame/trolled and > it became this hullaballoo. Unfortunately for you, you haven't answered Pat's question, which I will now restate: How much does it cost to make a "tier 1" deck in Magic? It costs about $60 to make one in V:TES. It may not be the EXACT one you want, but how easy is it, REALLY, to obtain 4 of every card in Magic? >> Not as far as deck construction is concerned. And if you're careful, >> you can make sure that no X-or-anti-X situations are created (cf. RTI >> and Necropotence), which are the REAL limitations on deck-choice >> creativity. > > Um, I don't know what RTI is, but if you think this is about > Necropotence, you're about 6 years or more after the real problem > decks (Black Lotus, Timetwister, and Ancestral Recall as the only 3 > cards in a 40 or 60 card deck). "Return to Innocence". I merely cited Necropotence as a situation where, as I understand it, one either played Necropotence, a Necro-hoser, or got blasted out of the water. I'm sure there were others; I remember the name Black Lotus, although I refused to play Magic at the time (and still do, really). Talk about shamelessly submitting to wallet-hoovering... sheesh. >> The NRA's effect on creativity, however, is not under discussion; the >> 4CL's effect was. It is mathematically obvious that the number of >> unique decks you can create under a 4CL is exponentially less than >> the number you can create under NCL. The rest logically follows. > > Hmm, no it does not logically follow. Without NRA, certain decks are Note that I am referring to NCL, not NRA. NRA has a minimal effect on creativity, and in fact encourages creativity by eliminating "I bleed you 10+ times in one turn" decks, which then must be responded to (the old X or anti-X situation). > advantaged (anything with untap effects, especially Freak Drive), > with no 4cl, certain decks are advantaged. The fact that certain > decks are advantaged limits the competitive environment to decks with > those characteristics. With NCL, -many- decks are advantaged. With 4CL, stealth/bleed is advantaged, and any other deck you build MUST contain counters to stealth/bleed... but because of the 4CL, the counters are significantly fewer (read: almost none), which sharply reduces creativity. It logically follows, Jason, trust us. We've gone over this before. >> Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifier effect, though; look at >> Precognizant Mobility, (an action card), Cat's Guidance (a reaction), >> Alexandra (a vampire), and ALSO refer to all the action cards reading >> "tap a vampire". Untapping a vampire is also not inherently >> confusing; it can be represented concisely, clearly and completely by >> three words: "untap this vampire". > > How exciting. None of this explains why the wall between combat cards > and action modifiers should be breached for Form of Mist, but not for > Majesty or Earth Meld. I also believe that (given the FoM ruling) Untapping a vampire is not modifying the action. The action is the same whether or not the vampire is untapped. The only support you give for your belief is Freak Drive. I quoted you an action card, a reaction card, and a vampire which also perform the "untap a vampire" effects, totally REMOVING your support for your argument (as otherwise I could claim that Freak Drive is also an action card). You are now in baseless-assertion mode; please provide additional supports for your belief that untapping a vampire is modifying the action, or concede. > Majesty at superior should be non-repeatable for the blocking minion. Uh... why would you ever play Majesty at superior twice on the same action? You block, you play Majesty, you untap, someone plays Psyche!, you play Majesty at inferior because you're already untapped...? Wait! I've got it. You tap to block an action, the acting minion plays Form of Mist, you play Majesty superior. You now generate intercept and block again, thereby tapping AGAIN and providing yourself the opportunity to play Majesty at superior (effectively) TWICE! Wow. Holy shit, that's so extremely corner-case, I'm absolutely amazed. I've also never seen it happen, and I doubt I ever will. > As for the rest of your work, other actions and vampires also involve > bleeding or acting with bonuses but don't preclude further bleed or > stealth modifiers. Card text on all bleed modifiers is what precludes further bleed modifiers from being played. And vampires like Lucretia are subject to the rules on stealth; she cannot play Lost in Crowds until someone comes up with +1 intercept to stop her special. Nothing here fails to support my point. >> So tell me, what other combat cards modify an action? > > Earth Meld and Majesty, to name but two (unless you believe for > some reason that Freak Drive is not an action modifier). Better name some others, I've already blasted your "untap a vampire" argument out of the water. >> Perfectionism is great, but I refer you to my initial sentence in >> this post; nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. If you >> insist upon remaining inside the box, then that's fine; stay there >> all you like. > > Terrible assumption, I would have again disregarded everything > hereafter, had there been anything. Jason, arguments don't become invalid simply because you put your head in the sand, or because you stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING TO PATRICK". This sort of thing is the response of a five-year old.

<snip> > Not really. The beauty of NL is that you can build the deck *you* want. > You're not stopped by arbitrary deck construction limits, other than a > 90 maximum/60 minimum (which rarely can be said to stifle creativity), > and so can tweak and alter the deck as much as you like. Are you > packing Marijava Ghouls and Charisma? Why would a Marijava Ghoul and Charisma be a combo? It seems to me that many people are mistaken Charisma for making retainers cost 1 less as well as allies, which is wrong. If you meant Marijava Ghoul/Summoning/Charisma combo to recruit allies at en extra stealth you should have called it as that. I have yet to see a presence weenie deck going for tons of allies though (but it could make for an interesting deck!) :) Will you be going for Legal > Manipulations or Social Charm? How about Aire of Elation? Playing with > a few Setites to drop the odd Obfuscate card in? Roger

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:6007310180D37E73.A27EC19F...@lp.airnews.net: > If the game had a 4CL then it wouldn't need the 90 CL. Comparing the > theoretical number of decks possible in each case is not easy as the > numbers are so huge. It's academic as most of these decks would be > unplayable. It doesn't really need the 90CL anyway, as far as I'm concerned. Someone wants to bring their 180-card deck to a tournament, go for it... we'll get a REAL demonstration of "variance", as well as "what happens when your two Barrens, two Fraggies, and two Dreams get shuffled into the bottom 90 cards". > The folk who play with a card limit commonly do so to promote more > variety in their games. I can see their point. If you've seen one > NCL presence weenie deck, you've seen them all, right? Pretty much. Unfortunately, I can also show you a 4CL presence weenie deck that ends up being more powerful due to the lack of effective defenses against it. 4CL doesn't promote variety; the social pressure in their groups promotes the variety, and 4CL is what they mistakenly hold up as the "cause", rather than realizing that it's actually just social pressure.

In message <9mb5m1$1abir$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >Why would a Marijava Ghoul and Charisma be a combo? Sorry, my mistake. I have Charisma on the brain at the moment for various uninteresting reasons. That notwithstanding, however, there are many more and more subtle choices to be made. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: NLAg7.155077$J37.38...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > "Andy Brown" <a...@sanger.ac.uk> wrote > > > People are > > also limited by their cardstock, but less so than Magic, and more > > inventive ways of using the cards (new deck ideas) should be the way > > forward. > > Disagree. Magic's 4 card limit helped level the playing field > for those competitors who didn't have an unlimited supply > of cards. As did the Type I / Type II distinctions, but in > a perverse way (those who had a lot of old cards suffered, > those who could afford to constantly accumulate new cards > were advantaged, that's what you get when you let WotC > control the DCI). > disagree the 4 card limit was about making magic playable. before you had 3-4 cards combo decks that would win on turn one. i think you can愒 compare magic with jyhad: 1) magic is single players while jyhad is multiplayer 2) magic is about what deck you play, jyhad is about how you play your deck. 3) magic has ~10000 different cards while jyhad has ~1000 (just guesses never counted them) 4) in magic rare means better ; in jyhad rare means powerful in special combos. (i know there are exceptions like freak drive but freak drive was dealt with the NRA rule) 5)in magic 2-3 deck types can win tourneys, in jyhad almost every clan can win a tourney. 6) in magic 80% of the games are decided even before the first card is drawn, in jyhad a lot of games are decided with the last action played Jyhad decks don愒 need rares to be competitive so NCL doesn愒 pose a big problem, in addition WW released two sets a year while wotc releases 3-4. > Jyhad, with its no card limit, no excluded sets tournamnet > environment gives a distinct advantage to those players with > a substantial collection, as they have more deck-construction > resources available than other players (I own a lot of cards, but > I can't come close to making a 10 Disarm weenie potence > deck, or a Super Freak Drive deck). > are these the only tourney level decks you can come up with? and if you need freal drives try the succubus club and trade some in. > I'm not in any way advocating card limits or set exclusion > in V:teS, but I do insist that the lack of those characteristics > in constructed tournament rules enhances the advantages of > players who own more cards. > i have seen players with almost only commons in there decks win tourneys and i have seen players with 10 freak drives in there deck make no VP愀 at all. Jyhad is not about money it is about creativity (although money helps). AT > - Jason Bell > > >

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > How exciting. None of this explains why the wall between combat cards > > and action modifiers should be breached for Form of Mist, but not for > > Majesty or Earth Meld. > > "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" This is your ruling, so it is true, but I don't understand why this is true. Because Freak Drive exists and is an action modifier, it seems that untapping a vampire must be an action modifying effect. I suppose I'm doomed to be bothered by this rule, but I still love the game. > > As for the rest of your work, other actions and vampires also involve > > bleeding or acting with bonuses but don't preclude further bleed or stealth > > modifiers. > > *different* bleed or stealth modifiers. The rule on action modifiers prohibits > using the *same* one again (by the same minion). You snipped too much, I was responding to the argument that used the existence of vampire powers and action cards that untapped as proof that untapping was not an action modifying effect, though stealth and bleed are. That can't be support for the argument, because vampires, actions, and reactions also have stealth and bleed effects. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > Untapping a vampire is not modifying the action. The action is the same > whether or not the vampire is untapped. The only support you give for your > belief is Freak Drive. I quoted you an action card, a reaction card, and a > vampire which also perform the "untap a vampire" effects, totally REMOVING > your support for your argument (as otherwise I could claim that Freak Drive > is also an action card). You are now in baseless-assertion mode; please > provide additional supports for your belief that untapping a vampire is > modifying the action, or concede. Just because you're pleased with your argument does not make it valid or true. After you're done "totally REMOVING" my support that untapping is an action modifying effect by providing non-AM cards that do the same thing, consider what your position does to the idea of FoM being an action modifier. First, it is a combat card. Second, I am able to chat you up with an enormous list of action cards, reaction cards, and vampires which add or remove stealth. Third, what I do know is that Majesty and Earth Meld used by the acting vampire can only untap a vampire at the end of an action, so until you can "provide additional supports" that untapping at the end of an action and only at the end of an action doesn't modify the action (or act as a reaction card in the case of a blocking vampire), perhaps you should concede. > > Majesty at superior should be non-repeatable for the blocking minion. > > Wait! I've got it. You tap to block an action, the acting minion plays > Form of Mist, you play Majesty superior. You now generate intercept and > block again, thereby tapping AGAIN and providing yourself the opportunity > to play Majesty at superior (effectively) TWICE! Wow. Holy shit, that's > so extremely corner-case, I'm absolutely amazed. I've also never seen it > happen, and I doubt I ever will. I've seen it happen at least twice, it has a high potential of occurring because the 2nd tradition and Majesty are often seen together in decks, and the +2 intercept is often enough to cover both blocking attempts. The limiting factor is the dearth of vampires with superior Protean. > >> Perfectionism is great, but I refer you to my initial sentence in > >> this post; nothing is perfect, and nothing ever will be. If you > >> insist upon remaining inside the box, then that's fine; stay there > >> all you like. > > > > Terrible assumption, I would have again disregarded everything > > hereafter, had there been anything. > > Jason, arguments don't become invalid simply because you put your head in > the sand, or because you stick your fingers in your ears and shout > "LALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING TO PATRICK". What a laugh. Of course your argument/personal attack was invalid. You've never met me, and have only interacted with me using your internet-only alter-ego. How can your argument be valid if you cannot confirm whether the assumptions are true? Arguments dont become valid merely because you choose to believe your assumptions. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> If you believe it is "stinky bait" or a troll or somesuch, please define > >> what about it makes it that such that it doesn't look like you're simply > >> evading a question. > > > >Sure, it involves simultaneously the assumption that I had addressed > >or expressed an opinion about a question to which I did not, > > Have you ever encountered the fact that threads drift on Usenet? > > You make point 1. > Responder veers off slightly from point 1, and asks what your thought > are on point 2. > > Point 2 is not point 1. This does not make point 2 "stinky bait". If only this were somehow related to Pat's post. ***Begin Excerpt, Pat Riccochet wrote: > Jason Bell wrote: > I'm not in any way advocating card limits or set exclusion > in V:teS, (meaning: don't drown me in the continuation of the xCL/NCL wars, all of which I'm ignoring in this baseless assertion) ... > but I do insist (the baseless assertion part) ... Your conclusions don't remotely follow from your "evidence." (Why is everyone trying to scare off the new players before the month is out? Is some big tournament coming up or something?) ***End Excerpt > > and > >being insulting to me about the assumed answer the troll assumes > >that I would have had to that question. > > That it was carefully phrased with "This is a serious question" type > markers would suggest otherwise. > > YMMV. In this case, it certainly does. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Jason Bell wrote: > > > How exciting. None of this explains why the wall between combat cards > > > and action modifiers should be breached for Form of Mist, but not for > > > Majesty or Earth Meld. > > > > "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" > > This is your ruling, so it is true, but I don't understand why > this is true. Because Freak Drive exists and is an action modifier, > it seems that untapping a vampire must be an action modifying > effect. So Obedience is an action modifier? Freak drive costs a blood, so all things that cost a blood must be action modifiers, by that logic. Some effects modify the action (+1 stealth is the obvious example). Other effects are produced in many way (untapping, for instance, occurs in action modifier forms, reaction forms, combat forms, and action-card-in-play forms. > You snipped too much, I was responding to the argument that used the > existence of vampire powers and action cards that untapped as proof > that untapping was not an action modifying effect, though stealth and > bleed are. That can't be support for the argument, because vampires, > actions, and reactions also have stealth and bleed effects. Reaction cards are non-acting-Methuselah-minion's methods for modifying the action. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:8Wli7.185482$J37.46...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> Untapping a vampire is not modifying the action. The action is the >> same whether or not the vampire is untapped. The only support you >> give for your belief is Freak Drive. I quoted you an action card, a >> reaction card, and a vampire which also perform the "untap a vampire" >> effects, totally REMOVING your support for your argument (as >> otherwise I could claim that Freak Drive is also an action card). >> You are now in baseless-assertion mode; please provide additional >> supports for your belief that untapping a vampire is modifying the >> action, or concede. > > Just because you're pleased with your argument does not make it > valid or true. After you're done "totally REMOVING" my support Just because your cat has four legs doesn't mean he's a dog. Do you not see the logical fallacy you put yourself in here? Since the "untap a vampire" effect is provided by all of the below methods: a combat card a reaction card an action card an action modifier card a vampire card > that untapping is an action modifying effect by providing non-AM ...how, exactly, do you support selecting one and ONLY one of five different choices to declare that untapping is an action-modifying effect? This is my point. It would be equally as valid to declare that untapping was a reaction effect, and therefore Majesty superior should only be playable when blocking. Stealth is an action-modifying effect. The action which was at 0 stealth is now at +1 stealth. This changes the terms of the action. Action modifiers are about the terms of the action. The terms of the action don't change just because your vampire is tapped or untapped; the effect of the action will be the same no matter what. > cards that do the same thing, consider what your position does to > the idea of FoM being an action modifier. First, it is a combat > card. Second, I am able to chat you up with an enormous list of > action cards, reaction cards, and vampires which add or remove See above. > stealth. Third, what I do know is that Majesty and Earth Meld > used by the acting vampire can only untap a vampire at the end of > an action, so until you can "provide additional supports" that This is false. You untap when strikes resolve, NOT at the end of the action. If your opponent plays Telepathic Tracking, for example, the combat continues, and (should you have a vampire with PRE/PRO) you could play Form of Mist in the second round to continue your action, while still being untapped. >> Wait! I've got it. You tap to block an action, the acting minion >> plays Form of Mist, you play Majesty superior. You now generate >> intercept and block again, thereby tapping AGAIN and providing >> yourself the opportunity to play Majesty at superior (effectively) >> TWICE! Wow. Holy shit, that's so extremely corner-case, I'm >> absolutely amazed. I've also never seen it happen, and I doubt I >> ever will. > > I've seen it happen at least twice, it has a high potential of > occurring because This is a groundless (and false) assertion. "twice" does not qualify as a "high potential"; it indicates instead that it is somewhat rare. > the 2nd tradition and Majesty are often seen together in decks, and It is far more common to see the 2nd Tradition and Obedience, which prevents one from having to worry about any pesky combat in the first place. I see *that* particular combo almost weekly. > the +2 intercept is often enough to cover both blocking attempts. The > limiting factor is the dearth of vampires with superior Protean. Oh, those poor superior-Protean vampires. They're having SUCH a hard time of it. If they want to get around 2nd Tradition, maybe they should be including some Earth Control as backup: most decks packing 2nd Tradition have trouble dealing with +3 stealth actions. >> > Terrible assumption, I would have again disregarded everything >> > hereafter, had there been anything. >> >> Jason, arguments don't become invalid simply because you put your >> head in the sand, or because you stick your fingers in your ears and >> shout "LALALALALA I AM NOT LISTENING TO PATRICK". > > What a laugh. Of course your argument/personal attack was invalid. When you declare that you're going to disregard everything hereafter, simply because something was phrased in a manner you didn't like, it really IS just putting your head in the sand.

In message <Xns910A6D86...@198.99.146.10>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >a combat card >a reaction card >an action card >an action modifier card >a vampire card Master (Metro Underground) Retainer (Homunculus) Ally (Tutu) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <Xns910A6D86...@198.99.146.10>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > >a combat card > >a reaction card > >an action card > >an action modifier card > >a vampire card > > Master (Metro Underground) > Retainer (Homunculus) > Ally (Tutu) Equipment (Leather Jacket) [ quoted text not captured ]

>If your opponent plays Telepathic Tracking, for example, the >combat continues, and (should you have a vampire with PRE/PRO) you could >play Form of Mist in the second round to continue your action, while still >being untapped. > Is this true? It's sounds very nice indeed, maybe to cheesy... I want to build a AUS/PRO deck right now! Act, get blocked, EarthMeld, TeleTrack, MistForm, Act Again... Maybe this would actually better be done with freak-drives, but who owns lots of those? Perhaps someone could trade me all their AUS/PRO vampires? /Henrik

Henrik wrote: > [play S:CE and untap card] > >If your opponent plays Telepathic Tracking, for example, the > >combat continues, and (should you have a vampire with PRE/PRO) you could > >play Form of Mist in the second round to continue your action, while still > >being untapped. > > > > Is this true? Yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes > >a combat card > >a reaction card > >an action card > >an action modifier card > >a vampire card > > Master (Metro Underground) > Retainer (Homunculus) > Ally (Tutu) And all of these types also exist for stealth and bleed. How are the above evidence that untapping is not an action modifying effect, but their corrollaries for stealth are not evidence that stealth is not an action modifying effect? The only compelling point I've heard in this entire discussion is the declaration from LSJ that untapping is not to be considered an action modifying effect, which moots the discussion, but imposes the inconsistency that made me pursue the discussion in the first place. ...then LSJ wrote: > Equipment (Leather Jacket) This is the worst example of the lot, since it behaves so much like Freak Drive that the untap really does look like an action modifier. If the equip action is successful, modify the action in this way: untap the acting minion. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:1gyi7.188113$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > How are the above evidence that untapping is not an > action modifying effect, but their corrollaries for > stealth are not evidence that stealth is not an action > modifying effect? Look at it this way. Untapping is an effect. Plain and simple. There are numerous methods to do this, Freak Drive (an action modifier) being one of them. No effect is necessarily tied to a certain type of card, though +1 stealth tends to be on action modifiers (action cards with inherent +1 stealth are counter-examples), and +1 intercept tends to be on reaction cards (Psychic Projection is a counter-example). Xian

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > > > "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" > > > > This is your ruling, so it is true, but I don't understand why > > this is true. Because Freak Drive exists and is an action modifier, > > it seems that untapping a vampire must be an action modifying > > effect. > > So Obedience is an action modifier? No more than Form of Mist is, I suppose. > Freak drive costs a blood, so all things that cost a blood must be > action modifiers, by that logic. You have followed the logic poorly. > Some effects modify the action (+1 stealth is the obvious example). > Other effects are produced in many way (untapping, for instance, > occurs in action modifier forms, reaction forms, combat forms, and > action-card-in-play forms. My perspective for this discussion has been that there is one given: Form of Mist is a combat card that is also ruled an action modifier when played at superior by the acting minion, because it modifies the action. That's fine, a little bizarre, but fine. So I looked around at all the other combat cards and saw a couple (Majesty at superior and Earth Meld at superior) which also reproduce effects of an action modifier (Freak Drive) when played by the acting minion. So I'm wondering how one of them (Freak Drive) definitely modifes the action by untapping the acting vampire at the end of the action, while the others definitely do not modify the action, even though they untap the acting vampire at the end of the action. I have yet to hear a non-recursive argument for why this situation exists (untapping doesn't modify the action because untapping isn't an action modifying effect). I've had the pleasure of hearing quite a bit of sarcastic, dismissive, and insulting rejoinders, though. If the actual answer is that, by rule, untapping is not to be considered an action modifying effect, I refer back to the post to which you responded. One final example: Minion A attempts Legal Manipulations. Minion B (with 2 Marijava Ghouls) plays Mask of 1000 Faces at inferior. It seems clear that the action continues at +2 stealth, and that +2 stealth were added during the action. The Mask did not add the stealth, but we know stealth is an action modifier effect, and it must have come from the Ghouls. If it did, mustn't the Ghouls, in addition to being retainers, also be action modifier cards? And if so, shouldn't the Mask action be illegal, since two action modifers of the same name are illegal for the same action? If not, why is it true that a combat card (Form of Mist at superior) must abide by the provisions of the action modifier rules, where the Ghouls do not? - Jason Bell

In article <qqzi7.188320$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >My perspective for this discussion has been that there is one given: >Form of Mist is a combat card that is also ruled an action modifier >when played at superior by the acting minion, because it modifies the >action. That is an incorrect given. Form of Mist is a combat card that is also an action modifier by specific errata. The _justification_ for that erratum is as you describe, but the justification behind a specific erratum is not, in and of itself, a general and broadly applicable ruling. For instance, consider the hypothetical: Outta my way! Combat Potence 1 blood [pot] Strike: Strength+2 damage. <POT> As above, and if this strike successfully inflicts damage, combat ends after the strike resolution step and the action continues at +1 stealth if this minion is acting. Without specific errata, Outta my way! superior is NOT an action modifier and IS stackable, because the justification behind Form of Mist's errata (that it's an action modifier when used to continue an action) does not extend to other cards with the same mechanic. >That's fine, a little bizarre, but fine. So I looked around at all >the other combat cards and saw a couple (Majesty at superior >and Earth Meld at superior) which also reproduce effects of >an action modifier (Freak Drive) when played by the acting minion. >So I'm wondering how one of them (Freak Drive) definitely >modifes the action by untapping the acting vampire at the end of >the action, while the others definitely do not modify the action, >even though they untap the acting vampire at the end of the action. Effects aren't classified as 'action-modifying' or not, and non-action- modifier cards that produce an effect also found on an action modifier aren't considered action modifiers based on that similarity alone. Specific errata is required for that. Another hypothetical: Clever Name Discipline Combat Cost [inf]: Something <SUP>: Strike: Combat ends, and if this vampire was bleeding, the action continues at +1 bleed. Again, without specific errata, that card would be stackable if the action were blocked multiple times. The fact that it replicates functionality also found on action modifiers is irrelevant. >I have yet to hear a non-recursive argument for why this situation >exists (untapping doesn't modify the action because untapping >isn't an action modifying effect). I've had the pleasure of hearing >quite a bit of sarcastic, dismissive, and insulting rejoinders, though. Untapping the minion doesn't modify the action because it affects the minion only. It has nothing to do with the action. The effect can come from any source (Freak Drive, Precog Mobility, or Alexandra's special), and is only treated as an action modifier when the source is an action modifier card (Freak Drive). >If the actual answer is that, by rule, untapping is not to be >considered an action modifying effect, I refer back to the post >to which you responded. > >One final example: >Minion A attempts Legal Manipulations. >Minion B (with 2 Marijava Ghouls) plays Mask of 1000 Faces >at inferior. >It seems clear that the action continues at +2 stealth, and >that +2 stealth were added during the action. The Mask >did not add the stealth, but we know stealth is an action >modifier effect, and it must have come from the Ghouls. Stealth modifies an action, but is not an 'action modifier effect' as you describe, I don't think. You can tap two Rom Gypsies to add +2 stealth to an action one of your Ravnos is taking, for instance, since they're not action modifiers. In this case, you're adding stealth from 2 copies of the same card, and it's legal, because the stealth sources aren't action modifiers. >If it did, mustn't the Ghouls, in addition to being retainers, >also be action modifier cards? Nope. They're retainers. They would only be action modifiers if they had specific errata (like Form of Mist). >If not, why is it true that a combat card (Form of Mist >at superior) must abide by the provisions of the action >modifier rules, where the Ghouls do not? Because Form of Mist has specific errata saying it's considered an action modifier when played at superior by an acting minion. None of these other cases have that errata. gomi -- There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with morons. -- M. Lorton

Jason Bell wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Jason Bell wrote > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > > > > > "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" > > > > > > This is your ruling, so it is true, but I don't understand why > > > this is true. Because Freak Drive exists and is an action modifier, > > > it seems that untapping a vampire must be an action modifying > > > effect. > > > > So Obedience is an action modifier? > > No more than Form of Mist is, I suppose. Card text indicates otherwise. > > Freak drive costs a blood, so all things that cost a blood must be > > action modifiers, by that logic. > > You have followed the logic poorly. Thanks for clarifying it. > > Some effects modify the action (+1 stealth is the obvious example). > > Other effects are produced in many way (untapping, for instance, > > occurs in action modifier forms, reaction forms, combat forms, and > > action-card-in-play forms. > > My perspective for this discussion has been that there is one given: > Form of Mist is a combat card that is also ruled an action modifier > when played at superior by the acting minion, because it modifies the > action. It's been *errataed* to be an action modifier (when played by actor ...) > That's fine, a little bizarre, but fine. So I looked around at all > the other combat cards and saw a couple (Majesty at superior > and Earth Meld at superior) which also reproduce effects of > an action modifier (Freak Drive) when played by the acting minion. > So I'm wondering how one of them (Freak Drive) definitely > modifes the action by untapping the acting vampire at the end of > the action, while the others definitely do not modify the action, > even though they untap the acting vampire at the end of the action. By errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > Jason Bell wrote > > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > "Untapping a vampire is not an action-modifying effect" > > > > > > > > This is your ruling, so it is true, but I don't understand why > > > > this is true. Because Freak Drive exists and is an action modifier, > > > > it seems that untapping a vampire must be an action modifying > > > > effect. > > > > > > So Obedience is an action modifier? > > > > No more than Form of Mist is, I suppose. > > Card text indicates otherwise. Errata'ed card text that is (which is clear from the rest of the post, but I'd like to make it clear here as well). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > One final example: > Minion A attempts Legal Manipulations. > Minion B (with 2 Marijava Ghouls) plays Mask of 1000 Faces > at inferior. > It seems clear that the action continues at +2 stealth, and as far as i know, it doesn't. the ghouls modify the acting minion, not the action itself. when it gets masked it drops back to 0 stealth. > that +2 stealth were added during the action. > The Mask did not add the stealth, but we know stealth is an action > modifier effect, and it must have come from the Ghouls. > If it did, mustn't the Ghouls, in addition to being retainers, > also be action modifier cards? erm, no. > And if so, shouldn't the > Mask action be illegal, since two action modifers of the > same name are illegal for the same action? that has nothing to do with mask. if m. ghouls _were_ action modifiers, which their lack of appropriate card text is a bit of a hint that they're not, then you'd not be allowed to use/have/play pre actions if you have two of them. > If not, why is it true that a combat card (Form of Mist > at superior) must abide by the provisions of the action > modifier rules, where the Ghouls do not? card text, instigated for play balance purposes. salem.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > > ...then LSJ wrote: > > Equipment (Leather Jacket) > > This is the worst example of the lot, since it behaves > so much like Freak Drive that the untap really does > look like an action modifier. If the equip action is > successful, modify the action in this way: untap the > acting minion. untap the minion at the end of the turn. there is definately no actions happening just after your discard phase. so what is it modifying again? salem.

"Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in news:9me140$1lk0v$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de: > Is this true? It's sounds very nice indeed, maybe to cheesy... I want > to build a AUS/PRO deck right now! Act, get blocked, EarthMeld, > TeleTrack, MistForm, Act Again... Maybe this would actually better be > done with freak-drives, but who owns lots of those? Perhaps someone > could trade me all their AUS/PRO vampires? I'll trade you every vampire I have who possesses both superior Auspex and Protean for one Perfect Clarity.

[ quoted text not captured ] well there goes your AUS/PRO/THA deck.....you'll have to build some other degenrate deck, now.... salem.

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010828155511.4345A-100000@bohm: > On 28 Aug 2001, Derek Ray wrote: >> "Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in >> news:9me140$1lk0v$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de: >> >> > those? Perhaps someone could trade me all their AUS/PRO vampires? >> >> I'll trade you every vampire I have who possesses both superior >> Auspex and Protean for one Perfect Clarity. > > well there goes your AUS/PRO/THA deck.....you'll have to build some > other degenrate deck, now.... <-- user figures that someone will search either ELDB or Monger soon.

> "Henrik" <henri...@spray.se> wrote in > news:9me140$1lk0v$1...@ID-99227.news.dfncis.de: > > > Is this true? It's sounds very nice indeed, maybe to cheesy... I want > > to build a AUS/PRO deck right now! Act, get blocked, EarthMeld, > > TeleTrack, MistForm, Act Again... Maybe this would actually better be > > done with freak-drives, but who owns lots of those? Perhaps someone > > could trade me all their AUS/PRO vampires? i've lost the origional post, so i am replying to the reply, with the replied bits snipped...or something... anyway, you'd be better off going for CEL/PRO, which is City !gangrel or whatever their code is, and going Earth Meld, Psyche!, Form of Mist (why did pro get TWO FoM cards...Flesh Of Marble being the other, which you can probably leave out of the deck....) erm, anyway, now that i have said this...ummm...i think i want to build this deck. would have maybe been more workable with old Drawing out the Beast, for a poo-load of unavoidable damage in the combats, but oh well... salem.

Jason Bell wrote: > I have yet to hear a non-recursive argument for why this situation > exists (untapping doesn't modify the action because untapping > isn't an action modifying effect). I've had the pleasure of hearing > quite a bit of sarcastic, dismissive, and insulting rejoinders, though. > > If the actual answer is that, by rule, untapping is not to be > considered an action modifying effect, I refer back to the post > to which you responded. Majesty at Superior played by the non acting minion allows that minion to untap. This untap cannot be considered a action modifier by any means since the minion playing the card never acted. Thus I quote Jason Bell. "(untapping doesn't modify the action because untapping isn't an action modifying effect)." Raille

In message <1gyi7.188113$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Master (Metro Underground) >How are the above evidence that untapping is not an >action modifying effect Please, enlighten me as to which action Metro Underground is working on. [ quoted text not captured ]

> anyway, you'd be better off going for CEL/PRO, which is City !gangrel or > whatever their code is, and going Earth Meld, Psyche!, Form of Mist (why > did pro get TWO FoM cards...Flesh Of Marble being the other, which you > can probably leave out of the deck....) > why not go he "disguised weapon, .44, DoTB, manuever, shoot, blur, shoot, Form of Mist" way for workable bleed and bruise? > erm, anyway, now that i have said this...ummm...i think i want to build > this deck. would have maybe been more workable with old Drawing out the > Beast, for a poo-load of unavoidable damage in the combats, but oh well... Jeroen

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Card text indicates otherwise. > > Errata'ed card text that is (which is clear from the rest of > the post, but I'd like to make it clear here as well). Of course, and I've already allowed that I accept this. But I really think that answer is redundant, in that it provides no explanation or guidance as to why this is so, or more accurately, why this became so. If what Gomi no Sensei wrote in a parallel post is true (re: Outta My Way and Clever Name), this is a relatively depressing state of affairs, as far as gaining a deeper understanding of the rules. If why the rules are the way they are is immaterial, there is no hope of fully understanding the rules except maybe for he who makes them. - Jason Bell

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] The equip action. - Jason Bell

[ quoted text not captured ] so "The Treatment" is an action modifier? It's something that relies on an action that has been announced and resolved at some point in the past, but that action is OVER and no longer in effect. How can it be modifying it? and, to try and help clarify some other issue: Shadow Body and Mirror Image, at superior, are not action modifiers. Form of Mist is. Why is Form of Mist an action modifier and not the others? Because the stealth that gets added makes the card unbalanced if you can play multiples, especially as it can be played on bleed actions. So, it got changed, and the change "feels" ok, to most people. Generally, adding stealth with a card while being an acting minion is by playing an action modifier. The errata is therefore easier to remember than other erratas might have been, allows people who don't know the errata to not have their decks totally screwed if they turn up to a tournament (imagine if alternate errata was to make it not playable on a bleed action, and someone turned up with a DOM/PRO bleed deck using FoM), and yets makes the card more balanced. To me, it's not "it got errata'd because stealth is an action modifier", but more "it got errata'd because it was too good, and the fact that stealth is generally from action modifiers makes this errata easier on the mind". Disclaimer: Of course, this entire post is merely my opinion, and i probably can't back any of it up with quotes from official sources, as, well, there might not be any. But if there were, i still probably wouldn't bother to go look for them. salem.

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, jeroen rombouts wrote: > > anyway, you'd be better off going for CEL/PRO, which is City !gangrel or > > whatever their code is, and going Earth Meld, Psyche!, Form of Mist (why > > did pro get TWO FoM cards...Flesh Of Marble being the other, which you > > can probably leave out of the deck....) > > > why not go he "disguised weapon, .44, DoTB, manuever, shoot, blur, shoot, > Form of Mist" way for workable bleed and bruise? because !gangrel suck for pool gain, and i can't afford the pool and/or moving parts to successfully pull this combo off often enough. O:) and, um, why would i play DoTB in that combo? i still s:ce before the press step. mot to mention ani isn't a city gangrel discipline...despite a lot of them having it (damn freaks). salem.

> > > > > why not go he "disguised weapon, .44, DoTB, manuever, shoot, blur, shoot, > > Form of Mist" way for workable bleed and bruise? > > because !gangrel suck for pool gain, and i can't afford the pool and/or > moving parts to successfully pull this combo off often enough. O:) > and, um, why would i play DoTB in that combo? i still s:ce before the press > step. mot to mention ani isn't a city gangrel discipline...despite a lot > of them having it (damn freaks). *blush* I got a bit carried away. But it works (without the DoTB). And you'll probably need the manuevre to escape IG. Especially when combined with LOADS of blood dolls, spying missions, Computer Hacking, etc.

In message <M3Xi7.189677$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >If what Gomi no Sensei wrote in a parallel post is true >(re: Outta My Way and Clever Name), this is a >relatively depressing state of affairs, as far as >gaining a deeper understanding of the rules. Gaining a deeper understanding of the rules is not done from looking at specific effects and assuming that because that one effect is generated there, it becomes intrinsically linked with that. This would akin to watching a game of chess and seeing one piece move in an L shape and deciding that all pieces move like that. Induction is unlikely to be helpful in a game of many and varied pieces. Deduction (taking both words in the somewhat more classical sense) is more likely to be helpful - which is what everyone else has been doing, looking at the source of effects across the game as a whole, rather than one card as a specific. [ quoted text not captured ]

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in news:mdXi7.23932$6x5.5...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be: >> anyway, you'd be better off going for CEL/PRO, which is City !gangrel >> or whatever their code is, and going Earth Meld, Psyche!, Form of >> Mist (why did pro get TWO FoM cards...Flesh Of Marble being the >> other, which you can probably leave out of the deck....) >> > why not go he "disguised weapon, .44, DoTB, manuever, shoot, blur, > shoot, Form of Mist" way for workable bleed and bruise? Because you have to avoid killing them, and eventually when all the vampires on the table are down to 1 blood, you run into a small problem. If you kill them, you can't Form of Mist; you can't gain additional strikes when a vampire is dead, and you jam up on your Blur/FoM. If you DON'T kill them, they're not dead, and a vampire with 1 blood is still in reasonably good shape, especially compared to "in torpor, empty." And then you wedge up on your Blur anyway.

> > Just because you don't have a good answer doesn't mean it's a troll, > Jason. > > It just means it's a question you don't have a good answer for. > > Nope, it means that he attempts to challenge the answer to a question > to which I never responded, and (especially in the original troll) > was insulting in that challenge. > Track the thread, you will understand why this fish will not bite > into that particular hook. > Would you please summerize for the rest of us: 1) Your position on the issue 2) Why your position is a good position 3) Why should the game be changed because of your position 4) How your changes would affect the rest of the game Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >If what Gomi no Sensei wrote in a parallel post is true > >(re: Outta My Way and Clever Name), this is a > >relatively depressing state of affairs, as far as > >gaining a deeper understanding of the rules. > > Gaining a deeper understanding of the rules is not done from looking at > specific effects and assuming that because that one effect is generated > there, it becomes intrinsically linked with that. > > This would akin to watching a game of chess and seeing one piece move in > an L shape and deciding that all pieces move like that. Agreed, but when you see two pieces moving in an L shape... - Jason Bell

In message <ngej7.192588$TM5.35...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> Gaining a deeper understanding of the rules is not done from looking at >> specific effects and assuming that because that one effect is generated >> there, it becomes intrinsically linked with that. >> >> This would akin to watching a game of chess and seeing one piece move in >> an L shape and deciding that all pieces move like that. > >Agreed, but when you see two pieces moving in an L shape... And half a dozen pieces working differently... -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D