Allies Life Q

Folks: Does the initial life total for an ally constitute a ceiling for that ally's life total? For example, the Succubus can steal a blood or life to gain 1 life. Although the Succubus starts with 3 life, I can find no rule that would prevent the Succubus from walking around with, say, 10 life if she could successfully perform her built-in action 7 times. From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or action cards?? Anyway, as always, thanks for your insights, Madman -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).

Madman2001 wrote: <snip> > From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative > about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or > action cards?? This sounds like a fun thread : ) Anyway, the reasons that allies suck can be divided into 3 basic categories: 1) Cost 2) Uselessness 3) Fragileness -COST- The pool cost for most allies is in the same ball park as small vampires, so from that perspective the cost is not unreasonable. However, the opportunity costs are very very high. Recruiting an ally costs an action from a vampire. That means one less bleed, vote, rush or other action. In many cases the vampire must also be of a specific clan in order to recruit the ally, which makes mixing and matching allies much more difficult than doing the same for vampires. The ally card also takes up space in your library instead of your crpyt, where space is more precious. This is also important because many allies are unique, so you must find that balance between including enough so that you get one, but not so many that they jam your hand. -USELESSNESS- Sure, an ally probably costs you a bit less than a vampire, but what are you gonna do with it? Some allies do have useful special abilities, but most lack fundamental abilities of vampires, especially bleeding and the ability to call votes. Allies also lack disciplines, which are what the game revolves around. -FRAGILENESS- Allies are even more overcosted when one considers their great propensity for getting killed. In general, they have fewer life points than their cost, whereas vampires have "life" equal to their capacity which is also their cost. Also note that vampires survive with no blood whereas allies die when they have 0 life. Allies also cannot hunt to regain life and do not have a "torpor" state- they are burned, which makes them much *much* harder to recover than torporized vampires. Overall, allies are far to costly for the limited benefits they provide. There are, of course, a few exceptions. Renegade Garou are popular because of their terrifying combat abilities and Arms Dealers are good because of their low cost. -- Steve Wampler swam...@clarityconnect.com -- "Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion." -Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> writes: >Madman2001 wrote: ><snip> >> From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative >> about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or >> action cards?? > >This sounds like a fun thread : ) > >Anyway, the reasons that allies suck can be divided into 3 basic >categories: >1) Cost >2) Uselessness >3) Fragileness > >-COST- >The pool cost for most allies is in the same ball park as small >vampires, so from that perspective the cost is not unreasonable. >However, the opportunity costs are very very high. Recruiting an ally >costs an action from a vampire. That means one less bleed, vote, rush >or other action. I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into the active region. In general though, it's kind of pointless comparing an action to a number of tranfers. When looking at allies, the real question is, "Is this thing worth its overall cost, including the action it takes to recruit, in this deck?" And in making this comparison, of course, you take into account the other stuff you talked about: uselessness (in many cases) and fragileness (is that really a word? :) ). I do agree with your eventual conclusion: most allies just aren't worth their cost. I don't know what it is but for whatever reasons, the designers just seemed to habitually overestimate the value of allies when setting their pool costs. (Let alone a number of various silly cards intended to "hose" allies which got printed and never see much play because few games are ever overrun with allies.) Fred

>>Madman2001 wrote: >><snip> >>> From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative >>> about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or >>> action cards?? >> >>This sounds like a fun thread : ) >> >>Anyway, the reasons that allies suck can be divided into 3 basic >>categories: >>1) Cost >>2) Uselessness >>3) Fragileness >> Hey, if it's worth anything, I LOVE allies! I'll be the first to admit that most of them suck, but it's sort of fun and amusing. In fact, in my current deck (which I got some great feedback here, and which I'll post a revised edition and ask for more help later), I have four or five allies. Yes, they can be a bit expensive, but as Fred mentioned, they don't cost transfers. Interestingly enough, I tried to make the same point (that allies would speed up a deck), but the general consensus is that it actually slows the deck down. I personally use Mage allies (for my Tremere theme deck), and while they are among the more expensive allies, at least they have some semi-decent combat ability. Of course they'll get cremated by combat decks, but at least they do SOME damage and against non-combat decks, a manuever and ranged damage is pretty good. Yes, most allies can't use disciplines (though a few can. Ghouled Street something has basic Potence, and Talaq the Immortal has basic Quietus and Thaumaturgy), so I sometimes include a few Dodges or Fake Outs, which can also be used by my small vampires in a jam. There is no limit to an ally's life counters. Generally this isn't a problem. VERY few allies are able to increase their life. Renegade Garou, Hell Hound, and Black Spiral Buddy regenerate, but they only regenerate to their normal max. Gargoyle Slave has a "retarded" version of regeneration (they have to take an action to get the life back), but is otherwise like the above. Off the top of my head, only Succubus (with her stealing action), Nephandus (with her "diablerie"-like action), and Talaq (with lots of Thefts of Vitae) can gain lots of life. And though an ally with 100 life may seem formidable, as said earlier, allies are VERY vulnerable. There are many cards that burn allies outright (Kindred Segregation, Blood to Water, one of the Obtenebration cards, etc.), and they are notoriously vulnerable to other "control" cards (Art of Love, Far Mastery, Entrancement, etc.). Oh, quick question. For corruption counter junk, do you use the ally's current life points, or initial amount? Or it's the latter, the 100 point ally can be corrupted after only a few corruption counters! I personally don't really like how WotC handled allies in this game. Ghouls and normal mortals are decent, but mages and werewolves should at least be comparable to vampires. But then again, this IS a game ABOUT vampires... Halcyan 2

In article <7v2s8m$u8n$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >> >>-COST- >>The pool cost for most allies is in the same ball park as small >>vampires, so from that perspective the cost is not unreasonable. >>However, the opportunity costs are very very high. Recruiting an ally >>costs an action from a vampire. That means one less bleed, vote, rush >>or other action. > >I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action >but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you >need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already >out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want >done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, >leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action >spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed >that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed >up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into >the active region. You do realize your argument sums up as: if your deck is completely stalled, and your minions have nothing to do, allies might be usefull? In general, in my experience, actions are definitely more important than transfers. Transfers tend to cost you pool. You need some, but more isn't in general neccesarily better. In particular, once you can't afford any more transfers, they're worthless. If you could bring allies in with transfers rather than actions, they'd still suck. Not as much though, which is a good indication that actions are indeed more expensive. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

In article <7v2s8m$u8n$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > (TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) > > Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> writes: > > >Madman2001 wrote: > ><snip> > >> From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative > >> about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or > >> action cards?? > > > >This sounds like a fun thread : ) > > > >Anyway, the reasons that allies suck can be divided into 3 basic > >categories: > >1) Cost > >2) Uselessness > >3) Fragileness > > > >-COST- > >The pool cost for most allies is in the same ball park as small > >vampires, so from that perspective the cost is not unreasonable. > >However, the opportunity costs are very very high. Recruiting an ally > >costs an action from a vampire. That means one less bleed, vote, rush > >or other action. > > I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action > but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you > need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already > out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want > done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, > leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action > spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed > that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed > up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into > the active region. > > In general though, it's kind of pointless comparing an action to a > number of tranfers. When looking at allies, the real question is, "Is > this thing worth its overall cost, including the action it takes to recruit, > in this deck?" And in making this comparison, of course, you take into > account the other stuff you talked about: uselessness (in many cases) and > fragileness (is that really a word? :) ). I do agree with your eventual > conclusion: most allies just aren't worth their cost. I don't know what it > is but for whatever reasons, the designers just seemed to habitually > overestimate the value of allies when setting their pool costs. (Let alone > a number of various silly cards intended to "hose" allies which got printed > and never see much play because few games are ever overrun with allies.) > > Fred > Have wondered about the poor cost effectiveness of allies for a long time until I ran across an article about "Concealed Weapon." Where "Concealed Weapon" is identified as a Disciplineless card rather than an Obfuscate card. Quick reference to both "Concealed Weapon" and it's cousin "Disguised Weapon" show them to be close in operation with "Concealed Weapon" being the weaker of the two. "Concealed Weapon" has no Basic or Superior text like "Disguised Weapon" and is limited the types of weapons that can be brought to bear. "Concealed Weapon" with allies just seem to go hand in hand. It gives them greater latitude and increases their potential as a usable minion and the use of "Concealed Weapon" could also be applied to vampires as well. I have once before inquired if anyone has playtested "Concealed Weapon" as a disciplineless card and never received an answer. Whether this is because no has done it (unlikely as I have come across decks that identify themselves as doing so) or there has already been a "Flame War" over this subject and I missed it. The only arguments I have heard on this subject were: "the card is from the Jyhad set and not readily available to everyone" (which I think is rubbish... prior to coming out to Germany I was able to purchase 10 boxes of boosters for $100 and that was less than a year ago) "some allies (i.e. Hell Hound) do not have the ability to use weapons and "Concealed Weapon" gives a loop hole to equiping with a weapon" (this argument is the strongest one of the two and 'yes' I do agree with this particular argument) Despite the second argument, I personally feel that "Concealed Weapon" as a disciplineless card does have merit. I have not playtested the concept with my group but believe it would give more life to the use of "Weapons" and "Allies" within the game. Just my 2 cents... Mike Eichler (Prince of Ramstein) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

ramst...@my-deja.com wrote: > Have wondered about the poor cost effectiveness of allies for a long > time until I ran across an article about "Concealed Weapon." Where > "Concealed Weapon" is identified as a Disciplineless card rather than > an Obfuscate card. Quick reference to both "Concealed Weapon" and it's > cousin "Disguised Weapon" show them to be close in operation with > "Concealed Weapon" being the weaker of the two. "Concealed Weapon" has > no Basic or Superior text like "Disguised Weapon" and is limited the > types of weapons that can be brought to bear. > > "Concealed Weapon" with allies just seem to go hand in hand. It gives > them greater latitude and increases their potential as a usable minion > and the use of "Concealed Weapon" could also be applied to vampires as > well. > Mike Eichler > (Prince of Ramstein) Ah...can you imagine Muddled Vampire hunter attacking someone, and then suddenly slapping out a Sengir Dagger to strike for 4 aggravated with first strike. It's evil, isn't it. I think that Concealed Weapon should be a disciplineless card, due that it looks like one (even the picture suggests that it's got nothing to do with Obfuscate). Also, I think that the usefulness of Allies would increse if this card would be disciplineless. I wonder if there is/will be any ruling on the obfuscate-requirement of that card. Since we all seem to realize that it is intended to be used without any disciplinen, a ruling or an errata would be nice (LSJ, what do you have to say to this?) -- Tuomas Rinta työ: +358-9-70844393 gsm: +358-40-5838021 tuomas...@helsinki.fi

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > Oh, quick question. For corruption counter junk, do you use the ally's current > life points, or initial amount? Neither (see card text). -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

In article <7v3tg8$nc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ramst...@my-deja.com talked about concealed Weapon and Allies: > Have wondered about the poor cost effectiveness of allies for a long > time until I ran across an article about "Concealed Weapon." Where > "Concealed Weapon" is identified as a Disciplineless card rather than > an Obfuscate card. Quick reference to both "Concealed Weapon" and > it's cousin "Disguised Weapon" show them to be close in operation with > "Concealed Weapon" being the weaker of the two. "Concealed Weapon" > has no Basic or Superior text like "Disguised Weapon" and is limited > the types of weapons that can be brought to bear. > > "Concealed Weapon" with allies just seem to go hand in hand. It gives > them greater latitude and increases their potential as a usable minion > and the use of "Concealed Weapon" could also be applied to vampires as > well. > > I have once before inquired if anyone has playtested "Concealed > Weapon" as a disciplineless card and never received an answer. > Whether this is because no has done it (unlikely as I have come > across decks that identify themselves as doing so) or there has > already been a "Flame War" over this subject and I missed it. In Austin, we have played with Concealed Weapon as a disciplineless card for many years now. In most decks, guns are overcosted, and having that extra card in hand when you don't have any guns is pretty useless. Occasionally, someone will pull out a deck with CW and guns, but never so far with Allies and CW and guns. This would be too many combinations of fragile items. Your ally maneuvers to long with his .44, Sarah Cobbler steals his 2 life with Theft of Vitae, both the gun and the ally go poof! Eight of the fourteen Sabbat allies are killed by Theft of Vitae. Seventeen of the twenty-four other allies are killed by Theft of Vitae. Nine allies are killed by Catatonic Fear at superior. Twenty-five allies are killed by Riposte at superior. All allies are killed by Entombment at close range. All allies (except Ambrosius) are killed by Immortal Grapple/(SUP)Torn Signpost/(SUP)Pushing the Limit. Even with CW to get the gun on the Ally without an action, combining the two together is a mistake in almost every case. The only allies that I would bother to give a weapon are War Ghouls and Ambrosius, the Ferryman (Wraith). War Ghoul's with Stakes have been known to sweep tables. http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/wgfinal.htm But even in that deck, the card cost/opportunity cost of concealed weapon is way too high. I use Vast Wealth cards instead. Ambrosius with Talbot's Chainsaw is great too, but watch out for those damn Tremere. http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/Ambrosius.htm Guns cost too much and are too fragile, you may never reap any damage from them before you vampire/ally is destroyed. Concealed Weapon does not help enough to make any real difference and does not get played with either Vampires or Allies. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

Mike Eichler wrote: >>I have once before inquired if anyone has playtested "Concealed Weapon" as a disciplineless card and never received an answer. Whether this is because no has done it (unlikely as I have come across decks that identify themselves as doing so) or there has already been a "Flame War" over this subject and I missed it.>> Plently of people have played with this house rule over the years, and it has been debated extensively in this forum (check out deja-news if you wanna find the old posts). While most people agree that it was probably, at one point in production, meant to be disciplineless, it was changed to require Obfuscate. This might have been a complete accident/misprint; or it might have been due to someone at the last minute deciding that if it were disciplinless it would have been too useful (although I find this somewhat unlikely--it is far more likely to be due to someone screwing something up). Regardless of the reason Concealed Weapon became an Obfuscate card, one of the main precepts of errating cards is to only downgrade cards that are too good, not to upgrade cards that are too weak (that, and repair recognized misprints, and CW has never been positively identified as a misprint). Cards that are too good have a negative impact upon the game environment, while cards that are too weak have no effect upon play, as they simply get ignored. If you are going to fix CW, you are then going to have to fix Chainsaw, Werewolf Pack, Mercy of the Weak, and countless other weak cards. Not a can of worms that is worth opening. This being said, I can't really see how making CW disciplinless would really make allies any more useful. All it would mean is that when your Thadeous Zho gets a magnum without wasting an action, he will cost you 6 pool when he dies, instead of just 4. Guns aren't that good. Allies aren't that good. Combine them, and you have extra not good. The only allies that I have ever seen useful have been: Renegade Garou/Muddles: Very useful against weenie or low combat defense decks, but often just get killed in one shot, costing you a great deal of pool (well, for Garou anyways). Arms Dealer: Very effective, 'cause he is free. Build a deck with cheap brujah and 20 or so Arms Dealers. You can make an army of disposable minions for nothing--send them computer hacking or buying guns or whatever. Not a truly effective deck, but Arms Dealer is the best bargain you are going to get in an ally. Political Ally: Occasionally effective in the right deck--he is cheap and has a built in bleed of three. You just leave him around as a threat and bleed with other minions. If your prey has to chose between a bleed of 1 from a vampire or a known bleed of 3 from the Politico, your 1 point bleed is going to get through, at which point you jack it up. Not really effective, but can be useful. >>Despite the second argument, I personally feel that "Concealed Weapon" as a disciplineless card does have merit. I have not playtested the concept with my group but believe it would give more life to the use of "Weapons" and "Allies" within the game.>> It clearly has merit, but I suspect it does not have enough merit to justify setting an errata precident (that the rules team is willing to errata weak cards just to make them more useful), and I still don't think it will help allies much, if at all. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to fear. Fear leads to...anger? Wait a second." -Xander

In article <3815811C...@cc.helsinki.fi>, Tuomas Rinta <tuomas...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote: > Ah...can you imagine Muddled Vampire hunter attacking someone, and > then suddenly slapping out a Sengir Dagger to strike for 4 aggravated > with first strike. It's evil, isn't it. I think that Concealed Weapon > should be a disciplineless card, due that it looks like one (even the > picture suggests that it's got nothing to do with Obfuscate). > > Also, I think that the usefulness of Allies would increse if this > card would be disciplineless. I wonder if there is/will be any ruling > on the obfuscate-requirement of that card. Since we all seem to > realize that it is intended to be used without any disciplinen, a > ruling or an errata would be nice (LSJ, what do you have to say > to this?) LSJ and every Rules Team before him, has acknowledged that Concealed Weapon was probably a misprint for many reasons. Every Rules Team has also said that they would not errata cards to make them more powerful. The purpose of errata is to bring the cost of cards in line with similar cards, or to correct game breaking mistakes. Keeping CW as an obfuscate card does not make it overpowered. In other words, it does not break or hurt the game to leave it as it is. It will not be changed at a national level unless it gets reprinted, and we can all hope that WOTC has better ideas for cards to print than that. This whole argument is one of the reasons it was not reprinted when it the backs changed to VTES. Go back over the arguments some time at Mark Langdorf's site: http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ And look in the section on Broken Cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Go back over the arguments some time at Mark Langdorf's site: > > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/ > > And look in the section on Broken Cards. > Thanks, I'll do that. Mike Eichler [ quoted text not captured ]

The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > In article <7v3tg8$nc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > ramst...@my-deja.com talked about concealed Weapon and Allies: > > Have wondered about the poor cost effectiveness of allies for a long > > time until I ran across an article about "Concealed Weapon." Where > > "Concealed Weapon" is identified as a Disciplineless card rather than > > an Obfuscate card. Quick reference to both "Concealed Weapon" and > > it's cousin "Disguised Weapon" show them to be close in operation with > > "Concealed Weapon" being the weaker of the two. "Concealed Weapon" > > has no Basic or Superior text like "Disguised Weapon" and is limited > > the types of weapons that can be brought to bear. > > > > "Concealed Weapon" with allies just seem to go hand in hand. It gives > > them greater latitude and increases their potential as a usable minion > > and the use of "Concealed Weapon" could also be applied to vampires as > > well. > > > > I have once before inquired if anyone has playtested "Concealed > > Weapon" as a disciplineless card and never received an answer. > > Whether this is because no has done it (unlikely as I have come > > across decks that identify themselves as doing so) or there has > > already been a "Flame War" over this subject and I missed it. > > In Austin, we have played with Concealed Weapon as a disciplineless > card for many years now. In most decks, guns are overcosted, and > having that extra card in hand when you don't have any guns is pretty > useless. Occasionally, someone will pull out a deck with CW and guns, > but never so far with Allies and CW and guns. > Great! > This would be too many combinations of fragile items. > Your ally maneuvers to long with his .44, Sarah Cobbler steals > his 2 life with Theft of Vitae, both the gun and the ally go poof! Thought of that but having never played it was never sure how "meta- gaming" atmosphere would evolve. > > Eight of the fourteen Sabbat allies are killed by Theft of Vitae. > Seventeen of the twenty-four other allies are killed by Theft of Vitae. > Nine allies are killed by Catatonic Fear at superior. Twenty-five > allies are killed by Riposte at superior. All allies are killed by > Entombment at close range. All allies (except Ambrosius) are killed by > Immortal Grapple/(SUP)Torn Signpost/(SUP)Pushing the Limit. > > Even with CW to get the gun on the Ally without an action, > combining the two together is a mistake in almost every case. > > The only allies that I would bother to give a weapon are War Ghouls and > Ambrosius, the Ferryman (Wraith). War Ghoul's with Stakes have been > known to sweep tables. http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/wgfinal.htm > But even in that deck, the card cost/opportunity cost of concealed > weapon is way too high. I use Vast Wealth cards instead. > Ambrosius with Talbot's Chainsaw is great too, but watch out for > those damn Tremere. http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/Ambrosius.htm > I am supposing in your area Tremere are big players? For some reason in my old group, Tremere were not that popular. Our one Tremere player moved to the UK and that was about it for the clan. Some did pop up but no one dedicated themselves to the clan. > Guns cost too much and are too fragile, you may never reap > any damage from them before you vampire/ally is destroyed. > Concealed Weapon does not help enough to make any real difference > and does not get played with either Vampires or Allies. > Agreed [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19991026090836...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > Mike Eichler wrote: > >>I have once before inquired if anyone has playtested "Concealed Weapon" > as a disciplineless card and never received an answer. Whether this is > because no has done it (unlikely as I have come across decks that > identify themselves as doing so) or there has already been a "Flame > War" over this subject and I missed it.>> > > Plently of people have played with this house rule over the years, and it has > been debated extensively in this forum (check out deja-news if you wanna find > the old posts). While most people agree that it was probably, at one point in > production, meant to be disciplineless, it was changed to require Obfuscate. > This might have been a complete accident/misprint; or it might have been due to > someone at the last minute deciding that if it were disciplinless it would have > been too useful (although I find this somewhat unlikely--it is far more likely > to be due to someone screwing something up). > Agreed > Regardless of the reason Concealed Weapon became an Obfuscate card, one of the > main precepts of errating cards is to only downgrade cards that are too good, > not to upgrade cards that are too weak (that, and repair recognized misprints, > and CW has never been positively identified as a misprint). Cards that are too > good have a negative impact upon the game environment, while cards that are too > weak have no effect upon play, as they simply get ignored. If you are going to > fix CW, you are then going to have to fix Chainsaw, Werewolf Pack, Mercy of the > Weak, and countless other weak cards. Not a can of worms that is worth opening. > Understandable... > This being said, I can't really see how making CW disciplinless would really > make allies any more useful. All it would mean is that when your Thadeous Zho > gets a magnum without wasting an action, he will cost you 6 pool when he dies, > instead of just 4. Guns aren't that good. Allies aren't that good. Combine > them, and you have extra not good. > Being that I don't have the practical experience, I was just providing my thoughts on the subject. Being that my group in Germany is comprised on mainly new players I do not anticipate any introduction of playing with CW as a disciplineless card until everyone is more experienced. I was sure, however, that other playgroups had and this particular forum brought the issue to mind. The responses to the topic were more than I had anticipated. Thanks for all the inputs. [ quoted text not captured ] > >>Despite the second argument, I personally feel that "Concealed Weapon" > as a disciplineless card does have merit. I have not playtested the > concept with my group but believe it would give more life to the use of > "Weapons" and "Allies" within the game.>> > > It clearly has merit, but I suspect it does not have enough merit to justify > setting an errata precident (that the rules team is willing to errata weak > cards just to make them more useful), and I still don't think it will help > allies much, if at all. > > Peter D Bakija > PD...@aol.com > > "Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to fear. Fear leads to...anger? > Wait a second." > -Xander > [ quoted text not captured ]

Tuomas Rinta wrote: > Ah...can you imagine Muddled Vampire hunter attacking someone, and then > suddenly slapping out a Sengir Dagger to strike for 4 aggravated with > first strike. It's evil, isn't it. I think that Concealed Weapon should > be a disciplineless card, due that it looks like one (even the picture > suggests that it's got nothing to do with Obfuscate). > > Also, I think that the usefulness of Allies would increse if this card > would be disciplineless. I wonder if there is/will be any ruling on the > obfuscate-requirement of that card. Since we all seem to realize that it > is intended to be used without any disciplinen, a ruling or an errata > would be nice (LSJ, what do you have to say to this?) Concealed Weapon doesn't meet the errata threshold. See my other posts on the topic: http://www.deja.com/mydnquery.xp?QRY=concealed+weapon+errata&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&ST=PS&subjects=&groups=rec.*.jyhad&authors=vtesrep%40*&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100 [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > >The only allies that I have ever seen useful have been: > >Renegade Garou/Muddles >Arms Dealer >Political Ally Well, I must state that I think the list is a little longer. As the Giovanni newsletter editor, I've spent a lot of time looking them over. Ambrosius, the Ferryman must be added for obvious reasons (Lasombra stated a couple). I'd also add Leonardo, Mortician. Since he's so innocuous otherwise, he amounts to a 1-pool Hunting Ground. Most people would rather not bother wasting a block opportunity to stop Leonardo's action, and combat decks typically decide he's not worth killing. John Baker

Madman2001 wrote in message ... >Folks: > >Does the initial life total for an ally constitute a ceiling for that >ally's life total? > Nope. >From discussions on this newsgroup, I find that most folks are negative >about the allies. Is it because allies cannot generally use combat or >action cards?? > Most people just haven't tried to make allies the focus of thier strategy. I've two decks at the Lasombra's fine archive (members.tripod.com/`Lasombra/rdz.htm) that make use of allies to a relatively high level of effect. 21 Burst Salute uses Talaq the Immortal and Shadow Court Satyr along with a multitude of Busrt of Sunlight. Make Allies Cheap uses Arms Dealers sacrificed for War Ghouls, along with the classic "Ambrosius, the Ferryman equipped with Talbot's Chainsaw" combo. Both of these can benefit from Nephandus as torpor cleanup, since burning vamps with allies rarely happens. Both also have some common tactics that make the investment in allies worthwhile. First, the use of Compel the Spirit (either wiht nec skill cards, or a few copies of Rudolpho Giovanni in the crypt). Second, the use of small vamires in recruiting (and blood gain for them when they aren't recruiting allies). Finally, the use of disciplineless combat cards. You've got to be _very_ aware of who you're target is with this sort of combat, and avoid those who might do you harm. Fortunately, these decks can be easily changed to weenie light bleed mid-game if you are at some point stonewalled by an ally combat-ready prey. By no means would I consider Allies a tournament ready tactic. But they do have a certain surprise element that other deck ideas lack, that's their best advantage. Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

In article <3815A72E...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > Concealed Weapon doesn't meet the errata threshold. > > See my other posts on the topic: > > http://www.deja.com/mydnquery.xp? QRY=concealed+weapon+errata&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&ST =PS&subjects=&groups=rec.*.jyhad&authors=vtesrep% 40*&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100 > But, what about the case of a misprint? This would not be so much a case of errating inappropriate card as much as simply clarifying the intent of the card. -Korric [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 14:18:54 GMT, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Guns cost too much and are too fragile, you may never reap >any damage from them before you vampire/ally is destroyed. >Concealed Weapon does not help enough to make any real difference >and does not get played with either Vampires or Allies. Hm. Toreador could make a nasty bruise and bleed deck if they had the option of pulling out a surprise .44 or two - and two Social Charms that get through because of it cover the pool cost. They have the CEL to protect the gun, too - enough Flash and Blur and you'll be fine. Facing S:CE? That's nice. 10 Social Charms and 10 Legal Manips should run him out of S:CE real quick, or if you're bored, say "screw it" and just run blood dolls to pay for the guns and pack 15 Aire of Elations. "Bleed for 1, oops, 4." Weenie CEL could make a good Rush deck with CW - you have to slap skill cards all over the place on them, but even plain old Nik Rushing you, whipping out a .44, and spending his one blood to Blur and shoot you for 4... *chuckle* The skill cards are required though, so you can use Psyche. But there are TONS of 2 and 3-caps with cel, and Sarah Brando at 3 with CEL. -- Derek PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting. (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

In article <19991026090836...@ng-fc1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote: >This being said, I can't really see how making CW disciplinless would really >make allies any more useful. All it would mean is that when your Thadeous Zho >gets a magnum without wasting an action, he will cost you 6 pool when he dies, >instead of just 4. Guns aren't that good. Allies aren't that good. Combine >them, and you have extra not good. Why do I always end up replying to your posts Peter? Weird. Anway, we played around a bit with a Disciplineless CW, plus making allies and non-unique weapons cost one less pool. Allies and Weapons still weren't effective. :-/ The Muddled Vampire Hunter becomes a bit nastier, but that's about it. [ quoted text not captured ]

kor...@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article <3815A72E...@wizards.com>, > LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: > > Concealed Weapon doesn't meet the errata threshold. > > > > See my other posts on the topic: > > > > http://www.deja.com/mydnquery.xp? > QRY=concealed+weapon+errata&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=ALL&ST > =PS&subjects=&groups=rec.*.jyhad&authors=vtesrep% > 40*&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=date&maxhits=100 > > > But, what about the case of a misprint? This would not be so much a > case of errating inappropriate card as much as simply clarifying the > intent of the card. It takes errata (or a reprinting) to correct misprints. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <381602D1...@wizards.com>, LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >kor...@my-deja.com wrote: >> In article <3815A72E...@wizards.com>, >> LSJ <vte...@wizards.com> wrote: >> > Concealed Weapon doesn't meet the errata threshold. >> > >> But, what about the case of a misprint? This would not be so much a >> case of errating inappropriate card as much as simply clarifying the >> intent of the card. > >It takes errata (or a reprinting) to correct misprints. Well, true, but that's not really what he was arguing. He meant that changing CW isn't a matter of "fixing" a weak card, but making the card do what it was obviously meant to do. The question here is really what was CW obviously meant to do? Personally, it seems quite obvious to me that it was meant to be discipliness, for reasons beaten to death before, but the minor impact just wouldn't be worth the extra errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action > but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you > need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already > out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want > done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, > leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action > spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed > that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed > up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into > the active region. But in order to put an ally in a deck you have to be *expecting* that a situation will arise when you have untapped vampires with "nothing else worth doing." Decks were this situation is common are inherently inferior. You win Jyhad by being proactive. Very very few allies are a better investment of time (actions) than, for example, GtUing your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) phil...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) writes: >In article <7v2s8m$u8n$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>-COST- >>>The pool cost for most allies is in the same ball park as small >>>vampires, so from that perspective the cost is not unreasonable. >>>However, the opportunity costs are very very high. Recruiting an ally >>>costs an action from a vampire. That means one less bleed, vote, rush >>>or other action. >> >>I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action >>but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you >>need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already >>out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want >>done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, >>leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action >>spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed >>that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed >>up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into >>the active region. > >You do realize your argument sums up as: if your deck is completely >stalled, and your minions have nothing to do, allies might be >usefull? I'm not sure where you read that. All I said was that if *one* minion you have doesn't have another productive action to take and you don't feel you gain much (or anything) by leaving it untapped, tapping it to recruit is a negligible cost. That's hardly the same thing as my deck being completely stalled out. If you can't imagine any other distinctions between the two, at least consider that I'm good to go for many bleeds next turn but in the process of setting myself up for it, it's pointless to do it this turn because I don't have more potential bleeders than my prey has interceptors. So wait until next turn when all my minions are untapped (or I'm ready to pay for Misdirection or whatever), and in the mean time, tap that doing-nothing weeny to recruit an ally and exercise my hand to boot. Now, does that sound like the same thing as being completely stalled? >In general, in my experience, actions are definitely more important >than transfers. Transfers tend to cost you pool. You need some, >but more isn't in general neccesarily better. In particular, >once you can't afford any more transfers, they're worthless. In general, you may be right. But that may not be true for certain decks, in which case, you need to calculate the cost of the action vs. the transfers differently. That's all I'm saying. >If you could bring allies in with transfers rather than actions, >they'd still suck. Unforunately, I have to agree with that one, at least for most allies. Kind of sad - the game would definitely be much richer if the designers had set the pool costs of the allies better (that is, smaller for most of them). Fred

> LSJ and every Rules Team before him, has acknowledged that Concealed > Weapon was probably a misprint for many reasons. Every Rules Team > has also said that they would not errata cards to make them more > powerful. The purpose of errata is to bring the cost of cards in > line with similar cards, or to correct game breaking mistakes. > > Keeping CW as an obfuscate card does not make it overpowered. > > In other words, it does not break or hurt the game to leave it > as it is. It will not be changed at a national level unless > it gets reprinted, and we can all hope that WOTC has better ideas > for cards to print than that. > > Lasombra The card would not be made more powerful if it was errated, it would IMHO just change the game in some way, and in a good direction I believe. Concealed Weapon would make allies more useful, since at this point they really do Blow Monkey Chuncks(tm), and are rather useless except for a few rare ones. I think CW should be errated and Hell Hound could be errated to something like "...Hell Hound cannot posess any equipment...", but of course that would be costly, and WotC will never do that. Oh well, just my thoughts... [ quoted text not captured ]

(TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL, STRIP 'XYXYX' FROM THE ADDRESS) Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> writes: >Frederick Scott wrote: > >> I don't think the action argument holds water. It may cost an action >> but it doesn't cost any transfers, which is another scarce resource you >> need to bring out vampires. If you've got lots of weeny vampires already >> out and one or more of them don't really have anything else you want >> done (too full to hunt, bleed would only get them trashed at the moment, >> leaving them untapped for later not necessary, etc. etc.) then an action >> spent to recruit an ally may be completely painless. OTOH, I've noticed >> that one sort-of major problem with weeny decks is how you can get bolluxed >> up spending transfers to bring up vampires and then bringing them into >> the active region. > >But in order to put an ally in a deck you have to be *expecting* that a >situation will arise when you have untapped vampires with "nothing else >worth doing." Decks were this situation is common are inherently >inferior. You win Jyhad by being proactive. Very very few allies are a >better investment of time (actions) than, for example, GtUing your prey. I don't think this is a question of "being proactive" or not. I don't know about you but I frequently find certain points in the game where taking an action seems costless. (And not, as Jaspar suggested, due to being stalled out.) Maybe it's just my style of play and the types of decks I build. Fred

In article <7v6dl7$c2v$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Which is why we have a blanket house rule that makes weapons and allies cheaper cost 1 less pool. Even that doesn't really help much to be honest. :-/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7v6ede$liq$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >I don't think this is a question of "being proactive" or not. I don't know >about you but I frequently find certain points in the game where taking an >action seems costless. (And not, as Jaspar suggested, due to being stalled >out.) Maybe it's just my style of play and the types of decks I build. Well, all decks stall out. It's nice to be able to recover from a "stall", but including library cards that are only good when you stall, even if it's just one minion seems like a bad idea to me. You end up being more likely to stall! You're better off including cards that are also usefull when you're not stalled. [ quoted text not captured ]

phil...@or.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) writes: >In article <7v6ede$liq$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, >Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >>I don't think this is a question of "being proactive" or not. I don't know >>about you but I frequently find certain points in the game where taking an >>action seems costless. (And not, as Jaspar suggested, due to being stalled >>out.) Maybe it's just my style of play and the types of decks I build. > >Well, all decks stall out. It's nice to be able to recover from a >"stall", but including library cards that are only good when you >stall, even if it's just one minion seems like a bad idea to me. I'm not sure what the sense of this comment is. I think I dealt with the distinction between the cost of action occasionally being negligble and actually having a deck stall out in my post yesterday. Allies may be overcosted in terms of pool. And, as you stated, the further cost of the action may compare poorly with the cost of a transfer to a weeny _in some decks_. (Though I notice that after your initial 4 vampires you still can't simply tranfer your way to a new weeny - you have to pay a pool or use a master card to move that weeny into your inactive region. Is that not fairly comparable to the cost of a minion action? Just a thought...) However, the comparison may not be so poor in other decks. And all of this is fairly orthagonal to the part we do agree on: that allies cost too much in general. Even if your group doesn't get good results by reducing ally costs by 1 pool across the board, I still say it's essentially the pool cost, not the action cost, that's the real problem with allies. (Though I suppose some may think some of the allies wouldn't be worthwhile even free if you still had to take an action to recruit them. YMMV.) Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > >But in order to put an ally in a deck you have to be *expecting* that a > >situation will arise when you have untapped vampires with "nothing else > >worth doing." Decks were this situation is common are inherently > >inferior. You win Jyhad by being proactive. Very very few allies are a > >better investment of time (actions) than, for example, GtUing your prey. > > I don't think this is a question of "being proactive" or not. I don't know > about you but I frequently find certain points in the game where taking an > action seems costless. (And not, as Jaspar suggested, due to being stalled > out.) Maybe it's just my style of play and the types of decks I build. But my point here is the cost of the *deck slot* that the ally takes up. Library space is a limiting factor on the effectiveness of most decks. The ally also takes up a space in your hand until you can find time to make that "costless" action. Sure, during play there are some situations in which it would be nice to have a particular ally in hand, but during deck construction there is almost *always* something better to include [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <381931...@clarityconnect.com>, Steve Wampler <swam...@clarityconnect.com> wrote: >> I don't think this is a question of "being proactive" or not. I don't know >> about you but I frequently find certain points in the game where taking an >> action seems costless. (And not, as Jaspar suggested, due to being stalled >> out.) Maybe it's just my style of play and the types of decks I build. > >But my point here is the cost of the *deck slot* that the ally takes >up. Library space is a limiting factor on the effectiveness of most >decks. The ally also takes up a space in your hand until you can find >time to make that "costless" action. Sure, during play there are some >situations in which it would be nice to have a particular ally in hand, >but during deck construction there is almost *always* something better >to include Hate to submit a "me too" post, but that's roughly what I was trying (and failling apparently!) to say. The opurtunity cost of a card that is most often not usefull, and never terribly usefull, is quite high. -Jasper [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Oh, quick question. For corruption counter junk, do you use the ally's >current >> life points, or initial amount? > >Neither (see card text). Oh yeah, duh! I don't know what I was thinking. I *meant* pool cost, but those synapses weren't working right or somethin'. In any case, losing your 100 life ally to 3 or 4 corruption counters (or a Far Mastery, etc.) really sucks! Halcyan 2

A deck that was going around here for a while was the Nephandus/Laptop/Memories of Mortality deck. Unfortunately, once we knew to expect it, Far Masteries and the other ally hosers started to show up in other decks... But to agree with R. David, they do have a surprise element that can make for an entertaining game... Chris R. David Zopf wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] -- Chris Shorb, Monger of stuff Tammy Martin, Queen of the Eastern Marches, and damn good mom Alexander Shorb, little guy who could Shameless plug: <http://www.thethirdplanet.com/>