Reprinting Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, etc.

First, I want to say that Steve Wieck's latest news make me very happy (150 new cards, concentrated in boosters, Independants on "equal footing" with Cammies... Ohmygod!). Does anybody else think that reprinting the cards only found in basic VtES (not Jyhad), ie Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder Intervention and Justicar Retribution (did I forget any) is a good idea ? If anything, the "semi-official" price of Prot. Resources suggests that some people are looking hard for that card (Probably the hardest card to get by trading in my experience). What do you think? Mathieu

> Does anybody else think that reprinting the cards only found in basic > VtES (not Jyhad), ie Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder > Intervention and Justicar Retribution (did I forget any) is a good idea > ? If anything, the "semi-official" price of Prot. Resources suggests > that some people are looking hard for that card (Probably the hardest > card to get by trading in my experience). > > What do you think? Well Justicar Retribution is only callable by Camarilla, and so doesn't fit all that well into Final Nights. Protected Resources and Archon Investigation can both find a home in my collection, though. =) The only thing is, what cool Rare cards would be taken out for them? =\ -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In article <B65679F8.127C%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Well Justicar Retribution is only callable by Camarilla, and so > doesn't fit all that well into Final Nights. Protected Resources and > Archon Investigation can both find a home in my collection, though. =) > The only thing is, what cool Rare cards would be taken out for > them? =\ I know, how about Up Yours! Oh wait... ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/ Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think any reprint of an "in-demand", usable, hard-to-get old is a great reprint! I believe this because Jyhad's value to me is as a game. Cards that are hard to get and very useful - especially the ones that are useful in multiple types of decks (as opposed to one very specific deck archetype which a new player can just ignore) - are barriers to new players entering the game and to having fun playing the game if you can get them to start. I don't give a flying fornication how badly you ream the trade value of my existing cards. I can still play with them - *BUT* only if I have opponents!!! Fred

Pat Ricochet wrote: > Well Justicar Retribution is only callable by Camarilla, and so doesn't > fit all that well into Final Nights. I don't see a lot of point in making that distinction about Final Nights. Frankly, I hate it when people get overly anal about thematic considerations which prevent them from doing something truly practical and useful. > The only thing is, what cool Rare cards would be taken out for them? =\ What take out any? For one thing, Steve Wieck mentioned that all reprints would be in the precon decks, so I'm sure a place can be found. Fred

> Pat Ricochet wrote: >> Well Justicar Retribution is only callable by Camarilla, and so doesn't >> fit all that well into Final Nights. > > I don't see a lot of point in making that distinction about Final Nights. > Frankly, I hate it when people get overly anal about thematic considerations > which prevent them from doing something truly practical and useful. No, I don't mean thematically, just that if I sit down to a Final Nights precon game, open up my Setite stealth/vote/bleed/steal deck and find a Justicar Retribution card (appropriately reprinted with the errata from the Sabbat War manual (and before): "Requires a Camarilla vampire") and realize that no one in my crypt can play the card, I'll feel a bit cheezed off. Reprinting a card only playable by Camarilla isn't going to do new players much good, just keep us old players happy, for not having to buy a whole box of V:tES starters to look for a Justicar Retribution, and get a 1" pile of Barrens and Boxed Ins. >> The only thing is, what cool Rare cards would be taken out for them? =\ > > What take out any? For one thing, Steve Wieck mentioned that all reprints > would be in the precon decks, so I'm sure a place can be found. Well, I'm assuming that each precon will have a certain number of rares, uncommons, commons, etc. (rarities referring to the rarities from previous sets) and I'm afraid of not getting a Ravnos Carnival or an Ambrosius the Ferryman to make room for Protected Resources in the starter. However, from the "oddball" cards like Torn Signpost, Taste of Vitae, Mighty Grapple, Revelations that make "one per starter," I would have to reconsider and guess that no such "rarity distribution considerations" have to be taken into account. Sure, even *I* can live with one less Jar the Soul to have an Archon Investigation in my Giovanni Starter. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A313A51...@netcom.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] To my mind, there is some argument in favor of *not* reprinting Archon Investigation or Protected Resources - ever - on the basis that they are overpowered cards that should never have been made in the first place. (Their entire reason for existence is as ultimate trumps - they punish an entire strategy all out of proportion to its non-brokenness.) That said, the cards are already out there, and in terms of fairness the new players should probably have access to them too. Unless VEKN were to see fit to ban them altogether for being way stronger than they ought to be. Josh doesn't like getting bled for six but doesn't think it's much fairer to burn a vamp for trying it than to burn a vamp for being !Brujah [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A3109CC...@webmails.com>, Mathieu <no.spam...@webmails.com> writes > Does anybody else think that reprinting the cards only found in basic >VtES (not Jyhad), ie Protected Resources, Archon Investigation, Elder >Intervention and Justicar Retribution (did I forget any) is a good idea >? The obvious way to get around such is to print a few new cards that do similar types of things. e.g. interesting bleed defence cards. New cards and new options for new players, but they still get similar abilities - and it provides incentives for old players to buy new cards, since they get new variants. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:01:48 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >To my mind, there is some argument in favor of *not* reprinting >Archon Investigation or Protected Resources - ever - on the basis >that they are overpowered cards that should never have been made >in the first place. (Their entire reason for existence is as >ultimate trumps - they punish an entire strategy all out of >proportion to its non-brokenness.) I like AI, actually. It's a good balance to the bleed decks; you can jack that bleed up to 4 or better if you WANT to, but you're taking a risk on it. Since a bleed for 3 is a pretty good slap-in-the-face for most decks, it's still possible to make a quite effective deck that bleeds for no more than 3 at a time. And you take a risk including AI in your deck; since everyone knows about it, if someone refuses to bleed you for more than 3 at a time, you have it sitting there as a dead slot. Protected Racehorses disturbs me a little bit more. To bleed through it, you really DO need a weenie horde capable of bleeding for 2 with each action; any deck relying on getting even just a bleed of 3 in every so often will find itself in a world of hurt. However, I also have to note that PR is, at the same time, not THAT good; a mixed vote/bleed deck is often in a better situation than a pure-vote deck, just because it's not necessarily screwed when someone drops Delaying Tactics on a KRC... and if it sits next to an intercept predator, it can actually get SOME damage through without worrying too much. PR certainly doesn't belong in any deck except a vote deck; so I can't see it being something to worry about ALL that much. >That said, the cards are already out there, and in terms of >fairness the new players should probably have access to them >too. Unless VEKN were to see fit to ban them altogether for >being way stronger than they ought to be. And there is always this; they should get reprinted SOMEWHERE, if only to make sure that newbies have a chance to grab hold. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Joshua Duffin wrote: > > In article <3A313A51...@netcom.com>, > fre...@netcom.com wrote: > > I think any reprint of an "in-demand", usable, hard-to-get old is a > > great reprint! I believe this because Jyhad's value to me is as a game. > > Cards that are hard to get and very useful - especially the ones that > > are useful in multiple types of decks (as opposed to one very specific > > deck archetype which a new player can just ignore) - are barriers to > > new players entering the game and to having fun playing the game if you > > can get them to start. I don't give a flying fornication how badly you > > ream the trade value of my existing cards. I can still play with them - > > *BUT* only if I have opponents!!! > > To my mind, there is some argument in favor of *not* reprinting > Archon Investigation or Protected Resources - ever - on the basis > that they are overpowered cards that should never have been made > in the first place. (Their entire reason for existence is as > ultimate trumps - they punish an entire strategy all out of > proportion to its non-brokenness.) Actually, truth be known, I can't ever manage to slip Protect Resources in any deck, even the sort of voting decks that it allegedly does great in. I can almost always find master cards that are better for the deck in question in numbers too great to leave any room for the PR. In my mind, Deflection is such a hoser for the kinds of bleed actions which PR protects against that I'm challenged to understand its popularity. The only reason I stick it with the big boys is because so many other players claim it belongs there. Archon Investigation is sorta, kinda, the same thing. Only the successful play of an AI is so much more devastating than a simple deflection, that although I still think it's balanced - given its cost - I question whether it might be too large an effect for a single card being in the right place at the right time. (Kind of like my objection to the design of Blood Moon in Magic - especially back when multilands were convenient to use in so many decks.) In any event, this kind of debate should be seen as being completely orthogonal to reprint debates. If a card is broken, it should be banned from the game. Then the question of reprinting it should be fairly moot. The one concept I just HATEHATEHATEHATE is the idea certain people have (and the DCI figures in quite prominently here!) is the idea that a broken/thoroughly out-of-balance card should be allowed but NOT reprinted using the logic that the problem is "lessened" if only a privileged few can use a card but not the unwashed masses. BARF! > That said, the cards are already out there, and in terms of > fairness the new players should probably have access to them > too. Unless VEKN were to see fit to ban them altogether for > being way stronger than they ought to be. Exactly. Why is that logic so difficult to comprehend for so many? Fred

In article <3A316F40...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I've heard it suggested that AI ought (to be properly costed) to not cancel the bleed - burn the vamp, okay, but for it to *also* stop the bleed means that, whenever it's playable, it costs *negative* pool (since you would've lost more than three by taking the bleed). If it were rewritten that way, it might be appropriate to reduce the pool cost to 1 or even 0 (since you'd be losing at least four for the bleed itself). I think that would probably make it a more balanced card; as it stands it has a very strong effect for, effectively, no cost at all (just the cost of the cardslot, which isn't really any worse than any other somewhat-specialized out-of-turn master). Protected Resources is certainly less rude, since it doesn't actually burn anyone else's vampires. The blanket restriction on max bleed is, in my opinion, out of flavor for VTES, though; that kind of "uncounterable" card doesn't really belong in this game. > > That said, the cards are already out there, and in terms of > > fairness the new players should probably have access to them > > too. Unless VEKN were to see fit to ban them altogether for > > being way stronger than they ought to be. > > Exactly. Why is that logic so difficult to comprehend for so many? Dunno. I do think it might be good to ban the cards and not reprint them, but if they're not going to be banned then clearly there's no good argument that they shouldn't be reprinted. Josh with their guns and ammunition [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <paq23t4kltdharm00...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I like AI, actually. It's a good balance to the bleed decks; you can > jack that bleed up to 4 or better if you WANT to, but you're taking a > risk on it. Since a bleed for 3 is a pretty good slap-in-the-face for > most decks, it's still possible to make a quite effective deck that > bleeds for no more than 3 at a time. And you take a risk including AI > in your deck; since everyone knows about it, if someone refuses to > bleed you for more than 3 at a time, you have it sitting there as a > dead slot. Getting your vamp burned isn't exactly balancing, is it? Maybe I'm just biased, but I don't like *any* of the non-combat/diablerie ways to burn vampires that got introduced post-Jyhad. (I'm not sure how much I think Society of Leopold was a good idea either, but Vulnerability is perfectly acceptable.) AI, Protect Thine Own, Justicar Retribution, Sacrifice, Out of Control - all totally wrong. (Banishment is wrong too, but it doesn't strictly "burn" the vampire.) From my point of view, burning vampires was supposed to be really hard, because they are your main avenue of accomplishing things in the game, and as such, you were supposed to have to work at combat to get it to happen, and if you burned via diablerie you ran a substantial risk of getting your vampire burned as well. AI hurts bruise-bleed decks more than straight-bleed decks (or so I've heard it argued), since a bruise-bleed may only be getting one bleed action through in multiple turns and will want to make it count with both an action card and a modifier (eg Govern + Conditioning for 5-6). A straight bleed deck will probably be bleeding on every action and may well be succeeding every time; in those circumstances, having to stick to bleeds of 3 or less isn't as much of a handicap. > Protected Racehorses disturbs me a little bit more. To bleed through > it, you really DO need a weenie horde capable of bleeding for 2 with > each action; any deck relying on getting even just a bleed of 3 in > every so often will find itself in a world of hurt. However, I also > have to note that PR is, at the same time, not THAT good; a mixed > vote/bleed deck is often in a better situation than a pure-vote deck, > just because it's not necessarily screwed when someone drops Delaying > Tactics on a KRC... and if it sits next to an intercept predator, it > can actually get SOME damage through without worrying too much. PR > certainly doesn't belong in any deck except a vote deck; so I can't > see it being something to worry about ALL that much. It could also go in any deck that uses the "oddball" tactics to reduce their prey's pool, rather than bleeds - Smiling Jack, Anarch Revolt, combat/Fame, etc. And yeah, it's not that amazingly great most of the time, but it's a trump that (I think) shouldn't really exist.) Josh rudy got bail [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:33:34 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <paq23t4kltdharm00...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I like AI, actually. It's a good balance to the bleed decks; you can >> jack that bleed up to 4 or better if you WANT to, but you're taking a >> risk on it. Since a bleed for 3 is a pretty good slap-in-the-face for >> most decks, it's still possible to make a quite effective deck that >> bleeds for no more than 3 at a time. And you take a risk including AI >> in your deck; since everyone knows about it, if someone refuses to >> bleed you for more than 3 at a time, you have it sitting there as a >> dead slot. > >Getting your vamp burned isn't exactly balancing, is it? Maybe Well, it's about the only thing that's enough of a risk to make you actually NOT bleed for more than 3. The next closest is "burn all blood and send this vamp to torpor", which just means you leave someone else handy to rescue. =/ I can't think of anything else off the top of my head, myself; i'm sure that something could be discovered, but... >I'm just biased, but I don't like *any* of the non-combat/diablerie >ways to burn vampires that got introduced post-Jyhad. (I'm not >sure how much I think Society of Leopold was a good idea either, >but Vulnerability is perfectly acceptable.) AI, Protect Thine >Own, Justicar Retribution, Sacrifice, Out of Control - all totally >wrong. (Banishment is wrong too, but it doesn't strictly "burn" Banishment is wrong because it can be called by Igo, the Hungry, who can play a Bewitching Oration to banish Queen Anne. If he burns the Edge, he can banish Democritus too. Protect Thine Own is an eagle-eye hindsight screwup, because of its applicability to Sabbat vampires. Justicar Retribution is insane; it burns IC members and Pulsed vampires, neither of which are inherently abusive. And it also burns the poor bastard who's stacked up JS Simmons and a Laptop. Sacrifice is fine because of its narrow restriction; they DO have to be of your clan, and the only way to do that currently is via Derange, which didn't get reprinted and therefore is going to fall by the wayside for the most part. Out of Control is ridiculous; who knows why it was printed? But AI? I dunno. It's strong, but bleed was and still is VERY strong; easiest to do large amounts of pool damage with in a very short time, with a very few cards. Nothing else can work so quickly, and there are an awful lot of ways to get past plain old blocking... >the vampire.) From my point of view, burning vampires was supposed >to be really hard, because they are your main avenue of accomplishing >things in the game, and as such, you were supposed to have to >work at combat to get it to happen, and if you burned via diablerie >you ran a substantial risk of getting your vampire burned as >well. Exactly. And you can see i'm not so enthralled with the others either. :) >AI hurts bruise-bleed decks more than straight-bleed decks (or >so I've heard it argued), since a bruise-bleed may only be getting >one bleed action through in multiple turns and will want to make >it count with both an action card and a modifier (eg Govern + >Conditioning for 5-6). A straight bleed deck will probably be >bleeding on every action and may well be succeeding every time; >in those circumstances, having to stick to bleeds of 3 or less >isn't as much of a handicap. Well... I dunno about that. Most of my bruise-and-bleed decks work very well by just using a single bleed action that it dares you to block, or a single bleed modifier that can be slapped onto the first unblocked bleed of 1, making you have to worry about EVERY bleed for 1 and often letting me cycle combat when I don't have the modifier in hand. :) Sure, you can get some bonus bleed by using the action card AND the modifier at the same time, but your deck's focus is probably mostly on bruise... so you WANT them to be blocking. The more "block me!" actions you can take, the better... so a bruise-and-bleed probably doesn't bleed for much more than 3 at a time itself :) >It could also go in any deck that uses the "oddball" tactics >to reduce their prey's pool, rather than bleeds - Smiling Jack, >Anarch Revolt, combat/Fame, etc. And yeah, it's not that amazingly >great most of the time, but it's a trump that (I think) shouldn't >really exist.) True, but Jack, Revolt, and Fame combat all usually are in much better shape when they can rely on 3-4 bleeds for 1 over the course of their strategy. PR doesn't really fit in those. =/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8u1a3t8fksok8dco2...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:33:34 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > >Getting your vamp burned isn't exactly balancing, is it? Maybe > > Well, it's about the only thing that's enough of a risk to make you > actually NOT bleed for more than 3. The next closest is "burn all > blood and send this vamp to torpor", which just means you leave > someone else handy to rescue. =/ I can't think of anything else off > the top of my head, myself; i'm sure that something could be > discovered, but... Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by itself, can get you burnt... > But AI? I dunno. It's strong, but bleed was and still is VERY > strong; easiest to do large amounts of pool damage with in a very > short time, with a very few cards. Nothing else can work so quickly, > and there are an awful lot of ways to get past plain old blocking... Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which isn't something you can really rely on for balance. > Exactly. And you can see i'm not so enthralled with the others > either. :) What, we agree that combat should be the main way to kill vampires? I'm shocked. ;-) > Well... I dunno about that. Most of my bruise-and-bleed decks work > very well by just using a single bleed action that it dares you to > block, or a single bleed modifier that can be slapped onto the first > unblocked bleed of 1, making you have to worry about EVERY bleed for 1 > and often letting me cycle combat when I don't have the modifier in > hand. :) Sure, you can get some bonus bleed by using the action card > AND the modifier at the same time, but your deck's focus is probably > mostly on bruise... so you WANT them to be blocking. The more "block > me!" actions you can take, the better... so a bruise-and-bleed > probably doesn't bleed for much more than 3 at a time itself :) You may be right, as far as successful bruise-bleed decks go. That argument was one I remember being put forth in a previous discussion about whether AI was broken; I'm still yet to build a bruise-bleed deck that really works, so I dunno... > True, but Jack, Revolt, and Fame combat all usually are in much better > shape when they can rely on 3-4 bleeds for 1 over the course of their > strategy. PR doesn't really fit in those. =/ It's good to be able to bleed, sure, but the only thing you give up by bleeding when you have a PR out is the 2 pool investment and the loss of immunity. It could certainly still fit in, if you expect to avoid more than 2 pool of damage by having had it early on. It's also probably good for slow-starting pool-gain decks, since eventually they may be gaining enough pool that 2 per action will never make it through, but they might not have any vamps out for the first few turns to protect from early large bleeds. Josh "sightseeing?" "no... combat." [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:43:40 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one >card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk >going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by >itself, can get you burnt... Foreshadowing Destruction is awfully high-powered for a bleed card anyway; it's a free Conditioning with a condition, but you can always save an FD for later. Or just put a bunch of FDs in and start off with Scouting Missions; add FD when appropriate. >Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in >theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but >with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably >goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting >vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which >isn't something you can really rely on for balance. Yeah, but the plain old base damage vote is KRC. Free, and only does 3 points, and you have to send 1 elsewhere. Messy. Con Ag does more at first, but ends up sucking worse for most of the time; Parity Shift requires elaborate setup; Ancilla Empowerment and Domain Challenge are dependent on your opponent. The plain old base bleed is 5: inferior Govern + Condition. And it's possible to "up" it from there. Voting also permits one's predator to block, which means that a vote deck has to defeat two sets of defenses; all those BO's look great in your hand until you need the extra stealth. :) It's more technically difficult to get a vote passed than a bleed through, and you do less damage overall with a vote. Advantage? The vote can land anywhere on the table; the bleed must land on your prey. >What, we agree that combat should be the main way to kill >vampires? I'm shocked. ;-) I just think vampires need killing. ;) >> mostly on bruise... so you WANT them to be blocking. The more "block >> me!" actions you can take, the better... so a bruise-and-bleed >> probably doesn't bleed for much more than 3 at a time itself :) > >You may be right, as far as successful bruise-bleed decks go. >That argument was one I remember being put forth in a previous >discussion about whether AI was broken; I'm still yet to build >a bruise-bleed deck that really works, so I dunno... I have a few that work well, and that seems to be the real trick; enough Conditionings in the deck so you always have at least one in hand every turn (so you bleed for at least 5 per turn if nobody blocks you), enough Rush actions so you can usually Rush someone when you run out of Conditionings, and the rest combat so that any time someone screws with you, you can knock their block off. Presence is forced to use Legal Manipulations, but that seems to work almost as well, although you do lose the "bleed for 1, think i have it?" threat. >> True, but Jack, Revolt, and Fame combat all usually are in much better >> shape when they can rely on 3-4 bleeds for 1 over the course of their >> strategy. PR doesn't really fit in those. =/ > >It's good to be able to bleed, sure, but the only thing you >give up by bleeding when you have a PR out is the 2 pool >investment and the loss of immunity. It could certainly still >fit in, if you expect to avoid more than 2 pool of damage by >having had it early on. It's also probably good for slow-starting Then the trick is having it early on. Very difficult; mostly in getting that many PR for a deck in the first place :) >pool-gain decks, since eventually they may be gaining enough >pool that 2 per action will never make it through, but they might >not have any vamps out for the first few turns to protect from >early large bleeds. see above; if you don't have it early on, you'll be screwed anyway :) and it's not something you can easily put 5 copies of in your deck or something... I dunno. I just don't see it even PLAYED very much around here. >"sightseeing?" >"no... combat." *thump* OW! [ quoted text not captured ]

I > I've heard it suggested that AI ought (to be properly costed) > to not cancel the bleed - burn the vamp, okay, but for it to > *also* stop the bleed means that, whenever it's playable, it > costs *negative* pool (since you would've lost more than three > by taking the bleed). If it were rewritten that way, it might > be appropriate to reduce the pool cost to 1 or even 0 (since > you'd be losing at least four for the bleed itself). I think > that would probably make it a more balanced card; as it stands > it has a very strong effect for, effectively, no cost at all > (just the cost of the cardslot, which isn't really any worse > than any other somewhat-specialized out-of-turn master). I am having a little bit of a hard time with your arguement. Are you saying that it is okay (or balanced) that a non-auspex or non-dominate deck have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3? Because that is what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really abusive to be on the receiving end of. The only thing that keeps dominate decks for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. It is the only effective method for a non-weenie rush deck to keep a stealth bleed deck under control as a predator (if you dont' have auspex or dominate). I think a cost of 3 pool plus a card slot plus having to wait for the opportunity to play Archon Investigation really does make the card balanced. If they are not bleeding you for more than 3 then Archon Investigation just jams up your hand, and if they look like they could bleed you for more than three then most players will hold on to it just in case. This takes up a valuable card slot. The card slot is the most expensive price of the card. Having to hold onto one effectively reduces your hand size which is extremely costly in terms of opportunity. That is why I think that the card is both balanced and properly costed. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

> Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one > card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk > going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by > itself, can get you burnt... As well it should, If you are below 10 pool and someone bleeds you for 4 with Superior Forshadowing Destruction, then playing a AI can possibly save you. The fact that cards that make bleeds unblockable exist give creedence to the need for a card like AI to exist. > Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in > theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but > with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably > goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting > vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which > isn't something you can really rely on for balance. I believe you are forgetting Delaying Tactics which will jam up a vote deck quite nicely. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > The only thing that keeps dominate decks > for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + > Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. Actually, one of the points I tried to make earlier to Josh to show that Archon Investigation and Protected Resources *aren't* overpowered is that AI is *not* the only thing that keeps dominate deck for bleeding for 7. In my opinion, the existence of Deflection goes a lot further to accomplish that end. There's nothing like: "I bleed for 4 using Computer Hacking with Stanislava." "I wake and block with Sir Walter Nash.". "Earth Control at superior." "No block." "Conditioning at superior." "Deflection." Your prey (who up 'til now had been looking on the whole thing with mild amusement) and your predator - in unison: "Acckkkkkkkkkk....!" Now I know you were trying to make the above comment with regard to non-dominate decks. I'm just saying that the existence of decks with dominate in them makes it difficult to create a reliable stealth bleed that depends on getting a few big "home run" bleeds through. Besides, AI is not the only recourse for non-auspex, non-dominate decks. Protected Resources is also available. (Actually Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics also work; they're just not ideal because their focus on bleed actions only make them risky.) I'm just not sure why it's all that attractive, myself. In any case, Deflection is such a popular and useful card, I'm surprised anyone worries about people playing with Protect Resources or even Archon Investigation. Josh is right, though: getting a vampire burnt because you had the balls to bleed for more than three on a turn that your prey turns out to be holding an AI (not a very common occurrence, in my experience) is something that's awfully rude to leave up to chance. Whatever its benefits as a game balancer. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > > [Getting your vampire burned] > > Well, it's about the only thing that's enough of a risk to make you > actually NOT bleed for more than 3. It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. > The next closest is "burn all > blood and send this vamp to torpor", which just means you leave > someone else handy to rescue. =/ I can't think of anything else off > the top of my head, myself; i'm sure that something could be > discovered, but... The problem with the card is not that it is especially broken. Since for it to be useful at all you have to being bled heavily, putting it in a deck is questionable at best, depending on your environment. But its intent is to "put down" bleed decks, which don't need such a putting down. It was created by idiot WotC employees who played with 4cl and thought the game was broken and needed fixing. > Banishment is wrong because it can be called by Igo, the Hungry, who > can play a Bewitching Oration to banish Queen Anne. If he burns the > Edge, he can banish Democritus too. Banishment is wrong because it removes a vital resource (a vampire) too easily. Again, this is not always a great card; it requires there to be a mostly-empty big vampire around. But its effect greatly outweighs its cost. > But AI? I dunno. It's strong, but bleed was and still is VERY > strong; But not unbalancingly strong. Since it wins in the most direct manner possible (removing prey's pool), it will of course be an effective deck type. But it is weak against combat, bleed bounce, bloat, intercept, etc. > True, but Jack, Revolt, and Fame combat all usually are in much better > shape when they can rely on 3-4 bleeds for 1 over the course of their > strategy. PR doesn't really fit in those. =/ It's not the effectiveness of PR that makes me spew smoke from my ears when I see one. It's that its effect outweighs its cost dramatically. It's that it is impossible to get rid of; it almost requires a bleed deck to pack Sudden Reversal just to prevent the card from ever getting played. I think it is only the relative scarcity of AI and PR that keep people from seeing them as the horribly unbalanced cards that they are. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one > > card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk > > going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by > > itself, can get you burnt... > > As well it should, If you are below 10 pool and someone bleeds you for > 4 with Superior Forshadowing Destruction, then playing a AI can possibly > save you. Playing valid bleed defense can save you also. Just because AI can be "good" (when it would save you from dying), doesn't mean it's "good" (as in balanced, appropriate, and good for the game). > The fact that cards that make bleeds unblockable exist give > creedence to the need for a card like AI to exist. The cards that make actions unblockable come at an extreme cost, or have very stringent disadvantages. And an unblockable bleed can still be bounced. > > Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in > > theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but > > with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably > > goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting > > vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which > > isn't something you can really rely on for balance. > > I believe you are forgetting Delaying Tactics which will jam up a vote > deck quite nicely. Well, you seem to be forgetting that cards like Deflection, Telepathic Misdirection, and Bum's Rush (with a couple others) hurt a bleed deck as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:43:40 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one > >card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk > >going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by > >itself, can get you burnt... > > Foreshadowing Destruction is awfully high-powered for a bleed card > anyway; it's a free Conditioning with a condition, but you can always > save an FD for later. Or just put a bunch of FDs in and start off > with Scouting Missions; add FD when appropriate. I don't see FD as significantly more powerful than Conditioning. The cost of a blood seems to offset the disadvantage of not being always able to play superior FD. Unless you think Conditioning is "awfully high-powered"? [vote, bleed] There are plenty of checks and balances to both vote and bleed. Votes come with +1 stealth, bleed doesn't. Bleeds can be bounced, while the votes always get pointed at the right place. Votes can be defeated, bleeds can be blocked. > >It's good to be able to bleed, sure, but the only thing you > >give up by bleeding when you have a PR out is the 2 pool > >investment and the loss of immunity. It could certainly still > >fit in, if you expect to avoid more than 2 pool of damage by > >having had it early on. It's also probably good for slow-starting > > Then the trick is having it early on. Very difficult; mostly in > getting that many PR for a deck in the first place :) That PR is rare does not excuse its existence. > I dunno. I just don't see it even PLAYED very much around here. See my previous sentence. [ quoted text not captured ]

X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > as it stands > > it has a very strong effect for, effectively, no cost at all > > (just the cost of the cardslot, which isn't really any worse > > than any other somewhat-specialized out-of-turn master). > > I am having a little bit of a hard time with your arguement. Are you > saying that it is okay (or balanced) that a non-auspex or non-dominate > deck have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3? It is OK for a deck with no bleed defense to have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3? It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed defense in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the bleeders. Intercept decks (not all of which use Auspex) have bleed defense: block the bleeders. Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the bleed deck is taking away. There were already plenty of ways to deal with bleed decks. More wouldn't have been necessarily bad. But AI has negative cost, and BURNS a vampire. > Because that is > what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really abusive > to be on the receiving end of. I really don't know about "abusive". Sure, it sucks to lose a bunch of pool, but if you don't have any defense for a particular type of deck, don't complain when it kills you. It's like the guy who gave Peter the finger at Origins (see other thread); he didn't have any combat defense, so he should have accepted it when a combat deck killed him. If I play a deck with no bleed defense and my predator turns out to be a bleed deck, I'm going to lose. > The only thing that keeps dominate decks > for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + > Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. \begin{sarcasm} Wow, you're right. Before AI, the only effective decks were bleed decks, because they were completely unstoppable. We needed to get a new card which gives an extreme penalty to a standard deck archetype doing what it naturally does. Now we need cards which burn vampires who are too effective at combat and voting. We wouldn't want anyone to be effective. \end{sarcasm} > It is the only effective method > for a non-weenie rush deck to keep a stealth bleed deck under control as > a predator (if you dont' have auspex or dominate). This statement indicates to me that you have never played an effective non-weenie rush deck. When I'm playing my rush deck, I'm ecstatic if one of my neighbors is playing a stealth bleed deck. They're easy meat. > I think a cost of 3 pool You mean "negative cost". Do you not understand the negative cost argument? Would you like me to repeat it? > plus a card slot plus having to wait for the opportunity to play > Archon Investigation really does make the card balanced. If they are not > bleeding you for more than 3 then Archon Investigation just jams up your > hand, and if they look like they could bleed you for more than three > then most players will hold on to it just in case. This takes up a > valuable card slot. The card slot is the most expensive price of the > card. Having to hold onto one effectively reduces your hand size which > is extremely costly in terms of opportunity. That is why I think that > the card is both balanced and properly costed. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

Petri Wessman wrote: > > At first glace PR seems like a great card, but it has a lot of > problems. It costs pool, it still allows bleeds of 2 to get through > (so weenie hordes will demolish you), and you cannot do any bleeds. > > It is a useful card in some cases, most especially for decks that need > some time to come up to speed, and for decks that do damage without > bleeding (vote decks etc). Still, in order for it to be useful you > need to get it fairly early in the game, so you need more than one in > a deck. Currently, you're lucky to own even one PR. If rarity balances the card, then it's _not_ balanced. Would Return to Innocence have been balanced if it had been extremely rare? Of course not. I agree that the effect of the card is not amazingly good. You have to be playing a specific kind of deck (and so does your predator) for it to do anything for you. But the card has an extreme effect against particular (completely valid) decks and strategies. There is no way to get rid of the card; you can't force someone to take a bleed action. I am almost convinced that making the card a Master: Unique Location balances it. This provides three new ways to deal with the card: burn it (with, say, Arson), steal it (with, say, Disputed Territory or Kine Dominance), or contest it (by playing with your own). > So 1 vote here for including PR in a Final Nights preconstructed deck > (not that this is a voting matter, of course :). Well, if my vote counted for anything, I'd errata AI to not cancel the bleed and PR to be a Unique Location. Would you like a recount? James [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:02:12 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> [Getting your vampire burned] >> >> Well, it's about the only thing that's enough of a risk to make you >> actually NOT bleed for more than 3. > >It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ >cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three >pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master >phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at >least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. (shrug) It costs you a slot in your deck, hoping like hell you're going to be bled for 4 at some point. And you actually have to TAKE the bleed for at least 3, instead of just arranging for some other fashion to deal with it. It's a strong card, but I won't automatically include one in every tournament deck I build. >The problem with the card is not that it is especially broken. Since >for it to be useful at all you have to being bled heavily, putting it in >a deck is questionable at best, depending on your environment. But its Exactly my point. It is even more questionable in a tournament environment, where the builder of a bleed deck KNOWS that several decks will be containing AI, and is even more likely to tune his deck so that bleeds of more than 3 are only a rarity, not the norm. Why is such a questionable, predictable card overpowered? >intent is to "put down" bleed decks, which don't need such a putting >down. It was created by idiot WotC employees who played with 4cl and >thought the game was broken and needed fixing. Why it was created isn't what I'm discussing; it's here now, and we're stuck with it unless we ban it. The question is, it is so unbalancing that it needs to be banned? Or would banning it tip the scale too far towards the bleed decks? >> Banishment is wrong because it can be called by Igo, the Hungry, who >> can play a Bewitching Oration to banish Queen Anne. If he burns the >> Edge, he can banish Democritus too. > >Banishment is wrong because it removes a vital resource (a vampire) too >easily. Again, this is not always a great card; it requires there to be >a mostly-empty big vampire around. But its effect greatly outweighs its >cost. If you Banish a 5-cap with 2 blood, it is effectively an unbounceable, unreduceable bleed for 3 OR a total removal of a significant resource (the vampire). EVEN IF it is only a bleed for 3, it is still a TEMPORARY removal of that resource for a turn, which could be used to defend against other bleeds or damage. It is far too overpowered for the fact that Igo can call and pass it by himself. >> But AI? I dunno. It's strong, but bleed was and still is VERY >> strong; > >But not unbalancingly strong. Since it wins in the most direct manner >possible (removing prey's pool), it will of course be an effective deck >type. But it is weak against combat, bleed bounce, bloat, intercept, >etc. Bleed does not NEED to be weak against combat, bloat, OR intercept, however; the trick lies in the deck construction. A Ventrue/!Ventrue DOM/FOR bleed deck is not vulnerable to combat. A weenie Dominate horde will overrun Minion Tap/5th. Malk S&B will beat intercept. Bleed bounce is the strongest natural counter to a bleed deck, and even that can be somewhat negated; interestingly enough, by the same strategy that hoses AI (more bleeds for less). In one sense, AI encourages people to make bleed decks that ARE weak against combat, bloat, and intercept, by diluting the focus of their bleeds over multiple actions; and this moves the bleed defense away from bleed bounce (the universally reliable one) and more towards the center. AI is not a functional defense by itself. But its supplemental action helps other defenses become viable. Would I have created it? ...No. If I were on the review team, would I permit it by without complaint? ...No. Do I want to see it banned since it got here anyway? ...No. >> True, but Jack, Revolt, and Fame combat all usually are in much better >> shape when they can rely on 3-4 bleeds for 1 over the course of their >> strategy. PR doesn't really fit in those. =/ > >It's not the effectiveness of PR that makes me spew smoke from my ears >when I see one. It's that its effect outweighs its cost dramatically. >It's that it is impossible to get rid of; it almost requires a bleed This is true. Does that effect affect the game significantly, though? >deck to pack Sudden Reversal just to prevent the card from ever getting >played. I think it is only the relative scarcity of AI and PR that keep >people from seeing them as the horribly unbalanced cards that they are. AI isn't scarce. We see lots of it down in the Southeast. PR isn't seen outside a tourney environment, and even then not that frequently... although I'm sure an awful lot of people have one that they could include. I think that it's just that PR shuts down so much of your offensive options, and HAS to come out on top of your deck or is useless, and isn't much of a defense EXCEPT against mondo-bleeders... that it's just not that good an inclusion in most decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:12:18 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Derek Ray wrote: >> Foreshadowing Destruction is awfully high-powered for a bleed card >> anyway; it's a free Conditioning with a condition, but you can always >> save an FD for later. Or just put a bunch of FDs in and start off >> with Scouting Missions; add FD when appropriate. > >I don't see FD as significantly more powerful than Conditioning. The >cost of a blood seems to offset the disadvantage of not being always >able to play superior FD. Unless you think Conditioning is "awfully >high-powered"? Conditioning is strong, but the difference between "1 blood" and "free" is enormous in V:TES, much more so than the difference between "1 blood" and "2 blood". "free" means "anytime, forever", and that can be VERY important since a deck relying on Scouting Mission/FD will be bleeding for either 3 or 5 *totally* for free; and it can use the blood it's not spending for Governs or Conditions as Blood Doll fodder. The other reason is that FD's condition is applicable much more often than people realize; most decks will transfer out approximately 14-16 pool of vampires to start with, and so will be operating from the word "go" at around 15 pool. It only takes a couple quick bleeds or votes to reduce someone to 9, and then FD's advantage begins to really kick in. And you can always cycle it for an extra +1 bleed if you need to move one out of your hand, helping you get to the range where its superior is useful. Later in the game it becomes even MORE useful, when vampires are low on blood and EVERYONE's pool is within FD's range; a free bleed for 1 that suddenly becomes 4 and the vampire doesn't need to hunt next turn, or a 1-blood bleed for 3 that suddenly becomes 6... these get very nasty. >[vote, bleed] > >There are plenty of checks and balances to both vote and bleed. Votes >come with +1 stealth, bleed doesn't. Bleeds can be bounced, while the >votes always get pointed at the right place. Votes can be defeated, >bleeds can be blocked. Since you snipped what I said, I have no idea what your counterpoint is intended to be; this paragraph is a tautology by itself, but it requires context to be relevant. >> >It's good to be able to bleed, sure, but the only thing you >> >give up by bleeding when you have a PR out is the 2 pool >> >investment and the loss of immunity. It could certainly still >> >fit in, if you expect to avoid more than 2 pool of damage by >> >having had it early on. It's also probably good for slow-starting >> >> Then the trick is having it early on. Very difficult; mostly in >> getting that many PR for a deck in the first place :) > >That PR is rare does not excuse its existence. However, this still doesn't alter the fact that having it early on in a deck is very difficult to arrange except by putting a ridiculous number of copies in, however difficult those copies may be to obtain. >> I dunno. I just don't see it even PLAYED very much around here. > >See my previous sentence. Uh, quite a few people in our group have one or more PR. I repeat: I don't see it played very much around here, and it's NOT for lack of opportunity. Saw it last week for the first time in 6 months. It failed to successfully pay for itself, and its controller finally gave it up voluntarily by bleeding because he NEEDED to bleed. Dunno. Just don't see it yet, myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> I am having a little bit of a hard time with your arguement. Are you >> saying that it is okay (or balanced) that a non-auspex or non-dominate >> deck have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3? > > It is OK for a deck with no bleed defense to have zero defense against > bleeds greater than 3? >> I think a cost of 3 pool > > You mean "negative cost". Do you not understand the negative cost > argument? Would you like me to repeat it? By your math, cost of bouncing a bleed of 6: 1 blood and NEGATIVE 6 pool! Quick, let's ban Deflection! =P Note that *unless* a bleed of more than 3 comes your way, AI is ONLY taking up space. Be sure to factor that into the "cost". Delaying Tactics can screw a vote deck to hell and back, but you can quickly get a handful of them if you counted on votes and didn't get any called. But, you also need to take into account the vampire burning. That's a big effect! But after all that, "cost" is getting fuzzy. A "cost of 3 pool" refers to the little number on the black drop of blood in the lower left corner, nothing more. His ears aren't shut, and he heard you just fine. The "not taking the bleed" is an *effect*, not a "cost," strictly speaking. Shuffling numbers around to support your case doesn't change the truth of "Archon Investigation is a MooT that costs 3 pool." [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I repeat: I own it. I can't find a deck I'd want it in. The one and only serious deck I've ever put _one_ copy in was my Legacy of Pander deck. And the few times I drew it and it was relevant, I'd play it only grudgingly, just because my it-was-in-the-deck-so-god-damn-it-I'm-gonna- grit-my-teeth-and-play-it kind of an attitude would be present. I can't explain the viewpoint of the people who think it's killer. I'm thinking maybe we need to check the water in certain parts of the country? Fred

In article <3A35A4CC...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one > > > card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk > > > going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by > > > itself, can get you burnt... > > > > As well it should, If you are below 10 pool and someone bleeds you for > > 4 with Superior Forshadowing Destruction, then playing a AI can possibly > > save you. > > Playing valid bleed defense can save you also. Just because AI can be > "good" (when it would save you from dying), doesn't mean it's "good" (as > in balanced, appropriate, and good for the game). I have to say that I think it is both good for the game, balanced and appropriate. I guess what you are saying is,"if you don't have dominate or auspex then you are up shit creek without a paddle without this card". Forget about playing Assamites, Setites, Ravnos, Gangrel, Brujah, !Brujah, or !Gangrel. Getting bled for six is obnoxiously extreme. The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this card a nessity. > > The fact that cards that make bleeds unblockable exist give > > creedence to the need for a card like AI to exist. > > The cards that make actions unblockable come at an extreme cost, or have > very stringent disadvantages. And an unblockable bleed can still be > bounced. See above about dominate and auspex > > > Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in > > > theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but > > > with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably > > > goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting > > > vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which > > > isn't something you can really rely on for balance. > > > > I believe you are forgetting Delaying Tactics which will jam up a vote > > deck quite nicely. > > Well, you seem to be forgetting that cards like Deflection, Telepathic > Misdirection, and Bum's Rush (with a couple others) hurt a bleed deck as > well. > I think I failed to mention bounce because it is availible to only two disciplines. That screws 7 clans. 7 clans!! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A357EB2...@netcom.com>, fre...@netcom.com wrote: > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > The only thing that keeps dominate decks > > for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + > > Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. > > Actually, one of the points I tried to make earlier to Josh to show > that Archon Investigation and Protected Resources *aren't* overpowered > is that AI is *not* the only thing that keeps dominate deck for bleeding > for 7. In my opinion, the existence of Deflection goes a lot further > to accomplish that end. There's nothing like: "I bleed for 4 using > Computer Hacking with Stanislava." "I wake and block with Sir Walter > Nash.". "Earth Control at superior." "No block." "Conditioning at > superior." "Deflection." Unfortunately, deflection is as dominate based as power bleed. So that is why you see so many decks based around it. Power offense and power defense. It draws players like moths to a flame. > Your prey (who up 'til now had been looking on the whole thing with mild > amusement) and your predator - in unison: "Acckkkkkkkkkk....!" > > Now I know you were trying to make the above comment with regard to > non-dominate decks. I'm just saying that the existence of decks with > dominate in them makes it difficult to create a reliable stealth bleed > that depends on getting a few big "home run" bleeds through. Your so-called "home-run" bleeds, are the reason that there is an almost total lack of tournament winning decks by non-auspex and non-dominate decks. They simply can't defend against either being bled by them or having a bleed bounced upon them. Besides, > AI is not the only recourse for non-auspex, non-dominate decks. > Protected Resources is also available. (Actually Elder Intervention > and Pack Tactics also work; they're just not ideal because their focus > on bleed actions only make them risky.) I'm just not sure why it's > all that attractive, myself. I will tell you why they are not attractive alternitives. 1) Protected Resources denies you your basic offensive attack, bleeding 2) EI and PT both are corner case at best. useless against any action other than bleeding at stealth and useless against bleeds at zero stealth. > In any case, Deflection is such a popular and useful card, I'm > surprised anyone worries about people playing with Protect Resources > or even Archon Investigation. Josh is right, though: getting a vampire > burnt because you had the balls to bleed for more than three on a > turn that your prey turns out to be holding an AI (not a very common > occurrence, in my experience) is something that's awfully rude to > leave up to chance. You know what is rude. Getting sodomized repeatedly by a stealth bleed deck when you have tried to be original and tried to play a clan that has neither dominate nor auspex. AI is merely a boogey-man that people worry about in the back of their mind. It is really not a strategy nor a defense that is reliable in and of itself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A35A7DF...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > as it stands > > > it has a very strong effect for, effectively, no cost at all > > > (just the cost of the cardslot, which isn't really any worse > > > than any other somewhat-specialized out-of-turn master). > > > > I am having a little bit of a hard time with your arguement. Are you > > saying that it is okay (or balanced) that a non-auspex or non-dominate > > deck have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3? > > It is OK for a deck with no bleed defense to have zero defense against > bleeds greater than 3? Absolutely! > It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed defense > in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the bleeders. Not fast enough, unless you are playing weenie rush, against bleeds for six for each minion bleeding, and even then it only takes one obedience to snuff your chances of victory because you will have to dedicate all your resources to killing your predator and not have enough to oust your prey before your grand-predator ousts your predator and becomes your new problem. > Intercept decks (not all of which use Auspex) have bleed defense: block > the bleeders. Totally made inefficent (with the exception of the clans who have access to Auspex and therefore bleed bounce) by cards such as Elder Impersonation, Day Operation, Horrific Countenance, and Blanket of Night. Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the > bleed deck is taking away. I have never, ever seen a bloat deck who could keep up with being bled for 6 with each bleed. > There were already plenty of ways to deal with bleed decks. More > wouldn't have been necessarily bad. But AI has negative cost, and BURNS > a vampire. Burning a vampire is exactly what makes power bleeders fear it. Once again, AI's power isn't in the fact that it burns one vampire, but the fact that it creates a fear in a power bleeder because he doesn't know when AI is going to be played when he/she bleeds for alot. That is the power of AI. > > Because that is > > what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really abusive > > to be on the receiving end of. > > I really don't know about "abusive". "Abusive" is when you feel you have been abused. Simply that. Sure, it sucks to lose a bunch of > pool, but if you don't have any defense for a particular type of deck, > don't complain when it kills you. And you are arguing that a defense against bleeding for clans without auspex or dominate needs to be removed from the game. Maybe, you should try to play a deck without those two disciplines and no AI's, and see how you hold up against a Malk stealth-bleed. It's like the guy who gave Peter the > finger at Origins (see other thread); he didn't have any combat defense, > so he should have accepted it when a combat deck killed him. If I play > a deck with no bleed defense and my predator turns out to be a bleed > deck, I'm going to lose. Please explain to me how eliminating AI helps those clans without dominate or auspex against power bleeds. > > The only thing that keeps dominate decks > > for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + > > Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. > > \begin{sarcasm} > > Wow, you're right. Before AI, the only effective decks were bleed > decks, because they were completely unstoppable. We needed to get a new > card which gives an extreme penalty to a standard deck archetype doing > what it naturally does. Now we need cards which burn vampires who are > too effective at combat and voting. We wouldn't want anyone to be > effective. > > \end{sarcasm} Okay shithead, perhaps your mother dropped you on your head too many times as a child, or you ate lead paint chips, or you were struck by lightning. Obviously you are dense. So I will explain it to you. Removing defenses against stealth-bleed only makes that strategy more effective. Especially more effective against clans without bleed-bounce. Even weenie rush has a problem with dominate because of obedience and rabble razing. > > It is the only effective method > > for a non-weenie rush deck to keep a stealth bleed deck under control as > > a predator (if you dont' have auspex or dominate). > > This statement indicates to me that you have never played an effective > non-weenie rush deck. When I'm playing my rush deck, I'm ecstatic if > one of my neighbors is playing a stealth bleed deck. They're easy meat. Actually what this statement says is that I have played many effective rush decks using many different sized vampire. I have experience what it is like to have a stealth bleed deck beside me that actually has combat defense built into it. Often this combat defence occurs in the form of 8 dodges and 8 fake outs. This is often enough to make a rush deck not torporize a minion on every rush action. A rush deck that fails to do that will stall. A rush deck that stalls is a rush deck that fails. A rush deck can mutilate a stealth bleed predator, but in doing so gives both his prey and his grand predator a free ride. This only compounds the problems a rush deck faces. As his grand-predator becomes his predator, the rush deck faces a even tougher challenge, holding off a more powerful predator than his previous one. > > I think a cost of 3 pool > > plus a card slot plus having to wait for the opportunity to play > > Archon Investigation really does make the card balanced. If they are not > > bleeding you for more than 3 then Archon Investigation just jams up your > > hand, and if they look like they could bleed you for more than three > > then most players will hold on to it just in case. This takes up a > > valuable card slot. The card slot is the most expensive price of the > > card. Having to hold onto one effectively reduces your hand size which > > is extremely costly in terms of opportunity. That is why I think that > > the card is both balanced and properly costed. > You mean "negative cost". Do you not understand the negative cost > argument? Would you like me to repeat it? I think I mean cost. The phrase "negative cost" is redudant. All cards have a cost, and by definition according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary a cost is " loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something". So put that in your pipe and smoke it. By the way, you have neither argued that Archon investigation is overpowered nor underpowered. You have argued both, which makes your entire point moot. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A35A4CC...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > Well, that's kinda the point - should the existence of this one > > > card be able to single-handedly make people unwilling to risk > > > going over 3 bleed? Superior Foreshadowing Destruction, all by > > > itself, can get you burnt... > > > > As well it should, If you are below 10 pool and someone bleeds you for > > 4 with Superior Forshadowing Destruction, then playing a AI can possibly > > save you. > > Playing valid bleed defense can save you also. Just because AI can be > "good" (when it would save you from dying), doesn't mean it's "good" (as > in balanced, appropriate, and good for the game). > > The fact that cards that make bleeds unblockable exist give > > creedence to the need for a card like AI to exist. > > The cards that make actions unblockable come at an extreme cost, or have > very stringent disadvantages. And an unblockable bleed can still be > bounced. So you are saying that it is tough cookies if you don't play with auspex or dominate? I am saying that there should be a suitable recourse for a deck that plays with neither to handle unblockable bleeds. Archon Investigation is that recourse. The very existance of Archon Investigation makes power bleeders wary of bleeding for more than three. That fear in and of itself is a form of psychological defense if nothing else. They can take the risk of bleeding for more than 3, but in doing so they risk losing a vampire. > > > Don't those same ways generally apply to voting? Sure, in > > > theory, voting is supposed to require table participation, but > > > with a sufficient supply of Awes and Bewitchings that probably > > > goes out the window. Then the only thing "balancing" voting > > > vs bleeding is what disciplines Presence shows up with... which > > > isn't something you can really rely on for balance. > > > > I believe you are forgetting Delaying Tactics which will jam up a vote > > deck quite nicely. > > Well, you seem to be forgetting that cards like Deflection, Telepathic > Misdirection, and Bum's Rush (with a couple others) hurt a bleed deck as > well. I am really glad you didn't even address the above point I made to rebuff your politics arguement. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You know what is rude. Getting sodomized repeatedly by a stealth bleed >deck when you have tried to be original and tried to play a clan that >has neither dominate nor auspex. AI is merely a boogey-man that people >worry about in the back of their mind. It is really not a strategy nor a >defense that is reliable in and of itself. Generally my feeling both about AI and stealth bleed. There are defenses against big bleed, but the defenses themselves become very boring. Deflection has probably been my favorite card in the game, but I'm so sick of dominate. There hasn't been a time in the last four and a half years I've been playing when big bleed supplemented either with stealth or tap hasn't been considered tier one locally. There seem to me to be two options with these cards. Reprint or ban. If they aren't good, reprinting's only cost is taking up a card slot that could go to something else. Since they hold high value, I doubt there would be an excessive amount of griping if they were reprinted. If they are good, then reprinting makes the game fairer. If they are broken, then banning them is obvious, though this doesn't seem to be remotely the case.

Forget about playing Assamites, Setites, Ravnos, Gangrel, > Brujah, !Brujah, or !Gangrel. Getting bled for six is obnoxiously > extreme. The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this card > a nessity. Assamites, Brujah, !Bru, !Gangrel, Gangrel, all have the, very real option of killing that stupid bleeding vampire, who, if bleeding for six isn't going to be one of the 2cap's, because they can't get stealth, and will hunt the next turn. So Lupo goes and kills Zebulon... problem solved. Gangel can also attempt to block, as can the Ravnos (who do this more effectivly, tonight i was regularly blocking Malkavian Sneak and bleed with animalism and veiled sight.) The Setities either steal the vampire, or are a sneak bleed deck themselves, in which case they need to bleed faster. Archon I is a bad card. Protracted Racehorses is a bad card. both punish you for attempting to bleed with big vampires. Losing Arika because you bonded for the stealth is downright wrong. (Both in the sense that how is an archon going to investigate her? and the game mechanics of it.) And not being able to bleed for more than three with your only Malkavian is a bad position to be in too. Bounce is not the only, or always the best way to deal with bleed, but every clan has at least some way to deal with a bleed deck. If they didn't more tourney winning decks would include AI and PR, because bleed is sure as heck going to show up. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 22:01:48 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >That said, the cards are already out there, and in terms of >fairness the new players should probably have access to them >too. Unless VEKN were to see fit to ban them altogether for >being way stronger than they ought to be. Protected Resources may be scarce but this new player had no problem getting Archon Investigation. I have 9 copies and, until this discussion, thought that it was a common. I wouldn't have missed it either - I haven't put one into a deck yet. Andrew

> > It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed defense > > in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the bleeders. > > Not fast enough, unless you are playing weenie rush, against bleeds for > six for each minion bleeding, and even then it only takes one obedience > to snuff your chances of victory because you will have to dedicate all > your resources to killing your predator and not have enough to oust your > prey before your grand-predator ousts your predator and becomes your new > problem. > Bleed decks, by being totally forward focused, give the grandpred a free hand anyway. And in a weenie rush deck you need more than 'one' obediance. > > Intercept decks (not all of which use Auspex) have bleed defense: > block > > the bleeders. > > Totally made inefficent (with the exception of the clans who have access > to Auspex and therefore bleed bounce) by cards such as Elder > Impersonation, Day Operation, Horrific Countenance, and Blanket of > Night. > All of which either prevent only one vampire from blocking, or have a high cost, or both. > Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the > > bleed deck is taking away. > > I have never, ever seen a bloat deck who could keep up with being bled > for 6 with each bleed. I've played them, it can work, is it scary, sure, but then, most of these decks have access to deflections and can do something to mess with the predator, ToGP, perhaps. > Burning a vampire is exactly what makes power bleeders fear it. Once > again, AI's power isn't in the fact that it burns one vampire, but the > fact that it creates a fear in a power bleeder because he doesn't know > when AI is going to be played when he/she bleeds for alot. That is the > power of AI. Fear leads to.... wait I'll stop. But that fear is silly, like making a master called: Archon Bodyguard master out of turn 3 pool burn a vampire in combat with one of your minions. It makes rush actions scarry, but it's a stupid card, and bad for the game, not because rush actions are already somewhat underpowered (although that seems to be changing) but because it straight up hoses a core strategy, and that is a BAD thing. > And you are arguing that a defense against bleeding for clans without > auspex or dominate needs to be removed from the game. Maybe, you should > try to play a deck without those two disciplines and no AI's, and see > how you hold up against a Malk stealth-bleed. He does all the time, and in our group seems to hold his own. I do to, and can do ok, Rush the bleeder, take the bleeder, ignore the bleeder until they handjam on unblockable or stealth cards, etc, etc, etc. > Please explain to me how eliminating AI helps those clans without > dominate or auspex against power bleeds. It doesn't need to, they have other viable ways to deal with bleeds. AI helps deal with big bleeds, so asking to prove it is bad at that is silly, what James seems to be saying is that the card is bad for the game, and there are other options available <snip sarcasm and bad language> > Removing defenses against stealth-bleed only makes that strategy more > effective. Especially more effective against clans without > bleed-bounce. Even weenie rush has a problem with dominate because of > obedience and rabble razing. but a big bleed deck wont have the votes to get the rabble razing through, and so putting them in there only helps you to hand jam them. ditto enough obediances to be truely effective against weenie rush (~20 IMHO). <snip rush deck stuff> see above, hand jam > I think I mean cost. The phrase "negative cost" is redudant. All cards > have a cost, and by definition according to the Merriam-Webster > Dictionary a cost is " loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining > something". So put that in your pipe and smoke it. > He means, but definition, that paying the three pool, burns a predators vampire, and reduces a bleed of 4+ to a pool cost of three. So there is a cost of three pool, but it saves you four. I don't like AI, but think that an errata may fix it. But in any case, burning a predators vampire just gets you one step closer to a new, maybe stronger predator as they bring out a new vampire to replace the old one, or have one less block/deflector. my take on this, thats all Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

> Forget about playing Assamites, Setites, Ravnos, Gangrel, >> Brujah, !Brujah, or !Gangrel. Getting bled for six is obnoxiously >> extreme. The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this > card >> a nessity. > > Assamites, Brujah, !Bru, !Gangrel, Gangrel, all have the, very real > option of killing that stupid bleeding vampire, who, if bleeding for > six isn't going to be one of the 2cap's, because they can't get > stealth, and will hunt the next turn. So Lupo goes and kills > Zebulon... problem solved. Note that all these are cases of vamps rushing older vampires who just so happen to have Dominate, giving them access to the THE best combat hoser in the game, Obedience. For your example, Zebby plays Obedience . . . problem solved. > Gangel can also attempt to block, as can the Ravnos (who do this more > effectivly, tonight i was regularly blocking Malkavian Sneak and bleed > with animalism and veiled sight.) I've won a tournament with unblockable bleeds before. If you build your deck around them, they're just not that hard to get off. > The Setities either steal the vampire, or are a sneak bleed deck > themselves, in which case they need to bleed faster. They can bleed for 5 a turn, tops, with PRE. Take a look at Setites with PRE, and go look at a crypt of 12 vamps with dom (who also bleed for 5). The Setites will *never* bleed faster. Steal the Vampire? Corruption is only your prey. Form of Corruption is only your prey. Temptation gives them back in time to bleed. > Bounce is not the only, or always the best way to deal with bleed, but Bounce is not the only way to deal with bleed, and not always the best, yes. But you forgot the "Bounce is almost always the best way to deal with bleed" that fits in those two criteria. > every clan has at least some way to deal with a bleed deck. If they > didn't more tourney winning decks would include AI and PR, because > bleed is sure as heck going to show up. No, instead most tourney winning decks pack *bounce*, because they know they damn near *have* to to win. They also might show up more in tournaments, player, winners, and losers, if the cards weren't so rare. Now, onto where I (kind of) agree with you: > Archon I is a bad card. Protracted Racehorses is a bad card. both > punish you for attempting to bleed with big vampires. Losing Arika > because you bonded for the stealth is downright wrong. (Both in the Actually, they only punish you for *successfully* bleeding. But, that aside, they *don't* punish you for trying to bleed with big vampires; they punish you for bleeding big. You don't need Arika to bleed for 4 at 1 stealth. You can Social Charm with a Pulsed Jost Werner to do that. You can Govern and Bonding with Ingrid Russo. And that's the problem. Weenie bleed IS out there, and it's not going to go away. Protected Resources hurts the Arika deck more than the weenie dominate bleed deck, since Arika bleeds for only 2, but the weenie dominate deck bleeds for 2 per minion. But, Arika can bleed for 8 if they have neither defense; the weenie horde can bleed for 15 or 20. Likewise, AI hurts the Arika deck more; you lose your whole deck, and the weenie deck can afford to lose a minion a turn, even. The problem is that the nature of Dominate bleed available to small guys punishes you for playing big vamps; you can't block all the actions, rush all the guys, etc. of the weenies, but you can stuff a single big bleed a turn without having to have an "anti-deck." The problem is Samson. The problem is Ohanna. The problem is Mustafa. The problem is Royce. The problem is Christine Boscacci. But, most of all, the problem WAS Misdirection. Which has been fixed, and we'll have to see just how well weenie dominate bleed (or tap-and-bleed) does now. When those guys have to worried about getting blocked and punched for half their blood, they'll slow down a lot. The "problem" with AI, somewhat, is that it has no "cheeze detector." It's a great anti-cheeze card, but it also hoses you for playing big vamps that bleed. You have less actions, you NEED to bleed for more than 3 at time to oust someone competitively. But, AI makes Arika just as dead as Ozmo. > sense that how is an archon going to investigate her? and the game > mechanics of it.) And not being able to bleed for more than three with > your only Malkavian is a bad position to be in too. But, (to get back to disagreeing, and tie in) not being able to bleed for more than 3 with all 4 of your Malkavians really isn't hurting you too much, and gives your prey a fighting chance. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> Well, it's about the only thing that's enough of a risk to make you >>> actually NOT bleed for more than 3. >> >>It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ >>cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three >>pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master >>phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at >>least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. Well couldn't Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention cost you "negative pool" when used on certain cards as well? If you play DI on a superior Conditioning, you prevent the +3 bleed at the cost of only a pool, meaning it's essentially -2 pool then, right? And if your predator plays an Anarch Revolt or Antediluvian Awakening during his turn (so there's really no chance to burn it before your turn) and you SR it, isn't this a -1 pool cost? Halcyan 2

> It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed defense > in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the bleeders. The problem here is that you either: a) rush all your predator's vamps and pave the way to an easy VP and 6 pool for your brand spanking new predator b) leave a vamp or two who can still power bleed you. Not great choices. > Intercept decks (not all of which use Auspex) have bleed defense: What non-auspex intercept deck can you make w/o taking several turns (and pool) to build up in order to have sufficient intercept before you are ousted by a power bleed deck? > the bleeders. Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the > bleed deck is taking away. Then you are spending all your time building pool and not much time doing anything to your prey. When you are losing between 6 and 10 pool per turn (give or take), you cannot afford to do much else. > There were already plenty of ways to deal with bleed decks. Please tell me, for example, what the FoS can do against big bleeds? > > Because that is > > what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really abusive > > to be on the receiving end of. > I really don't know about "abusive". Sure, it sucks to lose a bunch of > pool, but if you don't have any defense for a particular type of deck, > don't complain when it kills you. Some decks just cannot have defense against bleed. It's just that simple. So what? You don't build those decks? That leaves alot of otherwise viable/possible clans/themes out. > finger at Origins (see other thread); he didn't have any combat defense, > so he should have accepted it when a combat deck killed him. The difference is that you *can* have combat defense for every deck. You *can't* have bleed defense for every deck. > > It is the only effective method > > for a non-weenie rush deck to keep a stealth bleed deck under control as > > a predator (if you dont' have auspex or dominate). > This statement indicates to me that you have never played an effective > non-weenie rush deck. Ahh, I understand now. In order to defend against power bleed you either need lots of intercept, bounce or a rush deck. > When I'm playing my rush deck, I'm ecstatic if one of my neighbors is > playing a stealth bleed deck. They're easy meat. What if you aren't playing a rush deck? What if you are playing a deck that doesn't have power bleed defense available to it? > > I think a cost of 3 pool > You mean "negative cost". Do you not understand the negative cost > argument? Would you like me to repeat it? If you'd like. And as Norm says, it does have a cost. In order to make sure you have one when you need it, you have to put more than 1 (probably 3 or 4) in your deck. If you aren't being power bled, that is wasted space in your deck and your hand. If you are being power bled (or the potential is there), you hold onto it until you can use it. That reduces your hand size. Also, it is the acting player's choice to pump the bleed. That player knows the consequences if they do. They took the chance. AI is semi-popular around these parts. However, it doesn't deter the power bleed decks and they still make a showing and they still bleed for lots. So it's not as if this one card deters or makes the power bleed strategy unusable. Sorrow --- "Happiness sucks" -me

Norman wrote: >>I have to say that I think it is both good for the game, balanced and appropriate.>> I'd say you were wrong, but that is me. AI was unecessary when it was made, unecessary now, and will continue to be unecessary in the future. It is overpowered--it has an effect far greater than its cost warrants (burn a vampire by playing a Master card, gaining at least one pool, and being bled), and isn't a necessary defense. Bleed, even huge bleed, has always been a part of the game, always will be a part of the game, and people dealt with it before there was AI. AI is a shoddy strategy hoser that has no reason or need to exist, and no place in a game like VTES. >>I guess what you are saying is,"if you don't have dominate or auspex then you are up shit creek without a paddle without this card".>> Umm...no. Do you actually include AI in every deck you have, and rely on it as your main bleed defense? I didn't think so. >>Forget about playing Assamites,>> Rush and kill the bleeders. >>Setites,>> Outrace the bleeders. >>Ravnos,>> Intercept quite nicely. >>Gangrel,>> Very good at intercept and Rushing bleed decks. >>Brujah, !Brujah,>> You are kidding me, right? >>or !Gangrel.>> Yeah, I don't know what these guys are good for yet. Maybe Rush combat. >>Getting bled for six is obnoxiously extreme.>> Then plan on it and prevent it. The common defenses against being bled--bounce (very common), Rush, outrace, intercept, rampant pool gain, using votes to rearrange the table (Make the bleed deck your prey. Or put them right next to the Rush deck). >>The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this carda nessity.>> Now that Misdirection only taps one vampire, what are they gonna do to you if you want to block them? Oh, wait. Nothing. And 1 and 2 cap vampires with dominate don't *need* to bleed you for more than 3 per action, nor do they intend to. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

In article <914kkp$rjc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed > defense > > > in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the bleeders. > > > > Not fast enough, unless you are playing weenie rush, against bleeds > for > > six for each minion bleeding, and even then it only takes one > obedience > > to snuff your chances of victory because you will have to dedicate all > > your resources to killing your predator and not have enough to oust > your > > prey before your grand-predator ousts your predator and becomes your > new > > problem. > > > > Bleed decks, by being totally forward focused, give the grandpred a > free hand anyway. How does this address my above point? Why should you ever care about your grandprey unless it is either your predator is your grand prey or your prey is about to oust them. And in a weenie rush deck you need more than 'one' > obediance. One Obedience kills one rush. To torporize a vampire with rush requires a minimum of 2 cards if that person has no rush defense at all (Bum's Rush and Wolf Claws). It only requires one card (Obedience) to stop that. That is a ratio of 2 to 1 card usage. Also, Obedience will make the rusher jam up on combat cards making it more difficult for them to draw a rush. > > > Intercept decks (not all of which use Auspex) have bleed defense: > > block > > > the bleeders. > > > > Totally made inefficent (with the exception of the clans who have > access > > to Auspex and therefore bleed bounce) by cards such as Elder > > Impersonation, Day Operation, Horrific Countenance, and Blanket of > > Night. > > I also forgot Seduction. > All of which either prevent only one vampire from blocking, or have a > high cost, or both. > The ones that prevent only one vampire can be stacked on top of one another as long as they obey the no two of the same action modifier rule. It is not uncommon to see a Seduction and a Elder Impersonation played on the same bleed. Now you must be able to block with 3 minions to catch this vampire. Also, High costs can be compensated for (i.e. Freak Drive and Rapid Healing on a Day Operation, or a 5th Tradition to Compensate for the Horrific Countanence.) > > Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the > > > bleed deck is taking away. > > > > I have never, ever seen a bloat deck who could keep up with being bled > > for 6 with each bleed. > > I've played them, it can work, is it scary, sure, but then, most of > these decks have access to deflections and can do something to mess > with the predator, ToGP, perhaps. Once again, without bounce, bloat cannot stand up to being bled for 6 with each bleed. FYI I build a bloat deck that could gain 12 pool a turn, it was crushed by a weenie dominate bleed because it was simply to slow to get out the inner circle members to Minion Tap. > > Burning a vampire is exactly what makes power bleeders fear it. Once > > again, AI's power isn't in the fact that it burns one vampire, but > the > > fact that it creates a fear in a power bleeder because he doesn't know > > when AI is going to be played when he/she bleeds for alot. That is > the > > power of AI. > > Fear leads to.... wait I'll stop. But that fear is silly, like making > a master called: > > Archon Bodyguard > master out of turn > 3 pool > burn a vampire in combat with one of your minions. I would agree that this card would be more like AI if it said "burn a vampire in combat with one of your minions if that vampire is dealing more than 3 damage with a strike." Maybe someday we will need it if Potence combat ever gets out of control. > It makes rush actions scarry, but it's a stupid card, and bad for the > game, not because rush actions are already somewhat underpowered > (although that seems to be changing) but because it straight up hoses a > core strategy, and that is a BAD thing. Frankly, AI does not hose a core strategy. It doesn't burn you if you are bleeding a methuselah for any amount but rather for any bleed greater than 3. What it does do is make you compensate for it, and be a good player. > > And you are arguing that a defense against bleeding for clans without > > auspex or dominate needs to be removed from the game. Maybe, you > should > > try to play a deck without those two disciplines and no AI's, and see > > how you hold up against a Malk stealth-bleed. > He does all the time, and in our group seems to hold his own. I do to, > and can do ok, Rush the bleeder, take the bleeder, ignore the bleeder > until they handjam on unblockable or stealth cards, etc, etc, etc. So if you are playing the Followers of Set and you have been bled twice for 6 each that reduces you down to 18 pool. What do you do if you cannot play with AI? > > Please explain to me how eliminating AI helps those clans without > > dominate or auspex against power bleeds. > > It doesn't need to, they have other viable ways to deal with bleeds. > AI helps deal with big bleeds, so asking to prove it is bad at that is > silly, what James seems to be saying is that the card is bad for the > game, and there are other options available Please explain how it is "bad for the game" that there exists a card which makes it risky to bleed for more than 10% of a methuselah's starting pool. > > Removing defenses against stealth-bleed only makes that strategy more > > effective. Especially more effective against clans without > > bleed-bounce. Even weenie rush has a problem with dominate because of > > obedience and rabble razing. > > but a big bleed deck wont have the votes to get the rabble razing > through, and so putting them in there only helps you to hand jam them. > ditto enough obediances to be truely effective against weenie rush (~20 > IMHO). It doesn't take 20 Obediences to make weenie rush fall on its nose. It takes about 8. After the first two or three are played, that rush deck is going to have a real handjam problem on its hand beacuse it played all of its availible rushes and is jamming up on combat cards and won't be able to do much but bleed forward because it can't cycle. > <snip rush deck stuff> > > see above, hand jam > > > I think I mean cost. The phrase "negative cost" is redudant. All > cards > > have a cost, and by definition according to the Merriam-Webster > > Dictionary a cost is " loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining > > something". So put that in your pipe and smoke it. > > > > He means, but definition, that paying the three pool, burns a predators > vampire, and reduces a bleed of 4+ to a pool cost of three. So there > is a cost of three pool, but it saves you four. It may well save you more than the loss of four, but four at the minimum. The cost is also far higher than 3 pool. It takes a slot in your hand, effectively reducing your handsize by one until you can play it (if you can play it). It takes your next master phase action which you might have used for something else. > I don't like AI, but think that an errata may fix it. But in any case, > burning a predators vampire just gets you one step closer to a new, > maybe stronger predator as they bring out a new vampire to replace the > old one, or have one less block/deflector. AI doesn't need errata. It is a corner-case card (only useable against minions with dominate, presence, alot of bleed retainers and equipment, or Inner Circle Members who are bleeding for more than three). It is the retalitory strike for someone who is being bombarded by bleeds for more than three. It is an expensive and corner-case card, which is extremely useful in a heavy bleed environment. If you don't bleed for more than 3 then you never have to worry about this card. Once again the threat of having one of your vampires burned is what encourages most players to bleed for three or less. No one wants to lose a vampire. If you don't recognise the threat value of AI, then I suppose this arguement is falling on deaf ears. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Norman wrote: << I am having a little bit of a hard time with your arguement. Are you saying that it is okay (or balanced) that a non-auspex or non-dominate deck have zero defense against bleeds greater than 3?>> They have plenty of defenses--they just need to use them. Animalism allows for very effective intercept. Rush combat. Vote the bleeder across the table. Gain infinite pool. Saying the AI is the only possible defense against large bleed decks is just silly. >>Because that is what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really abusive to be on the receiving end of. The only thing that keeps dominate decks for bleeding for 7 every time (Govern + Command of the Beast + Conditioning) is Archon Investigation. >> Well, that and that if they do get bounced (yes, Iam aware that only Dominate or Auspex can bounce something), they are bleeding their grand prey for 7. And bleed decks that can consistiently bleed for 7 on every action won't have a stick of combat defense, and will be killed by combat decks quite nicely. Large bleeds have existed since day one of the game. The game existed quite nicely before AI was invented. If they wanted to create extra bleed defense, fine--Elder Intervention is a perfectly balanced, solid card specifically for bleed defense. AI, which costs negative pool and burns a vampire? Not so much. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <914io3$qd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Forget about playing Assamites, Setites, Ravnos, Gangrel, > > Brujah, !Brujah, or !Gangrel. Getting bled for six is obnoxiously > > extreme. The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this > card > > a nessity. > > Assamites, Brujah, !Bru, !Gangrel, Gangrel, all have the, very real > option of killing that stupid bleeding vampire, who, if bleeding for > six isn't going to be one of the 2cap's, because they can't get > stealth, and will hunt the next turn. So Lupo goes and kills > Zebulon... problem solved. Zebulon plays obedience, or fake out and dodge. A little combat defense goes a long way in a stealth bleed deck. So Sorry, Lupo. You get to fail at your rush action to send Zebulon to torpor. > Gangel can also attempt to block, as can the Ravnos (who do this more > effectivly, tonight i was regularly blocking Malkavian Sneak and bleed > with animalism and veiled sight.) Gangrel only have retainers for intercept which makes the deck slow and unwieldly. Chimerstry cards are a little expensive to say the least Plus, there are many cards in the game which prevent a vampire or vampires from blocking at all. What do you do about a Seduction played in combonation with a Elder Impersonation.? You get to assume the "position". > The Setities either steal the vampire, or are a sneak bleed deck > themselves, in which case they need to bleed faster. Setites may only steal your preys vampire with the exception of Temptation, which gives it back to them on their turn. > Archon I is a bad card. Protracted Racehorses is a bad card. both > punish you for attempting to bleed with big vampires. Losing Arika > because you bonded for the stealth is downright wrong. (Both in the > sense that how is an archon going to investigate her? and the game > mechanics of it.) But it is okay if on turn two you get bled by Christina Bocasci,Ohanna, and Royce, for 18. This is possible if your predatore plays either a Dreams of the Sphinx or a Info Highway on the first round and a dominate skill card on the second round. All you have to do is to go first in a four player game and have this thing bleeding you. If you want to get out a six cap or higher you get to take a bleed for 18. Thanks for playing. And not being able to bleed for more than three with > your only Malkavian is a bad position to be in too. 3 pool is 10% of your starting amount. That is alot. Plus combined with the fact that you have to spend your own pool to get minions out, you really only have to bleed six times before either your prey has to stop putting new minions into play or gets ousted. > Bounce is not the only, or always the best way to deal with bleed, but > every clan has at least some way to deal with a bleed deck. If they > didn't more tourney winning decks would include AI and PR, because > bleed is sure as heck going to show up. So your conclusiton to your arguement is that AI and PR are not overpowered because if they were then they would be in every tournament winning deck? That is quite a reversal of position. Perhaps you should argue that bleed bounce is broken because it effectively hoses a core strategy. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8E60C97D730F8C9A.80A8E36E...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Smooth. I have three AI, and I think I traded for a couple of those. Of course, that's largely because I got into the game (a) before the VTES printing, and (b) when Jyhad boxes were a lot cheaper than VTES boxes. Of the rest of my playgroup, I think only one other person (of six or eight) is likely to have more than three AIs. I suppose you must've bought quite a bit of VTES? Not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-) PR is meant to be quite a bit harder to come by, but then it was officially rare, where AI was officially uncommon. Josh probably owns less than a box worth of vtes cards [ quoted text not captured ]

Norman wrote: >>Zebulon plays obedience,>> If Zebulon has enough Obediance and Wake (he is tapped out from bleeding you for 7, remember?) to reliably stop a Rush deck, he isn't going to be bleeding for 7 on a regular basis. Or have much stealth to deal with the intercept deck he might very well be sitting next to. >>or fake out and dodge.>> Because Zebulon, who was tapped out from bleeding you for 7 managed to block the Bum's Rush, denying Lupo the Manuver? Or because it wasn't someone using a Press? >>A little combat defense goes a long way in a stealth bleed deck.>> A *little* combat defense in a S+B deck gets you nowhere--it is unreliable and hard to match up the cards you need. A lot of combat defense in a S+B deck is helpful, but it keeps you from bleeding people for 7 on a regular basis. The deck simply can't do it all at once. >>So Sorry, Lupo. You get to fail at your rush action to send Zebulon to torpor.>> Uhh, yeah. That is going to work. S+B decks that have reliable combat defense aren't the quick and deadly bleeders that you seem to think warrant the existance of AI. They don't bleed for as much and for as often, making them much slower and much more manageable--it is likely that such a S+B deck could bleed you reliably for about 3 an action, but 7? I think not. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <20001212101731...@ng-bg1.aol.com>, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > Norman wrote: > >>I have to say that I think it is both good for the game, balanced and > appropriate.>> > > I'd say you were wrong, but that is me. AI was unecessary when it was made, > unecessary now, and will continue to be unecessary in the future. It is > overpowered--it has an effect far greater than its cost warrants (burn a > vampire by playing a Master card, gaining at least one pool, and being bled), > and isn't a necessary defense. Bleed, even huge bleed, has always been a part > of the game, always will be a part of the game, and people dealt with it before > there was AI. AI is a shoddy strategy hoser that has no reason or need to > exist, and no place in a game like VTES. AI doesn't hose bleeding as a strategy. It hoses bleeding for more than three, once. You only have to worry about this card if you attempt to bleed for more than 10% of each methuselah's starting pool. It is not a "shoddy strategy hoser" unless your strategy is power bleeds. It is no more a hoser on a per cost basis than a bounce. In fact, I would say bounce has a far greater effect on the game. It is a corner case card at best. Players know it exists so they know that there are serious repercussion if they try to bleed for six pool (20% of your starting amount) > >>I guess what you are saying is,"if you don't have dominate or auspex then you > are up shit creek without a paddle without this card".>> > > Umm...no. Do you actually include AI in every deck you have, and rely on it as > your main bleed defense? I didn't think so. Of course not. It is not a viable strategy nor a reliable defense. But what it does do it keep the Bleed decks from running wild with Bleeds of 6. <snip all the clans that can rush and intercept> A bleed deck should pack a little combat defence. Usually Obediences or Fake Outs and Dodges do the trick. What about the Followers of Set? > > >>Getting bled for six is obnoxiously extreme.>> > > Then plan on it and prevent it. The common defenses against being bled--bounce > (very common), Rush, outrace, intercept, rampant pool gain, using votes to > rearrange the table (Make the bleed deck your prey. Or put them right next to > the Rush deck). So all these strategies make AI broken? How? > >>The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this carda nessity.>> > > Now that Misdirection only taps one vampire, what are they gonna do to you if > you want to block them? Oh, wait. Nothing. And 1 and 2 cap vampires with > dominate don't *need* to bleed you for more than 3 per action, nor do they > intend to. How does this scenario sound? You are going first in a four player game. Your lowest vamp in your uncontrolled region is a six. You put one pool on him. Your predator plays either a Dreams of the Sphinx or a Info Highway. He then puts into play Royce, Ohanna, and Christine Bocasci. On your turn you play the Barrens and transfer 4 more pool, still not getting a vampire out. Your predator plays a Dominate skill card on Royce. Royce Governs the Unaligned with Threats for 6. Ohanna Governs the Unaligned with Conditioning for 6. Christine Bocasci Governs the Unaligned wtih Conditioninf for 6. You just lost 18 pool on turn two. You now have 7 Pool and 5 on a uncontrolled six cap vampire. The only defense currently availible in this scenario is a Archon Investigation, which still costs you three pool to play. Your predator has lost a disposable weenie. You would be down to 10 pool with 5 on a uncontrolled six cap. How is Archon Investigation broken in this scenario? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <a9bb3tonn8r3knkuv...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:12:18 -0600, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > >I don't see FD as significantly more powerful than Conditioning. The > >cost of a blood seems to offset the disadvantage of not being always > >able to play superior FD. Unless you think Conditioning is "awfully > >high-powered"? > > Conditioning is strong, but the difference between "1 blood" and > "free" is enormous in V:TES, much more so than the difference between > "1 blood" and "2 blood". "free" means "anytime, forever", and that > can be VERY important since a deck relying on Scouting Mission/FD will > be bleeding for either 3 or 5 *totally* for free; and it can use the > blood it's not spending for Governs or Conditions as Blood Doll > fodder. I think this is an interesting point. Conditioning probably *is* quite high-powered, mainly because it costs 1 blood but inflicts 2/3 pool of damage on your prey (or whoever the lucky recipient is). In general 1 blood is roughly equivalent (if slightly inferior) to 1 pool, so turning 1 blood into 3 damage is a pretty good trade. Of course, a vote deck can turn 0 blood into 3 damage with a KRC, and a combat deck can turn 0 blood into 10 damage with a Rush, Signpost, Undead Strength, Sideslip, Nimble Feet, Undead Strength (Grapple if necessary). Those can require more cards to implement, though. Still, the principle seems to be that it's easier to inflict pool damage than to gain pool. You can gain 1 for a card and a master phase action with Ascendance, or turn a bunch of vamp blood into pool with a Minion Tap, or gain an ongoing source of pool with an Eco Terrorists (for a 2 pool investment) or Powerbase Chicago (1 pool), or 2 for an action and a card with Art Scam. I wonder if the crux of this argument isn't just that bleeding is able to do the most damage in the least time (eg you can get a bleed of six for two cards and two blood, or eight w/an Inner Circle vamp). In the most winning-is-everything oriented games, then, people will only play the most effective decks, which will probably be either strong bleed decks, fast combat decks (weenie combat, as some here have been calling it - though in my experience I have never seen a truly non-weenie combat deck that had a good chance of winning games, let alone tournaments), and (probably presence-based) fast vote decks. Possibly some 5th/Tap bloat as well, generally backing up either bleed or vote; those ToGP/Parity Shift/etc decks might show up too. But it seems to me that perhaps people object to seeing this kind of thing all the time, get bored with it, and want the clans and decktypes that aren't the most competitive to show up/be playable in tournaments, and therefore like having Archon Investigation available to make the bleed decks a little slower and less efficient (or more dead, if they do get caught by an AI). I'm don't really think AI is the right way to accomplish that. I'd be happier either seeing the other clans/skills get cards that let them compete on the same level, or else reducing the power of the "dominant" (not necessarily "dominate", ha ha) types. I know that if that meant serious errata or bannings, a lot of people would be pretty pissed off about that too, but I dunno, it might be better than having so many non-competitive cards out there. Maybe it's just that I want to have my cake and eat it too - I like competitive games, and I like tournaments. I know some people are happy enough playing their non-competitive decks against each other in friendly games (which may even be specified as being for "fun" or "silly" or "experimental" decks), but I'd like to see them be playable in tournaments, if the concept is reasonable in the first place. > The other reason is that FD's condition is applicable much more often > than people realize; most decks will transfer out approximately 14-16 > pool of vampires to start with, and so will be operating from the word > "go" at around 15 pool. It only takes a couple quick bleeds or votes > to reduce someone to 9, and then FD's advantage begins to really kick > in. And you can always cycle it for an extra +1 bleed if you need to > move one out of your hand, helping you get to the range where its > superior is useful. Later in the game it becomes even MORE useful, > when vampires are low on blood and EVERYONE's pool is within FD's > range; a free bleed for 1 that suddenly becomes 4 and the vampire > doesn't need to hunt next turn, or a 1-blood bleed for 3 that suddenly > becomes 6... these get very nasty. Oh, I'm well aware that Foreshadowing Destruction's superior is very often playable. I'm just saying that going over 3 bleed is awfully easy to do, and burning a vamp for doing it is a very harsh punishment. The situation is identical for superior Conditioning, or for a Bonding with a Pulsed or IC vampire, or a Govern with a +1 bleed vampire. Josh gonna be posting a lot today, looks like [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay, now that Lupo has vaporized Zebby, here's Ozmo. Ok, KoKo vaporized Ozmo. Eventually, you will have spent as many rushes, and actions, nuking your predator flat, which you have to, since leaving a single guy alive is getting your a bleed for 5 or 6 at stealth. I can see that you're rushing toward that VP already. Is your argument that rush combat kills S&B so badly that the game doesn't need Archon Investigation? But that's only if I play rush combat, unless you're just talking about the deterrent of possible rush combat. But, AI is *also* a deterrent, just by it's existence. It's just a deterrent of bleeds more than 3. S&B isn't hosed by any means. It still appears in tournament, it can still win tournaments. AI only makes them stronger, and takes away *an* *option* of big-bleed defense from many decks. I would like to play the Followers of Set in a tournament. What's my S&B defense? Mark of Damnation/Rush? Aisha with her 1 intercept? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <915ht0$i5o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > In article <914io3$qd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Assamites, Brujah, !Bru, !Gangrel, Gangrel, all have the, very real > > option of killing that stupid bleeding vampire, who, if bleeding for > > six isn't going to be one of the 2cap's, because they can't get > > stealth, and will hunt the next turn. So Lupo goes and kills > > Zebulon... problem solved. > > Zebulon plays obedience, or fake out and dodge. A little combat > defense goes a long way in a stealth bleed deck. So Sorry, Lupo. You > get to fail at your rush action to send Zebulon to torpor. A stealth bleed deck that has Obediences and Wakes and Fake Outs and Dodges is one that is not going to bleed for 6 all the time. As always, by adding depth and defense, you lose one-dimensional damage-dealing. > > Gangel can also attempt to block, as can the Ravnos (who do this more > > effectivly, tonight i was regularly blocking Malkavian Sneak and bleed > > with animalism and veiled sight.) > > Gangrel only have retainers for intercept which makes the deck slow and > unwieldly. > > Chimerstry cards are a little expensive to say the least Let's face it: there are a bunch of clans and skills that are *not* tournament-competitive, even *with* Archon Investigation. The solution isn't to put in more Methuselah-based strategy hosers, it's to give them cards that will make them playable. > But it is okay if on turn two you get bled by Christina Bocasci,Ohanna, > and Royce, for 18. This is possible if your predatore plays either a > Dreams of the Sphinx or a Info Highway on the first round and a dominate > skill card on the second round. All you have to do is to go first in a > four player game and have this thing bleeding you. If you want to get > out a six cap or higher you get to take a bleed for 18. Thanks for > playing. Are you happier if you get bled on turn two by Christine, Ohanna, and Samson for 9, and then for another 9 on turn 3? If you have out no more than one vampire, you will be just as vulnerable to new-Misdirection as old-Misdirection. (math note - your pred has to get out 3 2-caps, not Royce, to be able to play two 1-cost cards with each, and can only put DOM on one of them, getting to 16 bleed, not 18.) Weenie decks are inherently efficient at doing lots of pool damage very quickly; they are also inherently vulnerable to being sent to torpor with no more than three points of damage per vampire, and to being blocked by someone with lots of untaps. Archon Investigation can't solve this all by itself; it's a basic feature of the game that more actions is better and that your minion cards mostly don't care what capacity your vampires are. It's perhaps an unfortunate feature, but to seriously alter it would require serious changes to the rules or the universe of available cards. > > Bounce is not the only, or always the best way to deal with bleed, but > > every clan has at least some way to deal with a bleed deck. If they > > didn't more tourney winning decks would include AI and PR, because > > bleed is sure as heck going to show up. > > So your conclusiton to your arguement is that AI and PR are not > overpowered because if they were then they would be in every tournament > winning deck? That is quite a reversal of position. Perhaps you should > argue that bleed bounce is broken because it effectively hoses a core > strategy. If AI was really the only thing holding mega-bleeds down, shouldn't it show up in more tourney-winning decks? I hesitate to do another detailed analysis of The Lasombra's tourney-winning-decks archive (because it's so thorough! cringe!), but on a quick search through, I find thirteen decks out of seventy-three (~18%) that had Archon Investigation in them. Of those thirteen, nine also had at least 5 bleed-bounce cards in them. Of the thirteen, four had more than one AI, and all of those also had Deflections. I should also look at how many of the 73 tourney-winners had Dominate or Auspex and bounce in them, but that would take too long for right now. ;-) Suffice to say that it looks to me like, although AI's effect is certainly extreme, and it doubtless has a "fear effect" keeping tourney players from bleeding for more than 3 too often (unless with weenies they don't mind losing - which is the opposite of the desired effect, isn't it?). But since not that many winners are actually *playing* with it, it must not be the only way to win tournaments - ie not *necessary* to keep the bleeders from always killing you. Josh not done yet [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <20001212062348...@ng-cg1.aol.com>, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: [James Hamblin wrote, I think] > >>It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ > >>cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three > >>pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master > >>phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at > >>least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. > > Well couldn't Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention cost you "negative pool" > when used on certain cards as well? In a sense, yes. In that sense, AI *always* costs you negative pool. > If you play DI on a superior Conditioning, you prevent the +3 bleed at the cost > of only a pool, meaning it's essentially -2 pool then, right? Sure. Of course, DI is also a fairly "wrong" card, but that's another argument. ;-) (It's "wrong" because it allows the Methuselah to step in and intervene where minion cards should be balanced against each other. Also because it is too versatile for its cost.) > And if your predator plays an Anarch Revolt or Antediluvian Awakening during > his turn (so there's really no chance to burn it before your turn) and you SR > it, isn't this a -1 pool cost? Sort of. You could also say that the Sudden costs you 1 pool if you play it on a Game of Malkav, since you could have automatically gained 1 pool by playing the Game. And if you argue that Archon Investigation costs 3 pool because that's the number printed in the lower left, you could also say that Minion Tap costs 0 pool and doesn't give you any. It only gains you pool if you actually choose to take some off your minion... Josh talking about what cards actually do when they're actually played [ quoted text not captured ]

> Oh, I'm well aware that Foreshadowing Destruction's superior is > very often playable. I'm just saying that going over 3 bleed is > awfully easy to do, and burning a vamp for doing it is a very harsh > punishment. The situation is identical for superior Conditioning, > or for a Bonding with a Pulsed or IC vampire, or a Govern with a > +1 bleed vampire. It is easy to not use self-restraint. You make it sound so innocent. "Oops, I slipped and bled you for 9 with Arika or 11 with Leandro or 18 with Mustafa Rahman, Christine Bocasci, and Ohanna" Power-Bleeding is incredibly powerful way to oust your prey. Archon Investigation merely makes you wary of doing so. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <b69b3t4ftblvsinvg...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:02:12 -0600, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >intent is to "put down" bleed decks, which don't need such a putting > >down. It was created by idiot WotC employees who played with 4cl and > >thought the game was broken and needed fixing. > > Why it was created isn't what I'm discussing; it's here now, and we're > stuck with it unless we ban it. The question is, it is so unbalancing > that it needs to be banned? Or would banning it tip the scale too far > towards the bleed decks? Seems unlikely. We don't seem to have statistics available for this (since, sadly, The Lasombra only started collecting tourney- winning decks in 1997, and DejaNews doesn't go back even that far now...), but did bleed decks win all the time, and necessitate bounce in every tourney deck, before the VTES printing in 1995? I doubt it (though I don't know enough about the tourney scene of that time to say for sure). [how strong is bleed as a strategy?] > >But not unbalancingly strong. Since it wins in the most direct manner > >possible (removing prey's pool), it will of course be an effective deck > >type. But it is weak against combat, bleed bounce, bloat, intercept, > >etc. > > Bleed does not NEED to be weak against combat, bloat, OR intercept, > however; the trick lies in the deck construction. A Ventrue/!Ventrue > DOM/FOR bleed deck is not vulnerable to combat. A weenie Dominate > horde will overrun Minion Tap/5th. Malk S&B will beat intercept. > Bleed bounce is the strongest natural counter to a bleed deck, and > even that can be somewhat negated; interestingly enough, by the same > strategy that hoses AI (more bleeds for less). But a DOM/FOR bleed deck *is* vulnerable to intercept (at least the blocking part); a weenie dom horde is vulnerable to combat; Malk S&B is vulnerable to combat, bounce, and probably bloat. You don't have to be weak against *all* these defenses, but if you're not weak against *any* of them you're probably not bleeding for much either. Josh jumping in all over the place [ quoted text not captured ]

> And if you argue that Archon Investigation costs 3 pool because > that's the number printed in the lower left, you could also > say that Minion Tap costs 0 pool and doesn't give you any. It > only gains you pool if you actually choose to take some off your > minion... You could say that, and in some cases, people play it to gain zero pool, just to cycle the card. But, you're still moving onto *effects*. Archon Investigation *does* cost 3 Pool. Minion Tap *does* cost 0 Pool. This whole blathering about "negative cost" to make AI look broken or too powerful is pure number shuffling and doublespeak. "Cost" has a defined meaning in V:tES, and saying that "AI costs 3 pool" is simply the truth, and doesn't imply that the person making the statement has lost all the subtleties of the card and the game. As I said before, this "negative cost" math implies that Deflection costs negative pool every time it's played...but there are other issues, of course. Please stick to clearly addressing those issues when making your points instead of persisting in including this ridiculous "negative pool" metric/argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >>I guess what you are saying is,"if you don't have dominate or auspex then you > are up shit creek without a paddle without this card".>> > Umm...no. Do you actually include AI in every deck you have, and rely on it as > your main bleed defense? I didn't think so. No. And I'm sure this is the case for most people. This fact goes a fair way towards saying this card isn't overpowered. If it were, it would be used more than it is. Just about every large vamp deck used ToRIII prior to 7/7. Not so the case with AI, even now. > >>Forget about playing Assamites,>> > Rush and kill the bleeders. S:CE. Sure, you have Psyche!, but they have more S:CE. All it takes is a failed combat and they have another turn to bleed you for lots and lots and lots. Plus, just one Obedience... > >>Setites,>> > Outrace the bleeders. Hardly. They can bleed for what? 5 max at superior? Legal Manip and Aire? Plus, that costs 2 blood. No FoS will be doing that alot before having to hunt. Granted, you get pool if played at superior, but you either need alot of skill cards or higher costing vamps. Either one can make your deck flounder and fall to a power bleeder. > >>Ravnos,>> > Intercept quite nicely. Not that nicely. Plus, the bleeder can just bump stealth some more. > >>Gangrel,>> > Very good at intercept and Rushing bleed decks. Again, what are they going to do? They are even worse against S:CE. Plus, they aren't all that great against Maneuvers. Ok, but not great. Also, the Obedience factor is in. > >>Brujah, !Brujah,>> > You are kidding me, right? Obedience? Although, I agree with you somewhat. Potence makes it pretty easy to put vamps down. However, there are 2 other things to consider: *) Obedience, always *) As I point out in another post, you have one of two options - putting down all of their vamps so they don't bleed you and give your grand predator (your soon to be new predator) a free ride OR leave a vamp or two up. If you do that, your predator can still potentially power bleed with them, forgetting about their predator. Either option isn't all that great. > >>or !Gangrel.>> > Yeah, I don't know what these guys are good for yet. Maybe Rush combat. These guys have to deal with the same issues that their Cam counterparts have to. However, since they have Cel, they have access to Psyche! which gives them a slight leg up... > >>Getting bled for six is obnoxiously extreme.>> > Then plan on it and prevent it. The common defenses against being bled--bounce > (very common), But not all clans have access to it. > Rush, Not 100%/consistent for all combat clans. > outrace, Those that can typically have access to bounce. There is no way that a FoS will be able to outrace a Malk. > intercept, Lots and lots and lots > rampant pool gain, You are still losing net pool even if you can gain pool each and every turn. It's nothing for a power bleed deck to be able to bleed for 4 (at DOM) each turn with each minion for free. More if the player wants to pay blood. There's no way you can gain enough pool... > using votes to rearrange the table If you are a vote deck, you'll almost definitely be using vamps that have access to bounce > (Make the bleed deck your prey. Except they won't be your prey anymore... > Or put them right next to the Rush deck). Another solution. But again, S:CE/Obedience causes serious problems for most combat decks. > >>The presence of 1 and 2 cap dominate vampires makes this carda nessity.>> > Now that Misdirection only taps one vampire, what are they gonna do to you if > you want to block them? Oh, wait. Nothing. And 1 and 2 cap vampires with > dominate don't *need* to bleed you for more than 3 per action, nor do they > intend to. Granted, weenie decks are now seriously hamstrung. However, S&B power bleed decks still are not. AI may be ugly, but it is necessary for certain decks to defend against power bleeders. Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

In article <914ebv$na2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > In article <3A35A7DF...@math.wisc.edu>, > James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > It is not true that Auspex and Dominate contain the only bleed > > defense in the game. Combat decks have bleed defense: rush the > > bleeders. > Not fast enough, unless you are playing weenie rush, against bleeds > for six for each minion bleeding, and even then it only takes one > obedience to snuff your chances of victory because you will have to If you're playing non-weenie rush, then you should presumably have some other method of defense (multiple Blood Dolls, Minion Tap, untap & intercept, something...) or you're just asking for trouble. If you're playing Weenie Rush and run into a lot of Obedience, the Haven Uncovereds will help out...throw in a couple more the next time around. [intercept as a defense] > Totally made inefficent (with the exception of the clans who have > access to Auspex and therefore bleed bounce) by cards such as Elder > Impersonation, Day Operation, Horrific Countenance, and Blanket of > Night. And Seduction, as mentioned elsewhere; and let's not forget Daring the Dawn... Putting all your eggs in one basket (loading up one minion with all of your permanent intercept) is never a good idea. Avoiding this saves you from Elder Impersonation, Blanket of Night, and Seduction. Day Operation, Daring the Dawn, and Horrific Countenance are meant to be big. That's why their cost (though I admit Freak Drive or MotSB/Rapid Healing are a pretty no-brainer combo) is rather high. Still, this extends the combo by two more cards, bringing it up to, what...GtU, Conditioning, unblockable action mod, Freak/MotSB, Rapid Healing...a 5 card combo (6 with Command of the Beast) that causes 6 or 7 pool loss. Pretty much the same as a Bum's Rush, TS, IG, Undead Strength, (Disarm), Decapitate. If you have no bleed defense, then you're in trouble. If you have no combat defense, you're in trouble. I don't see the difference. It appears that your problem is more with unblockable actions rather than with large bleeds... > Bloat decks have bleed defense: gain more pool than the > > bleed deck is taking away. > > I have never, ever seen a bloat deck who could keep up with being bled > for 6 with each bleed. It can be done. This weekend, I outlasted a standard Malk S&B deck that was hammering me with Ozmo and Didi Meyers. Minion Tap, 5th, Parity Shift, ToGP'ed my predator once to bring him down 8 pool, and every once in a while, I tested his stealth with 2nd Tradition, my only intercept in the deck. It worked once, and I destroyed Ozmo. Unfortunately, I didn't have a Decapitate in hand, but I did get the Disarm off. Ozmo never bothered me again. My ToGP deck has about 6 2nd Traditions, and that's the only intercept in the deck, yet I was able to stop the S&B by letting him jam on stealth, discard a lot of it, and then 2nd Tradition a couple of times, along with the Minion Tap/Parity Shift pool gain. This in a deck that had no bounce, no AI, and only second-rate at best (according to you) options available to it. Did I mention that I was playing Nosferatu? And I only had Sheldon and Chester out? > > There were already plenty of ways to deal with bleed decks. More > > wouldn't have been necessarily bad. But AI has negative cost, and > > BURNS a vampire. > > Burning a vampire is exactly what makes power bleeders fear it. Once > again, AI's power isn't in the fact that it burns one vampire, but No, AI's power *is* in the fact that it burns a vampire. The fear of this is secondary. AI is approximately as powerful as ToGP...same pool cost, but doesn't require a Justicar; requires a bleed of > 3, instead; it burns the vampire as opposed to taking control of it; the vampire is gone, there is no possibility of another Methuselah usurping control of it by outbidding or another ToGP/Corruption. For a cost of 3 pool, you have cancelled a bleed of at least 4, and you have effectively bled the acting Methuselah for the influence cost of the vampire; perhaps this is as little as 1, probably more like 4 or 5. > > > Because that is > > > what it sounds like. Being bled for more than three is really > abusive > > > to be on the receiving end of. > > > > I really don't know about "abusive". > > "Abusive" is when you feel you have been abused. Simply that. No, that's "victimized". "Abusive" refers to the combination itself, or to the person dishing out the abuse. And being bled for more than 3 hurts, but it's just the same as losing a vampire of equal capacity due to combat, Banishment, ToGP, Corruption, etc. > And you are arguing that a defense against bleeding for clans without > auspex or dominate needs to be removed from the game. Maybe, you > should try to play a deck without those two disciplines and no AI's, > and see how you hold up against a Malk stealth-bleed. As mentioned, it works. > Please explain to me how eliminating AI helps those clans without > dominate or auspex against power bleeds. It does not help nor hurt them, in the long run. What it does is hurt a valid deck archetype, namely, bleed. Decks that are going to bleed are not going to stop or slow down just because they think an AI is going to pop up. At worst, they figure that someone will pull one AI during the course of the game, and they'll lose a minion, which hurts, but isn't going to make them change their basic strategy. [snip flamage] > Removing defenses against stealth-bleed only makes that strategy more > effective. Especially more effective against clans without AI is, at best, a strong defense that is unreliable. Deflection is a weaker (in terms of resource destruction), more reliable defense. > bleed-bounce. Even weenie rush has a problem with dominate because of > obedience and rabble razing. Well, I don't see what dominate has to do with Rabble Razing, but yes, Obedience shuts down a lot of rush. However, there are ways around that...Haven Uncovered works really well, as would Contract, and playing Obedience rules out weenie bleed, doesn't it? A lot of rush decks step up to the 5 or 6 capacity range (or Beast-range), and most efficient S&B decks stay around 5 capacity (Didi, Ozmo, Zebulon), ruling out Obedience once again. > Actually what this statement says is that I have played many effective > rush decks using many different sized vampire. I have experience what > it is like to have a stealth bleed deck beside me that actually has > combat defense built into it. Often this combat defence occurs in the > form of 8 dodges and 8 fake outs. This is often enough to make a rush 8 dodges and 8 fake outs is pretty weak combat defense, if you ask me. I suppose it depends on what sort of combat you're playing, but if you can't get about 2 maneuvers per combat, and can't beat dodge (much less S:CE), you're not doing something right. 8 maneuvers and 8 dodges isn't enough to get more than 1 or 2 of each per combat, and at 2, you're going to run out really quickly. > deck not torporize a minion on every rush action. A rush deck that > fails to do that will stall. A rush deck that stalls is a rush deck > that fails. No, a rush deck doesn't necessarily stall with one failed rush action. Sure, if you can torporize on every single action, you're doing good, but the game isn't going to go straight to hell just because you failed one rush. Sometimes it will, but not always, perhaps not even often. Yeah, 4 or 5 or 6 failed rushes will definitely add up, though. > A rush deck can mutilate a stealth bleed predator, but in doing so > gives both his prey and his grand predator a free ride. This only > compounds the problems a rush deck faces. As his grand-predator > becomes his predator, the rush deck faces a even tougher challenge, > holding off a more powerful predator than his previous one. Depends on the table size. At a 4-player table, if his prey is having an easy time, the grand-predator should not be, so it all evens out. Maybe he'll acquire a new, weak predator, and then he can work on his prey again, and get back to equilibrium. At a 5-player table, yeah, that happens, but those are the risks you take. Tough. I would also submit that Protracted Racehorses, I mean Protected Resources would be more balanced as a Unique Location (as mentioned elsewhere), or if it had a burn clause (less preferred), and might not be out of flavor in Final Nights, as some of those clans are more secluded and more able to insulate themselves from the Jyhad, perhaps. The problem with it as written is that there is no way to remove it or get around it, and there are no requirements (aside from the "can't bleed" clause, which isn't that hard for a deck that doesn't focus on bleeding) for playing it, which is out of character for Jyhad/V:tES in general. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

takes away *an* *option* of big-bleed defense from many decks. > I would like to play the Followers of Set in a tournament. What's my > S&B defense? Mark of Damnation/Rush? Aisha with her 1 intercept? A Settite S+B got into the finals at GenCon, it sat in front of S+B, and weenie tap and bleed, and it did what everyone does, ignore the deck and make them enjoy the stealth hand jam. Also, if you are playing a rush deck, your first few actions are to neuter your predator, if it's only forward looking, then you go after your prey with your other minions, Koko and Lupo watch you back, and Anvil and Amelia tear up your prey. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65BC255.14A0%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Okay, now that Lupo has vaporized Zebby, here's Ozmo. Ok, KoKo > vaporized Ozmo. Eventually, you will have spent as many rushes, and > actions, nuking your predator flat, which you have to, since leaving a > single guy alive is getting your a bleed for 5 or 6 at stealth Just to point out...the single guy alive is bleeding you for 5 or 6, but not at stealth. If you're rushing, you shouldn't be blocking, especially if you know he's got stealth. After one or two bleeds of 5 or 6, he's got a hand full of stealth, and no +bleed. Your rush deck (which has spent 12-14 pool on minions total) and has a Blood Doll or two out is now doing fine. You're still in for a rough time, but weathering the initial storm isn't that hard. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

> AI doesn't hose bleeding as a strategy. It hoses bleeding for more than > three, once. You only have to worry about this card if you attempt to > bleed for more than 10% of each methuselah's starting pool. It is not a > "shoddy strategy hoser" unless your strategy is power bleeds. It is no > more a hoser on a per cost basis than a bounce. In fact, I would say > bounce has a far greater effect on the game. It is a corner case card > at best. Players know it exists so they know that there are serious > repercussion if they try to bleed for six pool (20% of your starting > amount) And when you take out a big vampire bleeding for four, because they didn't have a vote card this turn, thats a legitimate use of the card too? There are serious repercussions for bleeding for four pool too. > > Umm...no. Do you actually include AI in every deck you have, and rely > on it as > > your main bleed defense? I didn't think so. > > Of course not. It is not a viable strategy nor a reliable defense. But > what it does do it keep the Bleed decks from running wild with Bleeds of > 6. How, in your example i lost ohanna, that doesn't stop me from misdirecting your only vamp, and killing you with royce. weenies don't care, so the card only really messes with BIG vampire bleeds, and they are easier to det your defences up to prevent. > > <snip all the clans that can rush and intercept> > > A bleed deck should pack a little combat defence. Usually Obediences or > Fake Outs and Dodges do the trick. Until you flash and immortal grapple... > > What about the Followers of Set? No offence to dave, but in general they suck. sorry, thats the way it is, they need more vampires and clan cards, not AI. > > > <snip ways to deal with bleed> > > So all these strategies make AI broken? How? By making it unneccesary, everyone can deal with bleed, we don't need AI. > > How does this scenario sound? You are going first in a four player > game. Your lowest vamp in your uncontrolled region is a six. You put > one pool on him. Your predator plays either a Dreams of the Sphinx or a > Info Highway. He then puts into play Royce, Ohanna, and Christine > Bocasci. On your turn you play the Barrens and transfer 4 more pool, > still not getting a vampire out. Your predator plays a Dominate skill > card on Royce. Royce Governs the Unaligned with Threats for 6. Ohanna > Governs the Unaligned with Conditioning for 6. Christine Bocasci > Governs the Unaligned wtih Conditioninf for 6. You just lost 18 pool on > turn two. You now have 7 Pool and 5 on a uncontrolled six cap vampire. > > The only defense currently availible in this scenario is a Archon > Investigation, which still costs you three pool to play. Your predator > has lost a disposable weenie. You would be down to 10 pool with 5 on a > uncontrolled six cap. How is Archon Investigation broken in this > scenario? > How is it useful in that scenario? It isn't, it can't protect you from weenie bleed, only big vampire bleed, and you can't do that fast enough, even with infoHWY and tombs, to prevent your prey from getting a vampire (other than, maybe, an IC). Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

> How does this address my above point? Why should you ever care about > your grandprey unless it is either your predator is your grand prey or > your prey is about to oust them. > Simply that torporizing his vamps isn't going to change how he reacts to his predator, ie, ignoring it. > > The ones that prevent only one vampire can be stacked on top of one > another as long as they obey the no two of the same action modifier > rule. It is not uncommon to see a Seduction and a Elder Impersonation > played on the same bleed. Now you must be able to block with 3 minions > to catch this vampire. > Who was big enough to pay for all those, so i could easily have out two or three. > Also, High costs can be compensated for (i.e. Freak Drive and Rapid > Healing on a Day Operation, or a 5th Tradition to Compensate for the > Horrific Countanence.) > Availiable to Ventrue and Gangel Princes not weenie bleeders who are empty. <snip bloat> > > Fear leads to.... wait I'll stop. But that fear is silly, like making > > a master called: > > > > Archon Bodyguard > > master out of turn > > 3 pool > > burn a vampire in combat with one of your minions. > > I would agree that this card would be more like AI if it said "burn a > vampire in combat with one of your minions if that vampire is dealing > more than 3 damage with a strike." Maybe someday we will need it if > Potence combat ever gets out of control. > > > It makes rush actions scarry, but it's a stupid card, and bad for the > > game, not because rush actions are already somewhat underpowered > > (although that seems to be changing) but because it straight up hoses > a > > core strategy, and that is a BAD thing. > > Frankly, AI does not hose a core strategy. It doesn't burn you if you > are bleeding a methuselah for any amount but rather for any bleed > greater than 3. What it does do is make you compensate for it, and be a > good player. What it makes me do is no longer bleed with an inner circle member. That fear shouldn't be present. I should worry if i'll be bounced, or blocked, or beat up next turn, because that is fear i can plan for, but short of malks bleeding out of turn and SRing the AI, there is no way for me to deal with it. That, IMHO, is what makes it bad for the game. > Please explain how it is "bad for the game" that there exists a card > which makes it risky to bleed for more than 10% of a methuselah's > starting pool. The game is risky enough for big bleeders, weenie bleed, as i pointed out in another post, doesn't care about AI, or even, really, combat. > It doesn't take 20 Obediences to make weenie rush fall on its nose. It > takes about 8. After the first two or three are played, that rush deck > is going to have a real handjam problem on its hand beacuse it played > all of its availible rushes and is jamming up on combat cards and won't > be able to do much but bleed forward because it can't cycle. > In a 90 card deck, to make sure you have 2-3 in your opening hand, you need more than 8. > AI doesn't need errata. It is a corner-case card (only useable against > minions with dominate, presence, alot of bleed retainers and equipment, > or Inner Circle Members who are bleeding for more than three). It is > the retalitory strike for someone who is being bombarded by bleeds for > more than three. It is an expensive and corner-case card, which is > extremely useful in a heavy bleed environment. If you don't bleed for > more than 3 then you never have to worry about this card. Or it is a card you just drew that burns Arika on one of the three times she bleeds in the game, hardly "bombarding", worth the expsense, no more Arika, and the case for not worrying about the card messes with big vampire bleed, making them even less playable. They need to do that bleed for 6 or 9 because they don't have 4 vampires bleeding for 3. > Once again the threat of having one of your vampires burned is what > encourages most players to bleed for three or less. No one wants to > lose a vampire. If you don't recognise the threat value of AI, then >I suppose this arguement is falling on deaf ears. Your comment above about a card like Archon Bodyguard having the ability to be neccessary if Combat becomes to 'good' makes me think that we are just going to have to disagree on this. I like the interplay of the vampires and their abilities, and generally dislike the methusala's ability to interfere with the game. In this case, I don't not bleed, I just get pissed off when an AI stops Arika's bleed, for 4 or 9, bleeding me for 11 pool, and costing only 3. (oh and like that doesn't REALLY help my predator to oust me, sic. combat talk above.) I hear that you think AI is neccessary, I don't think it should ever have been printed. Cameron, Joaquina Amaya's best friend [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65BCA66.14AE%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > > And if you argue that Archon Investigation costs 3 pool because > > that's the number printed in the lower left, you could also > > say that Minion Tap costs 0 pool and doesn't give you any. It > > only gains you pool if you actually choose to take some off your > > minion... > You could say that, and in some cases, people play it to gain zero pool, > just to cycle the card. But, you're still moving onto *effects*. > Archon Investigation *does* cost 3 Pool. > Minion Tap *does* cost 0 Pool. Effects are inseparable from costs. If the card isn't Reversed, you get the effect along with the cost, and if it *is* Reversed, you don't pay the cost. > This whole blathering about "negative cost" to make AI look broken or > too powerful is pure number shuffling and doublespeak. "Cost" has a defined > meaning in V:tES, and saying that "AI costs 3 pool" is simply the truth, and > doesn't imply that the person making the statement has lost all the > subtleties of the card and the game. As I said before, this "negative cost" > math implies that Deflection costs negative pool every time it's > played...but there are other issues, of course. Yeah, and that's what makes Deflection so much better than *blocking* a bleed, isn't it? > Please stick to clearly addressing those issues when making your points > instead of persisting in including this ridiculous "negative pool" > metric/argument. What's different about Archon Investigation - and what makes it worth mentioning the "cost" issue - is that its printed cost is only indirectly related to its actual cost. If you can play AI at all, you were losing more than three pool to a bleed. That "3" in the lower left corner isn't a "normal" cost, because the effect of the card will save you at least four pool. And if it's Sudden Reversed, you don't pay the 3 pool either. So: all that "3" does is define the minimum "swing" you gain by playing the card: at least 1 pool. If it were a 4, you would gain at least 0 pool by playing it; if it were a 2, you would gain at least 2 pool by playing it. As such, taking the effect of the card when played into consideration along with the printed "3" is just as reasonable and accurate as taking the effect of Ascendance (gain 1 pool) into consideration when discussing the costs and benefits of that card. Saying that AI costs 3 pool, while technically accurate, *does* ignore its effects, because if you can't pay the cost, you can't take the bleed either. Josh speaks with forked tongue [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <915f8c$fjc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > In article <914kkp$rjc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Fear leads to.... wait I'll stop. But that fear is silly, like making > > a master called: > > > > Archon Bodyguard > > master out of turn > > 3 pool > > burn a vampire in combat with one of your minions. > > I would agree that this card would be more like AI if it said "burn a > vampire in combat with one of your minions if that vampire is dealing > more than 3 damage with a strike." Maybe someday we will need it if > Potence combat ever gets out of control. If you think so, we may simply disagree on the appropriateness of hoser cards. To my mind, that card would never be necessary as long as nobody's introducing broken Potence cards into the game (like Elastic Iron-Hot Arms of Death or something, for those who remember that). For me, hosers are simply not an appropriate method of (trying to) balance VTES. Clan hosers suck too, but strategy hosers are even worse. The game should be about finding balances and countermeasure *within* the structure of vampire interaction, not by coming up with huge-effect master cards to counter any conceivable difficulty. If the bleed cards are not broken in and of themselves, then a card like Archon Investigation should not be necessary to deal with them. If they *are* broken, they are what should be banned or fixed. To me, printing "magic bullet" cards is the lamest possible attempt at a solution; it's what games like Star Wars (great quotes, not much of a game) and Magic (fun if you don't mind spending the money and time) do. VTES has a far more elegant and balanced system than they do, and it should use that and try to keep it. Josh the voice of respectful dissent [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:58:37 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <b69b3t4ftblvsinvg...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Why it was created isn't what I'm discussing; it's here now, and we're >> stuck with it unless we ban it. The question is, it is so unbalancing >> that it needs to be banned? Or would banning it tip the scale too far >> towards the bleed decks? > >Seems unlikely. We don't seem to have statistics available for >this (since, sadly, The Lasombra only started collecting tourney- >winning decks in 1997, and DejaNews doesn't go back even that >far now...), but did bleed decks win all the time, and necessitate >bounce in every tourney deck, before the VTES printing in 1995? >I doubt it (though I don't know enough about the tourney scene >of that time to say for sure). Neither do I. But I note that Archon Investigation, Protected Resources, and Elder Intervention were created specifically in the V:TES printing, and such powerful cards being added in what was nominally a reprint of the base set indicate that bleed decks were, in fact, that powerful, and that stealth bleed was THE premier deck of the time. Many cards have been added since then, so the equation becomes a lot more fuzzy and requires re-looking at. >> Bleed does not NEED to be weak against combat, bloat, OR intercept, >> however; the trick lies in the deck construction. A Ventrue/!Ventrue >> DOM/FOR bleed deck is not vulnerable to combat. A weenie Dominate >> horde will overrun Minion Tap/5th. Malk S&B will beat intercept. >> Bleed bounce is the strongest natural counter to a bleed deck, and >> even that can be somewhat negated; interestingly enough, by the same >> strategy that hoses AI (more bleeds for less). > >But a DOM/FOR bleed deck *is* vulnerable to intercept (at least >the blocking part); a weenie dom horde is vulnerable to combat; >Malk S&B is vulnerable to combat, bounce, and probably bloat. >You don't have to be weak against *all* these defenses, but if >you're not weak against *any* of them you're probably not bleeding >for much either. Certainly. But the point was that ALL bleed decks are vulnerable to bounce, and the other three defense strategies all have a visible weak point. AI's existence helps shore up that weak point, if you don't wish to include bounce. As it stands right now, you KNOW there will be bleed decks at any given tournament. You can be pretty sure that at least a couple of them will be going for more-than-3 at any given moment, and will have a way to get it past the plain old zero-stealth block. So you can include bounce, and not worry about what type of deck shows up. Or you can take a risk, and go with combat, bloat, or intercept. Each is vulnerable to a very common type of strategy; AI helps each of these defenses to some degree by providing a "fear" deterrent. Without that deterrent's EXISTENCE, it is very dangerous to play any type of deck that doesn't include bounce; a bad roll on seating position will nail you. If you intend to attempt to win, it would be silly to even CONSIDER decks without bounce. It doesn't matter if your intercept deck contains an AI or not (although it probably should; those Day Ops really suck), just the fact that a bleed deck has to WORRY matters. Bleed decks are hardly hamstrung by AI. If you want to bleed for more than 3, fine. I've made multiple decks that do just that. But you know what? If you're moving along and dropping multiple big bleeds and get a minion burned, yeah it slows you down, but it's probably not going to stop you cold unless you're doing the "Etrius bleeds for 10!" stunt or something. I know that if I build a bleed deck, I will deliberately ignore one of the defense types; usually I'll include combat defense and plenty of bleed oomph, and go a little lighter on the stealth, as most people are well aware of the "don't block them" theory regarding stealth/bleed. I hate getting caught behind a Minion Tap for 10, and getting my minions beat up is never a good thing. And I also ignore the threat of Archon Investigation. Sure, someone will drop it on me eventually. I just try not to make any given minion that much 'better' than any other. It happened in my Tzimisce Pulse/Changeling deck; I had 3 Pulsed guys out and made the mistake of using Changeling to "oomph" a bleed instead of saving it for stealth, and poof. The deck still got 3 VP that game. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> If the bleed cards are not broken in and of themselves, then > a card like Archon Investigation should not be necessary to > deal with them. If they *are* broken, they are what should be > banned or fixed. I don't believe that bleed cards are broken or for that matter that any of the cards in the current Sabbat War Set or errata are broken. The tournament banned cards are the ones I don't play with so I really don't have an opinion on them. Certainly you must realize that bleeding is the most efficient manner in which to oust your prey. Power -bleeds are just an extention of that strategy. I think that Archon Investigation is a appropriate response in both terms of Card Balance and Storyline. I don't think AI is broken, nor do I think that power-bleeding is broken. I believe that they actually balance one another even in the presence of other bleed defense. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

I would like to play the Followers of Set in a tournament. What's my > S&B defense? Mark of Damnation/Rush? Aisha with her 1 intercept? I hate to break it to you, but you can only mark of damnation your prey's vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <20001212101731...@ng-bg1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >>>Forget about playing Assamites,>> > >Rush and kill the bleeders. More difficult at the moment. It really requires some form of real S:CE defence. A good presence bleed deck has that in spades. >>>Setites,>> > >Outrace the bleeders. Or stealth-vote yourself out of the way. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back down again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

In article <b69b3t4ftblvsinvg...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >If you Banish a 5-cap with 2 blood, it is effectively an unbounceable, >unreduceable bleed for 3 OR a total removal of a significant resource >(the vampire). However, it can be blocked, Delayed, voted down etc. (Not that this negates your point, it's just a defence against such.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> If Zebulon has enough Obediance and Wake (he is tapped out from bleeding you > for 7, remember?) to reliably stop a Rush deck, he isn't going to be bleeding > for 7 on a regular basis. Couldn't another vampire that you brought into your controlled region during your last turn block and play Obedience. Maybe someone like , Roland Bishop, Laurent de Valois, or Guido Lucciano . Or have much stealth to deal with the intercept deck > he might very well be sitting next to. Don't need that much stealth just needs a little and a few seductions to get past the guy with the permanent intercept. > >>or fake out and dodge.>> > > Because Zebulon, who was tapped out from bleeding you for 7 managed to block > the Bum's Rush, denying Lupo the Manuver? Or because it wasn't someone using a > Press? could it be possible that the methuselah would actually transfer out another vampire? This new vampire would be untapped and could block and play reaction and combat cards to foil a rush deck. <snip> > >>So Sorry, Lupo. You get to fail at your rush action to send Zebulon to > torpor.>> > > Uhh, yeah. That is going to work. S+B decks that have reliable combat defense > aren't the quick and deadly bleeders that you seem to think warrant the > existance of AI. I would argue that point. 10 GTu's and 10 Conditionings have the making of a strong power bleed deck. Now throw in 10 Threats. That leave 60 cards to play with. They don't bleed for as much and for as often, making them > much slower and much more manageable--it is likely that such a S+B deck could > bleed you reliably for about 3 an action, but 7? I think not. So what is your point? If they can only bleed reliably for three, then they don't even have to worry about Archon Investigation and it just jams up their preys hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

> takes away *an* *option* of big-bleed defense from many decks. >> I would like to play the Followers of Set in a tournament. > What's my >> S&B defense? Mark of Damnation/Rush? Aisha with her 1 intercept? > > A Settite S+B got into the finals at GenCon, it sat in front of S+B, > and weenie tap and bleed, and it did what everyone does, ignore the > deck and make them enjoy the stealth hand jam. So you're saying the way for me to beat S&B is to play S&B. Am I the only person that this doesn't appeal to? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <915orv$oss$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > AI doesn't hose bleeding as a strategy. It hoses bleeding for more > than > > three, once. You only have to worry about this card if you attempt to > > bleed for more than 10% of each methuselah's starting pool. It is > not a > > "shoddy strategy hoser" unless your strategy is power bleeds. It is > no > > more a hoser on a per cost basis than a bounce. In fact, I would say > > bounce has a far greater effect on the game. It is a corner case card > > at best. Players know it exists so they know that there are serious > > repercussion if they try to bleed for six pool (20% of your starting > > amount) > > And when you take out a big vampire bleeding for four, because they > didn't have a vote card this turn, thats a legitimate use of the card > too? There are serious repercussions for bleeding for four pool too. yes, 4 pool a.k.a. 13% of a methuselah's starting total. You should be a little more carefull when using a vampire that cost you 11 pool to put into play. > > > Umm...no. Do you actually include AI in every deck you have, and > rely > > on it as > > > your main bleed defense? I didn't think so. > > > > Of course not. It is not a viable strategy nor a reliable defense. > But > > what it does do it keep the Bleed decks from running wild with Bleeds > of > > 6. > > How, in your example i lost ohanna, that doesn't stop me from > misdirecting your only vamp, and killing you with royce. weenies don't > care, so the card only really messes with BIG vampire bleeds, and they > are easier to det your defences up to prevent. I imagine that it messes up the player with the weenies just fine, although not as much as having your Ozmo or Arika go up in smoke. > > > <snip all the clans that can rush and intercept> > > > > A bleed deck should pack a little combat defence. Usually Obediences > or > > Fake Outs and Dodges do the trick. > > Until you flash and immortal grapple... Now your are playing with celerity and potence. Can't use Koko or Lupo for that. Now you have to use Dre and Jacob Bragg who are substancially slower to get out than Koko and Lupo. Those are the only 3 caps with that combonation of disciplines. Want to keep that combonation of disciplines? Now, you have 4 4-caps and after that 5 and 6 caps. No more weenie rush for you. You have to play with bigger vampires. So now weenie rush is not viable against a well- build Stealth Bleed deck. > > > > What about the Followers of Set? > > No offence to dave, but in general they suck. sorry, thats the way it > is, they need more vampires and clan cards, not AI. Great! So what you are saying is that the Setites "just suck". That is brilliant! Why didn't I think of that for a reason for banning Archon Investigation? <sar> > > > > > > <snip ways to deal with bleed> > > > > So all these strategies make AI broken? How? > > By making it unneccesary, everyone can deal with bleed, we don't need > AI. So now we need to ban all the unnessary cards? If that is the case why don't we ban Appolonius, or Harrod, or some other card that you feel is unnessary. Why don't we just ban necromancy? It isn't a nessasary discipline. [ quoted text not captured ] let's see. Without Archon Investigation, you are left with 7 pool and 5 on a six cap vampire. You transfer out Anvil, now you have 6 pool and a blocker trying to block 3 minions who all have to hunt this turn. Say you actually catch one of them hunting. Bam! That one is down. Now you can't transfer out another vampire and on your predator's next turn he plays another dominate skill cards bleeds you with the two remaining vampires, you block one and kill it. and the other Governs and Threats you for 6. Game Over. With Archon Investigation, you are left with 10 pool and 5 on a six cap. Your predators vampires all have to hunt. lets say you don't catch either two of them hunting (in fact, there is probably a third that he brought out). Now he has all three and you have one vampire. He bleeds you again for 3 with a govern. You block and crush the little bugger. The second bleeds you for Six and you AI it (you can do this because you just cycled through about 6 cards in combat). Now the third comes and successfully bleeds you for 6. You now have 1 pool and one vampire preying on you. You rush it and kill it and outlast your predator. You cannot outlast your predator without AI in this scenario. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Frankly, AI does not hose a core strategy. It doesn't burn you if > you >> are bleeding a methuselah for any amount but rather for any bleed >> greater than 3. What it does do is make you compensate for it, and > be a >> good player. > > What it makes me do is no longer bleed with an inner circle member. No, it makes you fear *bumping* the bleed of your Inner Circle Member. If that's your focus, you should spend your efforts railing against Justicar Retribution, which burns ALL IC and Pulsed bleeders, whether or not they even attempt to remove pool. But, I don't see exactly Justicar Retribution hitting tables left and right at tournaments. > That fear shouldn't be present. I should worry if i'll be bounced, or > blocked, or beat up next turn, because that is fear i can plan for, but > short of malks bleeding out of turn and SRing the AI, there is no way > for me to deal with it. That, IMHO, is what makes it bad for the game. People still play, and win, with big bleed decks. But, it's not the only deck kind that is played, or wins. This, IMHO, sounds like a good arrangement. Big bleed is a viable, powerful, but counterable strategy. Lemme try and bring out the basic disagreement, here. If AI was so broken, no one would ever play or win with big bleed. Is there some "total lack of big bleed" or "no one can win with big bleed" mechanic in your (all of you, that is, railing against AI) local playgroup? I just don't see an existing problem to be fixed, just another possibility of the metagame. If you fear AI, don't play big bleed, and people will stop playing AI so much. If you fear intercept so much, play decks that only take 0-stealth actions. The evidence pulled up that AI *is* played in tournament winning decks means that skilled players think it's worthwhile. The fact that a majority did NOT have AI seems, to me, to imply that the card isn't all powerful, it's just another option that has settled into about as much use as any other card or strategy. If you DO see a problem in the game as it is played often (say, as DI is beginning to see a LOT of play and get grumbled at), or that *no* one plays big bleed decks, then be clear. But, it's hard to call a card that's been around so long "broken" or "bad for the game" when the game seems to toodle along just fine with it's existence, with the card nor it's intended victim-strategy seeing too much or too little play. Also, for PR, AI, and Justicar Retribution, do the critics of each (I'm not assuming a critic of one is a critic of all) think these cards aren't flattening tables at every tournament only due to their rarity? That kind of needs to be clear for this discussion to be in proper context. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> And if you argue that Archon Investigation costs 3 pool because >>> that's the number printed in the lower left, you could also >>> say that Minion Tap costs 0 pool and doesn't give you any. It >>> only gains you pool if you actually choose to take some off your >>> minion... > >> You could say that, and in some cases, people play it to gain >> zero pool, >> just to cycle the card. But, you're still moving onto *effects*. >> Archon Investigation *does* cost 3 Pool. >> Minion Tap *does* cost 0 Pool. > > Effects are inseparable from costs. I concur. Just call a duck a duck, ok? >> This whole blathering about "negative cost" to make AI look > broken or >> too powerful is pure number shuffling and doublespeak. "Cost" has a > defined >> meaning in V:tES, and saying that "AI costs 3 pool" is simply the > truth, and >> doesn't imply that the person making the statement has lost all the >> subtleties of the card and the game. As I said before, > this "negative cost" >> math implies that Deflection costs negative pool every time it's >> played...but there are other issues, of course. > > Yeah, and that's what makes Deflection so much better than > *blocking* a bleed, isn't it? I'm not sure what you mean by this; no offense, but are you being sarcastic or not? 8) >> Please stick to clearly addressing those issues when making your > points >> instead of persisting in including this ridiculous "negative pool" >> metric/argument. > > What's different about Archon Investigation - and what makes > it worth mentioning the "cost" issue - is that its printed > cost is only indirectly related to its actual cost. This is true of so many Master Cards as to be ridiculous. Art Museum gains you one pool, effectively, and so "costs 1". Next turn it "costs 0." Minion tap costs "X blood and -X pool" where "X" is how much you take off. AI isn't special at all in this sense. > If you > can play AI at all, you were losing more than three pool to a > bleed. That "3" in the lower left corner isn't a "normal" cost, > because the effect of the card will save you at least four pool. > And if it's Sudden Reversed, you don't pay the 3 pool either. > So: all that "3" does is define the minimum "swing" you gain by > playing the card: at least 1 pool. If it were a 4, you would gain > at least 0 pool by playing it; if it were a 2, you would gain at > least 2 pool by playing it. As such, taking the effect of the > card when played into consideration along with the printed "3" > is just as reasonable and accurate as taking the effect of > Ascendance (gain 1 pool) into consideration when discussing the > costs and benefits of that card. > > Saying that AI costs 3 pool, while technically accurate, *does* > ignore its effects, because if you can't pay the cost, you can't > take the bleed either. I have no argument with your logic. And, yes saying "AI costs 3 pool" does ignore the effect. Partially I got annoyed at the metric of "negative pool cost" when someone (Norm?) said "Given it's cost of 3 pool..." and someone (you? someone else? I forget) jumped in with "It costs NEGATIVE pool! Do I have to explain it again?" which just confuses the issue, instead of addressing it. Had the response been more like "yes, but you can't ignore..." and tacked on bits of your above paragraph, that would have been productive. But the "negative cost" argument by itself as a sound byte only misleads. Not by itself, a full explanation obviates the need for unclear terms like "negative cost." Put simpler: > Saying that AI costs 3 pool, while technically accurate, *does* > ignore its effects, AND, saying "AI has a negative cost," is *neither* accurate *nor* does it account for all its effects, so please don't answer the claim of the former with the latter. Better yet, just be clear and avoid both oversimplifications. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I would like to play the Followers of Set in a tournament. What's > my >> S&B defense? Mark of Damnation/Rush? Aisha with her 1 intercept? > > I hate to break it to you, but you can only mark of damnation your > prey's vampires. Sokay; I didn't really want to play the FoS, anyway. Just helps me prove my (our?) point, though. Thanks, Norm. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Are you happier if you get bled on turn two by Christine, Ohanna, > and Samson for 9,and then for another 9 on turn 3? Yes and yes. That is alot more breathing room than being bled for 18. You could actually do all that stuff you have been talking about bloat, rush, banishment. Maybe enought to give yourself some breathing room. If you have > out no more than one vampire, you will be just as vulnerable to > new-Misdirection as old-Misdirection. (math note - your pred has > to get out 3 2-caps, not Royce, to be able to play two 1-cost > cards with each, and can only put DOM on one of them, getting to > 16 bleed, not 18.) Reading note- Royce gets the skill card and plays threats which costs nothing. It helps to read. <snip truisms about weenie decks> > > > Bounce is not the only, or always the best way to deal with bleed, > but > > > every clan has at least some way to deal with a bleed deck. If they > > > didn't more tourney winning decks would include AI and PR, because > > > bleed is sure as heck going to show up. > > > > So your conclusiton to your arguement is that AI and PR are not > > overpowered because if they were then they would be in every > tournament > > winning deck? That is quite a reversal of position. Perhaps you > should > > argue that bleed bounce is broken because it effectively hoses a core > > strategy. > > If AI was really the only thing holding mega-bleeds down, shouldn't > it show up in more tourney-winning decks? I hesitate to do another > detailed analysis of The Lasombra's tourney-winning-decks archive > (because it's so thorough! cringe!), but on a quick search through, > I find thirteen decks out of seventy-three (~18%) that had Archon > Investigation in them. Of those thirteen, nine also had at least > 5 bleed-bounce cards in them. Of the thirteen, four had more than > one AI, and all of those also had Deflections. So, you are saying that bleed bounce is superior to AI, then why not ban bleed bounce. > I should also look at how many of the 73 tourney-winners had > Dominate or Auspex and bounce in them, but that would take too > long for right now. ;-) Suffice to say that it looks to me > like, although AI's effect is certainly extreme, and it doubtless > has a "fear effect" keeping tourney players from bleeding for > more than 3 too often (unless with weenies they don't mind losing - > which is the opposite of the desired effect, isn't it?). But > since not that many winners are actually *playing* with it, it > must not be the only way to win tournaments - ie not *necessary* > to keep the bleeders from always killing you. I never argued that "it must be the only way to win tournaments - ie it was necessary to keep the bleeders from always killing you." I argued that it wasn't powerful enough or unbalancing enough to require either banning or errata. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:02:12 -0600, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > >It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ > >cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three > >pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master > >phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at > >least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. > > (shrug) It costs you a slot in your deck, ...just like every other card. This is a non-point. > hoping like hell you're > going to be bled for 4 at some point. I have agreed that the card is not _always_ useful. It's that _when_ it _is_ useful, it's _too_ useful. > And you actually have to TAKE > the bleed for at least 3, instead of just arranging for some other > fashion to deal with it. Huh? You don't take the bleed. You lose 3 pool instead of the 4+ you were going to take, _and_ they lose their vampire. > It's a strong card, but I won't > automatically include one in every tournament deck I build. Of course not. But its cost is inappropriate to its effect. "Broken" doesn't always mean "game-winning" or "vitally necessary for every deck". > >intent is to "put down" bleed decks, which don't need such a putting > >down. It was created by idiot WotC employees who played with 4cl and > >thought the game was broken and needed fixing. > > Why it was created isn't what I'm discussing; it's here now, and we're > stuck with it unless we ban it. I think this is relevant. If the reason for creating the card was that "bleed is too powerful", then we should address two points: (1) Before AI, was bleed too powerful? and (2) If so, does AI "fix" the problem? In his other posts, Norman seems to be arguing that bleed is _still_ too powerful, whereas I would say that bleed has never been too powerful. > The question is, it is so unbalancing > that it needs to be banned? Or would banning it tip the scale too far > towards the bleed decks? Was the scale balanced toward bleed decks before AI was printed? I think not. If AI were banned, would everyone suddenly start playing crazy bleed decks? Probably not. There were and are plenty of ways to deal with bleed decks (and for the thousandth time, Norman, you don't have to have Dom or Aus). > >Banishment is wrong because it removes a vital resource (a vampire) too > >easily. Again, this is not always a great card; it requires there to be > >a mostly-empty big vampire around. But its effect greatly outweighs its > >cost. > > If you Banish a 5-cap with 2 blood, it is effectively an unbounceable, > unreduceable bleed for 3 OR a total removal of a significant resource > (the vampire). EVEN IF it is only a bleed for 3, it is still a > TEMPORARY removal of that resource for a turn, which could be used to > defend against other bleeds or damage. It is far too overpowered for > the fact that Igo can call and pass it by himself. AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same time burn any vampire. If there were some limitation (could only burn vampires with cap <= 3, say), then it would be more acceptable. But Arika getting burned for playing Bonding is ridiculous. > >But not unbalancingly strong. Since it wins in the most direct manner > >possible (removing prey's pool), it will of course be an effective deck > >type. But it is weak against combat, bleed bounce, bloat, intercept, > >etc. > > Bleed does not NEED to be weak against combat, bloat, OR intercept, > however; the trick lies in the deck construction. No matter how you build your deck, it will either have lots of defenses and not be especially good at accomplishing its primary goal (what I would call a "toolbox" deck), or be very focuced and have a vital vulnerability. > A Ventrue/!Ventrue > DOM/FOR bleed deck is not vulnerable to combat. But it is vulnerable to light intercept. > A weenie Dominate > horde will overrun Minion Tap/5th. But will die to light intercept and combat. > Malk S&B will beat intercept. But will be beaten by combat and/or some (heavy) intercept decks. [snip] > Do I want to see it banned since it got > here anyway? ...No. Is that because you are generally against banning, or because you have reasons for wanting it to stay? > >It's not the effectiveness of PR that makes me spew smoke from my ears > >when I see one. It's that its effect outweighs its cost dramatically. > >It's that it is impossible to get rid of; it almost requires a bleed > > This is true. Does that effect affect the game significantly, though? If I'm playing a bleed deck and my prey plays one, then it affects _that_ game significantly. The effect (depending on my deck) can be crippling, with very minimal cost. > >deck to pack Sudden Reversal just to prevent the card from ever getting > >played. I think it is only the relative scarcity of AI and PR that keep > >people from seeing them as the horribly unbalanced cards that they are. > > AI isn't scarce. RELATIVE scarcity. <sigh> > We see lots of it down in the Southeast. PR isn't > seen outside a tourney environment, and even then not that > frequently... although I'm sure an awful lot of people have one that > they could include. I think that it's just that PR shuts down so much > of your offensive options, and HAS to come out on top of your deck or > is useless, and isn't much of a defense EXCEPT against > mondo-bleeders... that it's just not that good an inclusion in most > decks. I don't dispute these points. It's that when it does come out in the worst possible circumstances, there is no defense. There's no way to get rid of it, short of Sudden Reversal. _That's_ what should be fixed. As I suggested in another post, making the card a Unique Location would mostly appease me; at least there would be ways to deal with it. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "She does raindances and she knows the score / All the back alley banjo boys lie down and die on the floor." -- Shivaree

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > >>It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ > >>cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three > >>pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master > >>phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at > >>least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. > > Well couldn't Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention cost you "negative pool" > when used on certain cards as well? The point is that there are no circumstances under which AI does not cost negative pool. > If you play DI on a superior Conditioning, you prevent the +3 bleed at the cost > of only a pool, meaning it's essentially -2 pool then, right? > > And if your predator plays an Anarch Revolt or Antediluvian Awakening during > his turn (so there's really no chance to burn it before your turn) and you SR > it, isn't this a -1 pool cost? If Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention canceled cards AND burned a vampire, then I would be upset about them, too. Your analogy isn't quite true; Deflection doesn't cost negative pool, it is defending against an action. AI can only be played when you would otherwise be bled for more than 3. One of its effects is to reduce the bleed to 3. That is not unreasonable. But if, for example, Telepathic Counter burned the bleeding vampire, then the main effect of the card is the vampire burning. The cost of the card is "free", plus it's saving you at least one pool. Sudden Reversal's main effect is to cancel the master card being played; my master card vs. your master card. Even if that master card were going to make you lose pool, that's not really a negative cost. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65B4670.1467%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Note that all these are cases of vamps rushing older vampires who just >so happen to have Dominate, giving them access to the THE best combat hoser >in the game, Obedience. For your example, Zebby plays Obedience . . . >problem solved. Obedience requires an untapped vampire. So either Zebby never bled you last turn, or the library is packed full of so many Wakes and Obediences he's not going to reliably bleed for lots, or you've got a good chance of catching Zebby without either (a) a Wake or (b) an Obedience. He's got to have both, in hand, reliably. > I've won a tournament with unblockable bleeds before. If you build your >deck around them, they're just not that hard to get off. I've been poking around with unblockables, and my experience is that the setup is so elaborate (whether you're using Day Op, Daring the Dawn, Horrific Countenance, or the vastly inferior Concoction of Vitality and Sunrise Service) that you HAVE to bleed for a lot in one bleed to make it worthwhile. Deflection already makes this strategy chancy -- AI makes it worthless. gomi randomly interjecting -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation.

In article <B65BEC72.14CC%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> A Settite S+B got into the finals at GenCon, it sat in front of S+B, >> and weenie tap and bleed, and it did what everyone does, ignore the >> deck and make them enjoy the stealth hand jam. > So you're saying the way for me to beat S&B is to play S&B. > Am I the only person that this doesn't appeal to? It's your best option if you're playing Setites. Other clans have other options. You can have effective bleed defence in a Ventrue deck without Deflection/Redirection, but it's going to be (by necessity) less efficient, because you're choosing to neglect your best option. Similarly, you can put together a Mark/Rush Setite deck that uses Rush as combat defence, but you are, again, choosing to neglect your best option. Which can make for some neat decks, mind you. Also, no-one has yet pointed out that Setite stealth-bleed is also a substantial pool gainer. Legal Manipulations and Social Charm gain a pool when played at superior. If you're gaining 2-3 pool a turn, _just for doing what you'd do anyway_, it matters a bit less that you're bleeding a tiny bit more slowly than the dominate decks. I'm not bothered by having some clans favor some tactics. Setites favor S&B -- so your best tourney option if you're dead set on playing Setites is to play a Setite S&B deck, unless you've got crazy deck skill, play skill, and are looking to make a point. Which is certianly possible. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A369565...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > If Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention canceled cards AND burned a > vampire, then I would be upset about them, too. I just had a thought. I don't believe AI would be over-powered if it canceled the bleed and sent the vampire to torpor (and no untap for a turn?)...would the card still be used if it did this? Probably not...but it produces a similar effect (cancels the bleed), and renders the vampire vulnerable for a short period; the card also retains most of its flavor. Whether or not this change was ever made, would the card (as rewritten) ever be used, even if the cost was reduced to 2 or so? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be, as even though it would still be useful, people would be so dismayed that it no longer burns a vampire, that they would resort to other methods of bleed defense where they would have normally used AI. What does this introduce to the argument? I'm not sure. I guess I'm just trying to determine what people think the crux of the matter is. I suspect that Josh, James, Peter, and I think that it is unreasonable to be able to burn someone's vampire (reactively) for 3 pool. I am not sure what Norm and Pat (and others?) think the problem (if there is one) with AI is. I think it comes down to the following questions: Is bleed (as a strategy) overpowered? Is AI's effect disproportionate to its cost? If so, is there any way to make the cost-effect ratio proportionate? Is AI an effective deterrent for large-bleed decks? It all depends on what your answers to these questions are, I guess. My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, and no. -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9164rm$1r7e$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > I've been poking around with unblockables, and my experience is that > the setup is so elaborate (whether you're using Day Op, Daring the > Dawn, Horrific Countenance, or the vastly inferior Concoction of > Vitality and Sunrise Service) that you HAVE to bleed for a lot in one > bleed to make it worthwhile. Deflection already makes this strategy > chancy -- AI makes it worthless. What? Are you calling that Heart of Darkness/Force of Will/Daring the Dawn/Command of the Beast/Conditioning combo I've been working on fragile? :P Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <B65BEC72.14CC%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, > Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >>> A Settite S+B got into the finals at GenCon, it sat in front of S+B, >>> and weenie tap and bleed, and it did what everyone does, ignore the >>> deck and make them enjoy the stealth hand jam. > >> So you're saying the way for me to beat S&B is to play S&B. >> Am I the only person that this doesn't appeal to? > > It's your best option if you're playing Setites. Other clans have other > options. You can have effective bleed defence in a Ventrue deck without > Deflection/Redirection, but it's going to be (by necessity) less > efficient, because you're choosing to neglect your best option. I think my best option is 40 Corruption 15 Embrace, The 10 Media Influence 15 Presence 10 Tribute to the Master (http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/decks/stu_Corruption.html) ...except for the big target it puts on your head going into the finals. > Similarly, you can put together a Mark/Rush Setite deck that uses > Rush as combat defence, but you are, again, choosing to neglect your > best option. Which can make for some neat decks, mind you. Well, as Norm pointed out, I can't actually do that, since I can only Mark my prey. (or Corrupt, etc. Setites go forward okay, but very badly backward; they need all the help they can get.) > Also, no-one has yet pointed out that Setite stealth-bleed is also > a substantial pool gainer. Legal Manipulations and Social Charm gain a pool > when played at superior. If you're gaining 2-3 pool a turn, _just for > doing what you'd do anyway_, it matters a bit less that you're bleeding > a tiny bit more slowly than the dominate decks. Ok, here's the PRE/obf vamps for you: Greta Kircher Toreador Antitribu, 7, AUS CEL obf PRE Miranda Sanova Brujah, 8, aus CEL obf pot PRE Saqqaf, Keeper of the Grand Temple of Set Followers of Set, 9, cel for OBF PRE SER Klaus van der Veken Toreador, 9, aus CEL obf PRE tha Queen Anne Ventrue, 10, aus DOM FOR obf PRE Kemintiri Followers of Set, 10, aus dom OBF PRE SER THA Francois Villon Toreador, 10, AUS CEL chi obf pot PRE Cailean Nosferatu Antitribu, 10, ANI dom OBF POT PRE Leandro Malkavian, 11, AUS cel dom OBF PRE Arika Ventrue, 11, aus cel DOM FOR OBF PRE That's all of 2 FoS, a 9 and a 10 cap. No wonder no one's pointed out that Setite stealth-bleed is a "substantial pool gainer," because it's not. Skill cards? Okay, you get Lena Rowe, Hadrian Garrick, and Nepata, (and Kite, Zachary and Melek at 7 cap, none of which are FoS) and a slower deck, and/or master slots stuffed with PRE skill cards. Bah.) You're not bleeding a "tiny bit more slowly" with vamps that size. You're bleeding *much* more slowly. In fact, you're already dead. > I'm not bothered by having some clans favor some tactics. Setites favor > S&B -- so your best tourney option if you're dead set on playing Setites > is to play a Setite S&B deck, unless you've got crazy deck skill, play > skill, and are looking to make a point. Which is certianly possible. I'm bothered that I have to play S&B to be competitive in a tournament with a given clan. Even the Malks can vote, or even fight. Note that I'm not saying that you HAVE to play S&B to have a tournament competitive deck, just saying that were that true, I'd be truly disappointed. [ quoted text not captured ]

> So, you are saying that bleed bounce is superior to AI, then why not ban > bleed bounce. because unless you bounce to the tzimitze, you dont burn the predators vampire. ane bounce is a vampire based strategy, nor a master card one. I can live with that. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

>> If Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention canceled cards AND burned a >> vampire, then I would be upset about them, too. > I just had a thought. I don't believe AI would be over-powered if it > canceled the bleed and sent the vampire to torpor (and no untap for a > turn?)...would the card still be used if it did this? Probably > not...but it produces a similar effect (cancels the bleed), and renders > the vampire vulnerable for a short period; the card also retains most > of its flavor. [snip] > I think it comes down to the following questions: > > Is bleed (as a strategy) overpowered? > Is AI's effect disproportionate to its cost? If so, is there any way > to make the cost-effect ratio proportionate? > Is AI an effective deterrent for large-bleed decks? > > It all depends on what your answers to these questions are, I guess. > My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, and no. Yes, no, N/A and some, but not *too* much I think a valid problem with AI is it's "all or nothing" power. It's a balanced card (as it and big bleed are BOTH still played, but Big Bleed moreso than AI) but only in the "average" sense. If it works, it *really* fucks the guy, but if he never bleeds for more than 3, it's wallpaper. (Kind of like a flood and a subsequent drought being "average rainfall.") I can't say that I favor the idea of *making* cards like that, but AI, to me, seems to have settled into a happy medium of "usage, fear, lack of usage, lack of fear, usage..." metagame cycle. I see the arguments as more valid for a new card than for a card that has stood the test of time, so far. RtI went away because people DID abuse it. Life Boon got clarified (errata'd, really, but technically it was a strict interpretation) because people DID abuse. Do people actually ABUSE Archon Investigation? If not, it seems a bit shaky ground to want to errata/ban the card. (forgive me if I repeat myself too much; I'm still waiting for people to tell me how much AI screws their playgroup/tournament/etc.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <9164rm$1r7e$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, > go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >> I've been poking around with unblockables, and my experience is that >> the setup is so elaborate (whether you're using Day Op, Daring the >> Dawn, Horrific Countenance, or the vastly inferior Concoction of >> Vitality and Sunrise Service) that you HAVE to bleed for a lot in one >> bleed to make it worthwhile. Deflection already makes this strategy >> chancy -- AI makes it worthless. > > What? Are you calling that Heart of Darkness/Force of Will/Daring the > Dawn/Command of the Beast/Conditioning combo I've been working on > fragile? I assure you, from personal experience, it is. =) If you're gonna drop a skill card, go with Protean, and use HorrCount. But, if you insist, you forgot the Masochism/FreakDrive/ that goes on the front of the combo, so the rest of the bleeds are free. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9164rm$1r7e$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > I've been poking around with unblockables, and my experience is that > the setup is so elaborate (whether you're using Day Op, Daring the Dawn, > Horrific Countenance, or the vastly inferior Concoction of Vitality and > Sunrise Service) that you HAVE to bleed for a lot in one bleed to make > it worthwhile. Deflection already makes this strategy chancy -- AI makes > it worthless. > Deflection makes the strategy chancey when you build the deck, but when you play it you can look at your prey's vamps and determine the possibility of deflection. If he has no dom or AUS, there's no risk - apart from AI. No risk combos don't seem a great idea even when dependant on the absence of certain prey disciplines. Tom bemused at the ancient Meths clawing each other to bits once the raving newbies shut up [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9165ot$1saj$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> writes >> So you're saying the way for me to beat S&B is to play S&B. >> Am I the only person that this doesn't appeal to? > >It's your best option if you're playing Setites. I say again, stealth-vote. Dramatic Upheaval yourself out of the way, then kill it from behind[0], or use bloat tactics with Consanguineous Boon. [0] KRC it or whatever. And if it can block and vote those down, it wasn't a serious enough S&B deck to be worried about from an S&B point of view. [ quoted text not captured ]

Note: this is writen while im seeing red, so sorry if it steps on people. Maybe. > > yes, 4 pool a.k.a. 13% of a methuselah's starting total. You should be > a little more carefull when using a vampire that cost you 11 pool to put > into play. And maybe i should be able to make careful decisions based on what is in play. if i wanted to play against a hidden hand i'd go and play M:tCH and toss all my counterspells into a deck. That is what this is. > I imagine that it messes up the player with the weenies just fine, > although not as much as having your Ozmo or Arika go up in smoke. > They don't care, they bring out a 4-cap with superior dom, and just lost a 2 cap vampire to make their prey spend 3 pool. Ohana just payed for herself, yeah. > > Until you flash and immortal grapple... > > Now your are playing with celerity and potence. Can't use Koko or Lupo > for that. I can't have a skill card, or maybe a haven so that even with a wake they can't untap and block/obediance? > Great! So what you are saying is that the Setites "just suck". That is > brilliant! Why didn't I think of that for a reason for banning Archon > Investigation? <sar> Look, they do suck, and their suckiness is NOT a valid reason for this STUPID card to exist. They have ONE good strategy, S+B, and one ok strategy, corruption. If you play Settites you choose one. both ignore the predator. Both should be fast enought to deal with a S+B predator. if they aren't then they are worm food. This is why the clan isn't hot. They need better clan type or discipline cards. Until then, yes they do pretty much suck. Even with S+B they have a piss poor vampire selection. > So now we need to ban all the unnessary cards? If that is the case why > don't we ban Appolonius, or Harrod, or some other card that you feel is > unnessary. Why don't we just ban necromancy? It isn't a nessasary > discipline. I take offence at that, Necromancy rocks. It really does. We don't ban weak, underpowered, or stupid cards. Appolonius may have a deck, who knows. But this card is not just unnessesary, it seems to have been make to screw with a RTI, that kind of thinking should not be how this game works. We ban cards that mess with play balance, RTI, Madness, Monacle, etc. This should be on that list. [ quoted text not captured ] And even then one command of the beast and you are gone. What you really need is a good deck. If the lowest in your draw is a 6 you aren't playing any kind of good rush combat (that i know of anyway), and if it is, well then you sat down next to the deck that kicks you ass... congradufuckinglations, next time metagame better. Or if you got your worst crypt, sorry, that happens, the bleed deck aparently got the perfect hand and the perfect opening crypt. If it isnt an atypical draw, then I'd like to know where they got 12 weenies (2cap) with dominate to get that crypt regularly. Because some time they're going to be stuck with 4 Ohannas, and we will laugh. Even your successful example relies on AI as its sole bleed defence, and apparently close to its sole master card, as you see two of them in ~15 cards. You said your self you don't make this kind of deck, so what, exactly is it. Does it not have a wake? Ok, done ranting... calmed down. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

> AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same time > burn any vampire. So you probably want to ban/remove Anathema as well? Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

In article <9164rm$1r7e$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei <go...@best.com> wrote: >In article <B65B4670.1467%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, >Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> Note that all these are cases of vamps rushing older vampires who just >>so happen to have Dominate, giving them access to the THE best combat hoser >>in the game, Obedience. For your example, Zebby plays Obedience . . . >>problem solved. > >Obedience requires an untapped vampire. So either Zebby never bled you >last turn, or the library is packed full of so many Wakes and Obediences >he's not going to reliably bleed for lots, or you've got a good chance >of catching Zebby without either (a) a Wake or (b) an Obedience. He's >got to have both, in hand, reliably. Not to mention that for the cost of Zebulon you can get 2 or 3 effective rushers. Obedience is indeed good, but to try to work that as a defensive angle while going for large unblockable bleeds is tough, and more than a little slow. And then there's the vulernability! As you point out below, it's possible to win tournaments with unblockable bleed decks, but then again I've heard of equipment or ally decks winning tournaments as well. >> I've won a tournament with unblockable bleeds before. If you build your >>deck around them, they're just not that hard to get off. > >I've been poking around with unblockables, and my experience is that >the setup is so elaborate (whether you're using Day Op, Daring the Dawn, >Horrific Countenance, or the vastly inferior Concoction of Vitality and >Sunrise Service) that you HAVE to bleed for a lot in one bleed to make >it worthwhile. Deflection already makes this strategy chancy -- AI makes >it worthless. The only way I was ever able to get millage out of "unblockable" bleeds was with Grave Robbing. Large bleeds backed by drawing out the beast and dawn op, with Form of Mist to get through. Then grave robbing and stealth to steal those who end up in torpor. The crypt was a bit large, and the deck didn't have much defense, but it was more reliable than I'd expected. Not the most effective deck, but frightening to be in front of. Of course, my friends and I never bought any of the VtES set, and so nobody had access to Archon Investigation or Protected Resources -- which would have completely shut the deck down. My problem with AI and PR is that they target decks that aren't so great to begin with, and do so not by weakening them, but by hosing them. Lame. They throw several viable deck concepts out of the metagame, without adding anything to balance -- since the real problem was (and is) weenie bleed, which can both afford to lose it's cheap vampires, and doesn't need to make big bleeds. I don't think these cards are so much overpowered, as simply bad for the game. -Jasper

In article <3A3693C6...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > As I suggested in another post, making the card a Unique > Location would mostly appease me; at least there would be ways to deal > with it. > Why a Unique Location rather than just Location? Surely a deck that wanted PR gone wouldn't consider playing its own PR. It's not annoying enough you include one's own copy just for contesting, is it? Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9168gq$775$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > So, you are saying that bleed bounce is superior to AI, then why not > ban > > bleed bounce. > > because unless you bounce to the tzimitze, you dont burn the predators > vampire. ane bounce is a vampire based strategy, nor a master card > one. I can live with that. So the basis of your objection is that it is master card? I suppose you don't like Direct Intervention or Sudden Reversals either. A master card makes it expensive as I have already explained. The burning of the vampire is the only reasonable effect for it to be worth wasting that much time, space and pool holding it in your hand. Otherwise it would be wallpaper for the dustbin. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

>> AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same time >> burn any vampire. > > So you probably want to ban/remove Anathema as well? Well, there is the whole "title requirements" issue, right? Maybe Archon Investigation should require you to have an Archon? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Note: this is writen while im seeing red, so sorry if it steps on > people. Maybe. Noted. Just a few clarifications, rather than actually argue with you, then. =) >>> Until you flash and immortal grapple... >> >> Now your are playing with celerity and potence. Can't use Koko or > Lupo >> for that. > > I can't have a skill card, or maybe a haven so that even with a wake > they can't untap and block/obediance? Just for the record, they don't have to block to play Obedience. Just be "about to enter combat." (and able to play Reaction cards, so yes, they *do* have to water it down with a Wake) >> So now we need to ban all the unnessary cards? If that is the case > why >> don't we ban Appolonius, or Harrod, or some other card that you feel > is >> unnessary. Why don't we just ban necromancy? It isn't a nessasary >> discipline. > > I take offence at that, Necromancy rocks. It really does. We don't Amen, brother! > ban weak, underpowered, or stupid cards. Appolonius may have a deck, > who knows. But this card is not just unnessesary, it seems to have > been make to screw with a RTI, that kind of thinking should not be how I know you're seeing red and all, but AI is from V:tES and RtI is from Ancient Hearts, soo... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65C1250.14FE%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Xian wrote: > > I think it comes down to the following questions: > > > > Is bleed (as a strategy) overpowered? > > Is AI's effect disproportionate to its cost? If so, is there any > >way > > to make the cost-effect ratio proportionate? > > Is AI an effective deterrent for large-bleed decks? > > > > It all depends on what your answers to these questions are, I guess. > > My answers would be yes, yes, maybe, and no. > > Yes, > no, > N/A > and some, but not *too* much Now we're getting somewhere... > I think a valid problem with AI is it's "all or nothing" power. > It's a balanced card (as it and big bleed are BOTH still played, but > Big Bleed moreso than AI) but only in the "average" sense. If it > works, it *really* fucks the guy, but if he never bleeds for more > than 3, it's wallpaper. I can't agree...a bleed for 4 just isn't that much. I might be a little more okay with it if it was a bleed over 5 or something. As far as I can tell, this card was originally developed to deal with 4CL S&B and (fudging the release dates here, because I can't remember) RTI. > Do people actually ABUSE Archon Investigation? If not, it seems > a bit shaky ground to want to errata/ban the card. > > (forgive me if I repeat myself too much; I'm still waiting for people > to tell me how much AI screws their playgroup/tournament/etc.) I recently saw it burn Arika after she bled for some non-ungodly amount, probably just bleed + Threats, or something...say 5. The Methuselah who tossed it down was highly thrilled, as she had recently had Miller, the Celerity Monkey burned by Arika's successful Protect Thine Own. I still think it's inappropriate to burn a vampire just for bleeding for 4 or 5...again, if the card either torporized the vampire instead of burning it, or the bleed requirement was higher, I'd feel better about the card, but as is, it's simply too easy to burn a vampire that is bleeding for just 4 or so. I admit that I don't see it played a lot, but most of the people I play with don't have much V:tES, it's mainly Jyhad. So, this is once again a case where I fail to come to a decisive conclusion, as I certainly don't have the data to do so. I don't think that there is widespread abuse of the card, as it is a reactive strategy...however, I do think that the card is too powerful for its cost...which justifies changing it, if it were reprinted. And incidentally, I think it's pretty entertaining that we're getting whipped up in such a froth at the *possibility* of these cards being reprinted in an expansion, not due to certain knowledge that they'll be in the expansion. :) Xian [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:08:22 -0600, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:02:12 -0600, James Hamblin >> <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: >> >> >It's not only the extremity of the punishment, but also the _negative_ >> >cost of the card. It costs you _negative_ pool, since you spend three >> >pool to cancel a bleed of more than three. Oh, it costs you a master >> >phase action, too. If the card didn't cancel the bleed, it would at >> >least be more reasonable, if still unnecessary. >> >> (shrug) It costs you a slot in your deck, > >...just like every other card. This is a non-point. It costs you a slot that doesn't easily 'move' for something else. If you get it in your hand early on, it also costs you a hand slot while you wait for someone to bleed for more than 3. If nobody bleeds you for more than 3, then you have not only wasted a deck slot, you've wasted a hand slot for several turns; hanging onto the card can be very risky. If you discard it, you pretty much run up the "If you have modifiers, smack me now" flag and wave it around. >> hoping like hell you're >> going to be bled for 4 at some point. > >I have agreed that the card is not _always_ useful. It's that _when_ it >_is_ useful, it's _too_ useful. It is undercosted, but not overuseful despite the undercost. >> And you actually have to TAKE >> the bleed for at least 3, instead of just arranging for some other >> fashion to deal with it. > >Huh? You don't take the bleed. You lose 3 pool instead of the 4+ you >were going to take, _and_ they lose their vampire. You lose 3 pool. Correct. This is still taking pool damage from a bleed. Instead of using AI, you could use cards that permit you to take ZERO pool damage from a bleed, which you will have in your deck ANYWAY to deal with bleeds of 3 or less. By your logic, this is a gain of an ADDITIONAL 3 pool just for using other strategies besides AI. But of course, you do not burn a vampire. AI's cost is best stated as written: Pay 3 pool to burn a vampire who just attempted to bleed you for more than 3. All the math juggling and number sliding you are performing does not disguise the true cost of the card: 3 pool, and the opportunity cost of having to have a deck attempt to bleed you for 4 or more. The effect of the card: Burn a vampire. Let's look at the OTHER Master cards that effectively burn a vampire. Fear of Mekhet, 2 pool, opportunity cost: find a Justicar or IC. Vulnerability, 1 pool, oc: find a vampire in torpor. Society of Leopold, free, oc: find an empty vampire. Vicissitude Poisoning, free, oc: find a vamp using VIC lots. Obsession, 2 pool, oc: find an empty !Toreador. Out of Control, 2 pool, oc: find a !Brujah below 6. Millicent Smith, free, oc: block a minion acting with Millicent. To this we can add AI. So which of these cards are broken and deserve banning? In my mind, only Out of Control really falls in the "get lost!" pile, and THAT because its conditional is ridiculously non-conditional. Anyone claiming the !Brujah are "too strong" is on loony pills, whereas someone claiming that bleed is "too strong" has at least a chance of making a coherent argument. Also, I submit that having a vampire in torpor on someone else's Master phase is almost as frequent as a vampire bleeding for more than 3. Vulnerability costs 2 less pool than AI. Is Vulnerability broken? >> Why it was created isn't what I'm discussing; it's here now, and we're >> stuck with it unless we ban it. > >I think this is relevant. If the reason for creating the card was that >"bleed is too powerful", then we should address two points: (1) Before >AI, was bleed too powerful? and (2) If so, does AI "fix" the problem? as I mentioned in my response to Josh, (1) is self-evident from the horror many people still feel in reaction to Malk S&B, or indeed, ANY S&B. Bleed WAS too powerful. A lot of the "old timer" players we pick up evince that same horror at seeing even a bleed at ONE stealth. Did AI fix the problem? It provided a partial fix by slowing down the amounts hit for on any given action, giving someone more time to Minion Tap/Rush or use any of their other defenses. Elder Intervention provided more of a "fix", in my mind, by providing easy generic access to intercept; this meant that no longer was one Lost in Crowds sufficient against everyone but the Toreador intercept decks and the 2nd Tradition guys. Did PR fix the problem? It provided another partial fix by slowing down the amounts hit for. I doubt it saw much use. >In his other posts, Norman seems to be arguing that bleed is _still_ too >powerful, whereas I would say that bleed has never been too powerful. (see above) >> The question is, it is so unbalancing >> that it needs to be banned? Or would banning it tip the scale too far >> towards the bleed decks? > >Was the scale balanced toward bleed decks before AI was printed? I >think not. If AI were banned, would everyone suddenly start playing >crazy bleed decks? Probably not. There were and are plenty of ways to >deal with bleed decks (and for the thousandth time, Norman, you don't >have to have Dom or Aus). See above. when AI was printed, it was just Jyhad. There were NOT as many ways as there are currently. >> If you Banish a 5-cap with 2 blood, it is effectively an unbounceable, >> unreduceable bleed for 3 OR a total removal of a significant resource >> (the vampire). EVEN IF it is only a bleed for 3, it is still a >> TEMPORARY removal of that resource for a turn, which could be used to >> defend against other bleeds or damage. It is far too overpowered for >> the fact that Igo can call and pass it by himself. > >AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same time >burn any vampire. If there were some limitation (could only burn >vampires with cap <= 3, say), then it would be more acceptable. But >Arika getting burned for playing Bonding is ridiculous. Again, AI does not make you gain pool. You lose 3 pool for playing it. There is no "gain" involved. You could always block the bleed and lose none. You could Deflect the bleed and lose none. Please quit trying to bend the cost with semantics. Arika getting burned IS difficult, yes, because her built-in +2 bleed makes her most vulnerable. But IC members are difficult to deal with anyway; the best solution I've seen in awhile is just to bring them out, Minion Tap them down to 4, and treat them as 4-caps with a lot of toys. I don't mind an Arika who cost me 4 getting burned as much as I mind a full Arika getting burned. I wouldn't mind seeing AI be unable to target IC members or Justicars, myself; that suitably restricts an Archon's imaginary function without making the card pointless. (sure, you can make Ozmo the Malk Justicar with a vote, but that's an awful lot of trouble to go to just to give the boy immunity to AI.) >> >But not unbalancingly strong. Since it wins in the most direct manner >> >possible (removing prey's pool), it will of course be an effective deck >> >type. But it is weak against combat, bleed bounce, bloat, intercept, >> >etc. >> >> Bleed does not NEED to be weak against combat, bloat, OR intercept, >> however; the trick lies in the deck construction. > >No matter how you build your deck, it will either have lots of defenses >and not be especially good at accomplishing its primary goal (what I >would call a "toolbox" deck), or be very focuced and have a vital >vulnerability. Again, read my post to Josh Duffin. It becomes very rock-scissors-paper, and the bleed deck has the advantage. >> A Ventrue/!Ventrue >> DOM/FOR bleed deck is not vulnerable to combat. > >But it is vulnerable to light intercept. Actually, I wouldn't even consider using stealth in such a deck. I would use Seduction and Dawn Op instead, and let the intercept decks jam up on their intercept cards. >> A weenie Dominate >> horde will overrun Minion Tap/5th. > >But will die to light intercept and combat. Darn shame, that. (i have no sympathy for weenie dominate) >> Malk S&B will beat intercept. > >But will be beaten by combat and/or some (heavy) intercept decks. +3 intercept is rare to find in a tournament. But the original point still stands; as things are now, you are safest playing bleed bounce. AI helps you if you choose NOT to play bleed bounce, in a way that few other cards can. >[snip] >> Do I want to see it banned since it got >> here anyway? ...No. > >Is that because you are generally against banning, or because you have >reasons for wanting it to stay? I am, in fact, generally against banning until it's shown to be REALLY necessary. Cards like RtI need to be shot on the spot and the designer sacrificed. Madness of the Bard and Monocle of Clarity are less obvious, but arguments have been put forth that show that it's REALLY necessary that those be gone. I could care less about Rowan Ring; if it came back I wouldn't bat an eye. And the Ante cards might as well be gone. I am much more in favor of errata... but again, only if a card is that much of a problem. I don't see AI causing a problem. >> >It's not the effectiveness of PR that makes me spew smoke from my ears >> >when I see one. It's that its effect outweighs its cost dramatically. >> >It's that it is impossible to get rid of; it almost requires a bleed >> >> This is true. Does that effect affect the game significantly, though? > >If I'm playing a bleed deck and my prey plays one, then it affects >_that_ game significantly. The effect (depending on my deck) can be >crippling, with very minimal cost. Well; think of it this way. You probably have Govern + Bonding, or Social + Aire in your hand. Now you just get to play them separately, and you won't ever worry about running out of bleed cards, will you? Short of actions? Relying on One Big Vampire to do it all is very bad for any number of reasons, offense OR defense; I try to have at least 3 minions for any given game. Sure, your Govern + Bonding gets reduced to 2 instead of 4. But 2 at a time still adds up... you just get slowed down a bit. >> >deck to pack Sudden Reversal just to prevent the card from ever getting >> >played. I think it is only the relative scarcity of AI and PR that keep >> >people from seeing them as the horribly unbalanced cards that they are. >> >> AI isn't scarce. > >RELATIVE scarcity. <sigh> Relative to what, Deflection? It's not scarce; why use the word? PR is scarce, mostly because of its extremely limited deck scope. Do you see more than one in a deck? Nope. Why do you think that is? Probably because that's too many deck slots to waste on a hope that someone is going to try to get you for more than 3, that's why. And you still have to use deck space defending against the bleeds for 3 or less even WITH the Archons. >> mondo-bleeders... that it's just not that good an inclusion in most >> decks. > >I don't dispute these points. It's that when it does come out in the >worst possible circumstances, there is no defense. There's no way to Some days, you sit next to the deck that fucks you. This is how a well-built stealth bleed deck feels when it sits behind Rush combat; it knows that its grandpredator just got two free VPs. This is how the Ventrue Law Firm feels when it sits next to the Tzimisce. Bad luck happens. >get rid of it, short of Sudden Reversal. _That's_ what should be >fixed. As I suggested in another post, making the card a Unique >Location would mostly appease me; at least there would be ways to deal >with it. If you make it a location, you make it worthless; now a simple Arson removes your bleed defense, and you STILL can't bleed. I wouldn't EVER use the thing. It is inherently limited sufficiently, and its frequency of use indicates that its limitations are quite adequate. -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

> In article <9165ot$1saj$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Gomi no Sensei > <go...@best.com> writes >>> So you're saying the way for me to beat S&B is to play S&B. >>> Am I the only person that this doesn't appeal to? >> >> It's your best option if you're playing Setites. > > I say again, stealth-vote. Dramatic Upheaval yourself out of the way, > then kill it from behind[0], or use bloat tactics with Consanguineous > Boon. > > > [0] KRC it or whatever. And if it can block and vote those down, it > wasn't a serious enough S&B deck to be worried about from an S&B point > of view. I find this to be trickier to pull off than you make it sound, but it certainly appeals to me, and so makes me happy. =) Okay. 6:30! Time for weekly V:tES! (of course, all this posting has taken the time I should have been making a new de...er, working.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> No, it makes you fear *bumping* the bleed of your Inner Circle Member. > If that's your focus, you should spend your efforts railing against Justicar > Retribution, which burns ALL IC and Pulsed bleeders, whether or not they > even attempt to remove pool. Yeah, but I've never, ever, ever seen one of those cards, and My IC would vote it down hardcore. That atleast can be defended against somewhat. I'm not talking about the big IC bleed for 9-10, but about the use of bonding, mainly as a stealth measure putting an IC into range of this card. > People still play, and win, with big bleed decks. But, it's not the > only deck kind that is played, or wins. This, IMHO, sounds like a good > arrangement. Big bleed is a viable, powerful, but counterable strategy. > > Lemme try and bring out the basic disagreement, here. > > If AI was so broken, no one would ever play or win with big bleed. Is > there some "total lack of big bleed" or "no one can win with big bleed" > mechanic in your (all of you, that is, railing against AI) local playgroup? Other than James' KILL KILL KILL deck? not so much. S+B gets along fine. I've done ok with a Gangrel S+B deck, and that may be part of the problem. Losing a 6-11 cap Gangrel to an AI because i need to bleed for lots, as it is my only vampire out, seems against the way the game was supposed to interact, ie. no methusula -> vampire interaction. (or very very little) > I just don't see an existing problem to be fixed, just another > possibility of the metagame. If you fear AI, don't play big bleed, and > people will stop playing AI so much. It was only ever played against me at GenCon, so this isn't the metagame talking. If you fear intercept so much, play > decks that only take 0-stealth actions. The evidence pulled up that AI *is* > played in tournament winning decks means that skilled players think it's > worthwhile. The fact that a majority did NOT have AI seems, to me, to imply > that the card isn't all powerful, it's just another option that has settled > into about as much use as any other card or strategy. > I'd agree with James that it is not all powerful, only to powerful when it is used. I'd agree that something similiar, but only burning 3caps and below or so might be a fix. > If you DO see a problem in the game as it is played often (say, as DI is > beginning to see a LOT of play and get grumbled at), or that *no* one plays > big bleed decks, then be clear. But, it's hard to call a card that's been > around so long "broken" or "bad for the game" when the game seems to toodle > along just fine with it's existence, with the card nor it's intended > victim-strategy seeing too much or too little play. I've only ever seen two AI's. they are therefore new to me. So here i am thinking about them now, hence why I'm all over this thread. > > Also, for PR, AI, and Justicar Retribution, do the critics of each (I'm > not assuming a critic of one is a critic of all) think these cards aren't > flattening tables at every tournament only due to their rarity? That kind > of needs to be clear for this discussion to be in proper context. No, not even the rarity, if they were commoner, I'd give up non weenie bleed period. PR should be a location, or have a way to remove it. JR is not so bad, because it is a vote, so the usual mechanics apply. AI though, is not counterable and seems to powerful when it is used. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <916ae1$8tp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: > Why a Unique Location rather than just Location? Surely a deck that > wanted PR gone wouldn't consider playing its own PR. It's not > annoying enough you include one's own copy just for contesting, is it? So you couldn't put more than one in play, perhaps? If it were worded like Communal Haven, then it might be a little more realistic, but I have to admit that I'd enjoy seeing people contesting Protected Resources with each other. :) Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9169sq$8l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Note: this is writen while im seeing red, so sorry if it steps on > people. Maybe. > > > > > yes, 4 pool a.k.a. 13% of a methuselah's starting total. You should > be > > a little more carefull when using a vampire that cost you 11 pool to > put > > into play. > > And maybe i should be able to make careful decisions based on what is > in play. if i wanted to play against a hidden hand i'd go and play > M:tCH and toss all my counterspells into a deck. That is what this is. I have to say that you are wrong here, as you have in no way equated either AI to counterspells and therefore nor to M:tCH. > > I imagine that it messes up the player with the weenies just fine, > > although not as much as having your Ozmo or Arika go up in smoke. > > > > They don't care, they bring out a 4-cap with superior dom, and just > lost a 2 cap vampire to make their prey spend 3 pool. Ohana just payed > for herself, yeah. Ohanna paid for herself but Ohanna's controller lost pool, and transfers in bringing her out. It is a losing proposition for Ohanna's controller because he/she can not justify this over the long run. > > > Until you flash and immortal grapple... > > > > Now your are playing with celerity and potence. Can't use Koko or > Lupo > > for that. > > I can't have a skill card, or maybe a haven so that even with a wake > they can't untap and block/obediance? You could have a skill card. that is certainly a possibility, but a haven will not give you a manuever. > > Great! So what you are saying is that the Setites "just suck". That > is > > brilliant! Why didn't I think of that for a reason for banning Archon > > Investigation? <sar> > > Look, they do suck, and their suckiness is NOT a valid reason for this > STUPID card to exist. They have ONE good strategy, S+B, and one ok > strategy, corruption. If you play Settites you choose one. both ignore > the predator. Both should be fast enought to deal with a S+B predator. > if they aren't then they are worm food. This is why the clan isn't > hot. They need better clan type or discipline cards. Until then, yes > they do pretty much suck. Even with S+B they have a piss poor vampire > selection. I would argue that here you are wrong and your arguement fails. You cannot discount part of a whole without discounting the whole thing. > > So now we need to ban all the unnessary cards? If that is the case > why > > don't we ban Appolonius, or Harrod, or some other card that you feel > is > > unnessary. Why don't we just ban necromancy? It isn't a nessasary > > discipline. > > I take offence at that, Necromancy rocks. It really does. We don't > ban weak, underpowered, or stupid cards. Appolonius may have a deck, > who knows. But this card is not just unnessesary, it seems to have > been make to screw with a RTI, that kind of thinking should not be how > this game works. We ban cards that mess with play balance, RTI, > Madness, Monacle, etc. This should be on that list. Actually, Archon Investigation was printed long before Return to Innocence. So, therfore it was not printed to screw with Return to Innocence because Return to Innocence did not exist. I would argue that this card preserves play balance rather than upsetting it. It does so by making bleed decks realize that there is a line draw in the sand as to what is an acceptable amount of bleed and what is not an acceptable amount of bleed. People who build power-bleed decks have to take this into consideration when building there decks. So if they want to play with both Inner Circle members and light stealth, then they should probably use Faceless Night rather than Bonding. If you push that limit and break the rules you may get away with it and you may not. That is playing by the rules where the rules state that a Archon Investigation may be played on a bleed of more than three that is directed at you. Such is life. It is a gamble. [ quoted text not captured ] True, but at least you have a fighting chance this way. > What you really need is a good deck. If the lowest in your draw is a 6 > you aren't playing any kind of good rush combat (that i know of > anyway), and if it is, well then you sat down next to the deck that > kicks you ass... congradufuckinglations, next time metagame better. Oh, so now if you don't play with vampires of capacity lower than siz, dominate or auspex, then you are a bad player with poor grasp of the metagame. This card helps decks that don't have to rely on weenies, dominate, or auspex. You may not play with anything else, but there are those of use that do, and banning a card that is availible for defending our decks just because you think it is unnessasary is neither reasonable nor correct. It is short sighted, and that is what kills games. <snip mockery, see above> > Even your successful example relies on AI as its sole bleed defence, > and apparently close to its sole master card, as you see two of them in > ~15 cards. You said your self you don't make this kind of deck, so > what, exactly is it. Does it not have a wake? It is merely an example of how a deck that does not include any dominate or auspex or vampires below capacity 6 would hold off a predator that is a determined weenie power-bleed. It is an example of why Archon Investigation is important as a deterant to everyone building a deck that is all dominate weenies. I mentioned neither Misdirections nor wakes as they both see regular use and counterbalance each other, which is ezactly what I was trying to show how Archon Investigation counterbalanced Weenie Power Bleed. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Z4yZ5.887$LR2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same > > time > > burn any vampire. > > So you probably want to ban/remove Anathema as well? Just for kicks: AI requires: Master Phase, 3 pool, vampire bleeding for more than 3 effect: saves Methuselah from X - 3 pool loss, where X is total bleed, burns vampire attempting that bleed. total card usage: 1 card drawbacks: none, as long as you are bled for more than 3 Anathema requires: successful vote, successful combat that reduces opposing minion to 0 blood effect: gains X pool, where X is the minion's capacity total card usage: minimum of 2, Anathema, and Bum's Rush, hand strike for 1, realistically, at least 5 or so drawbacks: can be voted down or intercepted, combat defense will slow/stop it I realize that the comment was probably tongue-in-cheek, but still...there's no comparison. Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <916d59$b9q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, xi...@waste.org (Xian) wrote: > In article <Z4yZ5.887$LR2....@monger.newsread.com>, > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > > AI is too powerful when it can make you gain pool while at the same > > > time > > > burn any vampire. > > > > So you probably want to ban/remove Anathema as well? > > Just for kicks: > > AI > requires: Master Phase, 3 pool, vampire bleeding for more than 3 > effect: saves Methuselah from X - 3 pool loss, where X is total bleed, > burns vampire attempting that bleed. > total card usage: 1 card > drawbacks: none, as long as you are bled for more than 3 > > Anathema > requires: successful vote, successful combat that reduces opposing > minion to 0 blood And a Prince or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

Norman wrote: >>Couldn't another vampire that you brought into your controlled region during your last turn block and play Obedience. Maybe someone like , Roland Bishop, Laurent de Valois, or Guido Lucciano .>> Yup, they could. But then they weren't bleeding you last turn, and thus are slower. Obediance is trouble to a Rush deck, sure, but how many Obediances are they packing? How many are going to jam their hand when they aren't facing a Rush deck? When you build a deck, you need to take into account *all* possible decks you might face,and sure, you can put in enough Obediances to shut down any Rush deck in the world, but doing so will kill you if you happen to sit next to a non Rush deck. Thus, you need to balance the likelyhood of sitting next to a Rush deck with how many Obediances you can afford to put in. In most cases, the answer is "not many". >>Don't need that much stealth just needs a little and a few seductions to get past the guy with the permanent intercept.>> And then if you sit next to a serious intercept deck, you get screwed. A deck simply can't do *everything* it wants. If you guess right, and always end up int he right seat, you'll win and deserve too. >>could it be possible that the methuselah would actually transfer out another vampire? This new vampire would be untapped and could block and play reaction and combat cards to foil a rush deck.>> Of course this is *possible*, but is it likely (not the transfering out the other vampire, but having the combat cards *and* the ability to bleed for 7 consisitently)? Not really. Keeping this under the eye of the AI disucssion, I have honestly never run into a deck in a tournament that had *both* enough combat defense to shut down my Rush deck *and* the ability to bleed for 7 consistiently (and thus be succeptible to AI). All the S+B decks I have run into in a tournament setting were either A) Capable of bleeding for 7 consistiently and had only limited combat defense or B) Has consistient combat defense, but only bled for about 3 per action, at which point AI isn't an issue. >>I would argue that point. 10 GTu's and 10 Conditionings have the making of a strong power bleed deck. Now throw in 10 Threats. That leave 60 cards to play with.>> Ok. Of those 60 cards, 18-20 will be master cards, leaving ~40. Now add in enough stealth so that you aren't stopped by light/permanent intercept (~15 cards, minimum), leaving ~25. Then add your own bleed defense (bounce?), about 8 cards, leaving you ~17. Add enough wakes so you can use the Bounce and any Obediances you have (8?), leaving you 9-12 card slots for your Obediances, Fake outs, and Dodges. And then you have a deck that is shut down by a heavy intercept deck (as you only have minimum stealth), has no vote defense whatsoever, and has only light combat defense, at best. Again, you can't do everything at once. >>So what is your point? If they can only bleed reliably for three, then they don't even have to worry about Archon Investigation and it just jams up their preys hand.>> That you seem to be implying that AI is a viable counter to weenie bleed decks, and weenie bleed decks are completely unhindered by AI. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

Norman wrote: >>AI doesn't hose bleeding as a strategy.>> It is a hoser--it kills you just for showing up. If you have the audacity to play Govern and Conditioning at the same time (even at inferior), you get a vampire burned. If the game designers had an issue with bleeding as a strategy, they should have taken a different route than the Magic Bullet that is AI. Elder Intervention is a much more eloquent tweak to combat bleeding. AI is simply too much. >>It hoses bleeding for more than three, once. You only have to worry about this card if you attempt to bleed for more than 10% of each methuselah's starting pool. It is not a "shoddy strategy hoser" unless your strategy is power bleeds.>> And power bleeds is a perfectly valid strategy--AI hoses this strategy. If you are playing a power bleeds deck, you get killed just for showing up. This is not good, as there were already (pre AI) plenty of viable defenses against Power Bleeding. AI was unecessary and simply lazy. >>It is no more a hoser on a per cost basis than a bounce.>> Bounce does not burn a vampire. >>A bleed deck should pack a little combat defence. Usually Obediences or Fake Outs and Dodges do the trick.>> Again, if you have enough Obediance, Fake Outs, and Dodges to reliably survive, your deck is going to be *much* slower and much less effective. >>So all these strategies make AI broken? How?>> No, no. They make AI unecessary. AI makes AI broken. It is a card that the game did not need. It is a trump card. A stratgey hoser. It punishes a very common and effective strategy simply for being played. If the designers had trouble with the power of bleeding, they should have found better, more subtle ways than the sledgehammer that is AI. >>How does this scenario sound? You are going first in a four player game. Your lowest vamp in your uncontrolled region is a six. You put one pool on him. Your predator plays either a Dreams of the Sphinx or a Info Highway. He then puts into play Royce, Ohanna, and Christine Bocasci. On your turn you play the Barrens and transfer 4 more pool, still not getting a vampire out. Your predator plays a Dominate skill card on Royce. Royce Governs the Unaligned with Threats for 6. Ohanna Governs the Unaligned with Conditioning for 6. Christine Bocasci Governs the Unaligned wtih Conditioninf for 6. You just lost 18 pool on turn two. You now have 7 Pool and 5 on a uncontrolled six cap vampire.>> Sounds like I am playing the wrong deck in an environment where I should have been expecting (and thus planning on) weenie bleed decks. >>What about the Followers of Set?>> They are basically screwed. The answer is that the Followers of Set need more cards that help the combat bleeds, not that they need AI. Followers of Set are just as screwed against a speedy bleed deck that only bleeds for 3 an action, and AI isn't going to help them at all there. >>The only defense currently availible in this scenario is a Archon Investigation, which still costs you three pool to play.>> No, the best defense is not to go into a tournament where you expect to face weenie bleed decks with a deck that will get itself in this situation. I also fail to see how AI will even help--how many do you have in your deck? 1? 6? In the situation you present above, is playing a single AI even going to save you? No, you are going to die anyway. >>Your predator has lost a disposable weenie. You would be down to 10 pool with 5 on a uncontrolled six cap. How is Archon Investigation broken in this scenario?>> AI is broken because its effect (burn a vampire and net you a gain in pool) is out of proportion to its cost (a master phase). Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:37:28 GMT, Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Tom >bemused at the ancient Meths clawing each other to bits once the raving >newbies shut up ...must ... have... targets... it's like a real live talbot's chainsaw! -- Derek Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:48:38 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >I hesitate to do another detailed analysis of The Lasombra's >tourney-winning-decks archive I was looking at this today and itching to do some stats. However, tt would need some tedious data cleaning first, so after you, Claude. And I take it from your comment that an analysis has already been done. Where is it, please? Andrew

In article <84C6427342EC0F71.862DACED...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Heh, heh. I wish. The detailed analysis I was referring to wasn't really all that detailed - in particular, it didn't produce a nice cleaned-up data set to work with. I had simply gone through the deck list (71 decks at the time) and written down a brief description of the crypt composition and type of deck (based on the library cards), along with identifying information of the player's name and the time frame of the tournament. The format looks like this: michael eichler. dec00. lasombra vote/deflect/combat. Probably not much use for other analyses, which is why I wasn't up for going back through the whole thing and analyzing the decks on some other axis (disciplines used, in this case). It would certainly be useful to have such data, though. I don't know how close the listings are to ELDB format, but I suspect that might be a good way to at least partially automate the process, if the ELDB software can read in lists as well as write them out like that. Josh not an eldb wizard Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

In article <qe8d3tcomshdln4ot...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >In my mind, only Out of Control really falls in the "get >lost!" pile, and THAT because its conditional is ridiculously >non-conditional. Anyone claiming the !Brujah are "too strong" is on >loony pills, whereas someone claiming that bleed is "too strong" has >at least a chance of making a coherent argument. Out of Control was a bad idea, period. I was also sorely disappointed to see it placed in the pre-con starters. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back down again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

In article <9161me$13l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > > > > > Are you happier if you get bled on turn two by Christine, Ohanna, > > and Samson for 9,and then for another 9 on turn 3? > > Yes and yes. That is alot more breathing room than being bled for 18. > You could actually do all that stuff you have been talking about bloat, > rush, banishment. Maybe enought to give yourself some breathing room. But you still won't have a vampire out before you're bled for 18, if you get 1 transfer your turn 1, and 4 your turn 2, and you're going for a 6-cap. As far as I can tell, AI barely slows down weenie bleed, because the vampires don't cost more than 2-4 pool in the first place. What it really screws is people who bleed for more than 3 with a larger vampire - and that's not a strategy that leads to people losing 18 pool by their 3rd turn. You were absolutely right when you said that your Aire of Elation doesn't just go off when you're cleaning it and lead to Masika accidentally bleeding for 8, but it's still an awfully big hit to burn such a large vampire for 3 pool. What makes it less of a hit is people playing with Minion Taps and 5th Traditions, but that's a fairly high-end combo itself. (on a side note, it's interesting that IC members keep getting brought up here - they are some of the relatively few large vampires that people actually play with, because their +2 bleed and 4 votes and special abilities make them worthwhile, especially when they can be Minion Tapped and filled up by a friendly prince or justicar. I notice that very few of the non-prince/justicar/ic member big Camarilla vamps get played at all. When was the last time you saw Miranda Sanova, Tura Vaughn, Apollonius, Quinton McDonnell, Lucretia, Sylvester Simms, Makarios the Seducer, etc etc etc?) > If you have > > out no more than one vampire, you will be just as vulnerable to > > new-Misdirection as old-Misdirection. (math note - your pred has > > to get out 3 2-caps, not Royce, to be able to play two 1-cost > > cards with each, and can only put DOM on one of them, getting to > > 16 bleed, not 18.) > > Reading note- Royce gets the skill card and plays threats which costs > nothing. It helps to read. Okay, so apparently I am dense and you are thinking of cards that are not occurring to me. As I add it up, you have 3x inf Govern for 9 bleed, add 2x inf Conditioning for +4 bleed, 1x sup Threats for +2 bleed, total of 15 bleed. Not 18. And as far as *I* can tell, if they do this on their turn 2, all three of these vampires will have to hunt on turn 3, leaving only one newly-influenced to bleed you on turn 3 (getting to right about the same place as the 9/9 turns 2/3 split which would avoid AI). > > If AI was really the only thing holding mega-bleeds down, shouldn't > > it show up in more tourney-winning decks? I hesitate to do another > > detailed analysis of The Lasombra's tourney-winning-decks archive > > (because it's so thorough! cringe!), but on a quick search through, > > I find thirteen decks out of seventy-three (~18%) that had Archon > > Investigation in them. Of those thirteen, nine also had at least > > 5 bleed-bounce cards in them. Of the thirteen, four had more than > > one AI, and all of those also had Deflections. > > So, you are saying that bleed bounce is superior to AI, then why not ban > bleed bounce. That's not exactly what I was getting at, no. My point was that out of seventy-three tourney-winning decks, only 13 had AI in them - this seems to indicate that AI is *not* the only plausible way to defend against bleed and win tournaments. Also, that many decks using AI also used bounce; to me this suggests that these players were particularly paranoid about bleed. Not necessarily that they should have been, but that they were. Going back through the list and counting up the decks with bounce in them (decks with at least 4 of Deflection, Redirection, Telepathic Misdirection, or any combination), 44 of 73 had some bounce. A much higher percentage, yes, but that leaves 29 of 73 (39.7%) with absolutely no (or an insignificant proportion) of bounce. There would be four of those that had a single AI in them, but the other 25 won tournaments without any bounce or AI defense against bleeds. To me that suggests that AI is not necessary (and therefore excessive - since I object to the extreme effect of AI when played, what I'm trying to show is that, since the strategy it hoses is not overpowered, it should not exist). > I never argued that "it must be the only way to win tournaments - ie > it was necessary to keep the bleeders from always killing you." I > argued that it wasn't powerful enough or unbalancing enough to require > either banning or errata. I'm not even sure that it *is* so very powerful (ie makes you win lots of games) to require banning. But I do think it's that unbalancing. The basic problem I have with the card is that its design is Just Plain Brown Wrong. Burning a vampire as an OOT master is Not An Appropriate Mechanic. (Burning a vampire through any means except diablerie or excess agg damage is, to my mind, a Big Deal and should be examined Very Closely.) and elsewhere (combining two posts into one...): In article <915tfi$t0n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > I don't believe that bleed cards are broken or for that matter that any > of the cards in the current Sabbat War Set or errata are broken. > The tournament banned cards are the ones I don't play with so I > really don't have an opinion on them. Certainly you must realize that > bleeding is the most efficient manner in which to oust your prey. Power > -bleeds are just an extention of that strategy. I think that Archon > Investigation is a appropriate response in both terms of Card Balance > and Storyline. I don't think AI is broken, nor do I think that > power-bleeding is broken. I believe that they actually balance one > another even in the presence of other bleed defense. Yes, bleeding *is* the most direct route toward ousting your prey. I wrote a little about that in another post in this thread, I think. But that doesn't mean it needs to have hosers out of all proportion to the rest of the game. There aren't any OOT masters that say "Play when a vampire attempts to do more than 3 damage in a single strike to one of your minions. Burn that vampire." because it would be absurd. There aren't any OOT masters that say "Play when a vampire calls a referendum that passes by more than 3 votes. Burn that vampire." because it would be absurd. There shouldn't be an OOT master that says "Play when a vampire attempts to bleed you for more than 3 pool. Burn that vampire." because it is absurd. Unfortunately, that card *does* exist. But it shouldn't. That's what I'm trying to get across. It doesn't belong in this game any more than pre-errata Thoughts Betrayed did. Josh "superior: opposing methuselah may not play the game again until you say you're done. have a nice day." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <n7pc3tkml6tgudf1b...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:58:37 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >Seems unlikely. We don't seem to have statistics available for > >this (since, sadly, The Lasombra only started collecting tourney- > >winning decks in 1997, and DejaNews doesn't go back even that > >far now...), but did bleed decks win all the time, and necessitate > >bounce in every tourney deck, before the VTES printing in 1995? > >I doubt it (though I don't know enough about the tourney scene > >of that time to say for sure). > > Neither do I. But I note that Archon Investigation, Protected > Resources, and Elder Intervention were created specifically in the > V:TES printing, and such powerful cards being added in what was > nominally a reprint of the base set indicate that bleed decks were, in > fact, that powerful, and that stealth bleed was THE premier deck of > the time. I'm not so sure that it was. The designers may have *thought* it was, but I don't really believe that it was head and shoulders above vote and combat, even then. (I was *playing* then, I just didn't play in tournies then.) [snippity snip snip snip] > Bleed decks are hardly hamstrung by AI. If you want to bleed for more > than 3, fine. I've made multiple decks that do just that. But you > know what? If you're moving along and dropping multiple big bleeds > and get a minion burned, yeah it slows you down, but it's probably not > going to stop you cold unless you're doing the "Etrius bleeds for 10!" > stunt or something. I know that if I build a bleed deck, I will > deliberately ignore one of the defense types; usually I'll include > combat defense and plenty of bleed oomph, and go a little lighter on > the stealth, as most people are well aware of the "don't block them" > theory regarding stealth/bleed. I hate getting caught behind a Minion > Tap for 10, and getting my minions beat up is never a good thing. And > I also ignore the threat of Archon Investigation. Sure, someone will > drop it on me eventually. I just try not to make any given minion > that much 'better' than any other. It happened in my Tzimisce > Pulse/Changeling deck; I had 3 Pulsed guys out and made the mistake of > using Changeling to "oomph" a bleed instead of saving it for stealth, > and poof. The deck still got 3 VP that game. My objection isn't so much that AI will burn every vampire a large-bleed deck plays (although it could), but that every time AI is played its effect is too large for its cost. It is, thus, overpowered, and cards have been errataed for less. (cough, Immortal Grapple, cough ;-) Josh hiking-booted bureaucrat of dc [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65BF5E4.14D0%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: [I wrote] > > Effects are inseparable from costs. > > I concur. Just call a duck a duck, ok? Quack! > > Yeah, and that's what makes Deflection so much better than > > *blocking* a bleed, isn't it? > > I'm not sure what you mean by this; no offense, but are you being > sarcastic or not? 8) No, I wasn't. (that time ;-) I was saying that that's why Deflection is so good, and so popular: because in a sense it *does* cost negative pool. Blocking, in that sense, also costs negative pool, but deflecting can cost your prey pool, which blocking doesn't. > > What's different about Archon Investigation - and what makes > > it worth mentioning the "cost" issue - is that its printed > > cost is only indirectly related to its actual cost. > > This is true of so many Master Cards as to be ridiculous. Art Museum > gains you one pool, effectively, and so "costs 1". Next turn it "costs 0." > Minion tap costs "X blood and -X pool" where "X" is how much you take off. > AI isn't special at all in this sense. There's a limited number of master cards that this applies to, though. The Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod, Elder Library, Mob Connections, Haven Uncovered - these will never cost or gain you any pool. You'll notice that all the ones that gain pool for you tend to be more popular than things like Deal with the Devil or The Damned or Illegal Search and Seizure. [snip my logic] > I have no argument with your logic. And, yes saying "AI costs 3 pool" > does ignore the effect. Partially I got annoyed at the metric of "negative > pool cost" when someone (Norm?) said "Given it's cost of 3 pool..." and > someone (you? someone else? I forget) jumped in with "It costs NEGATIVE > pool! Do I have to explain it again?" which just confuses the issue, instead > of addressing it. Had the response been more like "yes, but you can't > ignore..." and tacked on bits of your above paragraph, that would have been > productive. But the "negative cost" argument by itself as a sound byte only > misleads. Not by itself, a full explanation obviates the need for unclear > terms like "negative cost." I didn't write that message, but as a response to "given its cost of 3 pool", the "it saves you pool when you play it" shorthand for what I wrote seems appropriate. (not in that *tone*, but then I'm not that big on provoking people these days.) It's not like it costs 3 pool like Vulnerability costs 1 - if it worked like that (3 pool, master, play when a vampire has bled you for more than 3 since your last turn, burn that vampire) it would probably not be overpowered (though the mechanic would still be objectionable). > Put simpler: > > Saying that AI costs 3 pool, while technically accurate, *does* > > ignore its effects, > AND, saying "AI has a negative cost," is *neither* accurate *nor* does it > account for all its effects, so please don't answer the claim of the former > with the latter. Better yet, just be clear and avoid both > oversimplifications. And eschew obfuscation! Yes. Josh bedeviling the details [ quoted text not captured ]

> (on a side note, it's interesting that IC members keep getting > brought up here - they are some of the relatively few large > vampires that people actually play with, because their +2 bleed > and 4 votes and special abilities make them worthwhile, especially > when they can be Minion Tapped and filled up by a friendly prince > or justicar. I notice that very few of the non-prince/justicar/ic > member big Camarilla vamps get played at all. When was the last > time you saw Miranda Sanova, Tura Vaughn, Apollonius, Quinton > McDonnell, Lucretia, Sylvester Simms, Makarios the Seducer, etc > etc etc?) But, as a side reply, I actually have a pre/aus/obf vote deck, calling votes at stealth with Primogen at best, with Bewitching Oration and Telepathic Vote Counting. Crypt? Amadeo, Miranda Sanova, Dr. Jest, Sylvester Simms, Cornelius Ottavio, and Lena Rowe! It was damn refreshing knowing I wouldn't be contesting ANYONE, and actually got to use Dr. Jest, and bleed well with Cornelius (+1, +2 vs. someone with a non-Camarilla vampire! =). Actually, I built the deck around Amadeo originally, so I tossed in about 6 Blood Dolls, Aaron's Feeding Razor, and Inbase. (No, I've never actually had Amadeo hunting for 4; it works out better to "spread the wealth.") Oh, and it uses Bribes. Never underestimate the power of BO and Bribes together. The TVC is great for your annoying pred/prey IC or Justicar who doesn't agree with the rest of the table (or whom you want NOT to have a vote in favor with their one Bishop, so *they* don't get the pool from the Bribes.) I actually played this deck on Election Night. We played an "Election Night Vote War," having a 7 player game with 5 or 6 of the decks being pure vote. You've never SEEN so many Bribes! =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> >> No, it makes you fear *bumping* the bleed of your Inner Circle > Member. >> If that's your focus, you should spend your efforts railing against > Justicar >> Retribution, which burns ALL IC and Pulsed bleeders, whether or not > they >> even attempt to remove pool. > > Yeah, but I've never, ever, ever seen one of those cards, and My IC > would vote it down hardcore. That atleast can be defended against > somewhat. How many IC do you have in a given deck? Between Awe, BO, TVC, and Bribes, pretty much any two of those cards will make it pass, IC or not. I dunno; in our group, if we pack votes, we intend to pass them, and count on votes being on the table. I mean, read the vote differently if you like, but the card says "Burn all Inner Circle and Pulsed vampires in play. Callable my *ANY* vampire as a vote." Sounds pretty gross to me. >> worthwhile. The fact that a majority did NOT have AI seems, to me, > to imply >> that the card isn't all powerful, it's just another option that has > settled >> into about as much use as any other card or strategy. >> > > I'd agree with James that it is not all powerful, only to powerful when > it is used. And you'd be kind of agreeing with me, too. I don't know that it's "to(sic) powerful" but it's damn powerful when it works, and only taking up space when it's not. > I'd agree that something similiar, but only burning 3caps > and below or so might be a fix. Wallpaper. > No, not even the rarity, if they were commoner, I'd give up non weenie > bleed period. PR should be a location, or have a way to remove it. JR > is not so bad, because it is a vote, so the usual mechanics apply. AI > though, is not counterable and seems to powerful when it is used. Somewhat agreed on JR, but don't you agree, that when it works, it's really super-powerful? If Derek is playing his Tzimice with 3 pulsed bleeders, and I call a vote cross table, seeing he's about to blast his prey and I'm next, poor voteless Derek gets ALL his vampires burned. Doesn't that fall into the category of AI, that when it works, it's "too powerful?" PR being a location is all the removal it possibly needs. If you want to put a (D) action on it or something, it's wallpaper, too. AI is not very counterable, but eminently avoidable. I'm willing to hazard a guess that everyone railing against AI has had a large vampire burned with it, and fallen into shambles because of it, and most people defending it have been (a) ousted by huge bleeds too many times to count, but have also (b) had that damn AI wasting space in our hand too many times to count. Yes, no? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Now we're getting somewhere... Boy, I sure hope so. =) >> I think a valid problem with AI is it's "all or nothing" power. >> It's a balanced card (as it and big bleed are BOTH still played, but >> Big Bleed moreso than AI) but only in the "average" sense. If it >> works, it *really* fucks the guy, but if he never bleeds for more >> than 3, it's wallpaper. > > I can't agree...a bleed for 4 just isn't that much. I might be a > little more okay with it if it was a bleed over 5 or something. As far > as I can tell, this card was originally developed to deal with 4CL S&B > and (fudging the release dates here, because I can't remember) RTI. <pedant> 4CL S&B? While lots of Magic players may have made the 4CL assumption, I think it's awfully presumptuous to assume the V:tES designers played with 4CL, since that has NEVER been a Jyhad mechanic, except by ignorance. And, as I and others have said, RtI is two sets later. </pedant> >> Do people actually ABUSE Archon Investigation? If not, it seems >> a bit shaky ground to want to errata/ban the card. >> >> (forgive me if I repeat myself too much; I'm still waiting for people >> to tell me how much AI screws their playgroup/tournament/etc.) > > I recently saw it burn Arika after she bled for some non-ungodly > amount, probably just bleed + Threats, or something...say 5. The > Methuselah who tossed it down was highly thrilled, as she had recently > had Miller, the Celerity Monkey burned by Arika's successful Protect > Thine Own. I still think it's inappropriate to burn a vampire just for > bleeding for 4 or 5...again, if the card either torporized the vampire > instead of burning it, or the bleed requirement was higher, I'd feel > better about the card, but as is, it's simply too easy to burn a > vampire that is bleeding for just 4 or so. I admit that I don't see it > played a lot, but most of the people I play with don't have much V:tES, > it's mainly Jyhad. > > So, this is once again a case where I fail to come to a decisive > conclusion, as I certainly don't have the data to do so. I don't think > that there is widespread abuse of the card, as it is a reactive > strategy...however, I do think that the card is too powerful for its > cost...which justifies changing it, if it were reprinted. I can't see that encouraging Humongo-bleeds (which is what banning/errata'ing AI does, agreed?) by any size of vampire is really good for the game. > And incidentally, I think it's pretty entertaining that we're getting > whipped up in such a froth at the *possibility* of these cards being > reprinted in an expansion, not due to certain knowledge that they'll be > in the expansion. :) Well, I think it opened a lot of tensions. I mean, the cards DO exist, so they ARE an issue, scarcity or not. Oh, and in case my view isn't clear, I'm all for the "rarity or scarcity should have NothingNothingNothingNothingNOTHING to do with card power." You do NOT balance or fix a card by printing less of a card and/or choosing to or to not reprint a card. Anyone thinking that needs someone to Directly Intervene to have them Deranged, Disarmed, and be Returned to Innocence. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65D3A7A.157F%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > I'm willing to hazard a guess that everyone railing against AI > has had a large vampire burned with it, and fallen into shambles > because of it, and most people defending it have been (a) ousted by > huge bleeds too many times to count, but have also (b) had that damn > AI wasting space in our hand too many times to count. > Yes, no? Actually, no. I can't ever recall having a vampire of mine burned with AI (largely because I haven't played any big bleed decks in quite a while). And I've definitely been ousted by big bleeds numerous times, but I've never had AI wasting space, since I think I've only ever put it in one deck. Again, I just feel that being able to burn a vampire for 3 pool as long as it's making you lose more than that amount of pool anyway is just too powerful an effect for one card to have. Even Vulnerability requires a successful (torporizing) combat or something...and that's the closest parallel I can think of. Banishment requires a successful vote that can be voted down or intercepted. Xian -- How could I change, I live without restraint? And I would try the patience of a saint. -- Patience of a Saint - Electronic [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65D4457.158A%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > <pedant> No prob. > 4CL S&B? While lots of Magic players may have made the 4CL > assumption, I think it's awfully presumptuous to assume the V:tES > designers played with 4CL, since that has NEVER been a Jyhad > mechanic, except by ignorance. I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? > And, as I and others have said, RtI is two sets later. I remembered that about an hour after I posted it. Ah well, such is life. > I can't see that encouraging Humongo-bleeds (which is what > banning/errata'ing AI does, agreed?) by any size of vampire is really > good for the game. No, I do not agree. I think that the existence of Deflection, in and of itself, discourages humongo-bleeds. Some people take AI into account, but I think that the players that more of this is directed at (S&B, weenie swarm DOM bleed) don't really care if they get AI'ed or not. Well, let me restate: they're not pleased, but it doesn't significantly affect the strategy. So AI burned one minion that cost maybe 5 pool or so. No big deal...he probably got at least one bleed in before the AI, and the AI cost 3, so the minion was probably worth it. Anyone going to a tournament with massive bleed should be aware that there are going to be plenty of people there with bounce, and if they sit next to one of those players, they're up for a looooong day. And I don't see anything wrong with encouraging humongo-bleeds...yeah, they're a pain, but they're easily defeated with plenty of other cards in the set. Unblockab-ility makes them more annoying, but you can still get around those ones with some methods. And hey, as long as I'm playing Tremere, it's all good. :) Kidding. [possibility of AI/PR being in Final Nights] > Well, I think it opened a lot of tensions. Really? :P > Oh, and in case my view isn't clear, I'm all for the "rarity or > scarcity should have NothingNothingNothingNothingNOTHING to do with > card power." You do NOT balance or fix a card by printing less of a > card and/or choosing to or to not reprint a card. Of course not. But you're right, this does bear repeating for the newsgroup as a whole. > Anyone thinking that needs someone to Directly Intervene to have them > Deranged, Disarmed, and be Returned to Innocence. Odd that such a truly wrong card is called "Return to Innocence", isn't it? Xian -- But rain falls down and I feel cold A cold that sleeps within my heart It tears the earth and sun apart --New Order, "Shellshock" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65D3A7A.157F%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > > [snip] > I'm willing to hazard a guess that everyone railing against AI has had a > large vampire burned with it, and fallen into shambles because of it, and > most people defending it have been (a) ousted by huge bleeds too many times > to count, but have also (b) had that damn AI wasting space in our hand too > many times to count. > Yes, no? Hmmm. I can't remember having had a big vamp of mine burned by an AI. Which doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it seems unlikely. I have, on the other hand, won a tournament in large part because I played AI a couple times - it's the first tourney-winning-deck on The Lasombra's page, UBCon April 1997, and I even mentioned it being a cheesy trump card in my writeup then. ;-) Josh blessed are the cheesemeisters [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65D334C.1571%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: [I wrote] > > (on a side note, it's interesting that IC members keep getting > > brought up here - they are some of the relatively few large > > vampires that people actually play with, because their +2 bleed > > and 4 votes and special abilities make them worthwhile, especially > > when they can be Minion Tapped and filled up by a friendly prince > > or justicar. I notice that very few of the non-prince/justicar/ic > > member big Camarilla vamps get played at all. When was the last > > time you saw Miranda Sanova, Tura Vaughn, Apollonius, Quinton > > McDonnell, Lucretia, Sylvester Simms, Makarios the Seducer, etc > > etc etc?) > > But, as a side reply, I actually have a pre/aus/obf vote deck, > calling votes at stealth with Primogen at best, with Bewitching > Oration and Telepathic Vote Counting. Crypt? Amadeo, Miranda Sanova, > Dr. Jest, Sylvester Simms, Cornelius Ottavio, and Lena Rowe! It was > damn refreshing knowing I wouldn't be contesting ANYONE, and actually > got to use Dr. Jest, and bleed well with Cornelius (+1, +2 vs. someone > with a non-Camarilla vampire! =). Wow, I'm impressed. There really weren't any better vampires to use? The Monger site seems to be down, or at least I can't access it, so I can't tell for myself. > Actually, I built the deck around > Amadeo originally, so I tossed in about 6 Blood Dolls, Aaron's Feeding > Razor, and Inbase. (No, I've never actually had Amadeo hunting for 4; > it works out better to "spread the wealth.") Ah, Amadeo, now that I can understand. > Oh, and it uses Bribes. Never underestimate the power of BO and > Bribes together. The TVC is great for your annoying pred/prey IC or > Justicar who doesn't agree with the rest of the table (or whom you > want NOT to have a vote in favor with their one Bishop, so *they* don't > get the pool from the Bribes.) > I actually played this deck on Election Night. We played an "Election > Night Vote War," having a 7 player game with 5 or 6 of the decks being > pure vote. > You've never SEEN so many Bribes! =) Oh, so what you're saying is that you only played the deck on the election theme night? ;-) Seriously, I'm proud of you. Using Miranda Sanova... how touching. (It's sad, you know, because a lot of these vamps have really cool pictures. They just don't have enough disciplines/abilities to get used much.) Josh has a nonstandard dom/obf/aus deck put together, but no pre/obf/aus [ quoted text not captured ]

>> 4CL S&B? While lots of Magic players may have made the 4CL >> assumption, I think it's awfully presumptuous to assume the V:tES >> designers played with 4CL, since that has NEVER been a Jyhad >> mechanic, except by ignorance. > > I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I > think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by > people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were > playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder > Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? Well, because likely, then, as now, combat didn't win, and vote was already pretty counterable (DT, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, etc.). It was bleed that you had to work too damn hard to avoid, unless you could bounce the bleed. Probably, Malk S&B won over and over. They just gave bleed defense to everyone. <opinion> I think the ideal that "combat, vote, and bleed" are the 3 Core Strategies that are somehow balanced is a big load of bunk. They all have checks and balances against each other, but you don't win unless you reduce your prey's pool to zero. Nothing, but NOTHING, does that better than bleed. </opinion> (only stressed here because we can go in circles on THAT forever and ever, and already have; it's somewhat beside the point) >> I can't see that encouraging Humongo-bleeds (which is what >> banning/errata'ing AI does, agreed?) by any size of vampire is really >> good for the game. > > No, I do not agree. I think that the existence of Deflection, in and > of itself, discourages humongo-bleeds. Some people take AI into [snip] > And I don't see anything wrong with encouraging humongo-bleeds...yeah, > they're a pain, but they're easily defeated with plenty of other cards > in the set. Unblockab-ility makes them more annoying, but you can > still get around those ones with some methods. And hey, as long as I'm > playing Tremere, it's all good. :) Kidding. Well, we should be clear, here what "humongo-bleeds" means. I don't mind as much Arika bleeding me for 8 at stealth once a turn, partially because if I *am* playing a Deflection/intercept deck, it's a lot easier to find *one* deflection/EnoughIntercept than find it 3 times. I'm not nearly as offended by a single bleed of 8 a turn than I am by 3 bleeds of 5. For numerically obvious reasons. And, yes, AI does discourage the former more than the latter. But, there are far more pressing reasons that "big" vampire decks don't work. They come out slower, and take less actions. Without having STRONG capabilities, the 10-cap is a waste over 5 2-caps. A Bum's Rush torporization by a dedicated combat deck fucks your deck as bad or as little as the AI. Don't make AI the bogeyman when the issue is that picking large vamps is, without sound reasoning, a boneheaded thing to do in a tournament. (this is all pretty well covered in "The Sheldon Situation": http://www.vtesinla.org/sheldon.htm though, in many decks, Sheldon is *damn* worth it. =) >> Oh, and in case my view isn't clear, I'm all for the "rarity or >> scarcity should have NothingNothingNothingNothingNOTHING to do with >> card power." You do NOT balance or fix a card by printing less of a >> card and/or choosing to or to not reprint a card. > > Of course not. But you're right, this does bear repeating for the > newsgroup as a whole. Ok. "You do NOT balance or fix a card by printing less of a card and/or choosing to or to not reprint a card!" =) >> Anyone thinking that needs someone to Directly Intervene to have them >> Deranged, Disarmed, and be Returned to Innocence. > > Odd that such a truly wrong card is called "Return to Innocence", isn't > it? I'm sure it's been given many a derisive name for it (Return to Idiots, Return to Ignorance, Return to Idiocy, something like that), like most every other card has (Protracted Racehorses, Jost Whiner, Mua-Cheeze, Angry-Pina, etc =) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> But, as a side reply, I actually have a pre/aus/obf vote deck, >> calling votes at stealth with Primogen at best, with Bewitching >> Oration and Telepathic Vote Counting. Crypt? Amadeo, Miranda Sanova, >> Dr. Jest, Sylvester Simms, Cornelius Ottavio, and Lena Rowe! It was >> damn refreshing knowing I wouldn't be contesting ANYONE, and actually >> got to use Dr. Jest, and bleed well with Cornelius (+1, +2 vs. someone >> with a non-Camarilla vampire! =). > > Wow, I'm impressed. There really weren't any better vampires > to use? The Monger site seems to be down, or at least I can't > access it, so I can't tell for myself. Well, ELDB brings up suprises: Kite (AUS obf pre) and Greta Kircher (AUS PRE obf), both at 7-cap! Guess I designed it pre-Sabbat War. Or something. Maybe I was in a Camarilla mood or something. But other than than, yeah, the next is Klaus van der V:EKN, at 9 cap. (with only PRE aus obf, at that.) When I got the search results, I remember seeing all these vamps I'd never used. It was actually damn cool getting to play them. Though, Greta fits in so damn well, I think I might have to put her in. >> Actually, I built the deck around >> Amadeo originally, so I tossed in about 6 Blood Dolls, Aaron's Feeding >> Razor, and Inbase. (No, I've never actually had Amadeo hunting for 4; >> it works out better to "spread the wealth.") > > Ah, Amadeo, now that I can understand. I admit it was in the "Try the guy no one uses" category. =) >> Oh, and it uses Bribes. Never underestimate the power of BO and >> Bribes together. The TVC is great for your annoying pred/prey IC or >> Justicar who doesn't agree with the rest of the table (or whom you >> want NOT to have a vote in favor with their one Bishop, so *they* > don't >> get the pool from the Bribes.) >> I actually played this deck on Election Night. We played > an "Election >> Night Vote War," having a 7 player game with 5 or 6 of the decks being >> pure vote. >> You've never SEEN so many Bribes! =) > > Oh, so what you're saying is that you only played the deck on > the election theme night? ;-) Seriously, I'm proud of you. > Using Miranda Sanova... how touching. (It's sad, you know, > because a lot of these vamps have really cool pictures. They > just don't have enough disciplines/abilities to get used much.) Well, when you've got Bribes on most of your votes, you get a lot of stuff passed. =) Had I any Malk Rider Clauses, I would have tossed them in for certain. Luckily, the decision to play the vote theme night was made Tueday afternoon...so, it was more like "What vote deck do I have" instead of "How can I build a deck to win vote night." It was fun for a while, but it dragged on past 3 hours, I think. I'm not sure it would have been good if we had really *tried* making it work. I mean, we'd all show up with weenie potence rush with 20 DTs. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

If you want > to put a (D) action on it or something, it's wallpaper, too. > AI is not very counterable, but eminently avoidable. I think that this statement pretty much sums up all my thoughts on Archon Investigation. If you don't like it when it is played on you you, then you shouldn't bleed for more than 3 (I.E. don't rely on bonding to stealth you Inner Circle Members through when bleeding). You know it exists and you know what it does. So now that you do know that it is risky to use bonding to stealth your IC members through, can't you find an alternative method to reach the same results without pushing your bleed above three and therefore leaving open the possibility that you will get burned by an AI. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65D5FEB.15A1%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> 4CL S&B? While lots of Magic players may have made the 4CL >>> assumption, I think it's awfully presumptuous to assume the V:tES >>> designers played with 4CL, since that has NEVER been a Jyhad >>> mechanic, except by ignorance. >> >> I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I >> think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by >> people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were >> playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder >> Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? > > Well, because likely, then, as now, combat didn't win, and vote was >already pretty counterable (DT, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, etc.). It >was bleed that you had to work too damn hard to avoid, unless you could >bounce the bleed. Probably, Malk S&B won over and over. They just gave >bleed defense to everyone. Which is exactly the argument being presented. Malk S&B would only win over and over again with either a limited card set, or a 4CL. S&B honestly isn't that effective of a strategy, as it is so easy to counter, in a variety of different ways. In particular combat can win -- particularily against S&B, and votes are no more counterable than S&B bleed. ><opinion> > I think the ideal that "combat, vote, and bleed" are the 3 Core >Strategies that are somehow balanced is a big load of bunk. They all have >checks and balances against each other, but you don't win unless you reduce >your prey's pool to zero. Nothing, but NOTHING, does that better than >bleed. ></opinion> (only stressed here because we can go in circles on THAT forever >and ever, and already have; it's somewhat beside the point) Shrug. Voting decks tend to have other cool effects that are just as good, for example banishment, table rearrangement, and pool gain. Combat decks may not bleed the fastest, but how fast can your predator bleed with no ready minions? I definitely don't see bleeding as being the strongest strategy.

<X_Ze...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:9193l0$j4g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... [In response to Pat] > > AI is not very counterable, but eminently avoidable. > > I think that this statement pretty much sums up all my thoughts on > Archon Investigation. If you don't like it when it is played on you > you, then you shouldn't bleed for more than 3 (I.E. don't rely on > bonding to stealth you Inner Circle Members through when bleeding). You I don'tk now...I think that if people are foolish enough to regularly load up big bleeds, let them go ahead and do it. Though it may oust a deck here and there, in general, they're going to run into *something* (combat, bounce, whatever) that will stop them cold, colder than an AI here and there will. > know it exists and you know what it does. So now that you do know that > it is risky to use bonding to stealth your IC members through, can't you > find an alternative method to reach the same results without pushing > your bleed above three and therefore leaving open the possibility that > you will get burned by an AI. Come *on* Norm, let's encourage diversity. Let the fools play with their 8+ bleed monsters, and then show them why it's Just A Bad Idea (tm). And in response to using big-cap vampires inefficiently, who can say I wasn't bleeding with Arika in an attempt to draw you out, Freak/Majesty, call a vote, Freak, etc.? AI punishes *most* harshly the decks that can least easily recover from the loss of a minion. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

> How many IC do you have in a given deck? Between Awe, BO, TVC, and > Bribes, pretty much any two of those cards will make it pass, IC or not. I > dunno; in our group, if we pack votes, we intend to pass them, and count on > votes being on the table. > I mean, read the vote differently if you like, but the card says "Burn > all Inner Circle and Pulsed vampires in play. Callable my *ANY* vampire as > a vote." Sounds pretty gross to me. > Yeah, but again I've never seen one. Ok, it's very very gross. As for the deck I posted it a while back, called Sabbat were... and the answer is lots. (avg crypt cap is something like 8.5) > And you'd be kind of agreeing with me, too. I don't know that it's > "to(sic) powerful" but it's damn powerful when it works, and only taking up > space when it's not. > True. <snip me> > Somewhat agreed on JR, but don't you agree, that when it works, it's > really super-powerful? If Derek is playing his Tzimice with 3 pulsed > bleeders, and I call a vote cross table, seeing he's about to blast his prey > and I'm next, poor voteless Derek gets ALL his vampires burned. Doesn't > that fall into the category of AI, that when it works, it's "too powerful?" Ok, probably, maybe if it gave a vote to them.... Personally All these bleed hosers seem unneccessary to me, but AI is the worst because short of a cross table Sudden, your vamp is toast, plus the possiable useless and hand space things, and has to be in a weenie vote deck. (and who will toss a master phase to keep a possiable pred's Arika alive?) > I'm willing to hazard a guess that everyone railing against AI has had a > large vampire burned with it, and fallen into shambles because of it, and > most people defending it have been (a) ousted by huge bleeds too many times > to count, but have also (b) had that damn AI wasting space in our hand too > many times to count. > Yes, no? I had Iliana burned at Gen Con to prevent an oust, but got that one with votes because of cycling... annoyed me but not to much. Don't own V:TES, so have none of these, so maybe I come into your logic, but really I just dislike the card mechanic. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

> How many IC do you have in a given deck? Between Awe, BO, TVC, and > Bribes, pretty much any two of those cards will make it pass, IC or not. I > dunno; in our group, if we pack votes, we intend to pass them, and count on > votes being on the table. > I mean, read the vote differently if you like, but the card says "Burn > all Inner Circle and Pulsed vampires in play. Callable my *ANY* vampire as > a vote." Sounds pretty gross to me. > Yeah, but again I've never seen one. Ok, it's very very gross. As for the deck I posted it a while back, called Sabbat were... and the answer is lots. (avg crypt cap is something like 8.5) > And you'd be kind of agreeing with me, too. I don't know that it's > "to(sic) powerful" but it's damn powerful when it works, and only taking up > space when it's not. > True. <snip me> > Somewhat agreed on JR, but don't you agree, that when it works, it's > really super-powerful? If Derek is playing his Tzimice with 3 pulsed > bleeders, and I call a vote cross table, seeing he's about to blast his prey > and I'm next, poor voteless Derek gets ALL his vampires burned. Doesn't > that fall into the category of AI, that when it works, it's "too powerful?" Ok, probably, maybe if it gave a vote to them.... Personally All these bleed hosers seem unneccessary to me, but AI is the worst because short of a cross table Sudden, your vamp is toast, plus the possiable useless and hand space things, and has to be in a weenie vote deck. (and who will toss a master phase to keep a possiable pred's Arika alive?) > I'm willing to hazard a guess that everyone railing against AI has had a > large vampire burned with it, and fallen into shambles because of it, and > most people defending it have been (a) ousted by huge bleeds too many times > to count, but have also (b) had that damn AI wasting space in our hand too > many times to count. > Yes, no? I had Iliana burned at Gen Con to prevent an oust, but got that one with votes because of cycling... pissed me off but not to much. Don't own V:TES, so have non of these, so maybe I come into your logic, but really I just dislike the card mechanic. [ quoted text not captured ]

> If you don't like it when it is played on you > you, then you shouldn't bleed for more than 3 Or I should work to get the card out of play, because I don't like when it is played period. I know it exists and I don't think it should (and Pat convinced me that Justicar Retribution goes on this list too.<grin>) >(I.E. don't rely on > bonding to stealth you Inner Circle Members through when bleeding). You > know it exists and you know what it does. So now that you do know that > it is risky to use bonding to stealth your IC members through, can't you > find an alternative method to reach the same results without pushing > your bleed above three and therefore leaving open the possibility that > you will get burned by an AI. > Not in a dominate presence fortitude deck. Bonding can be used by the entire crypt, for stealth in all but three cases. Not all have fortitude, only three have obf, and i don't want smudge to get a shot at Arika just to do three pool damage. There are no govens, the bonding is just to get the occasional bleed past a blocker without intercept. I mean honestly, making the use of -only- a bonding dangerous? Can't you find a better way to stop that bleed for four than an AI? Cameron, who recognizes that we have differences, ever since that Archon Bodyguard quote.... [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 Dec 2000 17:40:24 -0800, jas...@spock.peak.org (Jasper Phillips) wrote: >In article <B65D5FEB.15A1%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, >Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I >>> think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by >>> people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were >>> playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder >>> Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? >> >> Well, because likely, then, as now, combat didn't win, and vote was >>already pretty counterable (DT, Surprise Influence, Dread Gaze, etc.). It >>was bleed that you had to work too damn hard to avoid, unless you could >>bounce the bleed. Probably, Malk S&B won over and over. They just gave >>bleed defense to everyone. > >Which is exactly the argument being presented. Malk S&B would only win >over and over again with either a limited card set, or a 4CL. S&B honestly >isn't that effective of a strategy, as it is so easy to counter, in a variety >of different ways. It's not whether it WOULD win, it's whether it DID win. Remember that we are talking about 1995-1996 here; strategy in general had not evolved to the point it has today. Again, the horror and disgust that old-time Jyhad players will evince when you play Malk S&B demonstrates that there certainly WAS a problem. Partly, it was a strategy shortage; the Malks were the most obvious. Partly, it was a card shortfall; Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics didn't exist, and a lot of the weenie-AUS vampires also did not exist yet, making Telepathic Misdirection a much more ineffective tool for bounce. The V:TES printing was the second thing off of WotC's shelves for this game. Interestingly, the cheapest vampires who could bounce with AUS were: Dorian Strack, Aleph (4): Torie and Malk Felicia Mostrom (5): Torie Kallista, Dancin' Dana, Ozmo (6): Torie and Malk So if you were playing the Malk bleeders, you had THAT advantage too - a combination intercept and bounce card, as necessary. The Toreador weren't helpless, but certainly were very limited. There was no superior Dominate below 5; it was Didi Meyers or nothing. There were some cheap weenie Dominate vampires, but a lot of those were Malkavian too. There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being found on the Malks, a few Disguised .44s or just Zip Gun and Behind Yous, and we can see very quickly how Malk S&B was a real monster back then. Many of the defenses everyone likes to quote didn't exist yet. >In particular combat can win -- particularily against S&B, and votes >are no more counterable than S&B bleed. But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. With regards to the other statement above; one bleed of 3 at 1 stealth is THE simplest and most effective means to reduce pool in the entire game, bar none. It can be pulled off with two cards and two disciplines in multiple different forms. It can be pulled off with permanents in multiple forms. It can be pulled off with a combination of the two. It is not surprising that a vote deck's inherent unit of damage also happens to be 3 pool at 1 stealth; the weaknesses of vote compared to bleed is that two players instead of one may block, and the entire table has a say in whether the vote passes or not. This is why bleed is superior to vote; sure, you can Deflect a bleed, but the onus is still entirely on you and your deck, and you will run out of Deflections eventually. It is easier to produce multiple bleeds of 3 at 1 stealth than it is to produce Deflections. You can also generate intercept, but simply blocking and punching each minion is not enough; you must do something to them as well, or they will simply come over again next turn with the same stuff; and they have more of it than you have intercept, unless your deck does nothing but intercept backwards (a failing deck). You can also Rush the minions, but with a Rush deck you also must figure out how to oust the rest of the non-S&B table, even assuming you get the S&B deck. Not all S&B decks fail to include combat defense, by the way. It is far more complicated to PROPERLY defend against bleed than it is to generate bleed, and this is why bleed remains THE superior strategy; although far less than it was before the expansions. It is worth noting that bleed is the only cardless action of the "big three" strategies. It's also worth noting that AI and PR don't even slow down this strategy. This is part of the reason the strategy is so strong; attempts to move faster are more vulnerable to Deflection and AI/PR. Both of these keep bleed decks in check, or you might find that they were even stronger than you thought. >><opinion> >> I think the ideal that "combat, vote, and bleed" are the 3 Core >>Strategies that are somehow balanced is a big load of bunk. They all have >>checks and balances against each other, but you don't win unless you reduce >>your prey's pool to zero. Nothing, but NOTHING, does that better than >>bleed. >></opinion> (only stressed here because we can go in circles on THAT forever >>and ever, and already have; it's somewhat beside the point) > >Shrug. Voting decks tend to have other cool effects that are just as good, >for example banishment, table rearrangement, and pool gain. Combat decks >may not bleed the fastest, but how fast can your predator bleed with >no ready minions? At that point, it's how fast your grand-predator can bleed, and then you have to get rid of HIS minions. Being forced to vaporize all your predator's minions is almost always a losing situation for the Rush deck, as it doesn't get the breathing room it needs and was looking for to go forward. Vote decks are strong, yes, but the entire table has an interest in prohibiting the vote deck from gaining a VP, if only because a VP gained by the vote deck is not a VP they can gain. When it comes down to it, if it's them or you, it's going to be them, and a vote deck that's been passing votes by alliance will suddenly dry up and wither away unless it has an alternative. >I definitely don't see bleeding as being the strongest strategy. Keep looking, then; and consider how strong a WELL built S&B (in any appropriate clan, or out of) can be, not the stupid "10 Govern, 10 Condition, 8 Lost, 8 Faceless" Malk S&B that everyone holds up as a straw man to shoot at. [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> But, as a side reply, I actually have a pre/aus/obf vote deck, >>> calling votes at stealth with Primogen at best, with Bewitching >>> Oration and Telepathic Vote Counting. Crypt? Amadeo, Miranda Sanova, >>> Dr. Jest, Sylvester Simms, Cornelius Ottavio, and Lena Rowe! It was >>> damn refreshing knowing I wouldn't be contesting ANYONE, and actually >>> got to use Dr. Jest, and bleed well with Cornelius (+1, +2 vs. someone >>> with a non-Camarilla vampire! =). >> >> Wow, I'm impressed. There really weren't any better vampires >> to use? The Monger site seems to be down, or at least I can't >> access it, so I can't tell for myself. > > Well, ELDB brings up suprises: Kite (AUS obf pre) and Greta Kircher (AUS > PRE obf), both at 7-cap! Guess I designed it pre-Sabbat War. Or something. > Maybe I was in a Camarilla mood or something. But other than than, yeah, > the next is Klaus van der V:EKN, at 9 cap. (with only PRE aus obf, at that.) Oh, come to think of it, Greta Kircher is The Shit in Voter Cap decks, especially this one. She can call a vote, add a bit of stealth to taste, BO and/or Bribes, TVC on bad days, and VoterCap. Now, usually, passing a vote by X votes means voter cap gains you 2 pool, and X-2 on the vamp. With Greta, it's often like gaining X pool outright, since you can go back to burning the blood back off of her each time you're bled. She can also Wake, intercept, Behind You, Majesty and untap, and then Telepathic Counter AND reduce the next bleed, to make that Govern a bleed for zero. Greta Kircher: moving on up into "Who's the Best" category. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <918puu$aot$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes >I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I >think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by >people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were >playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder >Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? Because, I would assert, at the time the bleed deck archetype was the strongest of the triumvirate. Today's lesson is taken from the Book of Ooi, Chapter 10: *** In the beginning was the bleed. 'Twas the one that most players tended to "see" first, when exercising their newly bestowed brains. It was there, it was quick, it was simple. It had flaws, yet the power of the Sleaze was too much for the newbies to resist. And thus was the stealth and bleed deck well explored. "Commandment One: Bleed fast, bleed hard, kill, kill, kill." The vote archetype was somewhat less well endowed with exploration. With each clan being somewhat restricted in its voting due to lack of Princes etc. in most cases, vote decks were a somewhat more risky prospect. Playing weenie vote was also all about dumping your entire hand onto the table, rather than permanent votes, and so it tended to empty itself quickly. And combat was a different kettle of (loaves and) fish(es) altogether. Damn fun to play - always has been - but S:CE tended to crop up rather a lot in the form of Majesty, a card which players quickly understood and explored. Immortal Grapple in large quantities was generally not seen - *partly* because people like PDB6 etc. who were to pioneer the Immortal Grapple rush strategies were playing with xCL. Yea, the Designers did look upon the landscape and saw that it was bad. In their mercy, they did smite the unholy Malkavians and their sneaky brethren by creating the Cards of Holiness. Lo, it was good. Then Time begat Knowledge, and Knowledge begat Skill. Time also begat Playing and Playing begat Innovation. Then Skill and Innovation were bound together in blissful union, and the old barren land was made fertile once more. Voting was ploughed up and begat its bastard child, the Weenie Presence/Praxis Seizure Deck. And Combat was alike restored to its full heavenly virtue, being powered by the skills of the Immortals. And verily, Bleed did covet its neighbours ox and did play with Combat, and thus was Bruise and Bleed begat. And in their new found Virtue, Voting and Combat did unite, sharing the love of Cousins (probably in the Deep South somewhere), and thus was Bruise and Vote found. And lo, it was good. Then, as people forgot their virtue and returned to the worship of the Golden Cheese, they found that the designers had indeed messed it up, that bleed could now be combated by the new virtues of Combat and Voting, and the unions created thereby. Sadness fell upon the land as they realised the folly of their Creators, cursing the day that Justicar Retribution was ever created, or Moses for bringing down the Eleventh Commandment "Thou shalt protect thy race-horses." The love of law and order was likewise chastised as people realised that they would, verily, rather get ripped off than have to suffer police protection, in the form of "Ah! Con Investigation". And PDB6 wept. Yet, as time passed, the Designers' Folly, as 'twas henceforth known, was lost amongst the mists of time and became subsumed in amongst the evolution of the New Ways. And verily, no-one dared spake of the Designers' Folly, save for in hushed tones, just in case someone did try to do nasty things with them. *** Here endeth the lesson. [ quoted text not captured ]

You > > I don'tk now...I think that if people are foolish enough to regularly load up > big bleeds, let them go ahead and do it. Though it may oust a deck here and > there, in general, they're going to run into *something* (combat, bounce, > whatever) that will stop them cold, colder than an AI here and there will. I agree that there are other methods to deal with big bleed, but I don't believe that AI is inherently broken or overpowered. I certainly don't think that because AI doesn't work on every bleed that it should be banned because it it a corner case card. > > know it exists and you know what it does. So now that you do know that > > it is risky to use bonding to stealth your IC members through, can't you > > find an alternative method to reach the same results without pushing > > your bleed above three and therefore leaving open the possibility that > > you will get burned by an AI. > > Come *on* Norm, let's encourage diversity. Let the fools play with their 8+ > bleed monsters, and then show them why it's Just A Bad Idea (tm). Are you saying that everybody uses AI, and that it is a mainstay for all decks? I would argue that it is not a mainstay for all decks. I would complain far more about bleed bounce being run-of-the-mill and a boring solution to the big bleed problem because you see it in almost every deck. Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, just so that they have access to bleed bounce. I think that the presence of AI encourages deck diversity and allows people to play clans that don't have bounce, and that don't have to maim their predator while concentrating on their prey and not living under the gun of the unblockable or stealthy power-bleed. > > And in response to using big-cap vampires inefficiently, who can say I wasn't > bleeding with Arika in an attempt to draw you out, Freak/Majesty, call a vote, > Freak, etc.? AI punishes *most* harshly the decks that can least easily > recover from the loss of a minion. No offense Xian, but I think that it would be a little risky to use your +2 bleeder to try and draw the block and then push it to a +3 bleed with bonding for the stealth and still be expecting to draw the block. Maybe, it could happen, but I still don't think that your gambit of trying to draw out a block with a Inner Circle Member with bonding is a valid reason to change AI. AI does punish most harshly those decks that can least recover from the loss of a minion. So does rush, and so does banishment. Unlike rush and banishment, you can avoid AI by simply not bleeding for more than 3. I know it sucks to have one of your vampires burned when you are "going for the gusto", but to avoid it all you have to exert is a little self-control and not bleed for more than 3. [ quoted text not captured ]

Combat decks > may not bleed the fastest, but how fast can your predator bleed with > no ready minions? Not fast at all, but his predator can bleed plenty fast with no blockers. That leaves you with a stonger more powerful predator. > I definitely don't see bleeding as being the strongest strategy. I wish I could take your word for it, but from the tournament reports, you would be proven to be wrong, statistically by the number of victory points gained by bleed strategy decks versus other strategies. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <LlUmCvLU...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In article <918puu$aot$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xian <xi...@waste.org> writes > >I don't know about that...the Jyhad designers obviously didn't, but I > >think there's a whole lot of supposition that V:tES was rewritten by > >people that were either playing with a very limited card pool, or were > >playing 4CL. Why AI, Justicar Retribution, Protected Resources, Elder > >Intervention, and not some more vote or combat defense? > > Because, I would assert, at the time the bleed deck archetype was the > strongest of the triumvirate. > > Today's lesson is taken from the Book of Ooi, Chapter 10: James, that was awesome. Truly the Book of Ooi is the source of all good knowledge. Josh pay no attention to that archon behind the curtain [ quoted text not captured ]

> Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks > that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, > just so that they have access to bleed bounce. Where are these people, because they are dumb tm. <snip AI == diversity> disagree. > No offense Xian, but I think that it would be a little risky to use your > +2 bleeder to try and draw the block and then push it to a +3 bleed with > bonding for the stealth and still be expecting to draw the block. > Maybe, it could happen, but I still don't think that your gambit of > trying to draw out a block with a Inner Circle Member with bonding is a > valid reason to change AI. It happens all the time, Arika can take care of herself, and sometimes you need to cycle into a card to support a tradition (which she can't use) or something. So does rush, and so does banishment. Unlike rush and > banishment, you can avoid AI by simply not bleeding for more than 3. Unlike AI, I can use delaying tactics/my own votes and skin of steel/obediance/majesty to say Ha! to Combat and vote I > know it sucks to have one of your vampires burned when you are "going > for the gusto", but to avoid it all you have to exert is a little > self-control and not bleed for more than 3. bleeding with bonding isn't "going for the gusto" as for self-control, well, ummm... that is not using Etrius to bleed for 11. Now, the idea: Archon Investigation master oot Burn a vampire when it bleeds for an amount greater than or equal to its capacity. -note- you still take the bleed, deal. still inflicts fear in weenies. cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <u9eg3tc28posqkbec...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 13 Dec 2000 17:40:24 -0800, jas...@spock.peak.org (Jasper Phillips) > wrote: > > >Which is exactly the argument being presented. Malk S&B would only win > >over and over again with either a limited card set, or a 4CL. S&B honestly > >isn't that effective of a strategy, as it is so easy to counter, in a variety > >of different ways. > > It's not whether it WOULD win, it's whether it DID win. Remember that > we are talking about 1995-1996 here; strategy in general had not > evolved to the point it has today. Again, the horror and disgust that > old-time Jyhad players will evince when you play Malk S&B demonstrates > that there certainly WAS a problem. Partly, it was a strategy > shortage; the Malks were the most obvious. Partly, it was a card > shortfall; Elder Intervention and Pack Tactics didn't exist, and a lot > of the weenie-AUS vampires also did not exist yet, making Telepathic > Misdirection a much more ineffective tool for bounce. The V:TES > printing was the second thing off of WotC's shelves for this game. 1994-1995, isn't it? VTES came out in '95, Jyhad was printed in '94. > There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - > leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those > without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being > found on the Malks, a few Disguised .44s or just Zip Gun and Behind > Yous, and we can see very quickly how Malk S&B was a real monster back > then. Many of the defenses everyone likes to quote didn't exist yet. On the other hand, neither did the offenses - no Scouting Mission, Foreshadowing Destruction, only three +bleed action mods, only five +stealth action mods (counting Mask and Spying Mission). And a *far* more limited pool of dom/obf vampires. (There were 12 vampires with both skills, cap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10. Not what you might call efficient.) > >In particular combat can win -- particularily against S&B, and votes > >are no more counterable than S&B bleed. > > But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. > > With regards to the other statement above; one bleed of 3 at 1 stealth > is THE simplest and most effective means to reduce pool in the entire > game, bar none. It can be pulled off with two cards and two > disciplines in multiple different forms. It can be pulled off with > permanents in multiple forms. It can be pulled off with a combination > of the two. > > It is not surprising that a vote deck's inherent unit of damage also > happens to be 3 pool at 1 stealth; the weaknesses of vote compared to > bleed is that two players instead of one may block, and the entire > table has a say in whether the vote passes or not. But, three things: one, for the same two cards as the bleed, you get 5 votes in favor without a title (vote/Bewitching); two, there were not nearly as many titled vampires to oppose you (no Inner Circle either); three, you could vote-push then. There were people using the Golden Tenets (no repeat actions, no vote push) even then, but they were a long way from becoming DCI tournament rules. Why, then, didn't the designers come up with anti-vote cards to deal with weenie vote push, a *far* more dominant NCL archetype than stealth bleed? (There were 18 vampires of capacity 2 or less, and Information Highway was available, as were nine Praxis Seizures, Kine Resources Contested, and Conservative Agitation.) > It's also worth noting that AI and PR don't even slow down this > strategy. This is part of the reason the strategy is so strong; > attempts to move faster are more vulnerable to Deflection and AI/PR. > Both of these keep bleed decks in check, or you might find that they > were even stronger than you thought. I don't think this is a good analysis. That AI is useless against the all-bleeds-for-3 approach indicates that it was a poorly designed countermeasure in the first place; when created, all it was good for was burning people who Governed and added a +bleed mod or who had a Pulse and added a +bleed. That the designers thought that was a good way to do it suggests that they were fairly clueless as to what the most effective strategies really were. > Vote decks are strong, yes, but the entire table has an interest in > prohibiting the vote deck from gaining a VP, if only because a VP > gained by the vote deck is not a VP they can gain. When it comes down > to it, if it's them or you, it's going to be them, and a vote deck > that's been passing votes by alliance will suddenly dry up and wither > away unless it has an alternative. There were nine princes in Jyhad, capacities of 1x6, 4x7, 3x8, 1x9. There were seven justicars, capacities of 1x9, 6x10. There were an assload of primogen, cap 6 and up, but 1 vote per vamp is not significant. It looks to me like vote was better than bleed in Jyhad. There was also Minion Tap and 5th Tradition, but I don't think people really started playing bloat decks until much later. In that respect I think James Coupe's quotation from the Book of Ooi may have some accuracy - no one really knew that clearly what they were doing, back then, and the VTES designers really jumped the gun in printing such absurd cards so soon after the initial release. Josh played 4cl, thought malk s&b was broken, then came to his senses [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91aj20$mqm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > [xian wrote] > > I don'tk now...I think that if people are foolish enough to regularly > load up > > big bleeds, let them go ahead and do it. Though it may oust a deck > here and > > there, in general, they're going to run into *something* (combat, > bounce, > > whatever) that will stop them cold, colder than an AI here and there > will. > > I agree that there are other methods to deal with big bleed, but I don't > believe that AI is inherently broken or overpowered. I certainly don't > think that because AI doesn't work on every bleed that it should be > banned because it it a corner case card. No, but that's not why it's bad. It's bad because its effect when played is too great for its cost. All the other arguments against the card (it hoses the wrong things, etc) are subsidiary to that one. > > Come *on* Norm, let's encourage diversity. Let the fools play with > their 8+ > > bleed monsters, and then show them why it's Just A Bad Idea (tm). > > Are you saying that everybody uses AI, and that it is a mainstay for all > decks? I would argue that it is not a mainstay for all decks. I would > complain far more about bleed bounce being run-of-the-mill and a boring > solution to the big bleed problem because you see it in almost every > deck. Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks > that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, > just so that they have access to bleed bounce. I think that the > presence of AI encourages deck diversity and allows people to play clans > that don't have bounce, and that don't have to maim their predator while > concentrating on their prey and not living under the gun of the > unblockable or stealthy power-bleed. But, pointing at the tourney-winning-decks page again, of the 29 winning decks (of 73) that didn't play with bounce, only 4 of them (if I'm reading my notes right) had Archon Investigation. And if AI is not strictly necessary to win without bounce, then (because it is overpowered when played) I think it should not exist. (Well, I would think it shouldn't exist even if it *were* the only way to win without bounce, but that's because I really don't like the design - if there were no other way to win without bounce, others should be created, but AI wouldn't be the way to do it.) Josh probably done now [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:20:51 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <u9eg3tc28posqkbec...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Misdirection a much more ineffective tool for bounce. The V:TES >> printing was the second thing off of WotC's shelves for this game. > >1994-1995, isn't it? VTES came out in '95, Jyhad was printed in >'94. Oops. OK, 94-95. Damned early. Before my time. :) >> There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - >> leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those >> without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being >> found on the Malks, a few Disguised .44s or just Zip Gun and Behind >> Yous, and we can see very quickly how Malk S&B was a real monster back >> then. Many of the defenses everyone likes to quote didn't exist yet. > >On the other hand, neither did the offenses - no Scouting Mission, >Foreshadowing Destruction, only three +bleed action mods, only >five +stealth action mods (counting Mask and Spying Mission). >And a *far* more limited pool of dom/obf vampires. (There were >12 vampires with both skills, cap. 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, >10. Not what you might call efficient.) Well... no... the offenses DID exist. 2x Roland Bishop, Zebulon, Didi Meyers, and Ozmo are still the core of any Malk S&B deck, and well they should be; they all come with the basic two disciplines necessary. Add two Obfuscate skill cards and two Dominate skill cards, and you're in business. Add 2x Gilbert Duane with both at superior, and he can Govern out all four of the others if you get him. Then add one Normal and one Dollface just for a couple token weenies. (Or you can add 1x Gilbert and 1x Mariel, Lady Latex) Second (and I went over this not too long ago in another thread), inferior OBF/DOM is almost as good as superior. Govern is still 3 at inferior, and Conditioning is still an extra +2, and against the Brujah and Nosferatu, you just needed to have 1 stealth, 2 at the MOST; so you pack 6x each of Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, and Cloak. Bleeds of either 3 or 5, at stealth, consistently. Add a Hunting Ground so your guys have a little blood gain back onto them, and you'll do OK. Add some Bondings too, so you don't always need the OBF stealth. Scouting Mission and Foreshadowing Destruction merely made it a bit easier for the DOM bleed decks to go; but they were fine beforehand. Offense can afford to wait for its skill cards; it doesn't have a timetable. Your prey will always be there until YOU do something about them. But if you're relying on AUS to bleed-bounce, or trying to get some Sport Bikes or Raven Spies out to intercept the stealth, then you don't necessarily have time to wait around... you could well be ousted by the time you get those. >> But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. >> >> With regards to the other statement above; one bleed of 3 at 1 stealth >> is THE simplest and most effective means to reduce pool in the entire >> game, bar none. It can be pulled off with two cards and two >> disciplines in multiple different forms. It can be pulled off with >> permanents in multiple forms. It can be pulled off with a combination >> of the two. >> >> It is not surprising that a vote deck's inherent unit of damage also >> happens to be 3 pool at 1 stealth; the weaknesses of vote compared to >> bleed is that two players instead of one may block, and the entire >> table has a say in whether the vote passes or not. > >But, three things: one, for the same two cards as the bleed, you >get 5 votes in favor without a title (vote/Bewitching); two, You DO require a superior discipline to get that, meaning PRE. There was almost no obf/pre in the original set, so as a result you were quite vulnerable to intercept. The other can be pulled off with obf/dom; Govern + Cloak *or* Cloak + Condition. >there were not nearly as many titled vampires to oppose you (no >Inner Circle either); three, you could vote-push then. There were Was the weenie Praxis horde even being considered at that point? Vote pushing WAS around, but I believe people were still thinking in terms of "clans" and larger vampires. Weenie Misdirection PRE bleed was a reasonably viable option with the original set, I believe; so I think people were still relatively new to the game and the strategies. The Ventrue Law Firm was around, I'm sure, but that wouldn't have relied on vote-pushing. >people using the Golden Tenets (no repeat actions, no vote push) >even then, but they were a long way from becoming DCI tournament >rules. Why, then, didn't the designers come up with anti-vote >cards to deal with weenie vote push, a *far* more dominant NCL >archetype than stealth bleed? (There were 18 vampires of capacity Because I don't think weenie clanless ANYTHING was being played yet. >2 or less, and Information Highway was available, as were nine >Praxis Seizures, Kine Resources Contested, and Conservative >Agitation.) > >> It's also worth noting that AI and PR don't even slow down this >> strategy. This is part of the reason the strategy is so strong; >> attempts to move faster are more vulnerable to Deflection and AI/PR. >> Both of these keep bleed decks in check, or you might find that they >> were even stronger than you thought. > >I don't think this is a good analysis. That AI is useless >against the all-bleeds-for-3 approach indicates that it was a >poorly designed countermeasure in the first place; when created, It was, of course, poorly designed. The fact that it's useless against the all-bleeds-for-3 approach means that such an approach hadn't even been considered yet and was CREATED in response to AI; I suspect people were still in the mindset of "if you get one through, make it big, make it hurt". >all it was good for was burning people who Governed and added >a +bleed mod or who had a Pulse and added a +bleed. That the Or for people who had a +1 bleed inherently and tried to Legal, Govern, Condition, or Pulse themselves. Or anyone who just went and got a Laptop and then decided to drop a big-bleed modifier. There were quite a few +1 bleed vampires in the original set. >designers thought that was a good way to do it suggests that they >were fairly clueless as to what the most effective strategies >really were. Well, I think almost EVERYONE was fairly clueless, leading only the most obvious strategies to be used; Malk S&B, Ventrue Vote/bleed, Toreador bleed, intercept, and die, Brujah fight, Gangrel poke and loop, and Nosferatu/Tremere nothing. (no obvious effective strategies, so probably not much use of the clans) So the designers aimed at the strongest strategy out there, the Malks, and took some shots at it. >> Vote decks are strong, yes, but the entire table has an interest in >> prohibiting the vote deck from gaining a VP, if only because a VP >> gained by the vote deck is not a VP they can gain. When it comes down >> to it, if it's them or you, it's going to be them, and a vote deck >> that's been passing votes by alliance will suddenly dry up and wither >> away unless it has an alternative. > >There were nine princes in Jyhad, capacities of 1x6, 4x7, 3x8, >1x9. There were seven justicars, capacities of 1x9, 6x10. There >were an assload of primogen, cap 6 and up, but 1 vote per vamp >is not significant. It looks to me like vote was better than >bleed in Jyhad. 1 vote per vamp was probably MUCH more significant in Jyhad, since there were only nine princes available to be arrayed against you. A Justicar was -huge- vote influence, so just having one on the table meant you automatically got to screw with things. Vote decks these days are actually probably not much more powerful than they were in Jyhad, due to the massive horde of titled vamps floating around and improved access to intercept for all clans. (Excluding vote push, obviously.) >There was also Minion Tap and 5th Tradition, but I don't think >people really started playing bloat decks until much later. In >that respect I think James Coupe's quotation from the Book of Ooi >may have some accuracy - no one really knew that clearly what >they were doing, back then, and the VTES designers really jumped >the gun in printing such absurd cards so soon after the initial >release. Yes. I think this is the best answer, and I've said before that I wouldn't want to see such cards INITIALLY printed today. But for better or worse, they're here now; and I don't think they have enough of an impact on the game to justify banning, and even errata should only be minor (no burning Justicars or IC members with Justicar Retribution or AI, for example). [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks >> that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, >> just so that they have access to bleed bounce. > > Where are these people, because they are dumb tm. Do you want to produce some reasons, or just throw around names on the playground? Bounce is damn powerful, and among the best bleed defense. It sure looks cheesy, but it IS effective to have deflections in your deck and 2 copies of Gloria and 2 copies of Ingrid as the only vamps who can play them. If they could bounce with whatever else their deck did, they'd do it; but Deflection belongs to one discipline, Dominate. Oh, but wait. They are dumb. Nevermind, what was I thinking. Case closed. /throws up hands in the air > <snip AI == diversity> > > disagree. Wow. That's some powerful reasoning there. Nopesiree, can't argue with that. >> So does rush, and so does banishment. Unlike rush >> and >> banishment, you can avoid AI by simply not bleeding for more than 3. > > Unlike AI, I can use delaying tactics/my own votes and skin of > steel/obediance/majesty to say Ha! to Combat and vote You don't even have to include a CARD to NOT bleed for 3. There are no vampires with an inherent +3 bleed! You have to do NOTHING to avoid AI, if that's what scares you. If you are playing a vamp you can't afford to lose, don't bleed for more than 3 unless you've seen your opponent's hand (there are, by the way, many ways to do this, Cull the Herd being disciplineless; lets you look for bounce, too!) to make sure there's no AI. If you bleed for more than 3 on a big hope with your one big vampire, you're gambling to begin with. AI is no more broken than either your deck design is poor or your playing of it is. Once again now, > Unlike AI, I can use delaying tactics/my own votes and skin of > steel/obediance/majesty to say Ha! to Combat and vote Correct. Unlike AI, you have to *have* *certain* *abilities* AND *have* *certain* *cards* in hand. With AI, you require NOTHING but to use your head and do the math (3+1 =4, and 4>3) to avoid it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:17:39 GMT, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >> Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks >> that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, >> just so that they have access to bleed bounce. > >Where are these people, because they are dumb tm. Uh, no, they're actually quite bright; the strategy works VERY WELL. For the cost of 4 pool and some crypt slots (often in a weenie horde), you get access to a bleed bouncer who takes no actions, but sits untapped the entire game to do nothing but play Deflection. It is highly effective. >> No offense Xian, but I think that it would be a little risky to use >your >> +2 bleeder to try and draw the block and then push it to a +3 bleed >with >> bonding for the stealth and still be expecting to draw the block. >> Maybe, it could happen, but I still don't think that your gambit of >> trying to draw out a block with a Inner Circle Member with bonding is >a >> valid reason to change AI. > >It happens all the time, Arika can take care of herself, and sometimes >you need to cycle into a card to support a tradition (which she can't >use) or something. That's really dumb, though. If you're going to be chucking around Bonding, there are better vampires than Arika to be using it with. Pat Ricochet has said it elsewhere in this thread and I'll reiterate: If you are using Inner Circle vampires, you had better be using the WHOLE vampire, or you have totally misdesigned your deck. If you bring Arika out and the first thing she does, before you EVEN Minion Tap her, is try to sneak through a little piss-ass Bonding bleed, then you have really screwed your deck up. Arika needs to be doing huge amounts of damage in some form. Don't send her to bleed for 4. Send her to bleed for TEN under a Dawn Op or something. And for god's sake, don't risk her doing ANYTHING until you get her Minion Tapped. Certainly not something that you KNOW could potentially burn her. Note that nobody fears the "Arika, Etrius, and Stanislava play Bonding!" deck. They do, however, fear the "Stanislava bleeds you for 8 and drops Form of Mist when you block!" version. > So does rush, and so does banishment. Unlike rush >and >> banishment, you can avoid AI by simply not bleeding for more than 3. > >Unlike AI, I can use delaying tactics/my own votes and skin of >steel/obediance/majesty to say Ha! to Combat and vote AI is an out-of-turn master that costs 3 pool. Delaying Tactics is free. Majesty is free. Obedience is free. Skin of steel actually costs a blood... darn. >I >> know it sucks to have one of your vampires burned when you are "going >> for the gusto", but to avoid it all you have to exert is a little >> self-control and not bleed for more than 3. > >bleeding with bonding isn't "going for the gusto" as for self-control, >well, ummm... that is not using Etrius to bleed for 11. IC members bleeding with Bonding are pussies. If you get an IC member out, NUKE someone with them. Call some hideous damage vote or something. Play Protect Thine Own. Use Horrific Countenance or any of those other 3-and-4-blood cards, since these guys can afford it without blinking. If you MUST shit around with stupid Bonding bleeds, Minion Tap them down to 3 first, and then you won't care if someone burns them, will you? >Now, the idea: > >Archon Investigation >master oot >Burn a vampire when it bleeds for an amount greater than or equal to its >capacity. > >-note- you still take the bleed, deal. still inflicts fear in weenies. Totally worthless card. Gilbert Duane laughs at you as he nails you for 6 every turn. Ozmo, Didi, and Zebulon will laugh at you as they oust you, even if they burn. And weenie Dominate would LOVE to see this card; who cares if Ohanna burns as long as she got to bleed you for 5? She had to hunt ANYWAY. Weenie Presence doesn't care either; it usually saves the Aire of Elation til you're about to be ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

> But, pointing at the tourney-winning-decks page again, of the > 29 winning decks (of 73) that didn't play with bounce, only 4 > of them (if I'm reading my notes right) had Archon Investigation. > And if AI is not strictly necessary to win without bounce, then > (because it is overpowered when played) I think it should not > exist. (Well, I would think it shouldn't exist even if it *were* > the only way to win without bounce, but that's because I really > don't like the design - if there were no other way to win without > bounce, others should be created, but AI wouldn't be the way to > do it.) I'll say this once, but realize that it's speculation: I think you might underestimate the *inconvenience* it takes to include AI as your bleed defense. I mean, you really need 4 or 5 to get one soon enough and often enough if it's your only bleed defense, and that's a LOT of masters to put in, for a card that you may well never get to use, depending on who your predator is. I think that's it's inherent balancing factor. I guess I just fall into this category: If the card, which has been around a *long* time, was go awful, than people would be abusing it, which, by the numbers, appears not to be true. Why emasculate a card that is such a *theoretical* problem, but isn't really that much of a problem in practice? Also, as I ranted in another post against Cameron, if you're taking one big bleed action with a vampire you can't afford to lose, or a bleed you need to land, and do so blindly (instead of arranging to see his hand), you are gambling, and *you* *know* *it*. You could be AI'd, you could be bounced, you could be blocked (unless you make it unblockable, a further gamble). If your deck can't deal with any of that, you're taking the same risks as having no vote protection, no bleed protection, or no combat protection. You made a choice, and have to live with it. > Josh > > probably done now Me, too, I hope. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B65E6599.1615%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > I'll say this once, but realize that it's speculation: I think you > might underestimate the *inconvenience* it takes to include AI as your bleed > defense. I mean, you really need 4 or 5 to get one soon enough and often > enough if it's your only bleed defense, and that's a LOT of masters to put > in, for a card that you may well never get to use, depending on who your > predator is. I think that's it's inherent balancing factor. > I guess I just fall into this category: If the card, which has been > around a *long* time, was go awful, than people would be abusing it, which, > by the numbers, appears not to be true. Why emasculate a card that is such > a *theoretical* problem, but isn't really that much of a problem in > practice? Okay, two more comments in this direction, and then I should be done for real. One, there can be cards that are overpowered but are not effectively abusable. That doesn't make them not overpowered. Consider the hypothetical card: "Reaction. Play when another Methuselah's vampire plays Immortal Grapple. Burn that vampire and gain ten pool." Is this card overpowered for its cost (0 blood and a cardslot)? Yes. But can you build a deck to abuse it? No, because it's reactive. Overpowered reactive cards are inherently hard to make abusive decks out of, but the cards themselves may still be broken - as I believe AI to be. As you describe it, the balancing factor for AI does not balance the *card* at all, only how much people *play* with it. Two, the problem with AI is much like the problem with original Thoughts Betrayed: it is Just Plain Wrong as a VTES card. It is the kind of thing that Methuselah Was Not Meant To Know. People who think like me railed against TB for years before it got errataed to its present state. Maybe someday we can accomplish something similar for AI. ;-) Josh what do you mean, this horse is dead? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <74rh3tk5hqrlmvkaa...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:20:51 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > >1994-1995, isn't it? VTES came out in '95, Jyhad was printed in > >'94. > > Oops. OK, 94-95. Damned early. Before my time. :) Yeah, see, I was playing then, but it's been so long that I can't really remember precisely *what* we were playing. > Well... no... the offenses DID exist. 2x Roland Bishop, Zebulon, Didi > Meyers, and Ozmo are still the core of any Malk S&B deck, and well > they should be; they all come with the basic two disciplines > necessary. Add two Obfuscate skill cards and two Dominate skill > cards, and you're in business. Add 2x Gilbert Duane with both at > superior, and he can Govern out all four of the others if you get him. > Then add one Normal and one Dollface just for a couple token weenies. > (Or you can add 1x Gilbert and 1x Mariel, Lady Latex) That's 2x 5 vampires. Awful lot of duplicates. You'll probably get 3 uniques at most in your opening draw, which will slow you down some all by itself. As would Governing out your other vampires with Gilbert. > Second (and I went over this not too long ago in another thread), > inferior OBF/DOM is almost as good as superior. Govern is still 3 at > inferior, and Conditioning is still an extra +2, and against the > Brujah and Nosferatu, you just needed to have 1 stealth, 2 at the > MOST; so you pack 6x each of Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, and > Cloak. Bleeds of either 3 or 5, at stealth, consistently. Add a > Hunting Ground so your guys have a little blood gain back onto them, > and you'll do OK. Add some Bondings too, so you don't always need the > OBF stealth. Scouting Mission and Foreshadowing Destruction merely > made it a bit easier for the DOM bleed decks to go; but they were fine > beforehand. Inferior Obfuscate means you are catchable by inferior Auspex, though. And inferior Dominate means you play Threats for only +1 bleed, or Bonding for no stealth. Sure, you get the full effect of Govern, but it's the *only* thing you get the full effect of at inferior. > Offense can afford to wait for its skill cards; it doesn't have a > timetable. Your prey will always be there until YOU do something > about them. But if you're relying on AUS to bleed-bounce, or trying > to get some Sport Bikes or Raven Spies out to intercept the stealth, > then you don't necessarily have time to wait around... you could well > be ousted by the time you get those. Well, you did get to redraw your Wakes as soon as the action was over, so that sorta compensated for the Spies and Bikes. ;-) > >But, three things: one, for the same two cards as the bleed, you > >get 5 votes in favor without a title (vote/Bewitching); two, > > You DO require a superior discipline to get that, meaning PRE. There > was almost no obf/pre in the original set, so as a result you were > quite vulnerable to intercept. The other can be pulled off with > obf/dom; Govern + Cloak *or* Cloak + Condition. Vulnerable to intercept, sure, but (a) intercept didn't win games then any more than it does now, (b) there was KRCG, but no London Evening Star or Rumor Mill (or Atonement, etc), and (c) you were playing a weenie deck, so "vulnerable to intercept" really meant that you only got to call three votes a turn instead of six. (You wouldn't get Majesty with a disciplineless weenie deck, but there was disciplineless Dodge and Fake Out.) > >there were not nearly as many titled vampires to oppose you (no > >Inner Circle either); three, you could vote-push then. There were > > Was the weenie Praxis horde even being considered at that point? Vote > pushing WAS around, but I believe people were still thinking in terms > of "clans" and larger vampires. Weenie Misdirection PRE bleed was a > reasonably viable option with the original set, I believe; so I think > people were still relatively new to the game and the strategies. The > Ventrue Law Firm was around, I'm sure, but that wouldn't have relied > on vote-pushing. Clearly weenie vote push is why the no vote push part of Golden Tenets was developed, just as Majestic/Freaky untap was why the no repeat actions part came up. They were some of the first winning ("broken") strategies people ever played. I wish Adrian Sullivan were here; I think he was instrumental in developing the Golden Tenets in the first place, and probably has a better idea of what competitive Jyhad play looked like in '94 than I do. Yep, weenie presence misdirection bleed would have been possible, although you have to go up through the 4-caps to get ten vampires to use. You can use those same 10 for presence weenie vote, if you like, and have Majesty as well as Bewitching. > >people using the Golden Tenets (no repeat actions, no vote push) > >even then, but they were a long way from becoming DCI tournament > >rules. Why, then, didn't the designers come up with anti-vote > >cards to deal with weenie vote push, a *far* more dominant NCL > >archetype than stealth bleed? (There were 18 vampires of capacity > > Because I don't think weenie clanless ANYTHING was being played yet. I think it probably was, although I suppose I can't say for sure. I know one of the first decks I made to demonstrate how 4cl didn't solve the problems that the Golden Tenets did was a weenie vote push deck that must've been clanless, although it was after 1994 I think. > >I don't think this is a good analysis. That AI is useless > >against the all-bleeds-for-3 approach indicates that it was a > >poorly designed countermeasure in the first place; when created, > > It was, of course, poorly designed. The fact that it's useless > against the all-bleeds-for-3 approach means that such an approach > hadn't even been considered yet and was CREATED in response to AI; I > suspect people were still in the mindset of "if you get one through, > make it big, make it hurt". Maybe so, maybe so. > >all it was good for was burning people who Governed and added > >a +bleed mod or who had a Pulse and added a +bleed. That the > > Or for people who had a +1 bleed inherently and tried to Legal, > Govern, Condition, or Pulse themselves. Or anyone who just went and > got a Laptop and then decided to drop a big-bleed modifier. There > were quite a few +1 bleed vampires in the original set. Well, there were ten... Adrianne, Lydia VC, and Appolonius kinda sucked (even then), but the others were okay, if large. > Well, I think almost EVERYONE was fairly clueless, leading only the > most obvious strategies to be used; Malk S&B, Ventrue Vote/bleed, > Toreador bleed, intercept, and die, Brujah fight, Gangrel poke and > loop, and Nosferatu/Tremere nothing. (no obvious effective > strategies, so probably not much use of the clans) So the designers > aimed at the strongest strategy out there, the Malks, and took some > shots at it. That may well have been the case. The Nosferatu would have fought about as well as the Brujah though; sure, people were probably not much using Immortal Grapple, but that makes the Brujah as weak as the Nosfers. > 1 vote per vamp was probably MUCH more significant in Jyhad, since > there were only nine princes available to be arrayed against you. A > Justicar was -huge- vote influence, so just having one on the table > meant you automatically got to screw with things. But the 1 vote per vamp was only on 6-caps and up, so there couldn't have been too many of them on the table at once. And if you were using vote-push, the primogen would have been pretty insignificant; it would have taken at least a couple princes or justicars against you to stop your votes. They wouldn't even be stoppable if you played weenie vote push and got three praxes on your first three turns. > Vote decks these days are actually probably not much more powerful > than they were in Jyhad, due to the massive horde of titled vamps > floating around and improved access to intercept for all clans. > (Excluding vote push, obviously.) I agree; vote decks now have to be much trickier, because a lot of decks have a fair number of titled vamps even if they are not themselves playing votes. I don't think that was as much the case, then. [james coupe's theory of innocence and experience] > Yes. I think this is the best answer, and I've said before that I > wouldn't want to see such cards INITIALLY printed today. But for > better or worse, they're here now; and I don't think they have enough > of an impact on the game to justify banning, and even errata should > only be minor (no burning Justicars or IC members with Justicar > Retribution or AI, for example). I guess our main difference, then, is our willingness to get rid of things that are bad. ;-) In my opinion, if there were to be errata, how big it is is relatively less important - it's as much an inconvenience for the erratum "can't burn IC or Justicar w/AI" to exist as it is for the erratum "AI costs no pool but does not burn the vampire" to exist. Or for AI to be banned in VEKN tourneys. Josh implacable arguer of washington dc [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:LlUmCvLU...@obeah.demon.co.uk... [snip] > And Combat was alike restored to its full > heavenly virtue, being powered by the skills of the Immortals. > > And verily, Bleed did covet its neighbours ox and did play with Combat, > and thus was Bruise and Bleed begat. And in their new found Virtue, > Voting and Combat did unite, sharing the love of Cousins (probably in > the Deep South somewhere), and thus was Bruise and Vote found. I have been simultaneously struck blind and dumb. [snip again] > And PDB6 wept. I know I'm going to have to respond to other posts in this thread, but I think this summed it up best...thanks, James... Xian still laughing [ quoted text not captured ]

<X_Ze...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:91aj20$mqm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > I agree that there are other methods to deal with big bleed, but I don't > believe that AI is inherently broken or overpowered. I certainly don't > think that because AI doesn't work on every bleed that it should be > banned because it it a corner case card. AI isn't a "corner case" card. Foreshadowing Destruction is a corner case card. Twisting the Knife is a corner case card (albeit a shitty one). Psyche is a corner case card. Unless I have been misunderstanding the usage all along, I have understood "corner case" to mean a card that has a similar use to another card, but is only *more* useful in specific circumstances (the corner case). AI isn't always useful. However, it is *unprecedented* in its ability to outright burn a vampire. There aren't any other cards that do this in any similar manner. All of the master cards that have been brought up (Vulnerability, Out of Control) require specific circumstances...Vulnerability all but requires that the vampire it burns sucks at combat...Out of Control, while *only* burning a !Brujah of less than 6 capacity, is seen by at least some players as far too powerful for a clan hoser. I can't think of another hoser card that is this powerful. Sure, Malkavian Dementia, in combination with, say, Anson/Rumors/Parthenon could grab someone else's Malkavian and Golconda it, but that's still pretty iffy...you're an idiot if you design a deck around it, and you're lucky if you can pull it off more than once in a game. AI is too powerful for its cost. > > Come *on* Norm, let's encourage diversity. Let the fools play with > their 8+ > > bleed monsters, and then show them why it's Just A Bad Idea (tm). > > Are you saying that everybody uses AI, and that it is a mainstay for all > decks? I would argue that it is not a mainstay for all decks. I would I was by no means saying that. What I meant was, yes, big bleed decks might win some games if AI isn't around. That doesn't mean that big bleed decks shouldn't win games. In fact, big bleed decks should win some games, just to reward the people that play them. Accept that, given the right circumstances, any (reasonably well-constructed) deck is going to win at least 1 VP at some point...so big bleed decks should. However, very, very, very often, big bleed decks are going to run into something that they can't deal with (combat, bounce, whatever)...but AI should not punish them for bringing it to the table in the first place. > No offense Xian, but I think that it would be a little risky to use your > +2 bleeder to try and draw the block and then push it to a +3 bleed with Actually, I'd probably be trying to draw it with Arika using a GtU or Scouting Mission. But I agree that it's foolish to toss down the stealth and expect the block. > bonding for the stealth and still be expecting to draw the block. > Maybe, it could happen, but I still don't think that your gambit of > trying to draw out a block with a Inner Circle Member with bonding is a > valid reason to change AI. No, it is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to change AI. I was just trying to offer an example of a situation where AI is toasting vampires all out of proportion to what it should be doing. > AI does punish most harshly those decks that can least recover from the > loss of a minion. So does rush, and so does banishment. Unlike rush and Ah, but rush can be defended against, as can banishment. > banishment, you can avoid AI by simply not bleeding for more than 3. I Again, AI is punishing you for bringing your deck to the table. I don't see why I should be forced to stop playing a particular deck style (big vampire tap-n-bleed, specifically) just because AI so completely screws it. Banishment and Rush can be defended against by the minions, but the only defense against AI is either a cross-table SR, or bleeding out-of-turn, and SRing it yourself. Rush & Banishment can be prepared for without altering your deck concept, and including a simple defense. AI cannot be prepared for without *fundamentally* altering your deck concept. > know it sucks to have one of your vampires burned when you are "going > for the gusto", but to avoid it all you have to exert is a little > self-control and not bleed for more than 3. Jyhad is a game of excess isn't it? :) Self-control sucks ass. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:u9eg3tc28posqkbec...@4ax.com... > There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - > leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those > without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being Which two? I can only see the Brujah as without access to intercept. The Nosferatu and Gangrel as equally capable of intercepting, with their Animalism. The Nosferatu even have one more minion with access to the 2nd Tradition than the Gangrel do. > But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. No, they came in prematurely, without enough playtesting or thought, if you ask me. Xian

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:24:01 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >In article <74rh3tk5hqrlmvkaa...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:20:51 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> >> wrote: > >> >1994-1995, isn't it? VTES came out in '95, Jyhad was printed in >> >'94. >> >> Oops. OK, 94-95. Damned early. Before my time. :) > >Yeah, see, I was playing then, but it's been so long that I >can't really remember precisely *what* we were playing. Cards, I bet. :) >> Well... no... the offenses DID exist. 2x Roland Bishop, Zebulon, Didi >> Meyers, and Ozmo are still the core of any Malk S&B deck, and well >> they should be; they all come with the basic two disciplines >> necessary. Add two Obfuscate skill cards and two Dominate skill >> cards, and you're in business. Add 2x Gilbert Duane with both at >> superior, and he can Govern out all four of the others if you get him. >> Then add one Normal and one Dollface just for a couple token weenies. >> (Or you can add 1x Gilbert and 1x Mariel, Lady Latex) > >That's 2x 5 vampires. Awful lot of duplicates. You'll probably >get 3 uniques at most in your opening draw, which will slow you >down some all by itself. As would Governing out your other >vampires with Gilbert. 2x 4 actually; I probably would go with 1x Gilbert and 1x Mariel, just to avoid being stuck with two 7-caps I couldn't use and to improve the odds of having at least 3 unique. Slow isn't a problem. You don't want to look like any more of a threat than you can manage with this deck, and Governing your own guys is always more acceptable to people than coming to bleed them. 3 vamps is about what you want out to be operating with; the average crypt is like 5, remember. Gilbert and Mariel cover themselves by being able to Govern your other guys out; but you'll still not want to spend more than 15 pool early on. And 3 vamps should be more than sufficient to oust your prey quickly. >> Second (and I went over this not too long ago in another thread), >> inferior OBF/DOM is almost as good as superior. Govern is still 3 at >> inferior, and Conditioning is still an extra +2, and against the >> Brujah and Nosferatu, you just needed to have 1 stealth, 2 at the >> MOST; so you pack 6x each of Lost in Crowds, Faceless Night, and >> Cloak. Bleeds of either 3 or 5, at stealth, consistently. Add a >> Hunting Ground so your guys have a little blood gain back onto them, >> and you'll do OK. Add some Bondings too, so you don't always need the >> OBF stealth. Scouting Mission and Foreshadowing Destruction merely >> made it a bit easier for the DOM bleed decks to go; but they were fine >> beforehand. > >Inferior Obfuscate means you are catchable by inferior Auspex, >though. And inferior Dominate means you play Threats for only >+1 bleed, or Bonding for no stealth. Sure, you get the full >effect of Govern, but it's the *only* thing you get the full >effect of at inferior. Only if inferior Auspex is packing plenty of it though. Note that Zebulon, Gilbert, and Mariel come with the superior naturally; with 2x skill cards you'll eventually get it on the other guys. Sure, you take a bit of a risk, but you weren't likely to see a whole lot of intercept, either; and definitely not intercept that could do more than punch you. Threats doesn't exist in this deck; it's a superior-only card and this deck doesn't want to be relying on superiors. The few Bondings mentioned are there for when you finally DO get some big Dominate. The rest are just Govern/Condition, LRR. > >> Offense can afford to wait for its skill cards; it doesn't have a >> timetable. Your prey will always be there until YOU do something >> about them. But if you're relying on AUS to bleed-bounce, or trying >> to get some Sport Bikes or Raven Spies out to intercept the stealth, >> then you don't necessarily have time to wait around... you could well >> be ousted by the time you get those. > >Well, you did get to redraw your Wakes as soon as the action >was over, so that sorta compensated for the Spies and Bikes. ;-) I suppose. I don't find Wake to be a problem even without the replace right now, but I also build intercept decks that make things go away, so I guess people start to think twice after the first block-and-toast. =) >> >there were not nearly as many titled vampires to oppose you (no >> >Inner Circle either); three, you could vote-push then. There were >> >> Was the weenie Praxis horde even being considered at that point? Vote >> pushing WAS around, but I believe people were still thinking in terms >> of "clans" and larger vampires. Weenie Misdirection PRE bleed was a >> reasonably viable option with the original set, I believe; so I think >> people were still relatively new to the game and the strategies. The >> Ventrue Law Firm was around, I'm sure, but that wouldn't have relied >> on vote-pushing. > >Clearly weenie vote push is why the no vote push part of Golden >Tenets was developed, just as Majestic/Freaky untap was why the >no repeat actions part came up. They were some of the first winning >("broken") strategies people ever played. I wish Adrian Sullivan >were here; I think he was instrumental in developing the Golden >Tenets in the first place, and probably has a better idea of what >competitive Jyhad play looked like in '94 than I do. Hmmm. OK. I couldn't tell you why it wasn't considered then, other than perhaps they were looking more at Delaying Tactics and the Gangrel intercept with Raven Spies and Earth Meld. It would be interesting to find out EXACTLY why some other stuff was ignored. >Yep, weenie presence misdirection bleed would have been possible, >although you have to go up through the 4-caps to get ten vampires >to use. You can use those same 10 for presence weenie vote, if >you like, and have Majesty as well as Bewitching. That might be why weenie PRE bleed didn't occur to people at first; no bleed modifiers and you have to use the 4-caps. And it wasn't until DS that weenie Toreador bleed (social charm/aire of elation, ow) became popular. >> >people using the Golden Tenets (no repeat actions, no vote push) >> >even then, but they were a long way from becoming DCI tournament >> >rules. Why, then, didn't the designers come up with anti-vote >> >cards to deal with weenie vote push, a *far* more dominant NCL >> >archetype than stealth bleed? (There were 18 vampires of capacity >> >> Because I don't think weenie clanless ANYTHING was being played yet. > >I think it probably was, although I suppose I can't say for sure. >I know one of the first decks I made to demonstrate how 4cl didn't >solve the problems that the Golden Tenets did was a weenie vote >push deck that must've been clanless, although it was after 1994 >I think. Possibly. Again, I wish we could find out for CERTAIN when exactly all the timelines hit; the Golden Tenets weren't an immediate thing, and if they hit the table after V:TES, then it's possible that people had just missed this stuff up 'til now. Weenie vote push is an obvious abuse, but it wasn't corrected until 7/7 right? >> Well, I think almost EVERYONE was fairly clueless, leading only the >> most obvious strategies to be used; Malk S&B, Ventrue Vote/bleed, >> Toreador bleed, intercept, and die, Brujah fight, Gangrel poke and >> loop, and Nosferatu/Tremere nothing. (no obvious effective >> strategies, so probably not much use of the clans) So the designers >> aimed at the strongest strategy out there, the Malks, and took some >> shots at it. > >That may well have been the case. The Nosferatu would have fought >about as well as the Brujah though; sure, people were probably not >much using Immortal Grapple, but that makes the Brujah as weak >as the Nosfers. The Nosferatu still fight about as well as the Brujah though... depending on who they're fighting and assuming you use the !Nossies. But the original Nosferatu didn't get big Potence at all until Chester duBois... not so good. And the original Brujah had Hector Sosa, Anvil, Black Cat, and Bianca to do their fighting. Much better. >> 1 vote per vamp was probably MUCH more significant in Jyhad, since >> there were only nine princes available to be arrayed against you. A >> Justicar was -huge- vote influence, so just having one on the table >> meant you automatically got to screw with things. > >But the 1 vote per vamp was only on 6-caps and up, so there >couldn't have been too many of them on the table at once. And >if you were using vote-push, the primogen would have been pretty >insignificant; it would have taken at least a couple princes or >justicars against you to stop your votes. They wouldn't even be >stoppable if you played weenie vote push and got three praxes on >your first three turns. Yeah, I keep forgetting about the vote push problem. 1 vote was significant WITHOUT it, but... =/ Bleh. >> Vote decks these days are actually probably not much more powerful >> than they were in Jyhad, due to the massive horde of titled vamps >> floating around and improved access to intercept for all clans. >> (Excluding vote push, obviously.) > >I agree; vote decks now have to be much trickier, because a lot >of decks have a fair number of titled vamps even if they are >not themselves playing votes. I don't think that was as much the >case, then. Priscus power is often a surprise hoser these days. >[james coupe's theory of innocence and experience] > >> Yes. I think this is the best answer, and I've said before that I >> wouldn't want to see such cards INITIALLY printed today. But for >> better or worse, they're here now; and I don't think they have enough >> of an impact on the game to justify banning, and even errata should >> only be minor (no burning Justicars or IC members with Justicar >> Retribution or AI, for example). > >I guess our main difference, then, is our willingness to get rid >of things that are bad. ;-) In my opinion, if there were to be >errata, how big it is is relatively less important - it's as much >an inconvenience for the erratum "can't burn IC or Justicar w/AI" >to exist as it is for the erratum "AI costs no pool but does not >burn the vampire" to exist. Or for AI to be banned in VEKN >tourneys. AI being banned is silly, IMO. That should be reserved for broken cards; and AI is undercosted, but not broken. Minor errata meaning "doesn't change the function of the card excessively". Either mine or yours doesn't change the BASIC function of the card, which is to prevent a bleeds for more than 3; yours, as I read it, is simply a "SMACK! I erase your bleed" card, and mine is limited even further in its targets (saving the poor IC guys, who should be ALLOWED to bleed for 8 and risk being Deflected all over creation). [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Well, I think almost EVERYONE was fairly clueless, leading only the >> most obvious strategies to be used; Malk S&B, Ventrue Vote/bleed, >> Toreador bleed, intercept, and die, Brujah fight, Gangrel poke and >> loop, and Nosferatu/Tremere nothing. (no obvious effective >> strategies, so probably not much use of the clans) So the designers >> aimed at the strongest strategy out there, the Malks, and took some >> shots at it. > >That may well have been the case. The Nosferatu would have fought >about as well as the Brujah though; sure, people were probably not >much using Immortal Grapple, but that makes the Brujah as weak >as the Nosfers. This amused me. I didn't get into the game right away, but I probably have played under Jyhad conditions more recently than most, as my first group banned anything not found in Jyhad. Nos sucked. They did not fight as well as Bruj, they did not fight at all as they couldn't take any damage. Assume that Nos and Bruj do the exact same sort of potence combat - pitch or punch. Bruj Acrobatics, Nos die. Animalism didn't have Carrion Crows, probably the best animalism card in the game. Guns were good. Still had some problems, but there were far fewer combat options, which left guns as a reasonable option. Tremere were played often, probably because they were distinct. Bruise and bleed and intercept combat being standard. Anyway, I'm sure our group had its own biases. But, as I said, I found these comments amusing.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:25:04 -0600, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:u9eg3tc28posqkbec...@4ax.com... >> There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - >> leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those >> without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being > >Which two? I can only see the Brujah as without access to intercept. The >Nosferatu and Gangrel as equally capable of intercepting, with their >Animalism. The Nosferatu even have one more minion with access to the 2nd >Tradition than the Gangrel do. The Nosferatu could only do it with Raven Spies though, because they didn't get ANI until a 7-cap. Even the Gangrel didn't get it until a 5-cap, but at least they could Freak Drive after getting a Raven Spy and have Cat's Guidance available to get to the +2 intercept you need as a BARE MINIMUM to hold up against stealth bleed. If they went more stealthy, you were screwed; +3 intercept just wasn't available early enough on in the game for the ANI guys. As Josh said, Minion Tap/5th hadn't really entered play yet, and so I suspect that 2nd Tradition wasn't really making itself known these days as it is now; available to EVERYONE. People picked up the Nosferatu, saw "stealth and combat", and went that route with them. They picked up the Gangrel, saw all that ANI and all those ANI retainers, and went "intercept/agg combat" or just plain agg combat. >> But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. > >No, they came in prematurely, without enough playtesting or thought, if you >ask me. But how badly was S&B dominating things at the time? They were undoubtedly scared of losing players due to an accidental "bad imbalance" they had created; so they went for the fast fix with the reprint. [ quoted text not captured ]

Note: following sentence said in haste, sorry in many situtions it works.... (i guess) > >Where are these people, because they are dumb tm. > > Uh, no, they're actually quite bright; the strategy works VERY WELL. > For the cost of 4 pool and some crypt slots (often in a weenie horde), > you get access to a bleed bouncer who takes no actions, but sits > untapped the entire game to do nothing but play Deflection. > > It is highly effective. > I was thinking the combat deck example used by Norman. In that sense i consider it a poor move to water down the deck with 8-10 cards only usable by these two vampires and Anvil, while also making it possiable to have a crypt of all vampires who can only bounce. In a horde deck, sure, it works, but chances are you aren't as concerned about the discipline mix there anyway, and there is a greater chance to having lots of vampires who have dominate in some sense. The Eurobrujah deck just posted is a good example. There it makes sense, but tossing in 2 ingrid and 2 of that giovanni into something like James's KILLKILLKILL deck will only make it weaker. (IMHO) > That's really dumb, though. noted that i started the use of this, i'm stoping now and appoligizing, context was off. >If you're going to be chucking around > Bonding, there are better vampires than Arika to be using it with. > Pat Ricochet has said it elsewhere in this thread and I'll reiterate: > If you are using Inner Circle vampires, you had better be using the > WHOLE vampire, or you have totally misdesigned your deck. If you > bring Arika out and the first thing she does, before you EVEN Minion > Tap her, is try to sneak through a little piss-ass Bonding bleed, then > you have really screwed your deck up. Arika needs to be doing huge > amounts of damage in some form. Don't send her to bleed for 4. Send > her to bleed for TEN under a Dawn Op or something. And for god's > sake, don't risk her doing ANYTHING until you get her Minion Tapped. > Certainly not something that you KNOW could potentially burn her. Yes i know, minion tap, call some votes, protect mine own, krc, ancient influence, govern out nash, who nicely fills me back up, minion tap again, repeat. Occasionaly though, the table says no to my votes, or i get blocked and majesty, so toss in a bonding or five to get a bleed in with my untaped self. It's another thread (the care and use of IC members) but i hate having them in torpor, because it is always worth someones while to munch them. <snip costs> i agree with James "negative costs after benefit thing" note, though that all my remedys are vampire based, not methusala based... which is my basic reason for hating the card. > >Now, the idea: > > > >Archon Investigation > >master oot > >Burn a vampire when it bleeds for an amount greater than or equal to its > >capacity. > > > >-note- you still take the bleed, deal. still inflicts fear in weenies. > > Totally worthless card. how would you compromise then? Cameron snow shoed student of Madison (copying == form of flatery right?) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91aoab$rie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, inr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > Players will include Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo in decks > > that have absolutely no overlapping qualities with these two vampires, > > just so that they have access to bleed bounce. > > Where are these people, because they are dumb tm. Well, now you just called Steve Weick dumb. In the May tournament in Atlanta he played a weenie obfuscate deck that included a two copies of Gloria and Ingrid Russo each. Out of approximately 32 players, he got either first or second place (I can't remember). All he did with Gloria or Ingrid was wake and redirect or diflect. I believe that Conor Key's wife, the princess of Raleigh. <snip> > Unlike AI, I can use delaying tactics/my own votes and skin of > steel/obediance/majesty to say Ha! to Combat and vote There you go, no strategy should be unstoppable. So AI helps stop your strategy. It sounds like it balances the game to keep you from creating a unstoppable deck. That is a good thing (tm). > > I > > know it sucks to have one of your vampires burned when you are "going > > for the gusto", but to avoid it all you have to exert is a little > > self-control and not bleed for more than 3. > > bleeding with bonding isn't "going for the gusto" as for self-control, > well, ummm... that is not using Etrius to bleed for 11. Where would you like to set the arbitrary limit? > > Now, the idea: > > Archon Investigation > master oot > Burn a vampire when it bleeds for an amount greater than or equal to its > capacity. > > -note- you still take the bleed, deal. still inflicts fear in weenies. This is awful. This means that Ozmo can bleed you for 5 without having to worry about AI. Ozmo is one of the reasons AI was printed in the First place. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

only wanted to say that my responces to these posts are in the one off Derek's post. That and I think it's time to step back and just be done with this, I said this two days ago, this time i mean it. We have vastly different ideas of what how to balance the game. I honestly don't know what can be done to bring together the varied view points brought up in this thread. Such is life. Oh, and Steve, I never meant you were dumb... I like this game way to much to piss you off, but I guess that's why I get so annoyed about these kinds of cards. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

I was playing when the game first came out... although my friends and I played quite badly to be honest. However, I think I can shed some light on some of your questions, at least as far as the games I saw back then... > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >news:u9eg3tc28posqkbec...@4ax.com... > >> There was no suitable Dominate on the Brujah, Nosferatu, or Gangrel - > >> leaving three clans TOTALLY without access to bounce and two of those > >> without any real access to intercept. Now factor in Obedience being Brujah were never seen as a viable clan in my group... there was a lot more stealth and intercept and NO rush to speak of. Intercept of some variety was not only nice but REQUIRED. At least the Nossies and Gangrel had access to some with Raven Spies... and those were sure to show up in any Animalism based deck. Brujah's ONLY real options were Sport Bikes (most common), Mr. Winthrop and KRCG... plus the 2nd Tradition. Also, Potence was never seen as a great discipline as it was limited to only one aspect of the game, ie. combat, and useless for all other aspects. Although combat did occur, it was not as brutal as it is now... at least not when compared to the vote and bleed decks. Celerity was more common than Potence, most likely because guns were also more common. > > > >Which two? I can only see the Brujah as without access to intercept. The > >Nosferatu and Gangrel as equally capable of intercepting, with their > >Animalism. The Nosferatu even have one more minion with access to the 2nd > >Tradition than the Gangrel do. > > The Nosferatu could only do it with Raven Spies though, because they > didn't get ANI until a 7-cap. Even the Gangrel didn't get it until a > 5-cap, but at least they could Freak Drive after getting a Raven Spy > and have Cat's Guidance available to get to the +2 intercept you need > as a BARE MINIMUM to hold up against stealth bleed. If they went more > stealthy, you were screwed; +3 intercept just wasn't available early > enough on in the game for the ANI guys. Gangrel were preferable to the Brujah for combat simply due to aggravated hand strikes which were seen as a LOT more effective than large hand strikes... though in retrospect I can't see why. I guess it was more fun to send them to torpor and make sure they don't get back out... Animilism was used more for intercepts and untaps than it was for combat... there were not nearly as many ANI combat cards as there are now... no Carrion Crows, no Song in the Dark. Murder of Crows and Wolf Companion were there but not used as often. Raven Spy would have been much more preferable. Also, because both Gangrel and Nosferatu were lacking in blocking ability with say Auspex they basically HAD to rely on Animilasm for their blocking. Staying untapped with something like Freak Drive did not matter much when your minions had no permanent intercept on them.... > As Josh said, Minion Tap/5th hadn't really entered play yet, and so I > suspect that 2nd Tradition wasn't really making itself known these > days as it is now; available to EVERYONE. People picked up the > Nosferatu, saw "stealth and combat", and went that route with them. > They picked up the Gangrel, saw all that ANI and all those ANI > retainers, and went "intercept/agg combat" or just plain agg combat. Actually, Minion Tap/5th Tradition was quite a healthy concept though the 5th was likely to be intercepted. > >> But AI and PR came into the set for some very good reasons, frankly. > > > >No, they came in prematurely, without enough playtesting or thought, if you > >ask me. > > But how badly was S&B dominating things at the time? They were > undoubtedly scared of losing players due to an accidental "bad > imbalance" they had created; so they went for the fast fix with the > reprint. For our group, Malkavian Sneak and Bleed decks were completely dominant to the point that they were boring as hell to play against. In fact, I would go as far as to say that a lot of my friends probably stopped playing just because they were sick of going up against Malk S&B decks. Even if you played with something other than Malk S&B, you were forced to take them into consideration... big time. At the time, I would definitely say that they were a 'broken' concept... and for a while I think Archon Investigation did an honest job of keeping them in their place... I remember keeping AI's in my hand just to make them less eager to bleed... though again in retrospect I think this was a bad idea. Effectively limiting yourself to a six-card hand is not a great idea... but then none of us were 'great' players. The game was VERY different than it is now... and not just the game, but the community itself. For one thing, right now there IS a community! I mean, only a few of us had any access to the Internet and no matter what rules WotC was making after the fact, most of us did not know about them. There may very well have been tournaments going on but I never knew of any... I don't know if this NG existed back then, but again most of us would not have known about it. Also, Jyhad was probably one of the first CCGs... I think only a few other CCGs came between M:tCH and Jyhad that I can think of... and I remember it being rather easy to convince Magic players to give Jyhad a try... unlike today when I believe most players are afraid to play outside of their ONE game... there must be three hundred CCGs or so... and nobody wants to invest in a game that nobody will play with them. Back then, this was not such a problem... A lot of the strategies that this newsgroup takes for granted were simply not around yet... or at least undiscovered. Immortal Grapple was always an option but I don't remember ever seeing it as one. Rush decks themselves were rarely thought of.... I remember making one and abandoning it after one play. Weenie decks were around but not as 'weenie-ish' due to less small capacity vampires to play with. Vote decks were powerful definitely... but also hard to play with due to the amount of intercept on the table. Also, if I recall correctly, most vote cards were rare... which limited them at least in our group. I find it quite amusing how many aspects of the game I have recently discovered just by reading posts on this newsgroup... Although I for one never grew bored with Jyhad, I find myself getting excited by the prospect of playing again... especially with new cards! I attribute this mostly to the innovative strategies I have seen here and the prospect of new players with White Wolf's re-issue of the game. I've even signed up to play in JOL 148. Hope this helps WES

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:58:03 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >Two, the problem with AI is much like the problem with original >Thoughts Betrayed: it is Just Plain Wrong as a VTES card. It is >the kind of thing that Methuselah Was Not Meant To Know. People >who think like me railed against TB for years before it got errataed >to its present state. Maybe someday we can accomplish something >similar for AI. ;-) I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had errata. I wasn't having any of that and, looking at the details, am amazed - why make the card a coaster? No wonder the 7/7 errata were controversial if there's stuff like that in there. And you want more of this second-guessing? The common thread here seems to be to help the rush decks. The weird Fame errata does the same. And your argument against AI is that only combat should be allowed to burn vampires. In the first game we saw where this is heading - everyone playing rush/intercept decks which saw most vampires in torpor very quickly. Frankly, I was disgusted - a definite tick in the "no fun" column. The second game was much better and playing Thoughts Betrayed as the designer intended was one reason why. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had > errata. I wasn't having any of that and, looking at the details, am > amazed - why make the card a coaster? You have been playing the old Thoughts Betrayed as combat defense? Fine, but... Just *think* what that card will do in a *combat deck*! No, you can't Majesty. No, you can't dodge. No, you can't prevent any damage. Sucks to be playing fortitude, doesn't it? No, you can't even maneuver! No, you can't strike me back with your nasty combat cards. If you have a weapon, I'll play Drawing Out the Beast, resulting in: YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING, except strike me for two. Oooh, I'm scared. (If I don't have animalism, I'll use Shattering Blow or Fast Hands. No, there is nothing you can do to avoid those strikes.) No, you can't make your strike aggravated. Gangrels can't fight, nyahh! You survived the first round? No, you can't press to end, your nightmare continues... And the final insult: No, *you* can't play Thoughts Betrayed. I rushed you, so I am the acting minion and I get to play it first. Is there anyone here who finds the above scenario fun? I didn't think so. Now it should be obvious to you why the card deserved to have the errata. HG -Bleed, bleed, I like bleed! (with apologies to South Park) -- hg | The brain does process all sensation, Crowley said. If the brain @iki | is fully awake and conscious of what it is doing, why on earth .fi | should it treat any sensation as a less than orgasmic experience? | - Robert Anton Wilson, "Masks of the Illuminati"

In article <51946FE7E5BD48B3.E3E2CDC6...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] So let's see now. Having a combat deck beat up by a better combat deck is no fun, but playing a card which utterly negates the opponent's deck is fun. Think I've got it now. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:16:39 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:58:03 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: > >>Two, the problem with AI is much like the problem with original >>Thoughts Betrayed: it is Just Plain Wrong as a VTES card. It is >>the kind of thing that Methuselah Was Not Meant To Know. People >>who think like me railed against TB for years before it got errataed >>to its present state. Maybe someday we can accomplish something >>similar for AI. ;-) > >I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had >errata. I wasn't having any of that and, looking at the details, am >amazed - why make the card a coaster? No wonder the 7/7 errata were The card is far from a coaster. It still hoses an awful lot of combat, as well as S:CE and Dodge. It is a staple in many Tremere combat decks. The card is, however, no longer the perfect combat defense for the Ventrue, which it was before. Add a few in, ignore anyone coming to beat your vampires up. Better than Fortitude, since if you can't play cards, you can't hurt the guy. >controversial if there's stuff like that in there. And you want more >of this second-guessing? The common thread here seems to be to help >the rush decks. The weird Fame errata does the same. And your The Fame errata prevents the Gangrel deck that bounces itself in and out of torpor unblockably while taking multiple actions, knocking you for 3 pool every time without you having any defense; often about 12 per turn. As usual, you miss the point entirely. >argument against AI is that only combat should be allowed to burn >vampires. > >In the first game we saw where this is heading - everyone playing >rush/intercept decks which saw most vampires in torpor very quickly. >Frankly, I was disgusted - a definite tick in the "no fun" column. If this game is so little fun for you, why do you play? >The second game was much better and playing Thoughts Betrayed as the >designer intended was one reason why. However, it's the ability to play Thoughts Betrayed as the designer did NOT intend that prompted its errata. Enough said. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had errata. I wasn't having any of that and, looking at the details, am amazed - why make the card a coaster?>> I am only replying here 'cause I am a sucker. Andrew, I used to think you were a reasonable guy who simply did not understand the game, but after your little "Bwahaha. I am a clever mad man, tinkering with your little safe world and playing you like puppets! Muwahahaha!" diatribe of idiocy, I am far less inclined to think that you are reasonable, and instead, I am inclined to ignore you, but again, here I am, simply 'cause I am a sucker. Thoughts Betrayed was errataed because it was a completely wrong card that there was no defense against whatsoever. It completely removed all access to the basic resources of the game, and was a complete trump/hoser against a full third of the game (combat). Yes, it was good against combat decks, defensively, but it was even worse *in* a combat deck--I rush you with a Tremere, play TB, and cycle cards until you are burned. You might as well go get a coke until I am done. There is nothing to be done, and no deck in the world could have combated it. It didn't matter what defenses you were packing, 'cause they were all useless against old TB. Simply too powerful, and simply wrong. Thus, it is errated. As it stands now, it is a perfectly reasonable card that succeeds in its main, intended goal (giving the Tremere some way to combat S:CE) without being overpowered. >>No wonder the 7/7 errata were controversial if there's stuff like that in there. And you want more of this second-guessing? The common thread here seems to be to help the rush decks.>> No--the common thread seems to be making thegame environment well balanced. >>The weird Fame errata does the same.>> No--the Fame errata makes the card make sense, and prevents it from being the key to one of the original "degenerate" decks, the Gangrel Fame Cycle deck (take an action with a Famous vampire, Day Op it, get yourself out of Torpor with various Movement of Slow Body and Rapid Healings, Freak Drive, take more Day Opped Actions, lather, rinse, repeat). >>And your argument against AI is that only combat should be allowed to burn vampires.>> Because it is rather difficult to do that, and consequently, balanced. >>In the first game we saw where this is heading - everyone playing rush/intercept decks which saw most vampires in torpor very quickly. Frankly, I was disgusted - a definite tick in the "no fun" column. The second game was much better and playing Thoughts Betrayed as the designer intended was one reason why.>> Andrew, you clearly don't like this game. Why don't you stop playing it? No one is making you play. No one will think you are a bad person if you stop. Not everyone likes everything. Clearly, VTES has a dynamic and a rules set that doesn't agree with you. I felt the very same way about the Dune CCG game a few years back--yeah, I played it a while, and complained like mad about it on usenet, but then, ya know what? I stopped playing rather quickly, 'cause it sucked. I did, however, figure this out after buying, maybe, 30 bucks worth of cards, rather than 5 or 6 boxes, but that is me. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

Derek Ray wrote: > Possibly. Again, I wish we could find out for CERTAIN when exactly > all the timelines hit; the Golden Tenets weren't an immediate thing, > and if they hit the table after V:TES, then it's possible that people > had just missed this stuff up 'til now. Weenie vote push is an > obvious abuse, but it wasn't corrected until 7/7 right? The GT were bandied about in 1995, not sure if they came before V:TES was released or not. An attempt to correct the weenie vote push problem came in the DCI VTES rules of October 1995: the restricted list. At first it restricted the "abusive" votes to 2 copies each; the limit was later raised to 6 in January 1996 (and briefly returned to 2 for a WotC-run tourney in summer 1996). The same restricted list also included various untap cards in an attempt to curb repeat actions. -- 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/

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had > errata. It used to have errata. Now that it's been reprinted, the card plays as printed (all cards follow the latest printing). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I played Thoughts Betrayed in a game tonight and Tom said that it had > errata. I wasn't having any of that and, looking at the details, am > amazed - why make the card a coaster? No wonder the 7/7 errata were > controversial if there's stuff like that in there. It's real simple: your assumption is erroneous. The card, as errataed, is not a coaster. Far from it, it's one of the most useful combat cards in the game. Only thing is, you don't see it much because its most useful function (now) is to prevent S:CE. And you don't see a lot of combat decks using dominate. Even if you don't agree that it's a good combat card, then this might still be appropriate. One of the tenants of the game is that disciplines don't get good cards in areas that they're not strong in because it would upset play-balance. Thus, Celerity - a mostly combat discipline - doesn't get very good stealth cards. If you need Celerity stealth, you get the likes of Alacrity, which compared to Obfuscate stealth frankly sucks. Likewise, if you need Dominate combat, you get Thoughts Betrayed. And you're *lucky* to have it so good. A lot of people think Dominate gets *WAY* too many of the cool cards in the game. Fred

In article <51946FE7E5BD48B3.E3E2CDC6...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I am at a loss for words, this defies the imagination. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

>> No wonder the 7/7 errata were controversial if there's stuff like >> that in there. And you want more of this second-guessing? The >> common thread here seems to be to help the rush decks. > > No--the common thread seems to be making thegame environment well > balanced. I'd also like to point out that, once again, Andrew has completely missed the bus. Thoughts Betrayed was not one of the cards text changes in the 7/7 errata that the NJL, or anyone else that I can recall, had problems with. In fact, the reason we even took issue with most of the text changes was because, outside of internet resources, there was no place for players to get information about the changes. Which is why we'd really like to see that any errata, not handled with reprints, be listed in the back of the rules booklet that comes with an expansion. >> The weird Fame errata does the same. > > No--the Fame errata makes the card make sense, and prevents it from > being the key to one of the original "degenerate" decks, the Gangrel > Fame Cycle deck (take an action with a Famous vampire, Day Op it, > get yourself out of Torpor with various Movement of Slow Body and > Rapid Healings, Freak Drive, take more Day Opped Actions, lather, > rinse, repeat). *nods* I can get off a bleed for 5 with a generic Gangrel with ANI/FOR/PRO (6 with a !Gangrel) using Force of will and no out-of-clan discipline (i.e., Dominate) cards. Add Fame to that and my prey gets nailed for 8 if they don't block or deflect it, 3 if they do. It was certainly a card that needed change. The fact that they issued it with a reprint makes it an easy change to support. >> And your argument against AI is that only combat should be allowed >> to burn vampires. > > Because it is rather difficult to do that, and consequently, balanced. I have mixed feelings about AI. At the very least, it does give S&B decks something to think about before bleeding for more than 3. > Andrew, you clearly don't like this game. Why don't you stop playing > it? No one is making you play. Amen. Andrew, if you'd like, give me your address and I can send you a copy of a card game that would satisfy all of your apparent requirements for enjoyment. (i.e., no errata or banned cards) It's called, "Old Maid." > No one will think you are a bad person if you stop. More accurately, everyone will think you a better person if you stop. > Not everyone likes everything. Clearly, VTES has a dynamic and a > rules set that doesn't agree with you. According to Alcoholics Anonymous, insanity is defined as repeating the same behavior over and over again, expecting to get different results. Clearly, you are repeatedly engaging in behavior (playing VTES) that does not satisfy you, complaining all the while that you are unhappy with the game. So this begs the question, "Are you insane?" Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

<inr...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message news: 91aoab$rie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > Now, the idea: > > Archon Investigation > master oot > Burn a vampire when it bleeds for an amount greater than or equal to its > capacity. > > -note- you still take the bleed, deal. still inflicts fear in weenies. That's pure bullshit ! So inner circles have the right to bleed you to death, but a small vampire would never be able to bleed once ! Everyone would play this card to get rid of small vamps. You forgot two things : Archon Investigation has a COST : 3 pool. It can be played only ONCE a turn : if tou really fear this card, Bleed for 4 with an expandable vampire (a small toreador or ventrue can easily do this) who will be a "decoy", then bleed with your inner circle if the AI falled on the small vampire. I can't understand your point of view: you want to bleed heavily your prey but don't want her to be able to retaliate. Some clans possess no mean to deal with Bleed/Stealth : AI is the best solution for them until other cards are created (maybe in next expansion). reyda

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Send her [Arika] to bleed for TEN under a Dawn Op or something. [snip] > IC members bleeding with Bonding are pussies. If you get an IC member > out, NUKE someone with them. > -- Derek > Jack-Booted Thug of Atlanta Now, this Derek guy is a true Jyhad Player !! If Atlanta is a haven for player like him, i'll take the next flight to the US if someone there can find me accomodation ! reyda

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:29:23 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>> No wonder the 7/7 errata were controversial if there's stuff like >>> that in there. And you want more of this second-guessing? The >>> common thread here seems to be to help the rush decks. >> >> No--the common thread seems to be making thegame environment well >> balanced. > >I'd also like to point out that, once again, Andrew has completely >missed the bus. Thoughts Betrayed was not one of the cards text changes I don't know. I think he's got a front seat on the short bus, myself. >in the 7/7 errata that the NJL, or anyone else that I can recall, had >problems with. ...Surprisingly. ;) >In fact, the reason we even took issue with most of the text changes was >because, outside of internet resources, there was no place for players >to get information about the changes. Which is why we'd really like to >see that any errata, not handled with reprints, be listed in the back of >the rules booklet that comes with an expansion. Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the VAST majority of errata was handled with reprints in Sabbat War... the remainder of stuff is now clarifications and rulings, which are not something easily confined to a card. I'm not entirely certain, but I know a LOT of things (Trap) got changed for the better and never commented on, because it wasn't a major issue. >*nods* I can get off a bleed for 5 with a generic Gangrel with >ANI/FOR/PRO (6 with a !Gangrel) using Force of will and no out-of-clan >discipline (i.e., Dominate) cards. Add Fame to that and my prey gets >nailed for 8 if they don't block or deflect it, 3 if they do. And while you're getting Tasha and the Laptop, you can make sure to use Daring the Dawn so as to bounce into torpor, making the total for turn 3... 14 pool lost. Very bad. >> Not everyone likes everything. Clearly, VTES has a dynamic and a >> rules set that doesn't agree with you. > >According to Alcoholics Anonymous, insanity is defined as repeating the >same behavior over and over again, expecting to get different results. > >Clearly, you are repeatedly engaging in behavior (playing VTES) that >does not satisfy you, complaining all the while that you are unhappy >with the game. > >So this begs the question, "Are you insane?" I am. :) Does that count? ;) -- Derek Evil Childe of Atlanta? naughty legbiter.

<snip A.S.D.> > I am at a loss for words, this defies the imagination. > I agree. Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

On 15 Dec 2000 12:00:21 +0200, Janne Hägglund wrote: > You have been playing the old Thoughts Betrayed as combat defense? >Fine, but... > > Just *think* what that card will do in a *combat deck*! > > No, you can't Majesty. > No, you can't dodge. > ... This is still true of the revised version. I take your general point but it's just icing on the cake for a combat deck. The card needs superior dominate which is not otherwise a combat discipline and combat decks don't need it to be quite deadly anyway. I put the card in my deck as combat defense because I didn't have enough copies of Obedience. It seems just passable in this role - the need for superior dominate is quite limiting, it's expensive to use and it doesn't stop the opposition from striking you for one. It's nothing like as cheap and easy as Majesty, for example. I was facing a combat deck using large numbers of claws and the revised version would be worse than useless in this case. No thanks - I prefer the card as it is. And if it turns out to need modifying, there are better ways to do it. Andrew

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:25:43 -0500, LSJ wrote: >It used to have errata. Now that it's been reprinted, the card plays >as printed (all cards follow the latest printing). Sez you - the rules are silent on this issue. AFAIC, the default rule is that cards do what they say. You seem to have an aversion to the term errata - why do you think it matters what you call such revised cards? Whatever it's called, from a practical point of view, MRP is fairly useless - I've seen a lot of it in Doomtown and it irritates and confuses as much as anything. Once you get into this state, what's most important is to have a definitive list of card texts. Ideally, this will be physically printed but a good website is better than nothing and the WW website is better than most. Note that it still calls the revised text for this card "errata". And, in practise, players have to memorise the errata, whatever form it comes in. It's only from memory that they know whether a card means what it says or not. This is an awful state of affairs for most casual players and that's why card errata is best avoided. I'd like to know more about the original text for Thought Betrayed - the Dark Soverigns version that I have. What does "use a card" mean exactly? Would this cover weapons and retainers which have already been played onto the minion? And what about third-party cards like Mob Connections and Hidden Lurker? Andrew

On 15 Dec 2000 13:57:37 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: >I rush you with a Tremere Others have mentioned Tremere but I don't see a strong connection. When I checked out the eligible vampires, I saw Thoughts Betrayed as more of a Lasombra thing. >No--the Fame errata makes the card make sense, and prevents it from being the >key to one of the original "degenerate" decks, the Gangrel Fame Cycle deck >(take an action with a Famous vampire, Day Op it, get yourself out of Torpor >with various Movement of Slow Body and Rapid Healings, Freak Drive, take more >Day Opped Actions, lather, rinse, repeat). I see the problem but the errata is a poor fix - you'll notice that folk are still discussing how to bounce the famous vampire in and out of torpor. A better fix would be to say that when a famous vampire goes into torpor, it's the controller of the acting minion that takes the 3 pool loss. All concerned would then take great care to keep the famous vampire in good health. But what bugs me about the current errata to Fame is that it's an absurd gift to rush decks - the opposite of the original intent. That's the trouble with all the major errata that I've seen - they are hamfisted and distort the original intent too much. Andrew

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:48:16 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >However, it's the ability to play Thoughts Betrayed as the designer >did NOT intend that prompted its errata. The card as written seems fairly clear - the target sobs into its pillow instead of taking any effective action in combat. Is there some trick that I'm missing? But I grant you that it's cheesy that you can beat up the victim while it's in this state. Checking the RPG description of Dominate, there should have been two restrictions: * May not be used on older vampires * You may not play other combat cards yourself This would make it like an expensive Strike: Combat Ends but it would beat Immortal Grapple and that seems useful. Andrew

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:07:25 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On 15 Dec 2000 13:57:37 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > >>I rush you with a Tremere > >Others have mentioned Tremere but I don't see a strong connection. >When I checked out the eligible vampires, I saw Thoughts Betrayed as >more of a Lasombra thing. There are seven Lasombra who can play Thoughts Betrayed at superior. One is a 6-cap. Two are 8-caps. Four are 9 or 10-caps. There are nine Tremere who can, and seven Tremere Antitribu. Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. >I see the problem but the errata is a poor fix - you'll notice that >folk are still discussing how to bounce the famous vampire in and out >of torpor. A better fix would be to say that when a famous vampire >goes into torpor, it's the controller of the acting minion that takes >the 3 pool loss. All concerned would then take great care to keep the >famous vampire in good health. Andrew, I realize that Rush decks are kicking you around like a little lost puppy right now because you haven't learned to defend against them yet. But combat is the WEAK THIRD of the 3 main strategies, and rewriting Fame as you suggest would merely make combat weaker; every deck that wanted to avoid combat would drop Fame on its key vampire. Stupid on the face of it. Not to mention what I can do to break this errata; I use the Tremere, I make someone with AUS/tha (Richard Tauber!) famous. I intercept my prey's actions, and play Burst of Sunlight at inferior. Now my prey, who was the ACTING MINION, loses 3 pool, no matter if his minion prevents the damage or not. If he plays S:CE, great! My guy doesn't go to torpor either and is ready to intercept the next action. >But what bugs me about the current errata to Fame is that it's an >absurd gift to rush decks - the opposite of the original intent. And combat decks damn well needed it, too. A simple Minion Tap/5th deck, or a Consanguineous Boon deck, or ANY effective form of bloat when combined with basic combat defense, will never be ousted by a Rush deck. Sure, you eventually run them out of Fortitude, but those MT/5th that they got off before you did that made it impossible to bleed through before your predator killed you. >That's the trouble with all the major errata that I've seen - they are >hamfisted and distort the original intent too much. That's because the original intent, on some cards, sucked ass and was too easily broken. Original intent of the DESIGN is what we wish to preserve; not original intent of any given card. I doubt the designers wished the Gangrel to be able to send themselves to torpor at will, bleeding their prey happily, unblockably, and unbounceably. -- Derek Goon-of-the-Month club member

In article <267E31446E5C5CF6.9C2AEDED...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On 15 Dec 2000 13:57:37 GMT, Peter D Bakija wrote: > > >I rush you with a Tremere > > Others have mentioned Tremere but I don't see a strong connection. > When I checked out the eligible vampires, I saw Thoughts Betrayed as > more of a Lasombra thing. > > >No--the Fame errata makes the card make sense, and prevents it from being the > >key to one of the original "degenerate" decks, the Gangrel Fame Cycle deck > >(take an action with a Famous vampire, Day Op it, get yourself out of Torpor > >with various Movement of Slow Body and Rapid Healings, Freak Drive, take more > >Day Opped Actions, lather, rinse, repeat). > > I see the problem but the errata is a poor fix - you'll notice that > folk are still discussing how to bounce the famous vampire in and out > of torpor. A better fix would be to say that when a famous vampire > goes into torpor, it's the controller of the acting minion that takes > the 3 pool loss. All concerned would then take great care to keep the > famous vampire in good health. > > But what bugs me about the current errata to Fame is that it's an > absurd gift to rush decks - the opposite of the original intent. Oh right, yet another reason rush dominates all play and sweeps to victory in the tournament scene. > That's the trouble with all the major errata that I've seen - they are > hamfisted and distort the original intent too much. > Outright banning is clearly a much cleaner solution. Minimal memory problem and no issues with distorted intent. You may have noticed, though, that banning seems to really piss people off. MRP requires that card text remain pretty close to the original to avoid excessive confusion. Revised Fame and TB both do that well. Maintaining the original intent, however one could determine that, seems a pretty low priority. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:29:09 <can't sleep?>, Derek Ray wrote: >Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over >the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' >vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. I was looking to see which vampires best combined superior dominate with potence and the answer seemed to be the Lasombra. The Tremere presumably have to use thaumaturgy instead and my memory is that they have to press for that to be useful. >Andrew, I realize that Rush decks are kicking you around like a little >lost puppy right now because you haven't learned to defend against >them yet. I'm doing ok - it's Tom that isn't scoring. And I'm not convinced that our playgroup isn't pushing the envelope. The Prince of Watford got a shock when he came to the club and he hasn't yet played Dave Martin - our king of killer combat. >Not to mention what I can do to break this errata; I use the Tremere, >I make someone with AUS/tha (Richard Tauber!) famous. I intercept my >prey's actions, and play Burst of Sunlight at inferior. Now my prey, >who was the ACTING MINION, loses 3 pool, no matter if his minion >prevents the damage or not. At the price of your vampire going to torpor. But I'd amplify my fix to say that the controller of the famous vampire takes the hit if he intercepts with it. The general idea is that the player who puts the famous vampire in harm's way should pay the price. >And combat decks damn well needed it, too. A simple Minion Tap/5th >deck, or a Consanguineous Boon deck, or ANY effective form of bloat >when combined with basic combat defense, will never be ousted by a >Rush deck. Not my problem. But bear in mind that the game is getting new cards again. The days of warping existing cards to make it work should now be over. >That's because the original intent, on some cards, sucked ass and was >too easily broken. Original intent of the DESIGN is what we wish to >preserve; not original intent of any given card. Fame is supposed to buy you some immunity. As the RPG puts it, "your enemies can't just make you disappear without causing an undue stir". The card has been perverted into a tool of those who would do just that, adding insult to injury. Judging from this newsgroup, the game seems to be controlled by players who love rush combat and hate the RPG. Sociopathic crazies! Andrew

In article <6078D783D1EEB394.85668ECA...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:25:43 -0500, LSJ wrote: > >>It used to have errata. Now that it's been reprinted, the card plays >>as printed (all cards follow the latest printing). > >Sez you - the rules are silent on this issue. AFAIC, the default rule >is that cards do what they say. LSJ *is* the rules, you stupid man. What LSJ gives as rulings are official and are part of rules canon, except where noted. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "It's hard to carry on when you feel all alone. Now I've swung back down again, it's worse than it was before. If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor." - James, "Sit Down"

In article <859E80B57B265FEF.843977A4...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >> Just *think* what that card will do in a *combat deck*! >> >> No, you can't Majesty. >> No, you can't dodge. >> ... > >This is still true of the revised version. I take your general point >but it's just icing on the cake for a combat deck. It's not really the icing on the cake. Since S:CE and S:Dodge are so comparatively powerful, being able to get around them (in whatever way) is practically required for a combat deck. A good Tremere bruise and bleed deck stands a very good chance of using Thoughts Betrayed to excellent effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article a...@csi.com wrote: > Sez you. > > You seem to have an aversion to the term errata - why do you think it > matters what you call such revised cards? Whatever it's called, from I do not have an aversion to errata, nor the term. I do have an aversion to calling something by a label that is incorrect. > a practical point of view, MRP is fairly useless - I've seen a lot of > it in Doomtown and it irritates and confuses as much as anything. If you say so. > Once you get into this state, what's most important is to have a > definitive list of card texts. Ideally, this will be physically > printed but a good website is better than nothing and the WW website > is better than most. Note that it still calls the revised text for > this card "errata". The card list does not have the "errata" designation. The errata list still lists the pre-SW errtata, because the errata list hasn't been updated for the Sabbat War cards. > And, in practise, players have to memorise the errata, whatever form > it comes in. It's only from memory that they know whether a card > means what it says or not. This is an awful state of affairs for most > casual players and that's why card errata is best avoided. > > I'd like to know more about the original text for Thought Betrayed - > the Dark Soverigns version that I have. What does "use a card" mean > exactly? Would this cover weapons and retainers which have already > been played onto the minion? And what about third-party cards like > Mob Connections and Hidden Lurker? Another reason to change the card - trade one confusion for (by your argument) another, while improving the game. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F82DF5AD53066124.357A14FB...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:29:09 <can't sleep?>, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over > >the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' > >vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. > > I was looking to see which vampires best combined superior dominate > with potence and the answer seemed to be the Lasombra. The Tremere > presumably have to use thaumaturgy instead and my memory is that they > have to press for that to be useful. > > >Andrew, I realize that Rush decks are kicking you around like a little > >lost puppy right now because you haven't learned to defend against > >them yet. > > I'm doing ok - I trust you'll be putting that to a proper test on Sunday. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:59:13 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:29:09 <can't sleep?>, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over >>the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' >>vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. > >I was looking to see which vampires best combined superior dominate >with potence and the answer seemed to be the Lasombra. The Tremere >presumably have to use thaumaturgy instead and my memory is that they >have to press for that to be useful. Under the influence of Thoughts Betrayed, one merely has to play Trap, Theft, Walk, and presto: you have a vampire in torpor. You can add more Thefts before the Walk if you want to empty them and burn them. It's not that difficult. >>Andrew, I realize that Rush decks are kicking you around like a little >>lost puppy right now because you haven't learned to defend against >>them yet. > >I'm doing ok - it's Tom that isn't scoring. And I'm not convinced >that our playgroup isn't pushing the envelope. The Prince of Watford >got a shock when he came to the club and he hasn't yet played Dave >Martin - our king of killer combat. You should play in more tournaments, where a Rush deck can sit there and kill a bunch of vampires and get 0 VP as a result because everyone else is playing an EFFECTIVE deck. You may not be convinced, but I and most others have been for some time now; the statements you make are only logical under a limited-play, limited-experience situation. We've all seen killer combat decks. But they tend not to win. That's why we aren't afraid of them, and why we don't think they're broken; the idea is to get VPs, something combat decks are not good at. >>Not to mention what I can do to break this errata; I use the Tremere, >>I make someone with AUS/tha (Richard Tauber!) famous. I intercept my >>prey's actions, and play Burst of Sunlight at inferior. Now my prey, >>who was the ACTING MINION, loses 3 pool, no matter if his minion >>prevents the damage or not. > >At the price of your vampire going to torpor. But I'd amplify my fix >to say that the controller of the famous vampire takes the hit if he >intercepts with it. The general idea is that the player who puts the >famous vampire in harm's way should pay the price. And how do you word that to fit on a card? That sentence is too ambiguous; rules lawyers will find ways to mangle it to determine who was in harm's way and who wasn't. And how do you handle things like Pulled Fangs, which sends one to torpor when they hunt? And you STILL haven't addressed the main issue: Why do you want to create an uber-useful combat hoser? The game already has Secure Haven; Fame doesn't even have a "remove" clause! Seriously, as I mentioned earlier in a different thread, you strike me as one of those players who gets all pissy when their personal favourite ways to break the game and win get fixed. You don't like combat, so it pisses you off that there are things to help combat out. You DO like things like original Thoughts Betrayed, arguably one of the most broken cards and LEAST true to the original game design; and why? Because it's a total hoser card that you can use to hose ANY other strategy, without any thought on your part. Sorry, but this game is not called "Andrew Wins". If you want to win you'll need to learn to play well, not piss and moan about errata. >>And combat decks damn well needed it, too. A simple Minion Tap/5th >>deck, or a Consanguineous Boon deck, or ANY effective form of bloat >>when combined with basic combat defense, will never be ousted by a >>Rush deck. > >Not my problem. But bear in mind that the game is getting new cards >again. The days of warping existing cards to make it work should now >be over. Translation: "Oh, well, I can't answer THAT, so I'm just going to ignore it." Not that it's all-too possible that, say, your original impressions might be WRONG. Again, Fame was not errata'd to help combat; Fame was errata'd because of the infinite torpor loop decks. The errata was chosen because it was the best way to ensure that there was no way for someone to make their own vampire Famous and gain a benefit. >>That's because the original intent, on some cards, sucked ass and was >>too easily broken. Original intent of the DESIGN is what we wish to >>preserve; not original intent of any given card. > >Fame is supposed to buy you some immunity. As the RPG puts it, "your >enemies can't just make you disappear without causing an undue stir". All of that is based on the premise of maintaining the Masquerade, something the Independents and Sabbat could care less about. Plenty of undue stir IS made; as it stands, if your Famous vampire disappears, you have to spend your resources (pool) covering up his/her disappearance, and everyone else has to assist you for as long as the Famous vampire is in torpor. However, it is no longer abusable. Simple. >The card has been perverted into a tool of those who would do just >that, adding insult to injury. Judging from this newsgroup, the game >seems to be controlled by players who love rush combat and hate the >RPG. Sociopathic crazies! You're just being an idiot here, so I'll ignore it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>Others have mentioned Tremere but I don't see a strong connection. When I checked out the eligible vampires, I saw Thoughts Betrayed as more of a Lasombra thing.>> Sure, the Lasombra can use it, but they already have access to Immortal Grapple which accomplishes the same thing, so it isn't really necessary for the Lasombra. The Tremere, for the longest time, completely sucked, as their main discipline (Tha) was a combat discipline and had zero way to deal with S:CE or Dodge, making it mostly pointless to attempt to use Tha for anything other than Cryptic Missions. Now, with TB (and the new Aus card that acts like a Psyche), the Tremere can fight. >>I see the problem but the errata is a poor fix - you'll notice that folk are still discussing how to bounce the famous vampire in and out of torpor.>> And you'll notice that the jist of the discussion is that it is *way* too difficult to truly capitalize upon it, such that it makes a Rush deck in any way as effective as, say, a bleed deck in terms of ousting its prey. Before you got here, after the Fame errata (now reprint), there was a great deal of discussion regarding whether Fame was a useful addition toa Rush deck, and the general consensus among the Rush literate was that is was useful in limited numbers (I use 1), but certainly not really worth building a deck around. >>A better fix would be to say that when a famous vampire goes into torpor, it's the controller of the acting minion that takes the 3 pool loss. All concerned would then take great care to keep the famous vampire in good health.>> Which makes it death to combat decks, and easily abused by intercept decks (keeping in mind that the Tremere can send themselves to torpor with Burst and can cycle in and out of torpor via the Chantry)--how is this any better? As it stands, Rush decks are hard pressed to fully capitalize upon Fame, due to the inherent limitations on Rush decks--I use one, and regularly use it to casue my prey to lose 4 pool, but that is all. It usually doesn't net me much more than that, and if often doesn't even come into play, as I don't draw it, due to there only being space for 1 in the deck. Yeah, it speeds up the ousting a bit, not much more than, say, a couple of Lap Tops would. >>But what bugs me about the current errata to Fame is that it's an absurd gift to rush decks - the opposite of the original intent.>> The original intent is a non issue--it was a broken card. It is now moderately useful, but not overly so. A Rush deck can use it for a speed boost, but a fairly minor one, and they are incredibly hard pressed to make any serious use of them. Just so you have a bit of perspective on Rush decks, Josh Duffin, James Hamblin, and I (as well as various others) played, like, 8 games of VTES yesterday. Rush decks were played in half of them. Mine got a single victory point. James's was ousted. Josh got 2 VPs once, and ousted in another game with a different Rush deck. That hardly sounds overpowered to me. He also wrote: >>Judging from this newsgroup, the game seems to be controlled by players who love rush combat and hate the RPG. Sociopathic crazies!>> You seem to have a fairly odd view of the game environment. Again--Rush combat is a viable strategy, but a very difficult one, and easily the least effective (on a strategic level) than either of the other two main strategies (bleed and vote). If you go and check out the Lasombra's Tourney Winner page, you'll find very few winning Rush decks. Josh probably put up statistics as some point, but I don't remember what they were. As to the RPG--well, it is source material, but in any situation where there is a choice to be made between play balance and remaining true to the RPG, blay balance should and will win out every time. As well as: >>This would make it like an expensive Strike: Combat Ends but it would beat Immortal Grapple and that seems useful.>> There are already countless ways to beat IG (Obediance, manuvers, fortitude, Flesh of Marble, aggrivated hand strikes in return). TB, as it was was just overkill. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F82DF5AD53066124.357A14FB...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:29:09 <can't sleep?>, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over > >the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' > >vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. > > I was looking to see which vampires best combined superior dominate > with potence and the answer seemed to be the Lasombra. The Tremere > presumably have to use thaumaturgy instead and my memory is that they > have to press for that to be useful. TB is primaly good for hosing S:CE, Lasombra already has anti-S:CE in form of IG (which doesn't even cost any blood) so I don't see why TB is more natueal for them than the Tremere. Sure now the Tremere got TT but this wasn't so until very recently. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snipped examples> > Is there anyone here who finds the above scenario fun? I didn't think so. > > Now it should be obvious to you why the card deserved to have the errata. Hey, at least then people might actually use the Police Department...it would become as popular as the old Elysium (which would make a comeback, along with the new Purchase Pact). And then there'll be a new use for Rotscheck(sp). People will be trying to use it AGAINST their own vampires (so they go to torpor rather than burn). Halcyan 2

>> Sez you. >> >> You seem to have an aversion to the term errata - why do you think it >> matters what you call such revised cards? Whatever it's called, from > >I do not have an aversion to errata, nor the term. >I do have an aversion to calling something by a label that is incorrect. I have to admit that it CAN be a bit confusing. Oftentimes, I personally just use "errata" as a generic, overall term (which includes revisions, etc.). The most annoying thing was back when Jyhad/VTES was on the WotC webpage. You check up on the rules and see that all the things you need to know are DIVIDED up! There's errata (using the appropriate definition), rulings/clarifications, and something else (misprints maybe?). And in addition to all that, there's also the revision thing (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I recall that Magic didn't use the whole revision thing). So it always used to be confusing and sometimes it got tedious when I referred to something as errata when it turned out to be a clarification, etc. Yeah, technically there's a difference, but I'm just trying to get the point across! =) Halcyan 2

In article <7a5n3to5esulssj8t...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I am not! Andrew, get over it! VTES is NOT V:tM!! If you like that so much, make your own RPG Card game, but leave this NG dedicated to VTES out of it. Or better go play V:tM and put the cards that you don't like someplace the sun don't shine and have constipation!! Amen -- A.A.H. Tim Eijpe V:EKN Prince of Utrecht The Netherlands E-mail: time...@hotmail.com PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise Ancient-The Cainian Chronicles [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <d87i3toufet2kg4t0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:24:01 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > > >Yeah, see, I was playing then, but it's been so long that I > >can't really remember precisely *what* we were playing. > > Cards, I bet. :) Yes, I think there were cards involved... ;-) > Only if inferior Auspex is packing plenty of it though. Note that > Zebulon, Gilbert, and Mariel come with the superior naturally; with 2x > skill cards you'll eventually get it on the other guys. Sure, you > take a bit of a risk, but you weren't likely to see a whole lot of > intercept, either; and definitely not intercept that could do more > than punch you. Well, back then they could Zip Gun/Dragon's Breath you, if your group wasn't using a house rule to avoid that. > Hmmm. OK. I couldn't tell you why it wasn't considered then, other > than perhaps they were looking more at Delaying Tactics and the > Gangrel intercept with Raven Spies and Earth Meld. It would be > interesting to find out EXACTLY why some other stuff was ignored. It would indeed. Sadly it doesn't seem like there are any definitive histories available, and not that many of the players who were serious about the game back then still post here (if they ever did). > Possibly. Again, I wish we could find out for CERTAIN when exactly > all the timelines hit; the Golden Tenets weren't an immediate thing, > and if they hit the table after V:TES, then it's possible that people > had just missed this stuff up 'til now. Weenie vote push is an > obvious abuse, but it wasn't corrected until 7/7 right? Yes, no-vote-push didn't become an official rule of the game until the 7/7/98 rulings. It had been used in NL/GT or SPTR (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules) games for a long time before that, although I still don't know exactly when - LSJ says in '95 sometime, I think, but wasn't sure whether before or after VTES... > AI being banned is silly, IMO. That should be reserved for broken > cards; and AI is undercosted, but not broken. Undercosted and *WRONG*! ;-) > Minor errata meaning "doesn't change the function of the card > excessively". Either mine or yours doesn't change the BASIC function > of the card, which is to prevent a bleeds for more than 3; yours, as I > read it, is simply a "SMACK! I erase your bleed" card, and mine is > limited even further in its targets (saving the poor IC guys, who > should be ALLOWED to bleed for 8 and risk being Deflected all over > creation). I kinda like my fix, in that it is like a Sudden Reversal for bleeds (which is still inappropriate on the "methuselahs shouldn't intervene in little vampiric affairs that much" level, to my mind, but at least it doesn't burn anybody). But yeah, whatever. Josh getting mellow in my old age [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <F82DF5AD53066124.357A14FB...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:29:09 <can't sleep?>, Derek Ray wrote: > > >Eight of those (mixed) are 8-caps or under - quite an improvement over > >the measly 3 available to the Lasombra. And including the 'big' > >vampires makes it 16 to 7; lots in favor of the warlocks. > > I was looking to see which vampires best combined superior dominate > with potence and the answer seemed to be the Lasombra. The Tremere > presumably have to use thaumaturgy instead and my memory is that they > have to press for that to be useful. For one thing, the Lasombra didn't even exist when Thoughts Betrayed was printed. For another, Potence isn't the only combat discipline in the game. Yes, the Tremere have trouble competing in combat nowadays, but when they could use Thoughts Betrayed to keep their opponents from playing *anything* in combat, pressing was not a problem. > >Andrew, I realize that Rush decks are kicking you around like a little > >lost puppy right now because you haven't learned to defend against > >them yet. > > I'm doing ok - it's Tom that isn't scoring. And I'm not convinced > that our playgroup isn't pushing the envelope. The Prince of Watford > got a shock when he came to the club and he hasn't yet played Dave > Martin - our king of killer combat. David Hammond may be an excellent player, I wouldn't know, but what exactly shocked him about your games? What kind of killer combat are you seeing? Is it standard Immortal Grapple potence- based stuff, or something more innovative? It's well-known (or at least theorized) that when there are at least two combat decks at a table (of five or fewer players), one of them will probably win the game. That is, a very combat- heavy local metagame can be self-perpetuating. But in tournaments, the distribution is rarely heavy enough in combat decks to get two per table, and so the combat decks rarely get enough VPs to even make the finals, let alone win them. > At the price of your vampire going to torpor. But I'd amplify my fix > to say that the controller of the famous vampire takes the hit if he > intercepts with it. The general idea is that the player who puts the > famous vampire in harm's way should pay the price. It sounds like you care more about the "flavor" of the game than how it plays as a game of its own. If you're such a fan of the RPG- based World of Darkness, you might be happier sticking to the RPGs. I (and I assume the other VTES fanatics here) don't actually hate the RPG or the idea of having VTES flavor follow from the RPG, but I do want the CCG to stand on its own as a well-balanced and fun to play game. Making Fame some convoluted anti-combat thing so it will more closely model the RPG concept of Fame doesn't sound like a good idea to me. > Fame is supposed to buy you some immunity. As the RPG puts it, "your > enemies can't just make you disappear without causing an undue stir". > The card has been perverted into a tool of those who would do just > that, adding insult to injury. Judging from this newsgroup, the game > seems to be controlled by players who love rush combat and hate the > RPG. Sociopathic crazies! Combat is the most interactive piece of the game - both vampires can play many cards in each combat. Yet it is the people who like combat who are the sociopaths? It's probably not accurate to characterize the newsgroup as being the people who control the game, either. We're just some outspoken players, some of whom speak loudly about liking to play combat. The only person who posts here who has significant control of the game (as far as I know) is L. Scott Johnson, who has certainly not taken any stands one way or the other on whether rush combat should be more or less powerful. Note that he issued the change to Immortal Grapple that made its effects last for only one round - before that, it had been ruled to last for the entire combat. Much stronger. Josh never got to play disarm when going to torpor [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:33:11 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >If you want to win you'll need to >learn to play well, not piss and moan about errata. How did all this errata come to be created? I'm guessing that there was a good deal of pissing and moaning involved. And it's still going on - see Joshua's complaints about Archon Investigation. Maybe you should have learnt to play well instead? >And you STILL haven't addressed the main issue: Why do you want to >create an uber-useful combat hoser? The game already has Secure >Haven; Fame doesn't even have a "remove" clause! The main issue for me is the evil of errata. If the original design hoses combat and if the revisions still hose combat then that's fine by me - that's just the nature of the game. There's no good reason that rush decks ought to exist and several good reasons why they shouldn't. >All of that is based on the premise of maintaining the Masquerade, >something the Independents and Sabbat could care less about. That's a good point. I don't mind Elysium not affecting Sabbat vampires and wouldn't mind a similar constraint on Fame. But the Sabbat ought to pay a price for their lack of discretion - much greater exposure to vampire hunters and other mortals. Does the game reflect this? Andrew

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:37:10 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:33:11 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > >>If you want to win you'll need to >>learn to play well, not piss and moan about errata. > >How did all this errata come to be created? I'm guessing that there >was a good deal of pissing and moaning involved. And it's still going >on - see Joshua's complaints about Archon Investigation. Maybe you >should have learnt to play well instead? You mean instead of wasting my time whining and bitching because I kept getting my ass kicked while I was a new player? I rather think I did, actually. And you would guess incorrectly, in many cases. Most of the "pissing and moaning" was about cards that were uncontestably broken; Thoughts Betrayed was one of those cards. >>And you STILL haven't addressed the main issue: Why do you want to >>create an uber-useful combat hoser? The game already has Secure >>Haven; Fame doesn't even have a "remove" clause! > >The main issue for me is the evil of errata. If the original design As opposed to the evil of broken cards? Tom's story about Doomtown indicates that you seem to be not much more than a powergamer, who is concerned solely with making sure he wins every time and concerned not at all about game balance. Such gamers tend to destroy games by making it fun for nobody to play against; this is why Misdirection was finally fixed on the reprint, because it just wasn't fun to play against all that weenie tap and bleed. >hoses combat and if the revisions still hose combat then that's fine >by me - that's just the nature of the game. There's no good reason >that rush decks ought to exist and several good reasons why they >shouldn't. "Andrew gets spanked regularly by Rush decks" is not a good reason, and you have not even produced any other BAD reasons why they shouldn't exist. Please come down from your ivory tower and play in the real world. In the Austin tournament, five combat decks were sitting on the sideline of the finals, stealth bleed having YET AGAIN demonstrated that combat may kill vampires but obviously isn't broken because it's too hard to win with? Combat cards made up an enormous majority of the original set, leading one to believe that combat was intended to be a major part of the game. New cards have been introduced in each set afterwards to help assist combat, which has ended up being a weak third where it obviously was not intended to be. It's painfully obvious that Thoughts Betrayed was not intended as a combat defense, since the Ventrue and Malkavians were doing QUITE well already. Dog Pack, Scorpion Sting.. the fact that instead of Majesty, Sabbat War chose to include two significantly weaker variants of "combat ends"... it all points to Majesty having accidentally made it past playtesting, and a slight design error in discipline balance. >>All of that is based on the premise of maintaining the Masquerade, >>something the Independents and Sabbat could care less about. > >That's a good point. I don't mind Elysium not affecting Sabbat >vampires and wouldn't mind a similar constraint on Fame. But the >Sabbat ought to pay a price for their lack of discretion - much >greater exposure to vampire hunters and other mortals. Does the game >reflect this? In the RPG, the Sabbat doesn't seem to worry about mortals very much at all either, frankly. The problem with the Sabbat is inherent to its worldview; they tend to go off and kill each OTHER almost as much as they kill everyone else. So yes, the game DOES reflect this, with the high-powered combat available to a pair of Sabbat clans (Tzimisce/Lasombra). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:55:02 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >It's well-known (or at least theorized) that when there are >at least two combat decks at a table (of five or fewer players), >one of them will probably win the game. That is, a very combat- >heavy local metagame can be self-perpetuating. But in tournaments, >the distribution is rarely heavy enough in combat decks to get two >per table, and so the combat decks rarely get enough VPs to even >make the finals, let alone win them. I don't understand the basis for your theory but it's consistent with the facts here. I didn't go to the Watford tournament yesterday but Tom says that it was dominated by combat decks. >It sounds like you care more about the "flavor" of the game than how >it plays as a game of its own. If you're such a fan of the RPG- >based World of Darkness, you might be happier sticking to the RPGs. >I (and I assume the other VTES fanatics here) don't actually hate >the RPG or the idea of having VTES flavor follow from the RPG, but >I do want the CCG to stand on its own as a well-balanced and fun >to play game. Making Fame some convoluted anti-combat thing so it >will more closely model the RPG concept of Fame doesn't sound like >a good idea to me. I don't play RPGs. I expect a good CCG to have a strong theme and to be consistent with it. This then affords opportunity for role-playing as well as strategy and tactics. These are several different dimensions to games: luck <------> skill theme <------> abstract simple <------> deep fuzzy <------> strict manual <------> mental social <------> competitive This weekend I played with four games: Doomtown, VTES, Buffy and B17. These all have strong themes and would be nothing without them. It's a necessary part of this that they should be authentic - true to their background. Andrew

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 20:04:20 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >I don't play RPGs. I expect a good CCG to have a strong theme and to >be consistent with it. This then affords opportunity for role-playing >as well as strategy and tactics. These are several different >dimensions to games: Role-playing does not belong in CCGs. Strategy and tactics do. If you believe otherwise, then you should see the "I'm being a Malkavian!" players who elect to take random damaging actions and claim "He has blue on. I don't like blue." as their reason, and justify that reasoning as "I'm role-playing!". Sorry, if you want role-playing, go play an RPG. This is a card game. >luck <------> skill >theme <------> abstract >simple <------> deep >fuzzy <------> strict >manual <------> mental >social <------> competitive > >This weekend I played with four games: Doomtown, VTES, Buffy and B17. >These all have strong themes and would be nothing without them. It's >a necessary part of this that they should be authentic - true to their >background. This, also, is not true. A theme should be consistent within itself; but even if it varies from its original "background", as long as it is consistent within the CCG, that CCG will still have a strong theme. True to the background is impossible, in most cases, as some effects are more easily handled in an RPG than in a CCG. A Storyteller has access to a "deus ex machina" effect that no CCG does; if one character somehow acquires a toy that has a magic button saying "Do What I Want!" on it, a good Storyteller will arrange for that toy to be stolen, broken, or neutralized with alarming regularity, to maintain balance. A CCG is not so easy to do this with, so you MUST vary from the background to avoid breaking the CCG. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >><< How did all this errata come to be created? I'm guessing that there was a good deal of pissing and moaning involved.>> Well, that, and being sane enough to see that certain cards (most of which were printed in expansions designed by folks who didn't truly understand the game they were adding on to) were overpowered, and had a deleterious effect on the play environment. >>And it's still going on - see Joshua's complaints about Archon Investigation.>> That's 'cause AI is still broken--it has an effect (net gain of pool and burn a vampire) far outweighing its cost (a Master phase). Yes, no one is going to be able to build a deck that wins the game based solely on AI, as it is a reactive card, but still, when it *is* played, it is simply too effective for what it costs, and is still completely unecessary. >>Maybe you should have learnt to play well instead?>> You mean like figuring out how to compete against Rush decks, rather than spending all of your time complaining about them being too powerful? You have got to be kidding me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:00:30 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:37:10 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> >wrote: > >>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:33:11 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >> >"Andrew gets spanked regularly by Rush decks" is not a good reason, >and you have not even produced any other BAD reasons why they >shouldn't exist. Please come down from your ivory tower and play in >the real world. In the Austin tournament, five combat decks were >sitting on the sideline of the finals, stealth bleed having YET AGAIN >demonstrated that combat may kill vampires but obviously isn't broken >because it's too hard to win with? > Whether he likes it or not, Andrew will need to deal with combat in the local tournament scene. At Watford, yesterday two and a half (a Gangrel wall being the half) combat decks made the final, and one won. I played Brujah/iBrujah IG rush and had a combat deck as predator all three games. With a combat prey in game two for good measure. I was reasonably happy with the 3 VP I got for my initial tournament outing. Tom

In article <3a3e7b56...@news.ntlworld.com>, Tom Kassel <thomas...@ntlworld.com> writes >I was reasonably happy with the 3 VP I got for my initial >tournament outing. And, for reference, Tom only missed out on being in the final because the final table split 2-2-1 (Tom being the 1), rather than 4-1. At 4-1, it would have been a tie between him and Rick. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <lsrs3t4nnnmlu0bfp...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>This weekend I played with four games: Doomtown, VTES, Buffy and B17. >>These all have strong themes and would be nothing without them. It's >>a necessary part of this that they should be authentic - true to their >>background. > >This, also, is not true. A theme should be consistent within itself; >but even if it varies from its original "background", as long as it is >consistent within the CCG, that CCG will still have a strong theme. Indeed. A number of people have commented about how strong the theme of Angel is, even though it diverges quite markedly from Buffy, its background. If it works (which many of us feel it does in V:TES), the theme should have a heavy element of inspiration of ideas, rather than perspiration caused by slavishly following items which can't be well implemented or duplicated. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:33:11 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > > >If you want to win you'll need to > >learn to play well, not piss and moan about errata. > > How did all this errata come to be created? I'm guessing that there > was a good deal of pissing and moaning involved. Well, just don't piss amount it *being* errata. Piss and moan about it being *bad* errata. It's reasonable to say, "This fix doesn't fix the problem.", or, "This fix causes a (play) problem that's worse." Or even, "This errata wasn't necessary because there was no problem." But not, "Fixing problems is bad." Fred

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > I don't play RPGs. I expect a good CCG to have a strong theme and to > be consistent with it. This then affords opportunity for role-playing > as well as strategy and tactics. These are several different > dimensions to games: > > luck <------> skill > theme <------> abstract > simple <------> deep > fuzzy <------> strict > manual <------> mental > social <------> competitive Many of these are not really dimensions. The worst one is the "manual vs. mental" thing because these are actually two possibilities out of many. You are describing the challenge that a game poses, and other choices might be involve speed (mentally or physically or both), awareness of surroundings (remember the game "spoon"?), spatial relationships, intimidation and/or bluffing, actually lots of things. Some are more mental, some are more physical, some can be both or either. Thinks like luck and skill or social and competitive can be more or less of both. Simple vs. deep can describe multiple separate aspects of a game: rule structure vs. strategies. Most people enjoy their games with simpler rule structures but deeper strategy choices. There is often SOME connection between the two - thus making this a tricky order. But the connection is far exact or necessary. Theme vs. abstract is probably the only correctly "dimensional" thing you nailed. I'm not ever sure what "fuzzy vs. strict" could mean but I have a strong suspicion it turns out to be the same concept as one or more of the others, when analyzed. Fred

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:17:06 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >Role-playing does not belong in CCGs. Strategy and tactics do. If >you believe otherwise, then you should see the "I'm being a >Malkavian!" players who elect to take random damaging actions and >claim "He has blue on. I don't like blue." as their reason, and >justify that reasoning as "I'm role-playing!". Sorry, if you want >role-playing, go play an RPG. This is a card game. Know your role. The rulebook says, "VTES is a trading card game in which two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires." A Malkavian player acting his role as you describe might be equally vexing in the RPG or LARP - such is the nature of the Malkavians. In the CCG, I enjoy playing cards like Game of Malkav because they allow me to operate on both levels - that of the mad Malkavian and also the canny tactician. Players who only operate on one level are missing out. Andrew

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:05:49 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:17:06 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Role-playing does not belong in CCGs. Strategy and tactics do. If >>you believe otherwise, then you should see the "I'm being a >>Malkavian!" players who elect to take random damaging actions and >>claim "He has blue on. I don't like blue." as their reason, and >>justify that reasoning as "I'm role-playing!". Sorry, if you want >>role-playing, go play an RPG. This is a card game. > >Know your role. The rulebook says, "VTES is a trading card game in >which two or more players take on the roles of ancient vampires." Appropriately, the rest of that quote is "...and shut your hole", which you should in this case. Just because the rulebook says "take on the roles" does not make it role-playing; it merely indicates the relationship of the players to the vampires they control, giving some background as to why they are able to in the first place. It still bears absolutely no relationship to an RPG, which is where role-playing belongs. Trying semantics is simply a waste of your and my time, as it's awfully easy to spot the difference and call "bullshit". >A Malkavian player acting his role as you describe might be equally >vexing in the RPG or LARP - such is the nature of the Malkavians. In In the RPG, however, it is appropriate; and in the RPG, a Storyteller can make sure that the Malkavian acting in this fashion does not destroy the game for everyone else. In the CCG, a person taking random cross-table actions will quickly upset the balance of the table and make it very little fun for everyone involved. It is FAR more vexing to have someone being stupid in the CCG. >the CCG, I enjoy playing cards like Game of Malkav because they allow >me to operate on both levels - that of the mad Malkavian and also the >canny tactician. Players who only operate on one level are missing >out. Cards like Game of Malkav are part of the game, and while they have an inherent flavour of "madness" about them, still have the potential to work to your benefit. Calling a KRC and assigning 2 points of damage to your grandprey and 2 to your grandpredator is not likely to EVER work to your benefit, except in certain very narrow, obvious cases. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1AE195427E3A9A09.F2D7F9CE...@lp.airnews.net>, a...@csi.com wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:55:02 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >It's well-known (or at least theorized) that when there are > >at least two combat decks at a table (of five or fewer players), > >one of them will probably win the game. That is, a very combat- > >heavy local metagame can be self-perpetuating. But in tournaments, > >the distribution is rarely heavy enough in combat decks to get two > >per table, and so the combat decks rarely get enough VPs to even > >make the finals, let alone win them. > > I don't understand the basis for your theory but it's consistent with > the facts here. I didn't go to the Watford tournament yesterday but > Tom says that it was dominated by combat decks. The idea is something like this: One combat deck can torporize a fair number of vampires belonging to its predator and prey. However, this generally sets up the two people not sitting next to it to get easy VPs (or a free ride from their predator). But if there are two combat decks on one table, then all of the other three decks can be attacked by them, generally resulting in greatly reduced efficacy of those decks. (If the two combat decks are sitting next to each other, there is one player not adjacent to a combat deck, but since Bum's Rush can be directed at any player, they aren't actually safe from being Rushed, though their vamps will probably be lower-priority targets than those belonging to the Meths actually next to the combat decks.) So, when there are at least two combat decks on a table, it's usually possible for them to beat up the majority of the other vampires on the table, allowing them to operate with relative impunity and get at least a couple VPs each. (This, too, is less good when they're sitting next to each other; it may be possible for the predator combat deck to strike a deal with the prey combat deck that the prey will be allowed to get three VPs and then roll over and let the predator get the last two. If that deal can't be arranged, though, the combat decks may end up fighting each other more than is healthy for them and allow one of the non-combat decks to oust them both.) > I don't play RPGs. I expect a good CCG to have a strong theme and to > be consistent with it. This then affords opportunity for role-playing > as well as strategy and tactics. These are several different > dimensions to games: > > luck <------> skill > theme <------> abstract > simple <------> deep > fuzzy <------> strict > manual <------> mental > social <------> competitive > > This weekend I played with four games: Doomtown, VTES, Buffy and B17. > These all have strong themes and would be nothing without them. It's > a necessary part of this that they should be authentic - true to their > background. Hmmmm. Then it sounds like many of the people you're arguing with here have a higher tolerance for abstraction in their CCGs than you do. I like the theme of VTES, but it's the gameplay that I find the most interesting thing about the game, and to my mind it *is* a fairly abstract game. Not as much so as, say, bridge, but about as much as, say, Magic. Josh not fortunate enough to play in tournaments that get that combat- heavy [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91nuep$u80$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:22:11 GMT, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: >The idea is something like this: One combat deck can torporize >a fair number of vampires belonging to its predator and prey. >However, this generally sets up the two people not sitting next >to it to get easy VPs (or a free ride from their predator). Yep. Careless manbeatings by any combat deck are poor play. This is one of the reasons I typically play bruise/bleed these days instead of all-out ass-whoop; my prey will eventually decide to survive and take actions against his own prey, and quit blocking the bleeds; so I move a little easier, and my grandprey does NOT get a free ride. The Rush actions are generally directed backwards against threats, and if it means I oust my own predator, so be it; I have to have room to operate. >belonging to the Meths actually next to the combat decks.) So, >when there are at least two combat decks on a table, it's usually >possible for them to beat up the majority of the other vampires >on the table, allowing them to operate with relative impunity and >get at least a couple VPs each. I've seen plenty of vote decks make the "Wanna split the table?" deal when they aren't sitting next to each other; and I would be no less surprised to see it from two active combat decks that weren't sitting next to each other. >If that deal can't be arranged, though, the combat decks may end up >fighting each other more than is healthy for them and allow one of >the non-combat decks to oust them both.) With the new variants of combat running around (no longer is the only thing you're likely to see in a tournament Potence IG Rush), this adds a new dimension of difficulty as well; for example, in Columbia when I was sitting behind Jason Daniel's Tzimisce agg-poke deck. He had one Breath of the Dragon in there and I knew it, but in general mine was going to beat his in a heads-up "go" just because I had the maneuvers and his maneuvers were also his agg hand damage. I think we're going to see a lot more of that, where one form of combat just happens to be the "right" form to beat another; and fewer deals will be made. Good for combat? Not necessarily, but it does encourage better manipulation. :) >not fortunate enough to play in tournaments that get that combat- >heavy I tried, man. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> > I'm doing ok - it's Tom that isn't scoring. And I'm not convinced > > that our playgroup isn't pushing the envelope. The Prince of Watford > > got a shock when he came to the club and he hasn't yet played Dave > > Martin - our king of killer combat. > > David Hammond may be an excellent player, I wouldn't know, but > what exactly shocked him about your games? What kind of killer > combat are you seeing? Is it standard Immortal Grapple potence- > based stuff, or something more innovative? What shocked me about the decks they were playing was how focussed they were. Whereas the Watford playgroup have been playing long enough to develop a generalised style (toolbox approach), the Finchley players all had razor honed, focussed decks. In particular the deck I was "shocked" at was Andrew's "resilient deck". You have to see it to beleive it - there must be about 70 fortitude damage prevention cards - and a crypt full of weenies with basic fortitude. The whole concept of the deck was to do little bleeds (1 - 2 points) and if they got blocked, just soak the damage. We saw him count out about 15 skin of rocks and resiliences in a row! To be fair, I don't really "do" combat at the moment. I try and do "novelty" stuff - e.g. my Giovanni / !Malkavian ally rush deck, my "Wrath of the Inner Cirle" deck (aka the "You're going to get SkullF***ed by a lot of high cap vampires" deck), and so on. That deosn't mean to say I can't, it's just that I feel fairly unrewarded by it. My closest effort is my !Toreador toolbox deck. My thinking is ANYONE with a dedicated focus can give a table trouble. Whatever the focus is, most decks can only deal with a little of anything (a few deflections or interecept cards for bleed - but these will run out, vote superiority - which has to be won, and combat - which is always risky). If a deck is going to be focussed 100% one way, it will destabilise a table. Sure, it will have weaknesses, but if you are lucky enough to get the right seating order on the right table, you can easily win. For proof, see how my 12 Bleeds of Christmas deck did last Sunday - 14 one point vampires, 4 two point vampires, lots of computer hacking, some Psychic veils. Crap if being bled by a stealth bleeder, has trouble against rush combat, but usually does the business with sheer weight of numbers. It swallowed one table, got one point on the second game, and folded on the third (only due to a Dramatic Upheaval). It's all about the seating, and that is the only truely focussed deck I have, and yet even that has a little vote defence and Combat defence. Ho hum. As to me being a good player, I admit that I am a fairly crap player. However, I like to think I am a half decent deck constructor - I usually stack my deck with lots of suprises that keep my opponants on edge. I have only being playing about 18 months, but my regular playgroup are seasoned players of all games (Tragic, Shadowfist, any roleplay game you can mention, and poker (!)). I have a lot to learn, but I have some good teachers. DH [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91nuep$u80$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > In article > <1AE195427E3A9A09.F2D7F9CE...@lp.airnews.net>, > a...@csi.com wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 18:55:02 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > (This, too, is less good when they're sitting next to each other; > it may be possible for the predator combat deck to strike a deal > with the prey combat deck that the prey will be allowed to get > three VPs and then roll over and let the predator get the last two. This is precisely the deal I made with my combat predator in game one. Game two was trickier with both predator (Prince flung junk) and prey (Tzimisce) combat. My IG pot/CEL got creamed by both. When the third round saw the same Tzimisce as my predator, my fatigued wits deserted me and I didn't even attempt the obvious deal. ;-( > Hmmmm. Then it sounds like many of the people you're arguing with > here have a higher tolerance for abstraction in their CCGs than > you do. I like the theme of VTES, but it's the gameplay that I > find the most interesting thing about the game, and to my mind it > *is* a fairly abstract game. Not as much so as, say, bridge, but > about as much as, say, Magic. > Andrew is bemused by my total indifference to the background. As far as I'm concerned, the game is the only thing. If it's good, I'll probably look into the background, but game always comes first. > Josh > > not fortunate enough to play in tournaments that get that combat- > heavy So come to sunny Watford and enjoy, Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I suppose. Still, if you pursue such a role with any kind a vigor, to the point that it becomes more important than sound, obvious strategy decisions, then you automatically mess up the game. However you may feel about roleplaying games, a CCG - or at least *this* CCG (I'm not saying it's not possible to create such a CCG) - is *not* one. It's a zero sum board game, not designed to assume the players are doing anything except maximizing their return on victory points. Comes down to it, a player could play for any motivation that turns him on. Roleplaying, frustrating another particular player, maximizing his or her chances for sexual fulfillment, whatever. But since the game is designed and balanced to assume what people want is only victory points, things will get all of whack if someone starts taking on other motivations. And other players are liable to resent you for that and cease playing with you if you take it too far. Fred

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:08:46 -0500, Derek Ray wrote: >Just because the rulebook says "take >on the roles" does not make it role-playing; it merely indicates the >relationship of the players to the vampires they control, giving some >background as to why they are able to in the first place. It still >bears absolutely no relationship to an RPG, which is where >role-playing belongs. RPGs do not have a monopoly of role-playing and, in many cases, don't have much role-playing at all. Traditional D&D is just a man-to-man wargame campaign with fantasy trappings. A card game can be far more of a genuine role-playing experience, e.g. the excellent Once Upon a Time. Vampire has fairly strict game mechanics and so you can approach it purely as an exercise in resource-management and negotiation. That's not nearly enough for me. For the full aesthetic experience, I want art, game effects, banter and props which are appropriate, witty and entertaining. >In the CCG, a person taking random cross-table actions will quickly >upset the balance of the table and make it very little fun for >everyone involved. It is FAR more vexing to have someone being stupid >in the CCG. The offense is crassness rather than role-playing. For example, the recent winner of the German championships was able to use role-playing to his advantage, covering his degenerate vote deck with a smoke-screen of revolutionary rhetoric. This seems to have gone down well. If he had pursued his aims in stolid silence, he would have been less successful and less entertaining. Andrew

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:22:11 GMT, Joshua Duffin wrote: >when there are at least two combat decks on a table, it's usually >possible for them to beat up the majority of the other vampires >on the table, allowing them to operate with relative impunity and >get at least a couple VPs each. But why is the combination of two combat decks different from the combination of a combat deck and a vote deck, say? Is there a "comrade in arms" effect which causes the combat decks to work together? >I like the theme of VTES, but it's the gameplay that I >find the most interesting thing about the game, and to my mind it >*is* a fairly abstract game. Not as much so as, say, bridge, but >about as much as, say, Magic. Magic's theme is poor - the five colours are insipid compared to clans/outfits/factions and there is no strong background from a media licence or RPG. Vampire is quite well done from this POV. I was talking to Dave this evening about trading VTES cards. One of his best sources is a guy who just collects the cards; he doesn't play with them at all. For him the game is just collectible art and theme - the mechanics are irrelevant. He is not alone. Andrew

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:06:25 GMT, hamd...@my-deja.com wrote: >playgroup are seasoned players of all games (Tragic, Shadowfist, any >roleplay game you can mention, and poker (!)). Poker!? I'd go for some of that. Your group should also take a look at Doomtown, if you haven't already. The way that poker is woven into the game mechanics is quite clever and it has vampires too. Andrew

In article <06F0BEEE6CF70060.A8D9094B...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >But why is the combination of two combat decks different from the >combination of a combat deck and a vote deck, say? Is there a >"comrade in arms" effect which causes the combat decks to work >together? It's the same with any two similar deck types. Since any given deck can only ever have so much defence against <strategy>, if there are two decks both carving it up with <strategy> they do better, since they both manage to empty its hand much more quickly. This becomes much more obvious with combat decks, since the end result of a combat deck is more spectacular to watch, but it happens with many deck types. On any table where two combat decks do *not* sit together, they have at least one common enemy when the game starts (their predator or prey). They can both carve this deck up, as they would normally, but neither has to waste as many cards on it as they would normally since there is another combat deck doing some of the work. This then frees them up to spend more of their time than usual attacking their respective preys and predators, for offence and defence purposes. Similarly, two vote decks will exhaust another deck's intercept, vote defence, vote cancelling or whatever much more efficiently than just one. Such things remain relatively constant, whether they co-ordinate their attacks or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:dF6jqgCW...@obeah.demon.co.uk... [clip] > On any table where two combat decks do *not* sit together, they have at > least one common enemy when the game starts (their predator or prey). > They can both carve this deck up, as they would normally, but neither > has to waste as many cards on it as they would normally since there is > another combat deck doing some of the work. This then frees them up to > spend more of their time than usual attacking their respective preys and > predators, for offence and defence purposes. I'll add that you've probably noticed that combat decks do really well in 2-player games or when there's only 2 players left. That's because they are moving their prey closer to death at the same time they are keeping their predator from ousting them. Having multiple combat decks at the table mimics that effect. I'd also say that 2-combat does better than 1 combat + 1 [other deck] because pool loss attacks don't have as immediate an effect on how much damage you'll be taking on your predator's next turn. If you are natural allies with a vote deck and then your ally makes your Malk predator lose 8 pool from a couple of votes, there is little to keep him from sending a govern + conditioning your way on his turn. Two rush combat decks can better get the job done by removing the threat altogether. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org http://vtesinla.org

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:48:45 GMT, Tom Kassel wrote: >Andrew is bemused by my total indifference to the background. As far >as I'm concerned, the game is the only thing. If it's good, I'll >probably look into the background, but game always comes first. You didn't get that "Path of Fun" idea from the CCG, right? And you stick to CCG and wargames while avoiding the theme-lite German games like Settlers and the classic strategy games like chess. My theory is that a rich theme still has to be there for you but that you just don't have to be pre-disposed towards it. For me, the theme comes first - that's the reason I try the game. Andrew

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:36:51 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >But since the game is >designed and balanced to assume what people want is only victory points, >things will get all of whack if someone starts taking on other motivations. >And other players are liable to resent you for that and cease playing with >you if you take it too far. What are we supposed to make of the posters here who, with one breath, say that rush decks don't win tournaments and, with the other, say that that's what they play? And the general disdain for the player ratings? By their own account, it seems clear that many players are not in the business of maximising their VPs. This loose-cannon style makes me dislike the rush deck, exactly as you say. Andrew

In article <77FE01CE2FBC38FE.1C9F1058...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Oh god, we STILL haven't even looked at our boxes of Rage we bought at Gencon, nor the Mythos starter decks, let alone pick up another new system! I hope that over the next week we may get a chance to dust off some games. Is there a Finchley night on the 28th? [ quoted text not captured ]

hamd...@my-deja.com wrote: > Oh god, we STILL haven't even looked at our boxes of Rage we bought at > Gencon, nor the Mythos starter decks, let alone pick up another new > system! > > I hope that over the next week we may get a chance to dust off some > games. Is there a Finchley night on the 28th? I'm not sure but there will be the usual end-of-month Shadowfist event on Sat, Dec 30 in Finchley. You'd probably get takers for a side game of VTES there. I've never, ever seen anyone play Rage but there's some interest in Mythos amongst the Doomtown crowd - they are planning something at their Camden Callout events which are held alongside the Card Marts. See the shadowfist-uk and doomtown-uk lists on www.egroups.com for more details. Andrew [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91q2u3$mu8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > hamd...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Oh god, we STILL haven't even looked at our boxes of Rage we bought at > > Gencon, nor the Mythos starter decks, let alone pick up another new > > system! > > > > I hope that over the next week we may get a chance to dust off some > > games. Is there a Finchley night on the 28th? > > I'm not sure but there will be the usual end-of-month Shadowfist event > on Sat, Dec 30 in Finchley. You'd probably get takers for a side game > of VTES there. Cool, I will probably show (girlfriend permitting!). When does it start? Is it at the club like last time (usual?)? Can someone mail me a map of how to get there from West Finchley station? Tom gave me directions but I (ahem) mislaid them. Best regards DH [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91q42s$noq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, hamd...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <91q2u3$mu8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Andrew Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: > > hamd...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > Oh god, we STILL haven't even looked at our boxes of Rage we bought > at > > > Gencon, nor the Mythos starter decks, let alone pick up another new > > > system! > > > > > > I hope that over the next week we may get a chance to dust off some > > > games. Is there a Finchley night on the 28th? > > > > I'm not sure but there will be the usual end-of-month Shadowfist event > > on Sat, Dec 30 in Finchley. You'd probably get takers for a side game > > of VTES there. > > Cool, I will probably show (girlfriend permitting!). When does it > start? Is it at the club like last time (usual?)? Usually 12 o'clock assembly with play practically starting nearer to one. Latecomers can often be accomodated too. It's at the Elephant Inn (pub with Thai restaurant) on Ballard's Lane (or at least it continuation - silly UK habit, changing street names all the time). About a half mile north of Leisure Games. I could pick you up in Watford, but sadly have some social commitments so have to miss this one. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

> Usually 12 o'clock assembly with play practically starting nearer to > one. Latecomers can often be accomodated too. It's at the Elephant > Inn (pub with Thai restaurant) on Ballard's Lane (or at least it > continuation - silly UK habit, changing street names all the time). > About a half mile north of Leisure Games. I could pick you up in > Watford, but sadly have some social commitments so have to miss this > one. DOH! How busy are you over the next week or so? Up for local games, for local people? [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew wrote: >>What are we supposed to make of the posters here who, with one breath, say that rush decks don't win tournaments and, with the other, say that that's what they play?>> As a guy who pretty much exclusively plays Rush decks in competition, I can say that: A) Rush decks *can* win tournaments, they just don't do so often because not many people play them (if more people were playing them, they would win more often than they do, but not to an unacceptable level) and they are difficult to win with, being obtuse in their path to victory and easily foiled. B) Just because they don't win that often, it doesn't mean that it isn't worth it to try. >>And the general disdain for the player ratings?>> There is a distain for player ratings because they don't really mean anything. >>By their own account, it seems clear that many players are not in the business of maximising their VPs.>> No, that is not true at all. People who play Rush decks (well, smart people, anyways) at tournaments are playing to win just as much as anyone else, and are, in fact, attempting to maximize their VPs. It is just that the maximum number of VPs attainable by a Rush deck is, generally, less than that of a Bleed or Vote deck--the Rush deck isn't going to sweep all that often, and as such, is going to get into the finals (if it does) by virtue of, like, 5 or 6 VPs, rather than 10. >>This loose-cannon style makes me dislike the rush deck, exactly as you say.>> And here you are making the faulty assumption that folks who are playing Rush decks in tournaments are loose cannons. If they have any intention of winning, they will not be doing this (as it is counter productive), just like any one playing any other deck design. Yes, a Rush deck *can* be a random loose cannon, but so can a vote deck ("Umm, I KRC the guy across the table for 3 pool,and myself for 1..."), or for that matter *any* deck can be a loose cannon. If a Rush deck is playing to win, it is not going to be a loose cannon, just like any other deck. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:16:51 +0000, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:36:51 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Don't get me wrong. The combat deck I played in Columbia has swept several tables before; it packs MORE than enough bleed to burn through a table rapidly. It is a "tier 2" deck, as opposed to a "tier 1" deck, however. In the average tournament environment, it probably requires a certain amount of luck to win with; in Columbia, that luck would have been the table voting down the two Dramatic Upheavals I was hit with, as I was in position to guarantee the oust of one prey once, and could've reduced Todd to 2 pool the other time. (shrug) Loose cannon? Not hardly. I play with the intent to win, so I don't just randomly kill all my predator's vampires, nor do I simply destablize the table down at my end, setting someone else up for a sweep. However, I am fully aware going into things that I am trying to "surprise" the metagame and catch people with their vampiric pants down; in that case, I was betting on there being more intercept than there actually was. Why do I usually play "tier 2" decks in tournaments instead of "tier 1"? I prefer a challenge, if you want the truth; and there's the natural pride that comes with even having made the finals with a combat deck. I long ago got bored with decks like the Ventrue Law Firm, etc.; I played Malk S&B once in my life (about a year after I started playing) as a surprise to everyone, and it was annoyingly effective; I think I swept in 6-7 turns because everyone was wound up on various forms of combat defense, and the one Rush deck at the table was my grandprey and wasn't looking my way until it was too late. But it wasn't especially fun; I didn't have to put much strategy or thought into it at all. I prefer having to think and deal-make and really CONSIDER my actions, as opposed to 'ok, should i bleed with the Govern or the Scouting Mission this turn?' [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Your point is well-taken. I think your observation about rush decks is valid and I'll say that I have the same misgivings about them for exactly the reasoning that you're suggesting. It kinds of sucks to find yourself the predator or prey of a rush combat as opposed to other types of decks - which wouldn't bother me as much if they were effective at winning the game. I think what you're talking about is a desire to explore different strategies in the game and to find a way to make them effective. You're correct to point out such exploration represents a diversion from the motive of absolutely maximizing victory points. In one sense, you can consider it metagaming in that players are attempting to gain knowledge of the workings of the game for purposes of long-term improvement in their play at the expense of their effectiveness in the immediate game. Because tournament play is considered to be more serious - the time when short-term effectiveness is important - I guess that's one reason informal, non-tournament play tends to get relegated to the function of experimenting like that. But clearly sometimes the bizarro deck is more about entertaining ourselves than doing pure research. I guess folks tend to forgive that because everyone pretty much understands the need to spice up the game with the unusual. And I don't think role-playing the Malkavian or the other clans is a bad thing to do for the same reasons. I'm just saying that none of this, role-playing or pursuing bizarre card plays or combinations or whatever it is, should be taken so far that the goal of ousting your predator gets completely or nearly ignored. As long as people perceive that what you're doing serves this end goal, you're probably OK. If they think you're just doing basically random crap, they're going to get restive. Fred

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:25:02 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >is a bad thing to do for the same reasons. I'm just saying that none of this, >role-playing or pursuing bizarre card plays or combinations or whatever it >is, should be taken so far that the goal of ousting your predator gets ^^^^^^^^ >completely or nearly ignored. As long as people perceive that what you're and here, folks, we have proof: Fred is secretly an evil upstreamer. Hi Fred! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3A40DEB6...@netcom.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] The winning chances have a lot to do with the number of players using rush decks. A single one at a table has a great deal to do, much of it to his predator. Once two rush decks appear, this changes. Provided they can deal with one another, they should dominate most tables. Rush combat seems to offer the greatest ability to intervene anywhere that's required. This is a huge asset. One can imagine a critical mass being reached in a playgroup or tournament scene where a substantial (more than merely a dozen or so defensive cards) combat component becomes essential for survival. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91q1p5$m32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <hamd...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Oh god, we STILL haven't even looked at our boxes of Rage we bought at >Gencon, nor the Mythos starter decks, let alone pick up another new >system! Mythos is a fine, fine game, the only other CCG I play these days, and I recommend it unreservedly. The mechanic is refreshingly different from anything else out there, more like a melding game than anything else. gomi -- kono sora wo daite kagayaku, shounen yo shinwa ni nare.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, do *something* by jove. Don't just stand there... (If nothing else, piss Gomi off with excessive ellipses...) Fred, keeps misspelling things by accidentally slipping in a 'dator' in place of the 'y'. (Why won't spell-checker catch that?!?)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Yes. I think this is the best answer, and I've said before that I > wouldn't want to see such cards INITIALLY printed today. But for > better or worse, they're here now; and I don't think they have enough > of an impact on the game to justify banning, and even errata should > only be minor (no burning Justicars or IC members with Justicar > Retribution or AI, for example). The parenthesized errata would pacify me. With RtI gone, there is no reason that AI should be able to burn Inner Circle members (from either a backstory or game balance point of view). I don't think any pro-AI people are really concerned about big IC bleeds -- it's fast big weenie/mid-sized bleeds that come before a defense can be set up that are their main worry. Justicar Retribution could be fixed at the same time as AI. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

In article <91q98g$rcp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] David, The Finchley club will be open as usual next Thursday and I expect to be there. Probably Andrew as a few other VTES possibles as well. And certainly some Shadowfist. Happy Christmas, Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91soae$sit$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] As the poet said - "Woo hoo!" I'll try and get down there, pending directions, unless you can give me a life, Tom... Happy holidays DH [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91soae$sit$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tom Kassel <tka...@my-deja.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] As the poet said - "Woo hoo!" I'll try and get down there, pending directions, unless you can give me a lift, Tom... Happy holidays DH [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <91spt6$to2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] No problem with a lift but get your own life. :) Give me a call to arrange things. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin <jt...@cornell.edu> wrote: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [why VTES ignored votes, but paid attention to bleeds] > > Hmmm. OK. I couldn't tell you why it wasn't considered then, other > > than perhaps they were looking more at Delaying Tactics and the > > Gangrel intercept with Raven Spies and Earth Meld. It would be > > interesting to find out EXACTLY why some other stuff was ignored. In a conversation I had with Skaff Elias, he said, "Oh, we had a bunch of broken decks floating around in Jyhad about that time." Apparently, though, they played using a set of official tournament rules (the infamous 6CL rules) that were never in the rulebook, had a shortlived stint as "official" before being rescinded, yet the DT CONTINUED to play with the defunct rules in lieu of the official rules. In that format, at that time, bleeds were pretty silly, simply because other decks couldn't be built as easily. Perhaps this explains some of the "interesting" choices out of WotC... > > Again, I wish we could find out for CERTAIN when exactly > > all the timelines hit; the Golden Tenets weren't an immediate thing, > > and if they hit the table after V:TES, then it's possible that > > people had just missed this stuff up 'til now. Weenie vote push is > > an obvious abuse, but it wasn't corrected until 7/7 right? > Yes, no-vote-push didn't become an official rule of the game > until the 7/7/98 rulings. It had been used in NL/GT or SPTR > (Sensible Player's Tournament Rules) games for a long time > before that, although I still don't know exactly when - LSJ > says in '95 sometime, I think, but wasn't sure whether before > or after VTES... It was around before VTES. People in Design "missed it" because, by and large, they were gamers rather than true game theorists. I remember that when AI and the like were printed, there was a huge <Boggle> response from the newsgroup, mostly because people couldn't figure out why the cards were printed at all. > > AI being banned is silly, IMO. That should be reserved for broken > > cards; and AI is undercosted, but not broken. > Undercosted and *WRONG*! ;-) Actually, calling it undercosted isn't quite right. More properly it is overpowered. Undercosted cards might have an acceptable effect, but for to cheap a cost. E.g., "Jonny Underdog", Caitiff, 3, pot, pro, vic. Certainly not overpowered, but definitely undercosted. Overpowered cards have to strong an effect, even if they are close to being the right cost. E.g., "Overwhelm", Animalism, 6 blood, Inf: Return all animalism cards in your ashheap to your hand, discard down to 7 cards. Sup: Put this card into play. Return all animalism cards in your ashheap to your hand. You do not have to discard cards in excess of seven in your hand. Do not replace non-animalism cards that are played. Burn Overwhelm if your hand size is reduced to 6. Clearly Overwhelm does too much, but it might actually have an appropriate cost. > I kinda like my fix, in that it is like a Sudden Reversal for > bleeds (which is still inappropriate on the "methuselahs shouldn't > intervene in little vampiric affairs that much" level, to my mind, > but at least it doesn't burn anybody). But yeah, whatever. hehe. Mine is the opposite. AI, Master-out-of-turn, 3 Pool, Burn a vampire bleeding you for more than 3. That bleed IS considered successful. AI is both undercosted and overpowered. I would considered it a candidate for Broken, but really, that is a long debate... -- offNet: Adrian Sullivan @#$ Web Consultant - Game Theorist $#@ EFNet: Corrupter @#$ Writer - Eccentric - Hedonist $#@ USENET: The Corrupter @#$ Geek - Coffee Addict - HSTHSTS $#@ e-mail: thecor...@yahoo.com TaLeNa FOREVER! ;) [ quoted text not captured ]