New card ideas for gun decks?

I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very cool card to help Bullet-Time celerity combat 1 blood inf: strike dodge and inflict damage from the lowest pool cost gun on this minion. This counts as an additional strike. sup: as above, but this does not count against the additional strike limit. OR (same basic stats) inf: prevent 2 damage sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns each strike. Obviouslly, some kind of Woo action films picture of a sunglassed male slipping out of the way of some bulletfire while returning fire with 2 of his own guns would suffice. =] T

"Talonz51" <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news... > Bullet-Time > celerity > combat > 1 blood > inf: prevent 2 damage > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns > each strike. If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better than the superior on Sideslip? I do like the other version though. > Bullet-Time > celerity > combat > 1 blood > inf: strike dodge and inflict damage from the lowest pool cost gun on > this minion. This counts as an additional strike. > sup: as above, but this does not count against the additional strike > limit. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com -- Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

The Lasombra wrote: > "Talonz51" <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Bullet-Time > > celerity > > combat > > 1 blood > > inf: prevent 2 damage > > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns > > each strike. > > If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play > with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better > than the superior on Sideslip? It costs 1 blood, as opposed to Sideslip. Superior Sideslip is better when faced with only one damage, or when empty and faced with 2 aggravated damage. -- 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/

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:48:20 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was >frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these >days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this >kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very >cool card to help <idea snipped> The problem with Celerity gun decks isn't the combat, which is generally far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the minions, which can be hard as hell. -- Derek

Why not : > > inf: additional strike > > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns > > each strike. OR : > > inf: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns > > each strike. > > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with any two weapons each strike. ?? -- Orpheus http://cypheranima.free.fr news://news.zoo-logique.org/VTES-francophone audio...@yahoogroups.com "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: bc88c61a8512cfa8886...@mygate.mailgate.org... [ quoted text not captured ]

> The problem with Celerity gun decks isn't the combat, which is generally > far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the > minions, which can be hard as hell. Nah, s'peice of piss! Pier 13, Disguised Weapon, (Concealed Weapon), Fatima, Vast Wealth, Heidelburg, etc Any !Gangrel, Assamite, and even some Malkavians are up for the task using obf / OBF, CEL, and aus /AUS. At least one Giovanni has obf / cel too, and can Whispers to get the kit back after a Dragons Breath Round. There are a lot of vampires ready for action in this respect (Ellen Fence the tracker being the motherload, since she has all 3 plus a useful special). Leather Jackets help a lot. Already in the UK, we are seeing a dearth of guns decks using mostly Sniper Rifles (VERY popular) or Starshell Grenade Launchers (growing in popularity). Guns combat decks are always popular since they are even more of a no brainer than Pot / Cel decks. Nobody mention DotB / Terror Frenzy, though... DH

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news... > I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was > frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these > days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this > kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very > cool card to help > [snip] In my playgroup I've been finding that we've been having to tweak our decks slightly to deal with gun decks. Celerity gun decks are very nasty. They're quite effective and pack quite a punch whilst using a lot fewer cards than say, a CEL/POT deck. As mentioned earlier though, getting the guns on the minions can be quite a trick as many gun decks do not have stealth. Which makes it damn annoying when the gun deck is across the table from you and you have the intercept to block the action but the gun deck's predator and prey do not.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 19:08:43 +0000 (UTC), "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Talonz51" <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news... > >> Bullet-Time >> celerity >> combat >> 1 blood >> inf: prevent 2 damage >> sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns >> each strike. > >If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play >with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better >than the superior on Sideslip? > Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common. In essence, it is partially designed to be a superior sideslip, but not without its cost. T [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 02:31:11 +0200, "Orpheus" <orph...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: >Why not : > >> > inf: additional strike >> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns >> > each strike. > >OR : > >> > inf: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns >> > each strike. >> > sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with any two >weapons each strike. > >?? Because there are two elements I was trying to represent with the card. 1)A superior or unique dodge of some kind 2)An ability to return fire with more than 1 gun, or with 1 gun in a unique sistuation. Its based on Matrix/Woo film like moves. T

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:59:51 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Well that is *A* problem. What I was trying to address is that there were specefic additions to the cardlists recently which addressed certain strategies, making holding the edge more powerful for setities, making elder vampires easier to get, etc etc. But nothing added to help gun decks, which sorely need it. You are right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know if it is *the* problem. T

In message <3bbe438f.184071558@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play >>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better > >Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card >would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common. Why would the commonality of the card affect anything? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 00:53:57 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <3bbe438f.184071558@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play >>>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better >> >>Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card >>would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common. > >Why would the commonality of the card affect anything? > The same reason commonality effects any usage of a card....making one rarer or harder to obtain than another. T

In message <3bc04c5c.186324524@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>>If your inferior is left as is, why would any celerity deck play >>>>with Superior Sideslip? Why is the inferior on this card better >>> >>>Because of the 0 blood cost of slideslip. I also thought this card >>>would be uncommon compared to the sideslip rarity of common. >> >>Why would the commonality of the card affect anything? > >The same reason commonality effects any usage of a card....making one >rarer or harder to obtain than another. Yet you are offering the commonality of the card in response to a question about relative power levels of two cards. Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than commons? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:20:21 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than >commons? > I suggest looking at some rare vs common cards in your collection. T

On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 23:35:20 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 15:59:51 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> >wrote: >>The problem with Celerity gun decks isn't the combat, which is generally >>far superior to other combat. The problem is getting the guns onto the >>minions, which can be hard as hell. > >Well that is *A* problem. What I was trying to address is that there No, that is *THE* problem. If you permit me to start the game with a .44 on Sarah Brando, I can guarantee that she will be the Most Hated Vampire on the table very rapidly. >But nothing added to help gun decks, which sorely need it. You are Take a GOOD look. They don't need help kicking ass, they need help getting the guns. >right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know >if it is *the* problem. Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range. They can Dodge the first strike, and Blur for additional strikes -- change cards as appropriate, Celerity is one of the -best- disciplines for multi-use cards. They will NOT be damaged except by a deck that can also generate additional strikes; nothing can stop a Dodge at long range except Thoughts Betrayed or Drawing out the Beast. (Or Cailean, etc.) This means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks, and their response to S:CE is simply "Psyche! Maneuver with the gun." The problem is that nobody with any intercept available will let you get a gun on someone with Celerity, OR a Pier 13. Vamps with Obfuscate use Disguised Weapon and just make it "appear". -- Derek PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

In message <3bbeb038.211892800@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Are you suggesting that rarer cards can be made more powerful than >>commons? >I suggest looking at some rare vs common cards in your collection. Lots of nice corner case applications, powerful in the right circumstances, limited by opportunity rare cards e.g. Immortal Grapple. Lots of nice common cards that are also powerful, covering many generic functions e.g. Govern the Unaligned, Majesty. Those which were too powerful, either common, uncommon or rare, have been fixed in a number of ways. Your point? Free clue: Jyhad was designed on the principle that everyone could have infinite numbers of any card. They didn't always succeed, sure, but this was a basic design principle. Magic had shown them that limitation through rarity *doesn't work*. It just gifts the game to the people who buy the most cards. Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to their power; commonality isn't a function of either. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 03:44:13 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: > >>right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know >>if it is *the* problem. > >Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a >Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range. Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike. > They can Dodge the first strike, Only if they didnt use the guns maneuver, not to mention certain other effects like immortal grapple, drawing out the beast, frenzy, etc. Add to that things like canine horde and the like, and there are numerous ways to foil gun decks in mid combat. >means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks, Not true. They have the potential to be powerful, but a good combat deck will be just as powerful ime. T

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:29:24 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to >their power; commonality isn't a function of either. > Commonality alone might not be. Thus the 1 blood cost of Bullet-Time as well. T

In message <3bc040fb.248956846@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:29:24 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> >wrote: >> Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to >>their power; commonality isn't a function of either. >> > >Commonality alone might not be. Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 17:31:47 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 03:44:13 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> >wrote: >>Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a >>Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range. > >Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont >use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike. So they remain at close range? That seems foolish in the extreme; no wonder your gun decks are having troubles. I would build a gun deck using multiples of the following cards: Flash, Pursuit, Side Strike, Blur, and Sideslip - mostly in that order. Some Psyche! as well. Two of those cards are maneuvers, and they're the ones I'll have the most of in my deck. My Bum's Rush gives me a maneuver as well, although it may be blocked so it's not good to count on that. In any case, I want to have a Flash in hand for my first combat, and I'll use it for the first maneuver to long. Now what do you do? If you don't maneuver back, then I'm at long range, where I want to be anyway. I can look at your disciplines and assess whether or not I'm going to get hit by anything; if I think you're likely to have a ranged strike, I play Dodge. So much for your ranged strike. Now I can Blur and hit you twice, or use either of my other additional-strike cards and then press. Sure, you can chuck around a Canine Horde, but I won't expect to see more than one of those in any deck; if you happen to draw it, well, lucky for you. You get to break one gun, once. Big deal. If I happen to be blocking you, I'll just Dodge the Canine Horde, since you have to announce your strike first. If you DO maneuver back, obviously you want to be at short range... you've telegraphed your intentions, and I can use the gun's maneuver safely; odds are I won't need to Dodge anything at long range. Barring a bad run on draw, I'll win the maneuver battle, since I can also burn through my Pursuits -- if you maneuver back TWICE, then it's in my best interest to remain at long by whatever means necessary. This leaves me pretty much scot-free to Shoot You for Lots(tm). Better have superior Fortitude on that Skin of Steel; and if you have Flesh of Marble, I'll just Psyche! after the first round to get rid of it. >> They can Dodge the first strike, > >Only if they didnt use the guns maneuver, not to mention certain other >effects like immortal grapple, drawing out the beast, frenzy, etc. I already mentioned DotB, and while it clearly screws gun decks (or any equipment deck), it's a little hazardous to give a Celerity deck +1 strength. It's also rare to see these days; i'm not sure why, as it's still a pretty damn effective card for a lot of things. Immortal Grapple? Doesn't worry me... that's why I'm at long range, so I don't have to put up with THE most common combat type seen these days; Potence/IG combat. And I can assure you I have more maneuvers in my deck than the POT deck has. Frenzy? Uh, yeah. I'm not going to be scared of cards I've never actually seen played. Here again, the argument against Canine Horde applies; you've most likely only got one in your deck (and I'm going to feel safe assuming you won't have ANY in your deck). >Add to that things like canine horde and the like, and there are >numerous ways to foil gun decks in mid combat. I'm not going to be scared of Canine Horde, as I mentioned above. So you break one gun, once. That won't be anywhere near enough to "foil" a deck based around guns. I'm still waiting for the "numerous" ways to foil a gun deck without using your OWN additional strikes, *IF* it gets the guns on its vamps. You've mentioned one: DotB. I'll mention one: Carrion Crows, 2 points of damage that can't be dodged. Of course, it's only 2 points, and a gun deck can probably Taste that back, but it's a start. I'll be expecting to see EFFECTIVE ways, by the way; ways that will help your deck win. Putting one Canine Horde in a deck can help your deck win, since you can always chuck it out for a free 1R damage, OR you can break something like a Leather Jacket or a Laptop. Putting one Frenzy in your deck is most likely a wasted card slot and a card you'll have to discard. >>means they're going to beat the living shit out of most combat decks, > >Not true. They have the potential to be powerful, but a good combat >deck will be just as powerful ime. The most common and most successful combat deck around right now, Potence/IG, will get its ass *smoked* by a CEL deck that actually has the guns on the vamps. The reason we don't see lots of CEL gun decks is because of the trouble getting the guns on the vampires, and how screwed your deck is if you DON'T have guns on them. You can't get the guns on the vampires because if you're going pure CEL, you only have +1 stealth on the actions, and people will block. If you're going OBF/CEL, you can Disguised Weapon it out, but this means using a lot bigger vampires, and now you have to have both DW/gun in hand. You can add stealth cards, but taking that equip action with a big vampire will seem real slow when Didi Meyers is bleeding the piss out of you and you need to Rush backwards. Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun, celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <6n2vrtgem5ipfoso0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes >Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun, >celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see >those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak >point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action >intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later. Now, Toreador Grand Ball and Heidelberg Castle seems a good way around this. Use Wake on the dancing vampire, move the equipment to them. And you should have the intercept to defend the Ball for as long as you need to, in order to get a few weapons out. Unfortunately, it's not the cheapest of options. And the fact that you're using Presence bleed hampers the card anyway. Potentially, the dancing minion receives a weapon or two via Heidelberg. He wakes/intercepts, strikes a fair bit. Maybe uses superior Majesty on a later strike to untap, thus letting him/her bleed, because of the Toreador Grand Ball "do not untap" clause. The "free" minion equips a few extra pieces of equipment (Magnums, Bows, Sport Bikes etc.), dropping them round both the dancing minion and any others you care to get out via Heidelberg. Hmm... Sounds like it could be fun, but also sounds like it has a replacement extremely fragile point - that of the master cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

> <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bbca9c7.79151493@news... > > I don't usually bother with dreaming up new cards, but I was > > frustrated recently over how difficult it its to run gun decks these > > days. I was wondering why there were'nt any new cards to help this > > kind of deck when it ocurred to me that there could be one new very > > cool card to help > > > [snip] i've had these on paper for a while, and there are probably others who have similar: == Marksmanship master cost: 1 pool text: place Marksmanship on a minion you control. Pay an extra pool for every Marksmanship already on this minion. a minion with marksmanship does +1 damage with any weapon that does ranged damage. burn all Marksmanships on this minion if this it receives damage from a Poke In the Eye. == Trigger-happy combat cost: 1 blood text: use Trigger-happy only after a strike resolves, and this minion used a gun for its strike. this minion gains an additional strike for which the same gun must be used. {in no way does this empower the gun with anything extra, such as a second shotgun blast, e.g.} this doesn't count against this minion's additional strikes, if any. Only 1 Trigger-happy may be used each combat. == -spintoy

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 03:44:13 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> > wrote: > > > > >>right that getting the guns onto them is a problem, but I don't know > >>if it is *the* problem. > > > >Once you have a gun on a vampire with Celerity that is also in a > >Celerity-based deck, they WILL be at long range. > > Not necesarily. The few times I see gun decks these days, they dont > use the guns maneuver so that they have the option to choose a strike. > > I usually move out to long range with a gun unless I have a maneouvercard. Of course, when chatting with a Tzi or Ass -vampire I rather often maneouver after my opponent if they declare interest in going to long ;) Cel/Obf seems to be a good gun-combo. Thank god the city-gangrels and Assamites don't bleed or vote too well. Toreador will usually have trouble getting the guns. Sure, there is Alacrity and Creepshow Casino. One is horribly expensive and the other a unique location. Sten During -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

James Coupe wrote: > In message <6n2vrtgem5ipfoso0...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray > <lor...@yah00.com> writes > >Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun, > >celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see > >those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak > >point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action > >intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later. > > Now, Toreador Grand Ball and Heidelberg Castle seems a good way around > this. Use Wake on the dancing vampire, move the equipment to them. And > you should have the intercept to defend the Ball for as long as you need > to, in order to get a few weapons out. > > -- > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F > 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 > So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks. Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted. Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why? Because if I'm allowed to get two guns and Heidelberg or three guns out there's pretty much no more vamps around me. 2nd trad, 5th trad, taste Blood Doll and then Psyche to boot. People have stopped to consider Assault Rifle to be too expensive any longer. Taste is suddenly transformed into a 5th trad even if I dodge the first strike. People have even started to stack anti-equip-cards now, which pretty much makes it impossible to find out if gun-decks are viable any longer :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <27f52a52.01100...@posting.google.com>, spinney99 <spore...@hotmail.com> writes >i've had these on paper for a while, and there are probably others who >have similar: >== <snip - Marksmanship - master card costing pool> I'd be unhappy with master cards costing pool since it requires yet more preparation for an intensely fragile situation. The minion/combat card option strikes me as very good indeed. Disciplineless cards, akin to Lucky Blow/Channeling the Beast, are handled quite neatly by the much underused Manstopper Rounds. (Probably partly because guns are so fragile.) Hmm... maybe something like: Sniper Sight Auspex Combat (aus) Strike: use a gun possessed by this minion at +1R damage. [Something innocuous, making the inferior usable but not great. Remember, it stacks with ammo so it could get quite nasty, but it's not designed to be killer.] (AUS) Strike: use a gun possessed by this minion. If the opposing minion strikes to end combat, that effect occurs after damage resolution, before additional strikes would be declared. (All other effects of their strike occur normally.) It can still be dodged, it can still prevented, they can still get to close and pound you, they can still Strike: Destroy Equipment etc. Putting it on AUS gives the intercept gun decks something interesting to do with AUS, but also means that Celerity weenie decks can't go wild with it - bigger vampires, combining AUS/cel or something similar can get more use of it, where you've got a 3 and a 4, then mostly 5s and 6s. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3BC1C54F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> writes >After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks. >Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even >pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted. >Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why? Go with Anson and a weenie (say, Colin Flynn or Isobel.) If they reverse the Heidelberg, play another or bring out a Toreador Grand Ball... if you're managing to get a fair amount of pool back with Minion Tap/Taste combos, the small cost of Grand Ball should be fine if you're in an environment whereby equipment can be used usefully when it's out. And Toreador Grand Ball is not unique, so you can play it on more than one vampire. *And* the tapped, dancing minion can be the same one. Say, get out Anson, Felicia Mostrom (5 AUS CEL) and Colin Flynn. Use Anson to 5th, if you can, with Minion Tap (or use Tastes later to save pool). TGB on Anson->Colin, TGB on Felicia->Colin with the second master phase. Get out guns. If you're going for rush actions, they're unblockable. If you're going for Fifth Tradition, that's now unblockable (blimey). If you're going for a hunt (pfeh), that's now unblockable. If you want, they can come and burn them and let you block their vampires with intercept combat (depending on how active/reactive you design the deck). 1 pool for at least one "guaranteed" Fifth Tradition (unblockable, at least) is a bloomin' scary thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <3BC1C54F...@netg.se>, Sten During <ya...@netg.se> > writes > >After handling the Tor newsletter I'm playing a LOT of different Tor-decks. > >Trust me people see me go gun-shopping, they'll intercept. Heck, they even > >pay pool for tapping KRCG in order to have me intercepted. > >Sudden reversals around the table is the norm if I try Heidelberg. Why? > > Go with Anson and a weenie (say, Colin Flynn or Isobel.) > > If they reverse the Heidelberg, play another or bring out a Toreador > Grand Ball... if you're managing to get a fair amount of pool back with > Minion Tap/Taste combos, the small cost of Grand Ball should be fine if > you're in an environment whereby equipment can be used usefully when > it's out. > Honestly thinking about it now. My last stunt involving double Aching Beauties on a big rusher to be crumbled as my Predator blocked three times in a row, paid six pool and was ousted shortly afterwards. Sometimes I think people get TOO upset about guns... Only having one TGB will set me back though. I'm looking greedily at the three Toreadors with Protean now. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:37:09 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <3bc040fb.248956846@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:29:24 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> >>wrote: >>> Cards in V:TES are given a cost appropriate to >>>their power; commonality isn't a function of either. >>> >> >>Commonality alone might not be. > >Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card. > It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. If you have a problem with the blood 'cost' of the card, I think you need to tackle that from that angle T

On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 19:35:05 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: >Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun, >celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see >those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak >point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action >intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later. Im not really arguing those points. But there are lots of decks that more or less avoid intercept, so you can get the guns out. And the existing methods are pretty good. I dont see any way to increase abilities to put guns out without it becoming rather dangerous. Thus a few inplay booster cards would be easier to implement and less of a balance problem I thought. T

On 7 Oct 2001 09:49:43 -0700, spore...@hotmail.com (spinney99) wrote: Neat. I like both of those. T [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bc29111.466099606@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card. > >It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake. If you do this, all it does is gift the game to the people who spend 500 quid on assembling 90 rare cards. >If you >have a problem with the blood 'cost' of the card, I think you need to >tackle that from that angle I have no problems with proper costings of cards; commonality does not affect the power/cost ratio of a card. Many other things do. For instance: - clan requirements - discipline requirements - circumstance requirements (e.g. play when something odd happens) - pool cost - blood cost - card type (because of the slots available for any given card e.g. one master card per turn, usually) - limiting disadvantages e.g. burn clauses (Toreador Grand Ball), cancel clauses (Chas Giovanni Tello), theft clauses (High Museum of Art) - once per game clauses (Ancient Influence, Giant's Blood) - uniqueness (The Barrens)/one per Methuselah (Communal Haven) - requirements for other cards to be around (Disguised Weapon) - limited in manners 'controlled' by your opponents e.g. disciplines (Speed of Thought, Kiss of Ra), sects (Imperial Decree), clans (Judgement: Death to the Brujah!, Letter from Vienna) - ability becomes applicable to all (The Path of Paradox, Tremere Convocation, Festive dello Estinto) These can all contribute in some manner towards a power/cost ratio. The power comes from the card's ability, the cost from all the inherent restrictions which all cards have[0]. Commonality doesn't affect cost, so it can't affect power - within the tolerance levels of a variable set of power levels. That is, we'd love it if *every* card had exactly the same power:cost ratio, but that's just not possible in Real Life (tm). Look at Immortal Grapple. A good card, sure. But it's got a number of problems. First of all, it requires Potence. Second of all, you have to be in combat (which can be dangerous). Then you need to have managed close range (either through luck or support cards). Then it also restricts you, so if you find out that Mr. Opponent is playing Claws from the Dead which you weren't expect, you can't play Dodge. And so on. Then there's Leather Jacket. Also a good card, certainly quite popular among many players. It's disciplineless. It requires an action to be taken, but you end up untapped for blocking duty - "negating", or at least compensating, for part of the cost. Then it has a powerful effect - preventing all damage from a specific strike - but is tempered by the fact that it's continually in view, unlike a copy of Skin of Steel which you might or might not have. It doesn't cost a blood unlike a copy of Skin of Steel, however. Another good card, this time common. Once a card is in a deck, all that can affect it are these sorts of considerations (though doubtless, the list of such is far longer than I can ever write). Jyhad was *designed* to be playable with 90 copies of any given card - hence all the in built limitations to the game. Jyhad was designed in the full knowledge of Magic - rarity *can't* work as a limiting factor for power because people will just buy hundreds of cards. Then you just create a game where newbies don't want to start at the bottom because they know they've got to spend 500 dollars before they can even compete - Jyhad has always been remarkably good at the newbie curve. Some of the rare cards are more specialised in their approach, sure - but that in itself is a limiting factor. If something goes wrong, you don't have a generically useful card any longer. [0] Tangentially, this is why WWeF was so hated by some people in its original incarnation. A generally good article, covering some similar points to this post, is available at: <http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html> and has a good set of reasoning for a number of points. [ quoted text not captured ]

Which is why, when you don't have access to steath, you play with Vast Wealth, if you get blocked the card doesn't get burned. Or you make decoy actions. Bleed, when they block, majesty and untap. If they don't play an Aire. When they're tapped and/or WWeF'd out get your gun. Very few decks can block all your actions all the time. <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bc393da.466813371@news... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 06:08:07 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 19:35:05 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> >wrote: > >>Theoretically, the Toreador should be excellent at intercept, gun, >>celerity, with some Presence bleed thrown in. Why don't we ever see >>those decks? They can't get the guns out; people recognize the weak >>point (the equip action) and exploit it, knowing that one action >>intercepted *now* saves them piles of hurt later. > >Im not really arguing those points. But there are lots of decks that >more or less avoid intercept, so you can get the guns out. And the >existing methods are pretty good. Not around here. If you want a gun, you better use Disguised Weapon or at LEAST +2 stealth in some form; and if you want to GUARANTEE your gun, you better use a minimum of +3 stealth. Why? Because we've ALL learned that light intercept is almost mandatory; those pesky +1 stealth actions (inferior Revelations) can be hell on you. Put another way, if a deck can guarantee all its +1 stealth or better actions going off without objection, then it knows to save whatever stealth, bruise, or block-deterrent cards it has for its zero-stealth actions... and it has a LOT easier time with those zero-stealth actions, as a result. So we see a WHOLE lot of light intercept, media outlets, etc. >I dont see any way to increase abilities to put guns out without it >becoming rather dangerous. Thus a few inplay booster cards would be >easier to implement and less of a balance problem I thought. It's a pointless direction, though. Obfuscate clans already have a nice advantage, especially with regard to non-bleeding actions. By making something that can only effectively be used with stealth even more powerful, you aren't improving that something; you're improving the Obfuscate clans (and others with heavy stealth, like Protean/OBT). By printing a CEL card to make a gun more powerful, you pretty much just improve the Assamites (and a few Malkavians). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:48:02 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. > >No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake. > It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption, bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally guy....etc etc. The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is a function of the cost. In any case, I do agree that cards need to be costed appropriately for their power. I felt 1 blood was appropriate for bullet-time. T

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:48:02 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > >>It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. > > > >No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake. > > > > It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption, > bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally > guy....etc etc. Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru. The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more). It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so it is rarer than the more general use card. Likewise the non-unique Outcast Mage and the Mage Ally Guy (who costs an additional pool and is unique). etc. etc. Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is > a function of the cost. Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall powerlevel increases. Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its powerlevel is unchanged. If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X. Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/ title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power. -- 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/

In message <3bc34dd6.514431751@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption, >bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally >guy....etc etc. It seems that you are unable to understand the difference between a card being powerful, with one set of costs, and another card having potentially greater power with a larger set of costs to compensate - e.g. clan requirements, burn clauses, pool costs, uniqueness etc. A number of the cards with a greater potential utility, with a significantly increased set of costings to compensate, may be rare. This does not make them inherently more powerful, this makes them more specialised and harder to use. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including >clan/discipline/ >title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power. Yep. Some other good examples are: Laptop Computer vs. J.S. Simmons or Tasha Morgan (the retainers cost no pool but are unique) Sport Bike vs. Mr. Winthrop vs. Raven Spy vs. Revenant vs. Masquer. The first two have no requirements. Sport Bike costs a pool. Mr. Winthrop is free but unique. Raven Spy costs no pool and is not unique but costs blood and require Animalism instead. Similarly, Revenant costs blood and requires Tzimisce instead. And Masquer gets some extra features (immune to non-agg damage, can give other minions the intercept) but requires Necromancy and an additional blood compares to Raven/Revenant. Mr. Winthrop is rare, Masquer is common, and the others are all uncommon. But does that make any one more "powerful" than the others? Halcyan 2

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <3bc29111.466099606@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes > >>Commonality does not, in any way, contribute towards costing for a card. > > > >It does to power levels of cards, and thats what I was saying. > > No, it doesn't - at all. Where it does, it's a mistake. i suspect, or at least hope, that he meant that the rarer the card, the more powerful it is. But by "powerful", he means the power of it's effect, irrespective of it's cost. That is, the rarer a card is the more it can do, but because Jyhad/Vtes was designed with a little foresight gained from some M*gic hindsight, the cost[0] of that more powerful effect is correspondingly higher. eg: Lost in Crowds is less powerful than Forgotten Labyrinth, as it has one less stealth. Forgotten labyrinth is also "rarer". Therefore, rarer=more powerful. BUT, the cost of Forgotten Labyrinth is higher, so the card is still "balanced". [0]"Cost" being discipline requirement, blood cost, pool cost, opportunity cost, or whatever.... salem.

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, LSJ wrote: > Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall > powerlevel increases. > > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its > powerlevel is unchanged. > > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X. > > Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/ > title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power. Ok, so this definition of power seems to differ somewhat from what i am perceiving Talonz's to be. I beleive Talonz's definition of "power" equates to your definition of "effect". It's all semantics, i guess. assuming what i perceive the definition of semantics to be is correct. But, i think everyone agress that if a card Does More Stuff than some similar card, then it should cost more than that similar card. right? salem.

LSJ wrote: > Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. > > > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as > > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is > > a function of the cost. > > Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall > powerlevel increases. > > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its > powerlevel is unchanged. > > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X. > > Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/ > title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power. I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However, your last point needs elucidation. I believe it is always _possible_ to separate power from cost. It just doesn't make a good game when you do. The Alpha version of Magic proved that. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. > > > > > The most powerful cards tend to be rare cards. They also cost more as > > > well, but rarity is obviouslly a function of power as well as power is > > > a function of the cost. > > > > Power is a function of cost - reduce the cost of a card and its overall > > powerlevel increases. > > > > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its > > powerlevel is unchanged. > > > > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs > > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X. > > > > Separating power from cost is not possible - the cost (including clan/discipline/ > > title/capacity requirements) is inherently tied to the power. > > I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function > of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However, If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated). This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's Blood common. The power is unchanged. Designer intent won't change this. > your last point needs elucidation. I believe it is always _possible_ to separate power > from cost. It just doesn't make a good game when you do. The Alpha version of Magic > proved that. Power is a function of cost => Cannot separate power from cost. restated: The one depends on the other => the two are not independent. You can make a strong card stronger by reducing the cost, sure. Or you can make a card stronger by increasing the strength of its effect without increasing its cost (which is the line I believe you're on). In either case, if the card was perfectly balanced beforehand, it will not be so afterward (again, the line you're on, AIUI). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:48:20 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >inf: prevent 2 damage >sup: for the remainder of combat, this minion may strike with two guns >each strike. > >Obviouslly, some kind of Woo action films picture of a sunglassed male >slipping out of the way of some bulletfire while returning fire with 2 >of his own guns would suffice. =] You're treading on Shadowfist's turf now. This has a card called Both Guns Blazing but it has a different effect because characters in that game can pack as many guns as they like. I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the current state of gun play is like. What we find is: 24 Ivory Bow 14 Zip Gun 5 Deer Rifle 4 Saturday Night Special 4 Combat Shotgun 3 .44 Magnum 3 White Phosphorus Grenade 2 Bomb 1 Assault Rifle 1 Flamethrower The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes. Talking of which, pool cues are now forbidden by the FAA. Be fun to have one in the game though, just as the Buffy board game does. Just the thing for Derek Ray ... Andrew

>Power is a function of cost => Cannot separate power from cost. What makes it hard to discuss is that some people don't mean how useful a card is, it's overall quality, when they refer to its power. They are referring to the magnitude of effects the card could produce under optimal conditions. I tend to use power to mean the two different things and hope that it's clear from context which I'm referring to. If someone could come up with good words to differentiate the two meanings, that would be helpful.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:56:28 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the >current state of gun play is like. What we find is: > (list slightly trimmed) >24 Ivory Bow >14 Zip Gun > 5 Deer Rifle > 4 Saturday Night Special > 4 Combat Shotgun > 3 .44 Magnum > >The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's >Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention. >Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best >ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put >together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes. And it also figures as far as gameplay is concerned; by equipping with the Ivory Bow, you are paying one pool for a permanent ranged torporizing effect, something nothing else in that list provides except the Flamethrower... which costs a wopping 4 pool. Not surprising, also, that the Deer Rifle (only permanent source of two maneuvers in the game) is next, followed by another one-pool item. >Talking of which, pool cues are now forbidden by the FAA. Be fun to >have one in the game though, just as the Buffy board game does. Just >the thing for Derek Ray ... And you have no IDEA how much it ticks me off, although it likely won't come into play until next May. I'll be damned if I permit my cue to be checked as "baggage" though; I'll FedEx it to where I'm going to be, if necessary. But there is no way I'll turn it over to the tender mercies of baggage claim. Interestingly, the first time I played the Buffy board game, the Pool Cue was in my opening hand. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

Curevei wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > I wrote: > > > I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function > > > of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However, > > > > If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated). > > > > This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's Blood common. > > The power is unchanged. I was referring to the general trend of power in the various categories of cards which I believe was also what Talo...@hotmail.com meant as well. It's trivial to prove that if you change the rarity of a given single card its power does not change. The issue under debate (I believe) that you interceded in was whether there was a design intent to move cards that are more powerful into higher rarity levels. I therefore interpreted your statement with that definition of "power" in mind. [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. I don't think it's all that crucial to find "good words" as much as it for people to be conscious of how others are using particular words and to either try to duplicate the same semantics or else draw attention to how they prefer to define their words. Actually, looking back, I think I may have shifted my definition back and forth in the same post, which is even worse. Sorry for any confusion caused. Thanks for keeping us on track, Ian. Fred

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 23:24:10 GMT, Frederick Scott wrote: >I was referring to the general trend of power in the >various categories of cards which I believe >was also what Talo...@hotmail.com meant as well. >It's trivial to prove that if you change the >rarity of a given single card its power does not change. Up to a point, Lord Copper. Just to correct you folk, note that it's possible to severely restrict the power of a card by limiting production to a tiny number of copies. There are CCG which have this kind of thing - I believe that Galactic Empires used to produce custom cards, of which there might only be a single copy. And you don't have to go those extremes. As a practical matter, I find that VTES rares are quite rare enough to stop me using many of them. I don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10 starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it. Andrew

In message <23DD9EFC8FBE58EC.A8A9ED75...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I >don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10 >starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it. Don't, then. Do what many other people do and trade, borrow or buy singles. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:23DD9EFC8FBE58EC.A8A9ED75...@lp.airnews.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Making cards rare doesn't make them any less powerful. Sure, it means you might see them less often but there are ppl who will buy 10 !Brujah starters to get 10 BBA. Then the game becomes a contest as to who can spend the most money on the game, which is not what anyone wants.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 02:12:17 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >Up to a point, Lord Copper. Just to correct you folk, note that >it's possible to severely restrict the power of a card by limiting >production to a tiny number of copies. There are CCG which have this >kind of thing - I believe that Galactic Empires used to produce custom >cards, of which there might only be a single copy. Unfortunately, this produces the Magic extreme, where those copies of the card now go for several thousand dollars each. Someone with Too Much Money and Not Enough Life can now abuse the card, and will. If only twenty Return to Innocence had been printed, I guarantee eight of them would have found their way to a single person's hands. >And you don't have to go those extremes. As a practical matter, I find >that VTES rares are quite rare enough to stop me using many of them. I >don't care how powerful Blood Brother Ambush is. I'm not buying 10 >starters so that I can build an antitribu Brujah deck using it. Oddly enough, I have quite a few of them just from two !Brujah starters, two boxes of Sabbat War (and prize support), and two boxes of Sabbat (..bought back when Sabbat was $60, and prize support -- no way am I paying any stupid $300 for Sabbat these days). None of these purchases are EXTENSIVELY impractical. [ quoted text not captured ]

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Power is not a function of rarity - reduce the rarity of a card and its > > > powerlevel is unchanged. > > > > > > If effect X has cost Y and some other effect Z is twice as strong and costs > > > twice as much, then the power of Z is equal to the power of X. ... > > I agree with everything you said, not withstanding that the power-not-being-a-function > > of-rarity thing is not so much verifiable as a statement of designer intent. However, > > If you change the rarity, the power doesn't change (as stated). > > This is verifiable. Make Bum's Rush a rare, for instance. Or make Giant's Blood common. > The power is unchanged. I disagree with this, not on its face as you are discussing, but in the sense that some cards' game effects are limited because their availability is limited, while others' effects are pervasive because they are easily available. I believe that these properties associated with rarity affect the power of cards by how they force the game to be played. Consider: If Deflection were a rare, only available in Sabbat, the power would be dramatically changed. The change in power would massively alter the nature of bleed strategies and defense in the game. Because almost any player can easily obtain his fill of Deflection (at least for one deck at a time), bleed strategies are more easily countered. The inverse is true for Disarm. Make it a common, or even a rare in the more readily available Jyhad/Vampire main set, and a combat strategy becomes far more effective (if only by giving Potence access to what is functionally free aggrivated damage), and combat defenses become more important. Thus Disarm would be made more powerful. How about Freak Drive? If it were common, repeat actions could become almost as widespread as Majesty. Speaking of Majesty, if it were really hard to come by, would Immortal Grapple be as important as it is in Potence combat? My point is that the availability of certain powerful cards inhibits or expands their effects on the game and metagame, making those cards more or less powerful. The calculus might be something like: Total Game Power = X * X * Y * Z where X = Objective Game Effect (as LSJ is talking about), on a continuous bell-shaped scale from 0 to 2, where 1=mildly useful and 2=really really powerful Y = Rarity (Y=1 for Uncommon, Y=2 for Common, Y=0.5 for Rare) Z = Set availability (Z=2 for base set, Z=1 for recent expansion, Z=0.5 for out of print expansion, Z=0.25 for Sabbat Only) So, for this model, cards like Majesty, Deflection, and Blood Doll sit on top of the hill of powerful cards, requiring consideration by anyone considering a strategy that could be affected by them. Meanwhile, equally powerful, but less available cards like Freak and Disarm lie somewhat farther down the hill. Of course, if you are Mr. Suitcase, you can turn this model on its head to some extent. If you can afford to acquire and build a deck with the less available powerful cards, you are liable to face a field that is relatively unprepared for, say, the 12 Disarms that you have put in your Potence/Fortitude Rush-Freak-Rush deck. Mr. Suitcase gets to use the inverse of the values of Y and Z in the model above for his own personal game power curve (thus increasing the number of Total Game Power of cards that his opponents must consider, while keeping the Total Game Power of cards that he must reasonably expect to face relatively lower). This is probably part of the reason everyone hates Mr. Suitcase. - Jason Bell

In message <Pfnx7.749$xf7.8...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >The inverse is true for Disarm. Make it a common, or even a rare in >the more readily available Jyhad/Vampire main set, and a combat >strategy becomes far more effective It may become easier to assemble the necessary cards; this is a different thing. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I don't disagree with the thrust of these comments. If the metagame is largely determined by players without all the cards, then making something rare versus common (for instance) effects the metagame. To put what I think you are trying to say a bit differently, how about: rarity doesn't effect the card's power but the power of strategies that employ the card? >Of course, if you are Mr. Suitcase, you can turn this >model on its head to some extent. If you can afford to >acquire and build a deck with the less available powerful >cards, you are liable to face a field that is relatively >unprepared for, say, the 12 Disarms that you have put in >your Potence/Fortitude Rush-Freak-Rush deck. >Mr. Suitcase gets to use the inverse of the values >of Y and Z in the model above for his own personal >game power curve (thus increasing the number of >Total Game Power of cards that his opponents must >consider, while keeping the Total Game Power of cards >that he must reasonably expect to face relatively >lower). >This is probably part of the reason everyone hates >Mr. Suitcase. For two currently played games, I qualify as a Mr. Suitcase. For one of those games, for which I also happen to be a playtester, I've learned to ignore comments about the balance of the game from players who clearly don't have all the cards. While ideally a CCG should be balanced at every level of play, if it's a choice between balancing the tournament level versus the constructed level, the tournament level wins out. For that game, not having all of the cards is not playing top level. (To give an idea of how rare intensive the game is, I built an all rare deck for amusement. It wasn't hard. Wouldn't beat a tournament deck but was about constructed level.) But, there are several features specific to V:TES which alter the math. First, and easily most important, it's multiplayer. Multiplayer games are inherently better balanced than two player games due to the ability to gang up. Second, whereas I can acquire enough cards for some games to have 3-4 copies of every card, I can't acquire 90 copies of every card. While there are players with enormous collections in this game, I doubt anyone has *all* the cards. I'm not sure if there was a complaint in your post, a suggestion, or simply an observation. But, it seems to me that it's especially important with this game, due to the NCL, not to make rares more powerful to avoid strategies based around rares becoming overly powerful. Fortunately, IMO, this game hasn't seen that occur on a significant level.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:23:29 +1000 (EST), "....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote: >i suspect, or at least hope, that he meant that the rarer the card, the >more powerful it is. But by "powerful", he means the power of it's >effect, irrespective of it's cost. > >That is, the rarer a card is the more it can do, but because Jyhad/Vtes >was designed with a little foresight gained from some M*gic hindsight, >the cost[0] of that more powerful effect is correspondingly higher. Finally. Thank you. T

On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:56:28 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >I just took a canter through the winning deck archive to see what the >current state of gun play is like. What we find is: > >24 Ivory Bow >14 Zip Gun > 5 Deer Rifle > 4 Saturday Night Special > 4 Combat Shotgun > 3 .44 Magnum > 3 White Phosphorus Grenade > 2 Bomb > 1 Assault Rifle > 1 Flamethrower > >The Zip Guns are anomalous, being mostly in one deck with Dragon's >Breath Rounds. These are now forbidden by the Geneva Convention. >Leaving them aside, it's clear the guns can't hold a candle to the best >ranged weapon of all - the Ivory Bow. It's better than all the rest put >together. This figures as any bow effectively fires wooden stakes. That's interesting, but what does it really say? Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful. T

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >That's interesting, but what does it really say? > >Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful. Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have been free - only requiring an action to equip with them. Big weapons like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty. It's only military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have required pool. And not nearly so much. Andrew

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:19:57 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >>That's interesting, but what does it really say? >> >>Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful. > >Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that Until one gets to the Assault Rifle. However, using an Assault Rifle almost guarantees a "trick deck", where you're forced to build your deck around supporting the five-pool cost of each Rifle; and when it's all said and done, suddenly you find that all you have is a gun. >the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as >expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious >pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have >been free - only requiring an action to equip with them. Big weapons >like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty. It's only >military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have required >pool. And not nearly so much. notably, the RPG launcher costs 2, and a bomb costs 1. Their problems come in the conditions of their use. However, several groups HAVE tried to make guns more effective by reducing their pool cost by 1 each. This was some time ago, before the influx of new Sabbat War/Final Nights vampires and cards, so it's possibly worth a re-look. It did produce a number of issues, as I recall. First was that decks that didn't care about guns (heavy S:CE, DotB, etc) STILL didn't care about guns, they just spent less pool not to care. Decks that didn't come with additional stealth on the equip action somehow still sucked, because nobody was letting you get a 1-pool .44 on Felicia Mostrom without a fight. Obfuscate gun decks got a bit better, but they didn't have any good way to make use of the guns once they got them, so they wandered around with their 3-pool Flamethrowers looking for something to shoot. Perhaps with Creepshow Casino, Pier 13, the new Ravnos Cache/Carnival, and some of the newer OBF/CEL vampires, it would be worth trying again locally to see if the pool cost reduction made a significant difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

cur...@aol.com (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20011011225240...@mb-cf.aol.com>... > >My point is that the availability of certain powerful cards inhibits or > >expands their effects on the game and metagame, making those > >cards more or less powerful. "High game impact" might be a more useful term than "powerful" for those common, powerful cards that you can expect to see in every game, as compared to "low game impact" cards that are either not powerful or are seldom seen.

> That's interesting, but what does it really say? > > Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful. And? "Retainer decks" aren't very successful, either. I recognize, of course, there are several types of guns, tied together with the ammo cards that inspires one to make a "gun deck," but that doesn't mean the game should bend over to make those cards more viable as a direct strategy to winning. They are an adjunct, primarily, not a focus. Depending on the metagame, a few .44s in the end game may win you another VP. Some games, having one guy with a Deer Rifle may shut down someone else's trick. Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now. They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. Combat doesn't oust people. Killing vampires doesn't earn you VPs. The only way it does is Rush so brutal that is kills EVERY vampire, forcing your prey to bring out more to function (well, that's the IDEA, but cross-table rescues and having a predator make it tricky, in practice), spending pool. That's why (as I said above), I see guns as an adjunct to a deck that primarily does something else. Done right, it can be damn effective, too! But I don't usually think of a "gun deck" as being tournament worthy[0]. Now, it's obvious from your statements that you disagree, fine. I'm not disputing your opinion, just don't see a lot of need in the game for it. Card for card, I can see a lot more that I'd want printed for the game than "cards to help gun decks win tournaments." [0] Exception: Norm had a Princely Gun Deck make the finals twice and win once (IIRC), but I'd call it a Bloodhunt deck; Guns were just his choice of combat. Actually, the latest incarnation I saw was Gangrel, with no guns, further proving the point that it's a Bloodhunt deck, (with nasties like Fame and Anathema) not a "gun deck." -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 13:19:57 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I agree, but there has to be some cost for the card itself to balance it. But still, I wondered why the weapons were THAT costly to play....and it does put a strain on any gun deck. T

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:30:06 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now. >They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. Combat doesn't oust people. >Killing vampires doesn't earn you VPs. See now that's another issue. If the only viable tourney decks are vote and bleed decks its kind of boring imo when combat decks are so marginalized. I dont really disagree with you on your other points. I just thought bullet-time would be a cool card for gun decks, who could certainly use any help they can get, tourney or otherwise. T

On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:41:33 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> It does. One only need to look at corruption/Form of corruption, >> bastard sword/sword of judgement, outcast mage/that rare mage ally >> guy....etc etc. > >Sword of Judgment costs an extra pool, is unique, and requires !Bru. >The "effect" of the card in play is better (more powerful) than Bastard >Sword, but the card itself is not more "powerful" (since it costs more). >It is a more limited use card (being unique and requiring a clan), so >it is rarer than the more general use card. > >Likewise the non-unique Outcast Mage and the Mage Ally Guy (who costs >an additional pool and is unique). > >etc. etc. > >Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it is to be higher on the rarity scale. That does not in anyway void the fact that it still must have an appropriate cost, a cost based on the power of the card and not the rarity. And thats all I was saying. T

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 07:06:42 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > > >That's interesting, but what does it really say? > > > >Basically, it says to me that GUN decks are not very successful. > > Also, one can see that big guns are worse than small guns. Given that > the game is mostly set in the USA, it's absurd that guns are as > expensive as they are - why should you need Vast Wealth and precious > pool to buy a Saturday Night Special? Ordinary sidearms should have > been free - only requiring an action to equip with them. Remember play balance? Backstory is secondary. If play balance sucks, no one plays the game nor gives any fecal material about how realistic the cards seem. I suppose one solution would be to have changed the names and artwork on the cards to make the Saturday Night Special some oversized monster of a handgun (thus better justifying the damage it does to vampires as wells as its pool cost) and maybe making the .44 Magnum into some experimental laser or something. > Big weapons like the Deer Rifle should have come with a stealth penalty. That's all real cute and all but it would hardly make any difference. The Deer Rifle would become an even bigger steal than the SNS and the .44. Generally speaking, guys with guns don't use stealth for much. Sometimes it sucks a little when you can't Bum's Rush the right guy (though outside of Haven Uncovered, few rush cards grant stealth anyway and few gun decks I've ever seen bother to add it), but often it doesn't. And your stealth doesn't matter a whit when you're blocking. Now, add a -2 intercept along with a -2 stealth to the long guns on the rationale that it's hard to be out in public watching someone else when you've got a long gun slung over your shoulder and you might begin to have the workings of a little real balance. I still thing you need to charge pool for the guns, but this way you might decrease the cost of the long guns. > It's only military weapons like bombs and RPG launchers that should have > required pool. And not nearly so much. I do agree that Assault Rifles, Bombs (which actually should be free), Flame Throwers, Submachine Guns, and the RPG launcher are all overcosted by one pool. (Possibly two if you added the stealth/intercept penalty I talked about above.) Fred

In message <3bc6962b.193969643@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. > >Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is >linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it >is to be higher on the rarity scale. Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B7EC84BD.7EBA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now. >They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. All combat is hard, true. However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:18:39 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:41:33 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> >wrote: > >>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. > >Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is >linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it >is to be higher on the rarity scale. Horseshit. Look at the current crop of FN rares. They are hardly "more powerful". They are different, or corner-case... but hardly more powerful. Mythic Form, for example? Sure, it's got a huge effect, but a huge cost as well... this doesn't make me shake in my boots that someone's going to make the unbeatable Mythic Form deck. Mythic Form has a significant effect, but it is not a powerful card. Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise, you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free common (BO). Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with nothing but Awe? Of course not, because you'd be wasting blood off your vamps. You build it with plenty of BO, and include some Awe to save up and "push" a vote through; or to stack on top of your BO as necessary. Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm). However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the Unaligned). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only > if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise, > you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free > common (BO). Yes, Awe is more powerful. Because it is more versatile and can affect a referendum in more situations. It can have a much greater game effect at a cost which is variable depending on how much effect is needed. > Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with > nothing but Awe? If I were to answer it that way, I would fail to answer your question. But I take your point (that some powerful cards are not well served by just stacking a big pile of them in the deck). So answer it this way: If you were to include only 3-5 vote-pushing action modifiers in your vote deck, how many would be Awe? I think the point the previous poster was making was that cards with larger game effects (and often with larger costs in blood/pool/restrictions) more often are rare or uncommon than common. Maybe we would do well to separate and resolve that point from the larger discussion of rarity's relationship to "power" (or even the broad discussion of which cards are powerful). So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards, I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true, tough): - Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer than Anarch Revolt. - Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength. - Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost. - Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are Common). And then there are the cards that stand alone with very great game effects combined with either big restrictions, high costs, or both: Week of Nightmares is probably rare. Gangrel Revel is probably rare. Hostile Takeover is probably rare Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare Form of Corruption is probably rare - Jason Bell

As far as gun costs go, I'd always thought it a bit odd that weapons cost pool rather than blood. Why shouldn't Emerson Bridges be able to go shopping for his own FlameThrower, rather than needing my outside influence? If White Wolf were to reprint guns at the same cost in blood instead of pool, it would really give em' a leg up. Though my poor Caitiff would never be able to recruit their own FlameThrowers *sniff*.. Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:14:28 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> Compare Awe to Bewitching Oration. Is Awe REALLY more powerful? Only >> if you're going to try for more than 4 votes in favor... otherwise, >> you're spending 2 blood for an effect that could be achieved with a free >> common (BO). > >Yes, Awe is more powerful. >Because it is more versatile and can affect a referendum >in more situations. It can have a much greater game effect >at a cost which is variable depending on how much effect >is needed. More versatile doesn't necessarily equal more powerful, though. More powerful, to me, means "just plain better". Theft of Vitae is more powerful than Tongue of the Serpent. Lost in Crowds is more powerful than Shadow Play. Disguised Weapon is more powerful than Concealed Weapon. (well, duh) Most of these cards are balanced against each other by being available in different disciplines; Theft is in a combat discipline, while Tongue is not. Lost in Crowds is in the PREMIER stealth discipline, while Shadow Play is in a multi-use discipline. But this is what I define a card being "more powerful". >> Answer it this way: would you build a PRE vote deck with >> nothing but Awe? > >If I were to answer it that way, I would fail to answer your >question. But I take your point (that some powerful cards >are not well served by just stacking a big pile of them in >the deck). So answer it this way: If you were to include >only 3-5 vote-pushing action modifiers in your vote deck, >how many would be Awe? With 5, I'd include 1 Awe and 4 BO. With 3, it would COMPLETELY depend on the situation. I'd probably not include ANY and just include 3 Bribes, and try for the "blizzard-style"[0] vote-pass. >I think the point the previous poster was making was that >cards with larger game effects (and often with larger >costs in blood/pool/restrictions) more often are >rare or uncommon than common. Maybe we would do Which, as a statement, is generally true. Big effects are rare; the game was designed to let players produce what they can from combinations of multiple small effects. This is part of the appeal of the game. >well to separate and resolve that point from the larger >discussion of rarity's relationship to "power" (or >even the broad discussion of which cards are powerful). That would be the big objection we all have to his statement. The cards aren't more powerful, they just provide a different, often more versatile, effect... "more powerful", to me, means that given the option, you will always choose "A" over "B". It's like having to bet on Florida State or Dekalb Community College if the two were going to play football. FSU is simply a more powerful team. But compare to having to bet on Babe Ruth or Ted Williams; Babe is more likely to hit a home run, but also more likely to strike out (bigger effect, bigger cost). Hard to say which of those players was more "powerful". >So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any >discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards, >I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any >rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true, >tough): > >- Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer >than Anarch Revolt. Difficult to quantify; SJ and AR were both rare in the original set, AFAIK. AA wasn't printed in the same set, but was also rare. >- Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength. >- Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost. An excellent example for both of these of "rare != more powerful"; you get a slightly better effect, but pay a blood for it. There are many decks where one is more appropriate than the other. PtL is uncommon, US is common, I think. FoD was rare, TS was uncommon. >- Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer >than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably >should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are >Common). PS was rare, CA and KRC were both uncommon. KRC hasn't been reprinted yet, AFAIK. Note that CA is only better than KRC in a 5-player game. >And then there are the cards that stand alone with >very great game effects combined with either big >restrictions, high costs, or both: > >Week of Nightmares is probably rare. >Gangrel Revel is probably rare. >Hostile Takeover is probably rare >Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare >Form of Corruption is probably rare Yep. Again, not necessarily "more powerful"; just a HUGE game effect. Temptation of Greater Power is the best "oust yourself" card I've ever seen, if played improperly or carelessly; and it really does take a whole deck's worth of support to use more than 1 per game. Hostile Takeover tends to hand vampires cross-table; a disturbing surprise for local Ventrue decks who planned on getting something out of it. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] From a 'real world' perspective you are mostly right. I imagine that for certain items like flamethrowers though, it may require a bit more 'backroom' influence than just a vampires resources. For game balance purposes, I don't know if that pool->blood cost could be pulled off. T

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:35:43 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <3bc6962b.193969643@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>Rarity is appropriately linked to utility, but not to power level. >> >>Umm, by the examples given above, it should be clear that rarity is >>linked to power, in that the more poweful the card, the more likely it >>is to be higher on the rarity scale. > >Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue >of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form). > No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a direct power/rarity comparison. They are not one and the same. T

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:22:50 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote: > >Horseshit. Agree or disagree, but keep your farm euphamisms to yourself please. =] > >Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to >power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm). >However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the >Unaligned). > Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card. T

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:oPKx7.4334$7W.18...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > - Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer > than Anarch Revolt. Smiling Jack - Rare in two sets (Jyhad / VTES). Anarch Revolt - Uncommon in two sets (Jyhad / VTES). Antediluvian Awakening - Uncommon in Dark Sovereigns, fixed card in Sabbat War. > - Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength. Pushing the Limit - Common in two sets, also appears in two starters. Undead Strenght - Common in four sets, also appears in four starters. > - Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost. Fists of Death - Rare in two sets. Torn Signpost - Uncommon in two sets, appears in one starter. > - Parity Shift is rarer than Conservative Agitation is rarer > than Kine Resources Contested (the last two probably > should be, Uncommon -> Common, but I think both are > Common). Parity Shift - Uncommon in two sets. Conservative Agitation - Common in three sets, appears in three starters. Kine Resources Contested - Common in two sets. > And then there are the cards that stand alone with > very great game effects combined with either big > restrictions, high costs, or both: > > Week of Nightmares is probably rare. One of 8 R1 cards in a set of with 44 R2s. > Gangrel Revel is probably rare. Uncommon in Dark Sovereigns. > Hostile Takeover is probably rare Rare in two sets. > Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare Rare in two sets. > Form of Corruption is probably rare Rare in one set, also appears in a starter. Its not like these are hard to check guys. If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions, at least have the facts straight to begin with. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.thelasombra.com/lists/checklist_australia.htm -- Posted from rr-163-54-80.atl.mediaone.net [24.163.54.80] via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Talonz51" <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3bc88b8f.322345218@news... > On 13 Oct 2001 17:17:46 GMT, berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote: > > >As far as gun costs go, I'd always thought it a bit odd that weapons cost pool > >rather than blood. > > > >Why shouldn't Emerson Bridges be able to go shopping for his own FlameThrower, > >rather than needing my outside influence? Because the clans with Princes then become even more powerful. Gilbert Duane gets a four blood cost Flamethrower. Gregor Anderssen fills him back up with a Fifth Tradition. Compare to: Abd Al-Rashid gets a five blood cost Assault Rifle. Only way to fill him back up is Taste of Vitae. > >If White Wolf were to reprint guns at the same cost in blood instead of pool, > >it would really give em' a leg up. > > > >Though my poor Caitiff would never be able to recruit their own FlameThrowers > >*sniff*.. And none of your allies would be able to get weapons either. > >Bernie Bresnahan > >Bern...@yahoo.com > > From a 'real world' perspective you are mostly right. I imagine that > for certain items like flamethrowers though, it may require a bit more > 'backroom' influence than just a vampires resources. > > For game balance purposes, I don't know if that pool->blood cost could > be pulled off. We tried that in the Austin Expansion, with cards like Momentum and a few others that didn't stay up on the web. It made the Camarilla clans significantly more powerful while not helping the independents or Sabbat enough. This was back before Sabbat War or Final Nights though so I can't say for sure that this would still be the case. http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/expansion/ Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bc98c2f.322505006@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue >>of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form). >> > >No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a >direct power/rarity comparison. You cannot directly compare power without involving cost; attempts to do so are utterly meaningless. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3bca8c7a.322579676@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to >>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm). >>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the >>Unaligned). >> > >Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card. In Sabbat, the end result was significantly above the standard power curve. Following re-writes, it's far less problematic. Good, but not excessively good. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > More versatile doesn't necessarily equal more powerful, though. More > powerful, to me, means "just plain better". One way to judge powerful, versatility is correlated with power. > The cards > aren't more powerful, they just provide a different, often more > versatile, effect... "more powerful", to me, means that given the > option, you will always choose "A" over "B". You are entitled to your definitions of powerful, but I believe that limiting the definition in this way greatly curtails the opportunity for interesting discussion. Another working definition of "powerful" would be a card that is undercosted in pool or blood for the game effect that it produces. The greater the extent of undercost, the more powerful. This definition allows me to compare cards with radically different effects (I am not limited to comparing Awe with Bewitching Oration, I can compare Bewitching Oration to Giant's Blood if I want to). Several cards leap to mind when using this definiton, led by Disarm, Freak Drive, Govern the Unaligned, and Direct Intervention. > >So, to bring that point home, while trying to avoid any > >discussion of the relative "power" of the following cards, > >I would pose the following expectations (I don't have any > >rarity guide on hand, so if some of these are not true, > >tough): > > > >- Smiling Jack is rarer than Antediluvean Awakening is rarer > >than Anarch Revolt. ...snip... > >- Pushing the Limit is rarer than Undead Strength. > >- Fists of Death is rarer than Torn Signpost. ...snip... > > Temptation of Greater Power is probably rare > > Yep. Again, not necessarily "more powerful"; just a HUGE game effect. > Temptation of Greater Power is the best "oust yourself" card I've ever > seen, if played improperly or carelessly; and it really does take a > whole deck's worth of support to use more than 1 per game. Hostile > Takeover tends to hand vampires cross-table; a disturbing surprise for > local Ventrue decks who planned on getting something out of it. :) Again, I was not trying to lobby for these cards as being "powerful" (see the disclaimer), I was just trying to range cards from rare to common using criteria of game effects, play restrictions, and situation restriction. For the list I made, my expectation was that larger game effects, larger costs, more play restrictions, and more situation restrictions were all indicators of greater rarity. If I can get a general agreement on those indicators, I believe there is a really interesting discussion to be had about the cards that violate those trends. I suppose that discussion would not be about "power" per se, but I'm not convinced that a useful discussion about the power of cards can be had, due to the difficulty in establishing an agreement on what the term means. - Jason Bell

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message *One enormous, frustrated snip* > Its not like these are hard to check guys. > If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions, > at least have the facts straight to begin with. Sigh. You have missed my point. It doesn't really matter to me whether all the cards actually map to the rarity expectations I put forth, in fact it would have been dishonest of me to look them up. This is because I was using the properties of the cards as surrogates for the rarity chart. I look at two cards with the same type of game effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction), I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than the other. If I look at two cards with the same game effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than the other. If it turns out that I am right most of the time, then those indicators might be valuable in getting progress in the long and ongoing debate about power, rarity, and the meaning of life. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:3D2y7.5562$7W.26...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message > > *One enormous, frustrated snip* > > > Its not like these are hard to check guys. > > If you are going to attempt to draw conclusions, > > at least have the facts straight to begin with. > > Sigh. You have missed my point. Actually, I think he countered it. > It doesn't really matter to me whether all the cards > actually map to the rarity expectations I put forth, > in fact it would have been dishonest of me to look > them up. This is because I was using the properties of the cards as surrogates for the rarity chart. > I look at two cards with the same type of game > effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction), > I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than > the other. If I look at two cards with the same game > effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater > cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare > than the other. Some of your examples have been proven false and therefore do not support your concusion. > If it turns out that I am right most of the > time, then those indicators might be valuable > in getting progress in the long and ongoing > debate about power, rarity, and the meaning > of life. > If it turns out that you are right I would like to be the first to agree with you. I disagree with you that power = rarity in VTES (See Govern the Unaligned, Deflection, Undead Strength, Lost in Crowds, Claws of the Dead, Bum's Rush, etc...). The higher utility cards are normally your most common cards. The game is printed that way, and God bless 'em for it. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr.

> Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card. Let's compare the two cards Govern the Unaligned ! Mind Rape Cost 1 ! 2 ! Basic +2 Bleed ! +2 Bleed Effect ! ! Superior Tranfer 3 Pool to ! (D) Put this card on a younger Effect a younger uncontrolled ! vampire and tap that vampire in your !vampire. The vampire with uncontrolled region !this card does not untap as from the Blood Bank !normal during his controller's !untap phase. During the acting !vampire's controller's next minion !phase, he or she must burn this !card to untap the vampire and ! take control of the vampire until ! the end of his or her turn. ! Rarity Common ! Rare Now let us compare the comparitive cost vs. effect of the two cards. The basic effect of both cards is +2 Bleed, yet Mind Rape has a blood cost of 1 higher. So obviously, if you are only using inferior Dominate then you would choose to use Govern the Unaligned because it has half (50%) of the cost of Mind Rape. Since Mind Rape has no more powerful effect at the inferior than Govern the Unaligned, The Superior is where you believe that Mind Rape is more powerful. Let's look. Govern the Unaligned gives you 3 free pool and 3 free transfers to move that pool onto one of your uncontrolled vampires for a cost of one blood and a +1 stealth action. Wow! that is alot! That beats the crap out of every master card which is used to speed up your transfer rate. You can either use your remainin 4 transfers to influence out a 7cap or lower or you can use your four transfers to gain 2 pool and still have one left for next turn. It is both a permanent source of pool gain and a acceleration device. Now let us look at Mind Rape. "(D) Put this card on a younger vampire and tap that vampire. The vampire with this card does not untap as normal during his controller's untap phase. During the acting vampire's controller's next minion phase, he or she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take control of the vampire until the end of his or her turn." This card allows you to both tap a vampire and take control of him during your next minion phase. Obviously the best target for this card is your prey (that is if your prey has a younger vampire.). Unfortunantly he/she is going to block it since it is at zero stealth, but let's say that you have additional stealth and succeed with the action. You now have tapped out a potential blocker, which is great for two blood. So now you can bleed away with one less blocker being avalible to your prey, but Mind Numb does this cheaper (1 blood cost) and without requiring a superior discipline. So now let's go to your next minion phase where you have deprived your prey of a potential blocker and gained a minion yourself. Now of course you are going to apply all the pressure you can with your vampires now, but what about this vampire you have just Mind Raped? Is it going to be able to do anything for you other than just bleed for one? Not if your prey isn't playing with Dominate. So if your prey is playing anything other than Tremere, !Tremere, Malkavians, Ventrue, !Ventrue, Lasombra, or Giovanni (ie. the 13 other clans not including Caitiff), then all you can do is bleed for one as more than likely the vampire you have just mind raped will not have Dominate. Most players will ignore it. If you prey is playing with dominate you are guaranteed that they are going to wall up and attempt to bounce everything you are throwing at them to their own prey. If you mind rape a vampire other than your prey's you have just made a really big enemy and that is just not smart. So what are the real effects at superior. Mind Rape gives you temporary control a vampire which may or may not be useful to you while removing a potential blocker for two turns for two blood. Govern the Unaligned allows to accellerate your control over your own minions permanently or gain pool to use as a defense for one blood. While I will agree that Mind Rape is a more powerful card at superior, it has a transient effect vs. Govern the Unaligned's permanent effect. I do not think that Mind Rape is twice as powerful as Govern the Unaligned and Mind Rape is twice as expensive. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

In message <Uoiy7.21042$Xj1.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>, X_Zealot <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> writes >So now let's go to your next minion phase where you have deprived your prey >of a potential blocker and gained a minion yourself. Now of course you are >going to apply all the pressure you can with your vampires now, but what >about this vampire you have just Mind Raped? Is it going to be able to >do anything for you other than just bleed for one? Actually, Lasombra's Clan Impersonation/Judgement: Camarilla Segregation suggestion is pretty brutal. OBF/DOM princes would work well.... Cloak to make sure the CI gets through (already at +1 stealth anwyay), and Obfuscate to make sure you have a fair amount of stealth anyway for the important actions. [ quoted text not captured ]

I was victimized first hand by The Lasombra playin his Mind Rape/Banishment Deck. Very Nasty. I have seen it do nasty things. Is it as scary as all that? Nope, just a good deck like any other. I still don't think it makes it better than GTU. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:9i0f1aN4...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 18:49:06 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:22:50 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> >wrote: > >>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to >>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm). >>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the >>Unaligned). >> > >Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card. No, it's not. It has a greater effect in a much more limited number of situations, but Mind Rape is a weak card compared to Govern. Norm has explained it well, but I can do the same more quickly: Mind Rape, cost 2 blood: - requires you to play extremely large vampires in order to guarantee that your prey will have younger vampires than you - requires you to deal with all the weaknesses of playing a big-vampire deck (Arika comes out, ready to Mind Rape, and gets Pentex Subverted) - requires that you carry stealth to guarantee the action being successful, as it will never go unblocked if possible - requires that you have something useful to do if successful; you cannot rely on the disciplines of the stolen vamp, as you cannot control your prey's deck With these four HUGE restrictions, it then provides a large effect for double the cost of Govern the Unaligned. Govern the Unaligned, cost 1 blood: - requires you only to construct your OWN crypt so that you have a varied age of vamps, and the older ones have DOM: note that this can be done by using several 4-caps and many weenies - does not require you to play a big-vampire deck with its inherent weaknesses - comes with an inherent +1 stealth, which is frequently sufficient - does not depend on your predator's or prey's deck at all Govern has, effectively, one restriction; you have to construct your own crypt properly, and even this is easier than Mind Rape's age restrictions. For half the cost, you get 3 pool and 3 transfers; this is a VERY large effect that many people underestimate. Not as large as borrowing a vampire for a turn, but certainly more than "half" as powerful. So, I repeat my conclusion: Mind Rape is actually *weaker* than Govern the Unaligned. WEAKER, yes. You could look in the Tourney Archive and see how many winning decks contain Govern, and how many contain Mind Rape, although it's really a foregone conclusion. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > I look at two cards with the same type of game > > effect. If I see that one is unique (play restriction), > > I use that as a clue that it might be more rare than > > the other. If I look at two cards with the same game > > effect, but one has a greater effect, but greater > > cost, I use that as a clue that it might be more rare > > than the other. > > Some of your examples have been proven false and therefore do not support > your concusion. I'm assuming that's a joke. Remember, I'm not looking for universal truth here. Look at it this way, if I had a premise that people with higher incomes tend to spend more money, your rich but tightwad uncle doesn't disprove my position. > > If it turns out that I am right most of the > > time, then those indicators might be valuable > > in getting progress in the long and ongoing > > debate about power, rarity, and the meaning > > of life. > > > > If it turns out that you are right I would like to be the first to agree > with you. I disagree with you that power = rarity in VTES (See Govern the > Unaligned, Deflection, Undead Strength, Lost in Crowds, Claws of the Dead, > Bum's Rush, etc...). The higher utility cards are normally your most common > cards. The game is printed that way, and God bless 'em for it. Sigh once again. You also have missed my point. I have made no claim that power = rarity (and hey, define power as long as you're going there, I'm guessing your definition is something like power = utility, since you've offered no further indication). I have posed that large game effects (like, say, "All Ravnos get +1 Strength and +1 Bleeed) are one factor I believe to be associated with rarity (in a way that is closely tied together with costs and restrictions). By the way, the only cards that you listed above that I believe could possibly qualify under my definition of large game effects would be Deflection, and maybe Govern (maybe). And none of the cards you mentioned have any of the other factors I posed were related to rarity (maybe Bum's Rush do not replace qualifies, but I'll consider that a cost associated with its no-discipline bonus, instead of a rarity operator), so I'm definitely not shocked that none are rare or even uncommon. Speaking of Govern, if I saw another card that had more play restrictions (a Prince/Justicar restriction) and more situation restrictions (no bleed option), I would suspect that card to be more rare than Govern. Hey, look, the uncommon Fourth Tradition. - Jason Bell

> Again, I was not trying to lobby for these cards as being "powerful" > (see the disclaimer), I was just trying to range cards from rare to > common using criteria of game effects, play restrictions, and > situation restriction. For the list I made, my expectation was that > larger game effects, larger costs, more play restrictions, and > more situation restrictions were all indicators of greater rarity. I think the word "indicators" is bit sticky. It sounds like "symptoms," and so it's Rarity, the sickness, that -causes- large game effects, large costs, etc; the symptoms. That doesn't really sound right to me; it's like you've got the cause and effect backwards. I would think instead that a card with large game effects, but appropriately costed and limited, ends up being printed as a rare. I see that there's a kind of 1-to-1 correspondence, so you CAN look at it that way, but it makes it sound like the game designers start with a template, Rare, and then must add on large game effects, costs, restrictions, etc, to fit the "Rare" requirements. I just don't see it that way. I know that's a lot of a verbal nitpick, but if we're trying to agree on the terminology of Power and Rarity, it seems an important distinction. > If I can get a general agreement on those indicators, I believe > there is a really interesting discussion to be had about the cards > that violate those trends. I think there's an equally interesting (different) discussion to be had on cards that DO follow the trend, but where you can have card that simultaneously "cost too much" and "are too powerful." Certainly, if you can find a way to reliably offset the cost, you can "abuse" the power of the card (see: Return to Innocence. Actually, don't. That's cold ground, and we all got the point). Some cards are so powerful AND so costly that they're like playing with matches and dynamite. Kiss of Ra, say. Sure, you can torporize a guy just for TRYING to block, but you're STILL blocked. If you fail to follow it up, you spent a lot of blood giving, say, your predator, an easy 2 VP sweep, since you "hurt" 2 players, one of them being you. But, anyway, that's a *different* discussion. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

<snip large misunderstanding:)> I have posed that large game effects > (like, say, "All Ravnos get +1 Strength and +1 Bleeed) > are one factor I believe to be associated with rarity > (in a way that is closely tied together with costs and > restrictions). > Okay let look at this card. It is obviously Week of Nightmares. Requires Ravnos Put this card in play and place 10 nightmare counters on it. During each Methuselah's untap phase, he or she may move a nightmare counter from this card to a Ravnos. When the last counter is moved, each Ravnos must burn a blood for each nightmare counter or be burned, and this card and all nightmare counters are then burned. While this card is in play, all Ravnos get +1 bleed and +1 strength and do not hunt as normal. Any ready Ravnos may hunt by stealing a blood from any other Ravnos as a +1 stealth (D) action. Only one Week of Nightmares may be played during a game. Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what defines rarity in VTES. > By the way, the only cards that you listed > above that I believe could possibly qualify under my > definition of large game effects would be Deflection, > and maybe Govern (maybe). > Govern the Unaligned is desputedly the most powerful card in the game. Here are some more powerful Commons. Clandestine Contract- let's you put a permanent rush action into play. Disguised Weapon- allows you to equip without taking an action Heart of Darkness- allows to ignore any and all aggrivated damage. Atonement-you do not have to block when blocking a younger vamp Magesty- the premier anti-combat card. Shambling Hordes- a bad ass ally that only costs blood > And none of the cards you mentioned have any of > the other factors I posed were related to rarity > (maybe Bum's Rush do not replace qualifies, but > I'll consider that a cost associated with its > no-discipline bonus, instead of a rarity operator), > so I'm definitely not shocked that none are rare > or even uncommon. > > Speaking of Govern, if I saw another card that had > more play restrictions (a Prince/Justicar restriction) > and more situation restrictions (no bleed option), I > would suspect that card to be more rare than Govern. Now you are catching on. The more restictions a card has on it; the rarer it is going to be. Why? Because you are going to use them more rarely. > > Hey, look, the uncommon Fourth Tradition. > Hey look, only useable by 33 vampires in the entire game out of 423 vampires. How rare should it be? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare > because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what defines > rarity in VTES. This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare cards Freak Drive and Disarm. Also, your explanation above fails to account for the similar, but non one per game restricted rare, Gangrel Revel. > > By the way, the only cards that you listed > > above that I believe could possibly qualify under my > > definition of large game effects would be Deflection, > > and maybe Govern (maybe). > > > Govern the Unaligned is desputedly the most powerful card in the game. Here > are some more powerful Commons. I have already held on this thread (or the one it was culled from) that Govern is among the most powerful cards in the game, just before trying to set aside all the varying definitions of "power" and discuss what factors seem to affect rarity. I think I will decline to respond to any more of your posts on this subject, since we do not appear to be using the same language. Please define your terms clearly and read my definitions of the terms I am using before making assumptions about what I have written. Your desire to keep "power" wrapped up in the rarity discussion prevents progress in this vein, so it seems I will have to set your comments aside. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:lxIy7.404$jq6.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare > > because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it > > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what defines > > rarity in VTES. > > This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare > cards Freak Drive and Disarm. Okay you have found two really good cards out of 298 rares. I admit, I wish I had more. I probably have 5 or 6 of each. > Also, your explanation above fails to account for the similar, > but non one per game restricted rare, Gangrel Revel. Gangrel Revel is Uncommon. Jason, do yourself a favor. Look at http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/ It lists all the cards with there rarities. Just so you can get your facts straight, and allow you to fully expound on your theories without having "hacks" like me shoot holes in them.:) [ quoted text not captured ]

Fair enough Jeff. However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool? No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd. Maybe something to shoot for in the future Camarilla set. As for filling up with 5th Traditions after losing "x" blood, so what? I'd expect nearly all the traditions may receive a tweak or two so that this shouldn't be as much an issue next year. Besides, blood is more important nowadays with the Serpents running rampant. They let you arm with a gun, steal the vampire, move the gun, burn the vampire for pool gain.. Assamites start smacking around Vampires that try to hunt. Toreador AntiTribue now have a reason to play shock troops (maybe) And so on.. As for allies/mortals, they would be restriced to pool based weapons or those they take from another Vampire. I dunno, just another thing to mull over.. Bernie Bresnahan NJL Webmaster http://wakeup.to/vampire [ quoted text not captured ]

BernieTime wrote: > > Fair enough Jeff. > > However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool? > No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should > cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd. Not all (although none of them cost blood, which is probably what you meant): Brass Knuckles Wooden Stake Grenade Meat Hook (Smoke Grenade) -- 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/

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:53:07 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <3bc98c2f.322505006@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>Not true. The card still has a roughly equivalent power level by virtue >>>of having a significantly increased cost (of whatever form). >>> >> >>No. You are speaking of a power/cost ratio. I am talking about a >>direct power/rarity comparison. > >You cannot directly compare power without involving cost; attempts to do >so are utterly meaningless. > You are merely splitting fine hairs with me. You certainly can compare power alone. But sure, for playability of the card, it is wise to look at the cost as well. T

On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 21:55:17 +0100, James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >In message <3bca8c7a.322579676@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>Rarity, by repeatedly-stated designer intent, is NOT directly linked to >>>power. Occasionally it happens that a powerful card is rare (Disarm). >>>However, far more "powerful" cards are, and remain, common (Govern the >>>Unaligned). >>> >> >>Yup. Great card. The rare Mind Rape is however a more powerful card. > >In Sabbat, the end result was significantly above the standard power >curve. Following re-writes, it's far less problematic. Good, but not >excessively good. > Taking control of a ready and active vampire is more powerful, even temporarily, then adding 3 blood to an inactive vampire in my books. There are situations where this may differ ingame, but im assuming neutral situations. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Fool's Gold Master. 2X+5 pool. Oust all other Methuselahs. You win all VPs, even those won by other players (even if they had already been ousted). X is the amount of pool you currently have. The card is complete wallpaper - it is unplayable in every instance (although it can be burned to cause Chas's action to fail :-) Even though the *effect* is powerful, the card is not powerful at all. The power of a card cannot be considered without considering the cost (just as it cannot be considered without considering the effect). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:08:22 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >Taking control of a ready and active vampire is more powerful, even >temporarily, then adding 3 blood to an inactive vampire in my books. I want you as my prey too sometime, then. While you get out Lucian so you can go Mind Rape Salinger, who has NO disciplines you can use, I'll Govern out three other vampires with Dominate and bleed you 4 times each turn. How many Deflections do you have? How many did you draw early? >There are situations where this may differ ingame, but im assuming >neutral situations. There are no neutral situations. The complexity of the situation you must create in order to play Mind Rape effectively is such that, while still a good card with a strong effect, it is actually inferior to Govern superior. -- Derek

>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with >than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired >replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something >along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally >wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on this group about "Concealed Weapon". Many of us thought it was obviously a misprinted card that was supposed to be disciplineless but had inadvertantly been given an obf symbol. Our reasoning was that obfuscate had 12 discipline cards while all other disciplines had 11; Concealed Weapon has no Superior text (neither does Army of Rats of course); and Concealed Weapon is obviously so inferior to Disguised Weapon that it would not be an obfuscate card. I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card. I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't think it would need that. Doug Keeper of the curse and Master of the Knife. Clear all chaff to write to me.

On 18 Oct 2001 02:41:06 GMT, doug...@aol.comchaff (DOUGDWISE) wrote: >>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with >>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired >>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something >>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally >>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. > >James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on >this group about "Concealed Weapon". >... >I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules >Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card. It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS, and it's not going to get fixed now. >I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even >possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be >disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just >errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't >think it would need that. Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow. War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger. Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel. CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? Nope. -- Derek

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:9fisstk1sci6pmt19...@4ax.com... > On 18 Oct 2001 02:41:06 GMT, doug...@aol.comchaff (DOUGDWISE) wrote: > > >>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with > >>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired > >>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something > >>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally > >>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. > > > >James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on > >this group about "Concealed Weapon". > >... > >I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules > >Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card. > > It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS, > and it's not going to get fixed now. <sigh> Yes, that's true. "No new errata will be issued to empower wallpaper - there's enough errata already. The existence of OOP wallpaper isn't enough of a problem to warrant more errata. *If* the card ever gets reprinted, then perhaps it would be changed so as not to be wallpaper (probably so, or there'd be no point in reprinting it). But note: that doesn't mean it will get reprinted." -- LSJ The 2nd wish from the VTES genie's bottle, for me at least, would be to make this card as it should have been made in Jyhad. Oh well! :) > >I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even > >possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be > >disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just > >errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't > >think it would need that. > > Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow. > War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger. > Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel. > > CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. I'm not sure that is true, since Muddles, et.al., are (somewhat) easily thwarted, i.e. Muddles has only 1 life, a single manuever or prevention renders the War Ghoul inoperative, etc. Feel free to post a deck, assuming that CW is disciplineless, that necessitates errata or banning to said new card, and I'll believe this argument. (i.e. prove anti-X must be played against X.) > In the original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? > > Nope. It would be nice to see cards "corrected", though. Legacy of Pander was "corrected", which MADE it wallpaper. Complete BS, IMHO, since unless part of purchasing the license back from WOTC demanded correction of LoP, this was the CHOICE of someone at WW, which means they could have chosen to leave LoP as-was. (And this was because the records at WOTC indicated that this is how it should have been all along, true?) The question with LoP -- why did the card have to be DESTROYED? -- is the converse of the question some of us are and have been asking about CW -- why can't the card be made PLAYABLE? (LSJ, I apologize for once again asking these questions. Thanks in advance for taking up the topic. :) > -- > Derek Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_ "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

>Many of us thought it was obviously a misprinted card that was supposed to be >disciplineless but had inadvertantly been given an obf symbol. Our reasoning >was that obfuscate had 12 discipline cards while all other disciplines had >11; >Concealed Weapon has no Superior text (neither does Army of Rats of course); I just wanted to point out that there are actually a handful of cards without superior text: You've already mentioned Army of Rats and Concealed Weapon. Also, there's: Infernal Familiar Rampage Thanks for the Donation I'm sure there are more but can't think of any more right now... Halcyan 2

On 18 Oct 2001, Halcyan 2 wrote: > I just wanted to point out that there are actually a handful of cards without > superior text: > > You've already mentioned Army of Rats and Concealed Weapon. > > Also, there's: > > Infernal Familiar > Rampage > Thanks for the Donation Horrific Countenance Trick of the Danya (used to not have "the" in title, i think...or something) umm....i can't think of any others right now either. salem.

James Coupe <jr...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<qZPqL0BZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <B7EC84BD.7EBA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > > Sure, they *could* be made into a focus, but guns don't SUCK right now. > >They're just hard to win with, like ALL combat. > > All combat is hard, true. > > However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with > than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired > replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something > along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally > wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. possibly *hard* to win with, but they can situationally be that equalizer you're talking about. not really tourney level, but this did ok lately in our play group... hidden wienerville yes, even the name is obfuscation... (toolbox?) VAMPS 1x Cicatriz 5 2x Shannon Price 3 2x Panagos Levidis 3 2x Watenda 3 1x Normal 2 1x Dimple 2 2x Basil 1 1x Navar McClaren 1 MASTERS (20) 4x blood doll 3x sudden reversal 2x dreams of the sphinx 2x slave auction 2x heidelberg castle 2x rotschreck 1x fame 1x humanitas 1x fragment of the book of nod 1x the barrens 1x asylum hunting ground MINION CARDS (70) 7x dragon breath rounds 6x disguised weapon 5x saturday night special 2x sawed-off shotgun 2x assault rifle 2x leather jacket 5x lucky blow 4x fake out 2x amaranth 3x bum's rush 2x hidden lurker 5x wake with evening's freshness 2x delaying tactics 6x raven spy 1x mr. winthrop 1x j.s. simmons 1x tasha morgan 4x laptop computer 1x pier 13 3x army of rats 2x cloak the gathering 2x spying mission 1x faceless night 1x lost in crowds play advice: you are going to discard a lot, and might get hand-jam, or the contesting vamps, and not get your combos, and it won't usually stop you. don't be afraid to toss DBR or masters or weapons or whatever you have too much of away left and right, usually using the dreamsOTS for hand size. get to what you need, but take what you get too. as always, with a highly varied deck. don't worry about what-ifs, just dance with it in the moment. (^: (f'r instance, i didn't buy an assault rifle, nor even the heidelberg castle, when there was an anarch revolt deck at the table. used an amaranth, though mine was a good minion which i knew i'd lose in the bloodhunt. etc.) sporemage37

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > BernieTime wrote: > > > > Fair enough Jeff. > > > > However, why is it that ALL weapons cost pool? > > No real problem accepting the fact that SOME weapons should > > cost pool, but ALL of them? Wierd. > > Not all (although none of them cost blood, which is probably > what you meant): > > Brass Knuckles > Wooden Stake > Grenade > Meat Hook > (Smoke Grenade) I suspect he meant "pool but never blood." - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > On 18 Oct 2001 02:41:06 GMT, doug...@aol.comchaff (DOUGDWISE) wrote: > > >>However, I would contend that guns are significantly harder to play with > >>than anything else. I can't get hold of my (recently acquired > >>replacement) copy of The Eternal Struggle but I do recall something > >>along the lines of guns (particularly, as I recall) being originally > >>wanted as an "equaliser" or some similar term. > > > >James, I remember back in the early days there were periodic discussions on > >this group about "Concealed Weapon". > >... > >I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules > >Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card. > > It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS, > and it's not going to get fixed now. > > >I submit that if anyone is interested in making gun decks viable (or even > >possible) all that needs to be done is to have Concealed Weapon ruled to be > >disciplineless. If anyone is worried it is too good a card that way just > >errata it to include the text "Do not replace until after combat." But I don't > >think it would need that. > > Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow. > War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger. > Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel. > > CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the > original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? > Nope. Hey, with a restriction on equipping unique weapons, Concealed Weapon starts to look almost acceptable, no? - Jason Bell

"Kevin M." wrote: > Legacy of Pander was > "corrected", which MADE it wallpaper. Complete BS, IMHO, since unless part of > purchasing the license back from WOTC demanded correction of LoP, this was the > CHOICE of someone at WW, which means they could have chosen to leave LoP as-was. > (And this was because the records at WOTC indicated that this is how it should > have been all along, true?) The question with LoP -- why did the card have to > be DESTROYED? -- is the converse of the question some of us are and have been > asking about CW -- why can't the card be made PLAYABLE? > > (LSJ, I apologize for once again asking these questions. Thanks in advance for > taking up the topic. :) LoP: WotC documents indicated that the card was intended to be as currently printed. This is not Wallpaper - I've still swept tables with the card. CW: Reducing the power level of overpowered cards is necessary. Increasing the power level of underpowered cards is not. -- 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/

In message <K1wz7.11397$%B6.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the >> original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? >> Nope. > >Hey, with a restriction on equipping unique weapons, Concealed Weapon >starts to look almost acceptable, no? So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a substandard card into line. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D

In message <27f52a52.01101...@posting.google.com>, spinney99 <spore...@hotmail.com> writes >possibly *hard* to win with, but they can situationally be that >equalizer you're talking about. My reading of it, when I first read it, suggested something like this. Take, say, Anvil. 6 capacity, POT CEL. He's a big old experienced vampire. Torn Signpost, Blur. Bang. Lots of damage. Or Olivia. 5 capacity, OBF POT. Experienced vampire, maneuver with obf maybe (same as Anvil might do with Celerity), Torn Signpost, Fist of Death, Undead Strength. Lots of combat goodness. Or Sarah Brando. 3 cap, CEL. Equips a SMG. Similarly lots of damage. The thing is, the first two are viable, whereas the third is generally considered far, far more difficult. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 04:49:18 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Concealed Weapon: >Reducing the power level of overpowered cards is necessary. >Increasing the power level of underpowered cards is not. As I understand it, it's just a matter of correcting an obvious error - genuine errata or misprints. There were a bunch of cards in the VTES edition which were fixed for this reason - nothing to do with power levels, right? Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Note the use of the word "necessary". [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > LoP: > WotC documents indicated that the card was intended to be as currently printed. > This is not Wallpaper - I've still swept tables with the card. No offense....but HOW?!? I suppose it's possible to sweep the table if no one else has any votes but it sure wouldn't be a card I'd ever bother building a deck around. I might throw it into a purely Pander-based deck that did other things to make its living. I just can't think any compelling reasons to build such a deck right now. I'd love to see a deck list! Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I also used some 2-cap non Pander Sabbats and Crusades. The problem with Crusades is that, besides only giving 2 votes, they make a single vampire a target. LoP spreads the wealth. LoP can no longer be your sole vote power, but it is far from wallpaper. I think I've still got the deck built. I'll post a deck list next week (if so). [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <7086FD5A4A8E428A.0DF6300E...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>Reducing the power level of overpowered cards is necessary. >>Increasing the power level of underpowered cards is not. > >As I understand it, it's just a matter of correcting an obvious error - >genuine errata or misprints. There were a bunch of cards in the VTES >edition which were fixed for this reason - nothing to do with power >levels, right? The original Rules Team and design team: a) ruled that Concealed Weapon should, in fact, require Obfuscate b) didn't choose to reprint it in V:TES with corrections Compare Blood Fury (I think it's that one, maybe Blood Rage) which was corrected immediately as to which discipline it required. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Vd2laKD1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <7086FD5A4A8E428A.0DF6300E...@lp.airnew > s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes > >>Reducing the power level of overpowered cards is necessary. > >>Increasing the power level of underpowered cards is not. > > > >As I understand it, it's just a matter of correcting an obvious error - > >genuine errata or misprints. There were a bunch of cards in the VTES > >edition which were fixed for this reason - nothing to do with power > >levels, right? > > The original Rules Team and design team: > > a) ruled that Concealed Weapon should, in fact, require Obfuscate > b) didn't choose to reprint it in V:TES with corrections I understand that, although I believe it was laziness on their part. Since both DW and CW are commons, under what circumstances would a player choose to use CW? I don't see any way that I would ever look at DW in a deck and say to myself, "You know, that should really be CW instead." > Compare Blood Fury (I think it's that one, maybe Blood Rage) which was > corrected immediately as to which discipline it required. Similar laziness. Why not just leave it? I mean, CW is, IMHO, *also* so obviously supposed to NOT be of the discipline that it is, that is the exact same circumstance, and should have been corrected in VTES accordingly. > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F > 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 > So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_ "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

"Kevin M." wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > > a) ruled that Concealed Weapon should, in fact, require Obfuscate > > b) didn't choose to reprint it in V:TES with corrections > > I understand that, although I believe it was laziness on their part. > > Since both DW and CW are commons, under what circumstances would a player choose > to use CW? I don't see any way that I would ever look at DW in a deck and say > to myself, "You know, that should really be CW instead." The laziness was, under their description, a desire to avoid issuing errata wherever possible. > > Compare Blood Fury (I think it's that one, maybe Blood Rage) which was > > corrected immediately as to which discipline it required. Incidentally, Blood Rage was not corrected until the reprinting (the unlimited base set, V:TES). No errata was ever issued for Blood Rage. Before V:TES, it was in the same boat as CW - play as printed. > Similar laziness. Why not just leave it? I mean, CW is, IMHO, *also* so > obviously supposed to NOT be of the discipline that it is, that is the exact > same circumstance, and should have been corrected in VTES accordingly. If it had been reprinted, it would have been corrected. But apparently they felt that the need to include new cards outweighed the need to reprint (and correct, if applicable) certain cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > > > > > Why would it be rare? Is it rare because it is powerful, or is it rare > > > because you can only play one per game and therefore you would use it > > > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what > defines > > > rarity in VTES. > > > > This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare > > cards Freak Drive and Disarm. > > Okay you have found two really good cards out of 298 rares. > I admit, I wish I had more. I probably have 5 or 6 of each. > > > > Also, your explanation above fails to account for the similar, > > but non one per game restricted rare, Gangrel Revel. > > Gangrel Revel is Uncommon. > > Jason, do yourself a favor. Look at > http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/monger/ > > It lists all the cards with there rarities. Just so you can get your > facts straight, and allow you to fully expound on your theories > without having "hacks" like me shoot holes in them.:) You can believe that you have done that, but Gangrel Revel was as rare as a card could get for the set in which it appeared. I believe that what you have done is grasp very tightly to semantics in a willful failure to take my point. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:RHHz7.13406$%B6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I only bought a few boxes (like 3) of Dark Sovereigns, and I have like 10 of them. So apparently they are not that rare, they must be uncommon. > I believe that what you have done is grasp very tightly to > semantics in a willful failure to take my point. > I believe that you don't have your facts straight and have resorted to anecdotal evidence to try to support your points (which doesn't work). I believe that I have kicked the legs out from underneath any arguement to equate rarity to power. I believe that you never stated any other point than that. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> > CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. > > I'm not sure that is true, since Muddles, et.al., are (somewhat) easily > thwarted, i.e. Muddles has only 1 life, Kevin, here is a deck that will destroy any deck in record time. Deck Name: Why Concealed Weapon requires Obfuscate Created by: Norman S. Brown, Jr. Description: Get Muddles into play on round 2. Use special house rule that concealled weapon is disciplineless. Round 3, Enter combat with preys vampire, then concealed the ivory bow onto him if he needs it (i.e. preys vampires caps are 4 or greater), if not put it on one of your weenies. If he torporizes him, either diablerize or use vulnerability. Create Embraces to en mass bleed.and use seductions with you vampires after you have put a discipline card on them. Say goodbye to your prey unless they are packing Fortitude, SCE or Dodges. Crypt: (12 cards) [Min: 7, Max: 18, Avg: 2.92] 1 Aleph (AUS dom, Malkavian, 4) 1 Brazil (aus, Malkavian, 2) 1 Didi Meyers (aus cel DOM obf, Malkavian, 5) 1 Dollface (aus obf, Malkavian, 3) 1 Mustafa Rahman (dom, Tremere, 2) 1 Normal (obf, Malkavian, 2) 1 Ohanna (dom, Malkavian, 2) 1 Ozmo (AUS dom obf, Malkavian, 6) 1 Royce (dom, Pander, 1) 1 Samson (dom, Ventrue Antitribu, 2) 1 Watenda (obf, Malkavian, 3) 1 Zöe (AUS cel obf, Malkavian, 3) Library: (90 cards) Master (18 cards) 5 Dominate 8 Tribute to the Master 5 Vulnerability Minion (72 cards) 10 Concealed Weapon 10 Conditioning 5 Embrace, The 7 Fake Out 10 Govern the Unaligned 10 Ivory Bow 10 Muddled Vampire Hunter 10 Seduction [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:RHHz7.13406$%B6.43...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > [ quoted text not captured ] For Christ's sake! So now every UNCOMMON in that set is now a RARE? YAAI. > I believe that what you have done is grasp very tightly to > semantics in a willful failure to take my point. Jason, if you would prove your point instead of telling people about their damn semantics ALL THE WHILE IGNORING YOUR OWN POINT, then people wouldn't say things like this. Sheesh! > > - Jason Bell [ quoted text not captured ]

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:JDJz7.6388$B3.2...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com... > > > > CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. > > > > I'm not sure that is true, since Muddles, et.al., are (somewhat) easily > > thwarted, i.e. Muddles has only 1 life, > > Kevin, here is a deck that will destroy any deck in record time. > > Deck Name: Why Concealed Weapon requires Obfuscate > Created by: Norman S. Brown, Jr. > Description: Get Muddles into play on round 2. Use special house rule that > concealled weapon is disciplineless. Round 3, Enter combat with preys > vampire, then concealed the ivory bow onto him if he needs it (i.e. preys > vampires caps are 4 or greater), if not put it on one of your weenies. If he > torporizes him, either diablerize or use vulnerability. Create Embraces to > en mass bleed.and use seductions with you vampires after you have put a > discipline card on them. Say goodbye to your prey unless they are packing > Fortitude, SCE or Dodges. God, nearly every deck I play against has EITHER Fortitude, S:CE, or Dodge. [ quoted text not captured ] Well, you are hardly ever going to see more than 2-3 Embraces per game, so that isn't really a problem. I mean, more than half of my decks can withstand bleeding to this degree. Muddles with an Ivory Bow is rough -- ganted -- but it isn't the end of the world. I'm going to try to run this in my playgroup sometime and let you know the results. I don't think it's as powerful as you think it is, but I could be wrong. :) Thanks for the interesting conversation and counterpoint, Norm! > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown, Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <K1wz7.11397$%B6.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason > Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the > >> original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? > >> Nope. > > > >Hey, with a restriction on equipping unique weapons, Concealed Weapon > >starts to look almost acceptable, no? > > So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a > substandard card into line. no, just one piece: "the obfuscate symbol on concealed weapon does not mean the card requires obfuscate to play, it really means that the weapon you are equipping may not be unique" and really, if that's not intuitively obvious just from looking at the card, then what is? O:) salem.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Frederick Scott wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > LoP: > > WotC documents indicated that the card was intended to be as currently printed. > > This is not Wallpaper - I've still swept tables with the card. > > No offense....but HOW?!? I suppose it's possible to sweep the table if no one hmm...say you have three pander out. if you call a crusade, you gain 2 votes. if you call a legacy of pander instead, you gain three votes. hmm...why would anyone play with legacy? of course, i prefer to play with a mix of crusades and legacies. (mind you, i only own two legacies..) i have won at tables using a pure pander vote deck, using the above mix of legacies and crusades. it's really not that hard to do. i'll see if i can scrape together a deck list if anyone is interested (although only having two legacies might not help to prove the point that there's nothing wrong with legacy). salem.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Kevin M. wrote: > Since both DW and CW are commons, under what circumstances would a player choose > to use CW? I don't see any way that I would ever look at DW in a deck and say > to myself, "You know, that should really be CW instead." when you run out of DW. My malkanti deck has DW/starshell grenade launchers. my nos deck DW/garotte/stake. i ran out of DW. so my malk deck, which uses Deer Rifles, got CW. I always want the weapon before range anyway (for the maneuvers), it costs no more than 2 pool, and does less than, erm, whatever the damage limit is on CW. and deer rifles ARE funny against a IG deck. Poor Don Cruez and his wolfy claws. salem.

"....salem christ...." wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > LSJ wrote: > > > LoP: > > > WotC documents indicated that the card was intended to be as currently printed. > > > This is not Wallpaper - I've still swept tables with the card. > > > > No offense....but HOW?!? I suppose it's possible to sweep the table if no one > > hmm...say you have three pander out. if you call a crusade, you > gain 2 votes. if you call a legacy of pander instead, you gain three votes. > > hmm...why would anyone play with legacy? > > of course, i prefer to play with a mix of crusades and legacies. (mind > you, i only own two legacies..) Do keep in mind that only the non-titled Panders get a vote. So playing with the combinations only denudes the LoPs that much more. The other than that bothers me about using Pander for weeny votes is that only two of them have presence and I can't think of too many other ways to push the initial vote. Or any other vote that runs up against determined opposition. > i have won at tables using a pure pander vote deck, using the above mix > of legacies and crusades. it's really not that hard to do. It seems to me that if you're going to use Crusades, it's probably better to just find all manner of presence-bearing Sabbat weenies and forget the LoPs altogether. Or better yet, go to presence-bearing Camarilla weenies and Praxis Seizures. I've even seen someone who used both Crusades and Praxis Seizures. But the twisting you have to do to get the LoPs to do anything for you just isn't worth it, IMHO. > i'll see if i can scrape together a deck list if anyone is interested > (although only having two legacies might not help to prove the point that > there's nothing wrong with legacy). Actually, if you're going to use Legacies, you're probably not going to use many of them anyway. It was only when they were stackable that there was much point to using a ton of them in the same deck. Fred

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:<nVQp4nJs...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>... > In message <K1wz7.11397$%B6.37...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason > Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the > >> original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? > >> Nope. > > > >Hey, with a restriction on equipping unique weapons, Concealed Weapon > >starts to look almost acceptable, no? > > So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a > substandard card into line. Are you really against the idea or are you just being contrary? I think Jason has come up with a good solution to the apparent problem of Muddles/Ivory Bow/Concealed Weapon decks being unbeatable. Concealed Weapon already has a restriction on the cost of the weapon, what's wrong with adding another restriction? With the release of the Camarilla set next year it's the perfect opportunity to make concealed weapon playable. I think people's objection to fixing the card based on the idea that underpowered cards should not be fixed is spurious to say the least. Look at all the cards that were underpowered and 'fixed' in the Final Nights release: Powebase: Rome Acquired Ventrue Assets Purity of the Beast Ravnos Cache Ruins ov Villars Abbey If anyone at WW is listening this is one long time player voting for Concealed Weapon to be errataed in the camarilla set. Chris, -theventrue.

In message <Pine.SOL.3.90.1011019143200.15087D-100000@bohm>, ....salem christ.... <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> writes >hmm...say you have three pander out. if you call a crusade, you >gain 2 votes. if you call a legacy of pander instead, you gain three votes. > >hmm...why would anyone play with legacy? (Thinking randomly about the potential for cross-overs with Legacy and Crusade.) Call Crusade. Pass it. Use that vampire to play Creation Rites. More votes from baby Pander. More swarm bleed from Baby Pander. Aw, innit sweet? You also gain various other fringe benefits, depending on how you choose to play it. Private Audience-ing key votes with the Legacy vampire - which won't prevent the LoP from giving your vampires votes - could prove a significant boost, especially with the now current card text. 6 Pander, 1 vote from LoP each, with 1 Crusade-d gives you 7 votes. 8 with the Edge. 9 with your vote card. Private Audience makes it quite likely that you're going to do well here, because of the relative popularity (rather than power) of each sect's voting vampires. Blood Feast and, potentially, Blood Siege could come in handy here. You could always Blood Bath a vampire (because it's not a title, so doesn't prevent LoP, and LoP is not a title so doesn't prevent it). Oh, and Purchase Pact. A fair number of potential benefits, if you construct that way. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5a63bace.01101...@posting.google.com>, Chris Arthur <chr...@comcen.com.au> writes >> So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a >> substandard card into line. > >Are you really against the idea or are you just being contrary? I am against the idea of issuing errata in this manner. If you wish to look into this more deeply, Google stands with my posts from the past several years regarding this. I am also against Concealed Weapon being disciplineless, for a number of reasons. (Whilst none have been done post-SW/FN that I recall, a number of analyses were done of exactly what cards were excluded. The list was always rather small.) The significant benefit you get for going to a disciplined version becomes nearly negligible, in many instances. Again, for full information on this, consult Google. >Concealed Weapon already has a restriction on the cost of the weapon, >what's wrong with adding another restriction? There's nothing wrong with having restrictions, per se. However, issuing errata to upgrade wallpaper is something the current rules team has a stated position against. >I think people's objection to fixing the card based on the idea that >underpowered cards should not be fixed is spurious to say the least. Not true, because you're using non-sequiturs. >Look at all the cards that were underpowered and 'fixed' in the Final >Nights release: These are not errata; these are card reprints. There is a significant difference, and regarding situations like this, remembering the difference in applying terminology is really rather useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Oct 2001 23:55:34 -0700, chr...@comcen.com.au (Chris Arthur) wrote: >Are you really against the idea or are you just being contrary? I >think Jason has come up with a good solution to the apparent problem >of Muddles/Ivory Bow/Concealed Weapon decks being unbeatable. Now fix the War Ghoul/Meat Hook decks. Please, people, stop trying to fix Concealed Weapon. It's gone. Let it stay gone. It would've been nice to have for the VAMPIRES (even that might be a bit overpowered after all the low-cap CEL vamps released), but it just doesn't belong in the set anymore. Shame, but it happens. Time to move on. -- Derek

James Coupe wrote: > Private Audience-ing key votes with the Legacy vampire - > which won't prevent the LoP from giving your vampires votes - could > prove a significant boost, especially with the now current card text. 6 > Pander, 1 vote from LoP each, with 1 Crusade-d gives you 7 votes. 8 > with the Edge. 9 with your vote card. Private Audience makes it quite > likely that you're going to do well here, because of the relative > popularity (rather than power) of each sect's voting vampires. Perhaps. But don't forget the built in ability it leaves for people to vote the card _out_ later. Temporarily stopping opposition will get you your additional Pander votes. But you'll still need to be able to hang onto them without Private Audience. My biggest issue with all this is just that, if you're going to all this trouble to get Pander votes, wouldn't just be a lot less trouble to get Crusades passed with a crypt full of presence weenies? And almost as much payoff? I admit, creating Embraced is sort of interesting (albeit not with the 1-cap Panders - they can't pay for such an action). I just think the deck would be a lot tighter and more workable with Crusades, Bewitching Orations, and the occasional Awe. Maybe a Powerbase: Madrid worked in there somewhere. Fred

In message <ghc0tt89noqv1q96k...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes >Please, people, stop trying to fix Concealed Weapon. It's gone. Let it >stay gone. It would've been nice to have for the VAMPIRES (even that >might be a bit overpowered after all the low-cap CEL vamps released), >but it just doesn't belong in the set anymore. > >Shame, but it happens. Time to move on. (Thinking randomly.) I made the suggestion a while back of doing a new "Dreams of the Sphinx" type card, with a number of innocuous functions (though still useful), utilising Steve Wieck's desire to boost the Edge as a play element. Perhaps one such function could be: "Tap this card during your discard phase and burn the edge to untap a vampire who took a successful equip action during your turn." Or, perhaps: Well Earned Shopping Spree (You can think of a better name) Action Modifier Disciplineless 1 blood Do not replace this card until the end of your next discard phase. Only usable after a successful bleed action or referendum. Equip this vampire with a non-unique weapon card (do not replace this card until the end of your next discard phase); the cost of that weapon (in pool or blood) may not exceed this vampire's capacity. Pay the cost as normal. This does not count as an equip action. Stops weenies tooling up with *huge* weapons, blood cost puts it on vampires not Shamblers etc. You get the kind of idea, anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > Take, say, Anvil. 6 capacity, POT CEL. He's a big old experienced > vampire. Torn Signpost, Blur. Bang. Lots of damage. > > Or Olivia. 5 capacity, OBF POT. Experienced vampire, maneuver with obf > maybe (same as Anvil might do with Celerity), Torn Signpost, Fist of > Death, Undead Strength. Lots of combat goodness. > > Or Sarah Brando. 3 cap, CEL. Equips a SMG. Similarly lots of damage. > > The thing is, the first two are viable, whereas the third is generally > considered far, far more difficult. = not necessarily the above deck, but obf and weapons seems more viable than cel and weapons (as everyone has already stated, i think, in this thread.) (both obf & cel together is looking better these days w/ more city gangrel & assamites, w/ old standby malks.) i got to burn majestic, yet uncareful, blocker ranjan rishi last nite with hidden lurker/dw/sawed-off/DBR and basil. similarly, basil torping a blocked bumrushing anvil w/ dw/satnitespecial/rotschreck can be hilarious fun. add amaranth for increased cursing by subject methuselah... that's what i meant by "situationally, guns can be the equalizer {snip.}" there's no better means to make basil/norm/dimple into killing machines. spinspore

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 15:57:44 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >Or, perhaps: > >Well Earned Shopping Spree (You can think of a better name) >Action Modifier >Disciplineless >1 blood >Do not replace this card until the end of your next discard phase. >Only usable after a successful bleed action or referendum. >Equip this vampire with a non-unique weapon card (do not replace this >card until the end of your next discard phase); the cost of that weapon >(in pool or blood) may not exceed this vampire's capacity. Pay the cost >as normal. This does not count as an equip action. The previously-defenseless Malkavians will love you forever, as they all load up on .44 Magnums. =/ >Stops weenies tooling up with *huge* weapons, blood cost puts it on >vampires not Shamblers etc. You get the kind of idea, anyway. I get the IDEA, though I might have a few problems with the above card. =) But keep this in mind: for a pure-CEL crypt... Sarah Brando Jimmy Dunn Victor Tolliver Parmenides Brachah 2x Black Cat Rigby Dodd Carter Angel Kanya Ahktar The crypt average is pretty disgustingly small these days. Making CW disciplineless means that EACH of these vampires gets a .44 the first time they enter combat; and superior CEL with a .44 is a nasty thing to see. Lots of Computer Hacking, lots of Wake, the media outlets, and Pack Tactics,... I dunno. That's AWFUL good unless you're specifically packing anti-weaponry stuff like DotB. -- Derek

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:O$GDSONow...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Fine. Then let's REPRINT Concealed Weapon in the upcoming Camarilla set, with the change of removing the Obfuscate symbol, in the same way that Acquired Ventrue Assets had the blood-drop symbol removed from the lower left-hand corner for its REPRINT in Final Nights. LSJ, could you enlighten us in the pro-CW-change crowd as to why AVA was "changed" when it was "reprinted", if issuing errata to upgrade wallpaper is something the current rules team has a stated position against? Thank you, much appreciated. > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F > 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 > So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <oaZz7.73692$My2.41...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>, Kevin M. <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> writes >Fine. Then let's REPRINT Concealed Weapon in the upcoming Camarilla set, with >the change of removing the Obfuscate symbol, in the same way that Acquired >Ventrue Assets had the blood-drop symbol removed from the lower left-hand corner >for its REPRINT in Final Nights. You miss the other point in my post regarding this. (Please trim down posts to the sections you are responding to.) >LSJ, could you enlighten us in the pro-CW-change crowd as to why AVA was >"changed" when it was "reprinted", if issuing errata to upgrade wallpaper is >something the current rules team has a stated position against? Thank you, much >appreciated. LSJ has made this clear in the past. (He's away briefly right now.) You may care to search Google. However, errata is errata is errata. Reprinting a card provides players with a copy of the errata in their hands, especially new players, which provides for a significantly different time. (See the NJL split over 7/7 also, for examples of people who are not against change per se but who are against errata for such cards.) -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <68j0ttgi5uu8g8g73...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes >>Do not replace this card until the end of your next discard phase. >>Only usable after a successful bleed action or referendum. >>Equip this vampire with a non-unique weapon card (do not replace this >>card until the end of your next discard phase); the cost of that weapon >>(in pool or blood) may not exceed this vampire's capacity. Pay the cost >>as normal. This does not count as an equip action. > >The previously-defenseless Malkavians will love you forever, as they all >load up on .44 Magnums. =/ They do that anyway, with Disguised Weapon, which has neither a penalty replacement clause or a blood cost... >>Stops weenies tooling up with *huge* weapons, blood cost puts it on >>vampires not Shamblers etc. You get the kind of idea, anyway. > >I get the IDEA, Certainly - it's merely an idea for the sort of area something could occur in. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 20:22:06 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <68j0ttgi5uu8g8g73...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yah00.com> writes >>>Do not replace this card until the end of your next discard phase. >>>Only usable after a successful bleed action or referendum. >>>Equip this vampire with a non-unique weapon card (do not replace this >>>card until the end of your next discard phase); the cost of that weapon >>>(in pool or blood) may not exceed this vampire's capacity. Pay the cost >>>as normal. This does not count as an equip action. >> >>The previously-defenseless Malkavians will love you forever, as they all >>load up on .44 Magnums. =/ > >They do that anyway, with Disguised Weapon, which has neither a penalty >replacement clause or a blood cost... Yeah, but with DW, if they never get into combat, it wedges up in their hand while they're trying to bleed. With this, the weapons just casually appear on their vampires as they go about the course of their business... whether or not they ever get into combat, removing the opportunity cost from DW/.44. Ouch. -- Derek

"X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > > > > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what > > > defines > > > > > rarity in VTES. > > > > > > > > This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare > > > > cards Freak Drive and Disarm. > > > > > > Okay you have found two really good cards out of 298 rares. > > > I admit, I wish I had more. I probably have 5 or 6 of each. > > > ... > I only bought a few boxes (like 3) of Dark Sovereigns, and I have like 10 of > them. So apparently they are not that rare, they must be uncommon. I bought at least 3 boxes of Dark Sovereigns, and the only Gangrel Revel I have is the one I bought from Immortal Grapple Cards. > > I believe that what you have done is grasp very tightly to > > semantics in a willful failure to take my point. > > > > I believe that you don't have your facts straight and have resorted to > anecdotal evidence to try to support your points (which doesn't work). > I believe that I have kicked the legs out from underneath any arguement to > equate rarity to power. > I believe that you never stated any other point than that. Correction, I never ever tried to "equate rarity to power." If you read the thread, you would find that this is the case. Your assumption that this is what I was discussing is why I had decided not to engage in this discussion with you, and I should have stuck with that decision. I'm just not very good at leaving it alone when some super-genius pats himself on the back for destroying an argument I never made. What I have done is try to find some game effects, play restrictions, cost magnitudes, and situational restrictions that tend to be factors in card rarity. I have been unable to discuss these observations, because of the knee-jerk reactions, assumptions, and defensiveness that some peope exhibit when any discussion about rarity in Jyhad comes up. - Jason Bell

As far as I'm concerned, Concealed Weapon should simply be dropped and forgotten about. Would rather see a new disciplineless card along the lines of: Storage Locker Action Modifier 1 Blood If this Vampire successfully equips a non-unique weapon which has a pool cost, the Weapon's cost may be paid (in full) from the equipping Vampire's blood instead. ------- This should benefit larger Vampires mostly, and even if Black Cat decides to equip a Flame Thrower the action would still cost 1+(4-1)=4 blood or pool. The card is also written in such a way that it can be cycled if you choose not to pay in blood (though still at a cost of one blood). Figures in thematically with my notes earlier regarding why Vampires need direct influence from a Methuselah to obtain standard weapons?? Besides, it gives us another way to screw Parminides out of blood :-) Granted, I've read the arguements about something like this being abused by Princes with 5th Traditions. I'm hoping that when the new Camarilla Set comes out that 5th's will no longer allow a Prince to give Hospitality to itself.. Just an idea anyhow, Bernie Bresnahan Prince of Lansing, MI.

On 19 Oct 2001 20:09:35 GMT, berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote: >Granted, I've read the arguements about something like this >being abused by Princes with 5th Traditions. I'm hoping that >when the new Camarilla Set comes out that 5th's will no longer >allow a Prince to give Hospitality to itself.. Black Cat gets a Flamethrower. Volker gives her Horse Brutality. Not inherently icky, but the 5th-self thing is only a small scrape off the problem. I like "5th-younger", myself. -- Derek

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote > >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> CW being disciplineless would be a Bad Thing at this time. In the > >> original Jyhad set, perhaps it would have been viable, but these days? > >> Nope. > > > >Hey, with a restriction on equipping unique weapons, Concealed Weapon > >starts to look almost acceptable, no? > > So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a > substandard card into line. You are allowed to be against making Concealed Weapon discipline-less, but if your argument is that errata is not a good solution for dealing with cards, you're way behind in your work. How about a cost for Concealed Weapon as well? 2 blood, no discipline, weapon restriction (2 pool / 3 damage), weapon restriction (non-unique). Don't bother with errata, let's just make it a new card, we'll call it "Concealed Weapon." - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:SI%z7.16364$%B6.56...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > "X_Zealot" <x_ze...@bellsouth.net> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > > > > > > rarely? It has a large impact but a low utility. Utility is what > > > > defines > > > > > > rarity in VTES. > > > > > > > > > > This is clearly not the cut-and-dried case, considering the rare > > > > > cards Freak Drive and Disarm. > > > > > > > > Okay you have found two really good cards out of 298 rares. > > > > I admit, I wish I had more. I probably have 5 or 6 of each. > > > > > ... > > I only bought a few boxes (like 3) of Dark Sovereigns, and I have like 10 > of > > them. So apparently they are not that rare, they must be uncommon. > > I bought at least 3 boxes of Dark Sovereigns, and the only Gangrel > Revel I have is the one I bought from Immortal Grapple Cards. > I sent you an email about trading for some if you would like. Did you get it? > > > I believe that what you have done is grasp very tightly to > > > semantics in a willful failure to take my point. > > > > > > > I believe that you don't have your facts straight and have resorted to > > anecdotal evidence to try to support your points (which doesn't work). > > I believe that I have kicked the legs out from underneath any arguement to > > equate rarity to power. > > I believe that you never stated any other point than that. > > Correction, I never ever tried to "equate rarity to power." > If you read the thread, you would find that this is the case. > Your assumption that this is what I was discussing is why > I had decided not to engage in this discussion with you, > and I should have stuck with that decision. I'm just not > very good at leaving it alone when some super-genius > pats himself on the back for destroying an argument > I never made. What was you arguement? Could summerize your basic hypothesis in a single sentance. > What I have done is try to find some game effects, play > restrictions, cost magnitudes, and situational restrictions > that tend to be factors in card rarity. > As I posted in your first response, card rarity is directly liked to utility (i.e. how useful a card is). If you can use a card anytime then it is normally common. If you can use the card some of the time then it is usually uncommon. If a card is corner-case, usable once per game, heavy pool cost in combonation with clan/discipline restrictions, then it is usually rare. > I have been unable to discuss these observations, because > of the knee-jerk reactions, assumptions, and defensiveness > that some peope exhibit when any discussion about rarity in > Jyhad comes up. I said that rarity approximates utility. You disagreed with me and said that only the cards which require dominate are high utility cards. I also remember talking to you in conversation at Dragon Con where you said that Dominate is the most powerful discipline in the game. I will agree with you there, but there are lots of ways to beat dominate. Potence combat is the first and formost. Once IG Potence combat becomes common in your playgroup you will find that stealth bleeders and presence voters have to compensate for its presence. This makes other combat models more feasible. I think your problem with utility is that your playgroup has not gotten off of the "Dominate Addiction" which plagues many groups, not that the cards I have listed are not useful. This is just an educated guess. I have never played with your playgroup, although one day I hope I do. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:grqIX5HZ...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <oaZz7.73692$My2.41...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>, Kevin M. > <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> writes > >Fine. Then let's REPRINT Concealed Weapon in the upcoming Camarilla set, with > >the change of removing the Obfuscate symbol, in the same way that Acquired > >Ventrue Assets had the blood-drop symbol removed from the lower left-hand corner > >for its REPRINT in Final Nights. > > You miss the other point in my post regarding this. James, this doesn't help educate me, and if I'm in error, I'd like you to help educate me so I'm no loger in error. Since I obviously MISSED IT, please repeat it for me, so I don't miss it again, and so that we can continue the discussion. > (Please trim down posts to the sections you are responding to.) Affirmative. My apologies. > >LSJ, could you enlighten us in the pro-CW-change crowd as to why AVA was > >"changed" when it was "reprinted", if issuing errata to upgrade wallpaper is > >something the current rules team has a stated position against? Thank you, much > >appreciated. > > LSJ has made this clear in the past. (He's away briefly right now.) > You may care to search Google. Again, this doesn't help me. If you know what LSJ said, go ahead and restate it or paraphrase it so that we may continue the conversation. (LSJ will probably answer reasonably soon anyway, or he may just join our conversation in progress.) [snip errata-is-errata-is-errata & NJL material] > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > And if it's all right, I'd kind've like to be your lover EBD690ECD7A1F > 'Cause when you're with me I can't help but be B457CA213D7E6 > So desperately, uncontrollably happy 68C3695D623D5D Kevin M., Prince of Madison, WI [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f421tt8rot6obdcv1...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> writes >Black Cat gets a Flamethrower. >Volker gives her Horse Brutality. > >Not inherently icky, but the 5th-self thing is only a small scrape off >the problem. > >I like "5th-younger", myself. A minor alteration (5th younger isn't bad) and filling in the gaps between 5th (way out in left field) and the rest of the game (sitting back in the locker room) would suit me. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Fc1A7.16772$%B6.57...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> So now we have to issue effectively *two* pieces of errata to bring a >> substandard card into line. > >You are allowed to be against making Concealed Weapon discipline-less, >but if your argument is that errata is not a good solution for dealing >with cards, you're way behind in your work. No, you (intentionally) mis-state the case here. If you would care to *accurately* report the feelings regarding use of errata, we can continue. Whilst you continue to mis-represent the facts, you are likely to only cause problems for yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

On and about Concealed Weapon > >[snip errata-is-errata-is-errata & NJL material] > Sorry folks, I missed it. What NJL material in relation to Concealed Weapon? Don't recall that we ever made any ruling on it?!? Bernie Bresnahan NJL Webmaster

>>I think this was brought up to Tom at least a couple of times and the Rules >>Team at the time said it was indeed an obfuscate card. > >It is, indeed, an obfuscate card. It wasn't INTENDED to be, but it IS, >and it's not going to get fixed now. I think you may be right. Still, I figure it doesn't hurt to make the suggestion. >Muddles plays Concealed Weapon and gets an Ivory Bow. >War Ghoul plays Concealed Weapon and gets a Sengir Dagger. >Sarah Brando plays Concealed Weapon and gets the Crimson Sentinel. I think Muddles with the Ivory Bow could be dealt with by every clan of the Camarilla in some way back in the original set. I think even the Malks could dodge him but would have been hard pressed to kill him with their in clan disciplines. Sarah Brando could get the Crimson Sentinel anyway without Concealed Weapon but I suspect that would be blocked. It may be that Concealed Weapon isn't the problem with her but rather the idea of a CEL vamp with a good weapon. War Ghoul could probably be dealt with but I get your point. Even though allies seem too costly and limited to me, there could be trouble with allowing them to equip too easily because of their built-in abilities. Maybe forget the idea of errata to the original card and create a new card. Hidden Weapon Cardtype: Combat Disciplineless Cost: 1 blood Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a non-unique weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as normal. The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As above but usable when choosing a strike. An alternative was a house rule used by a group I played in back in 1995. All equip actions were done with the card being face down until the action was complete. You didn't know if you were blocking an equip of a Sport Bike, a Flak Jacket or a Saturday Night Special. I'd like to see weapons used more often so I'm in favor of something to make it easier to get them into play by clans without obfuscate. Doug Keeper of the curse and Master of the Knife. Clear all chaff to write to me.

Jason Bell wrote: > I bought at least 3 boxes of Dark Sovereigns, and the only Gangrel > Revel I have is the one I bought from Immortal Grapple Cards. That happens sometimes. I've had that same experience with Dark Sovereigns - can be multiple boxes and not get various uncommon cards. None the less, the "uncommon" description is pretty fair, IMHO. For information purposes: Dark Sovereigns came in packs of 15 cards (boxes contain 36 packs): 3 slots are "uncommons". 4 slots are vampires. 8 slots are "commons". By comparison: Jyhad and V:tES packs contain 19 cards (boxes contain 36 packs): 1 slot is "rare" 3 slots are "uncommons" 4 slots are "vampires" (quoted because Jyhad had some library cards at this rarity level) 11 slots are "commons" In V:tES, the "vampire" rarity level library cards got moved to either common or uncommon card slots (depending on the exact card in question) but the frequency at which they appeared makes me suspect they may still have been printed on the "vampire"-rarity level card sheet and simply mixed in with the commons or uncommons, as appropriate. Ancient Hearts packs contain 12 cards (boxes contain 45 packs): 2 slots are "rare" or "uncommon" 4 slots are "vampires" (quoted because certain library cards appeared at this rarity level) 6 slots are "common" The "rares" and "uncommons" both appeared in 2 of the slots but were differentiated by the frequency at which they apparently were printed on the cardsheets. "Uncommon" cards appeared at 2 1/2 times the rate (a 5:2 ratio) that "rare" cards did. I also thought it was interesting that in all of the Ancient Hearts packs I'd ever opened, I never recall opening one that had 2 rare cards in it. Probably there were two separate rare & uncommon cardsheets and each was represented in each pack of cards and one of them probably had no rares on it. Or some such thing. Basically, it was probably by deliberate intent. The Sabbat packs contain 28 cards and (I'm going from memory here so don't hit me if I'm wrong) I believe there were 24 packs in a box: 2 slots are "rare" 5 slots are "uncommon" 5 slots are vampires (no quotes, all vampires) 16 slots are "common" Information provided for what it's worth. Hope this helps in some way... Fred

In message <20011019230117...@mb-cd.aol.com>, DOUGDWISE <doug...@aol.comchaff> writes > Disciplineless ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Cost: 1 blood > Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a non-unique >weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as normal. >The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As above ^^^ >but usable when choosing a strike. Excuse me? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20011019212756...@mb-bj.aol.com>, BernieTime <berni...@aol.com> writes >Sorry folks, I missed it. What NJL material in relation >to Concealed Weapon? Don't recall that we ever made >any ruling on it?!? You may care to read my original post, which referenced the problems of errata without reprints, noting the NJL 7/7 split as one example. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On 20 Oct 2001 03:01:17 GMT, doug...@aol.comchaff (DOUGDWISE) wrote: > >Maybe forget the idea of errata to the original card and create a new card. > >Hidden Weapon > Cardtype: Combat > Disciplineless > Cost: 1 blood > Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a non-unique >weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as normal. >The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As above >but usable when choosing a strike. > Right..... A disciplineless card with a inferior and superior....

><doug...@aol.comchaff> writes >> Disciplineless > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Cost: 1 blood >> Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a >non-unique >>weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as >normal. >>The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As >above > ^^^ >>but usable when choosing a strike. > >Excuse me? > Oops! That one got right by me. I was using the lazy tactic of copying in another card's text to use and forgot to remove the superior. That would require some errata, wouldn't it? [ quoted text not captured ]

>>Hidden Weapon >> Cardtype: Combat >> Disciplineless >> Cost: 1 blood >> Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a >non-unique >>weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as >normal. >>The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As >above >>but usable when choosing a strike. >> > > >Right..... > >A disciplineless card with a inferior and superior.... > > My mistake. I copied text in and forgot to remove the superior version. It's hardly a singular event though. Look at Summon the Serpent from Ancient Hearts. People make mistakes. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Dimis" <Ali...@rr.nc.com> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Maybe it should be a Brujah only card, there's precedent for clan cards to have regular and superior card text. - Jason Bell

"Kevin M." wrote: > LSJ, could you enlighten us in the pro-CW-change crowd as to why AVA was > "changed" when it was "reprinted", if issuing errata to upgrade wallpaper is > something the current rules team has a stated position against? Thank you, much > appreciated. It was reprinted because it was scheduled to be. In reprinting, it's function was chnaged to be more playable. This is not errata, so the RT position on errata doesn't come to bear. -- 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/

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > (See the NJL split over 7/7 also, for examples of people > who are not against change per se but who are against > errata for such cards.) Our relevent concern was that we were strongly against drastic changes to cards without printed material, such as a reprinted card, to accompany it. This was out of concern for those players without internet access. In the case of Concealed Weapon, making it a disciplineless card would be The End Of The World As We Know It (tm). The idea of Muddled Vampire Hunter, War Ghoul, Renegade Garou, etc. being able to attack a vampire, whip out a Sengir Dagger or Ivory Bow is quite unpleasant. Even if it was limited to non-unique weapons, Muddles pulling out a Saturday Night special loaded with Dragon Breath Rounds would be quite rude. Were CW to be reprinted as an Obtenbration card, I'd be fine with that. However, that's rather unlikely to happen. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit (formerly) National Jyhad League Rules Team Member

> Even if it was limited to non-unique weapons, Muddles pulling out a > Saturday Night special loaded with Dragon Breath Rounds would be quite > rude. Or, say, Garrote, to make sure they stay burned? =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

In message <bb705c59.01102...@posting.google.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> writes >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> (See the NJL split over 7/7 also, for examples of people >> who are not against change per se but who are against >> errata for such cards.) > >Our relevent concern was that we were strongly against drastic changes >to cards without printed material, such as a reprinted card, to >accompany it. This was out of concern for those players without >internet access. The point being made. Re-prints are okay, unnecessary errata isn't. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > LSJ wrote: > > LoP: > > WotC documents indicated that the card was intended to be as currently printed. > > This is not Wallpaper - I've still swept tables with the card. > > No offense....but HOW?!? I suppose it's possible to sweep the table if no one > else has any votes but it sure wouldn't be a card I'd ever bother building a > deck around. I might throw it into a purely Pander-based deck that did other things > to make its living. I just can't think any compelling reasons to build such a deck > right now. > > I'd love to see a deck list! As stated in my former reply to the above message, the deck is not "built around" LoP - it just uses it (and uses it effectively). Like, say, Crusade: Atlanta, LoP is not a card around which to build a deck, IMO. Crypt: Angela Decker Royce Christine Boscacci Huang, Blood Cultist Sadie Frederick the Weak Aaron Duggan, Cameron's Toady Boy Toy Dani Carter Heinrick Schlempt Horatio Library: Betrayer 4 Effective Management Humanitas Hungry Coyote, The 2 Informantion Highway London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper Powerbase: Madrid Purchase Pact 4 Tribute to the Master 6 Flak Jacket 4 Change of Target 3 Blood Feast 4 Creation Rites 3 Bribes Crusade: Atlanta Crusade: Detroit Crusade: Houston Crusade: Mexico City Crusade: Miami Crusade: New York Crusade: Philadelphia Crusade: Pittsburgh Crusade: Toronto 2 Legacy of Pander 3 Autarkis Persecution Camarilla Threat 6 Conservative Agitation 2 Disputed Territory 2 Kindred Segregation 3 Kine Resources Contested 2 Rumors of Gehenna 2 Sabbat Priest 6 Presence 6 Bewitching Oration [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <20011019230117...@mb-cd.aol.com>, DOUGDWISE > <doug...@aol.comchaff> writes > > Disciplineless > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Cost: 1 blood > > Only usable before range is chosen. Equip this vampire with a non-unique > >weapon card from your hand. Pay weapon's equip cost from blood pool, as normal. > >The weapon cannot cost more than 2 pool or do more than 4 damage. (S) As above > ^^^ > >but usable when choosing a strike. > > Excuse me? don't worry, it'll get REprinted in a future set without the blood cost or a superior version. Like Purity of the Beast. O:) salem.

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.01102...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] You know, normally I don't interfere in such discussions, but I couldn't resist this time. :) The CW debate has been around for a long time and please forgive me if this already has been proposed. Making CW disciplinless and costing one blood could be a possible solution. That way alies wouldn't have access to this card... Also, if the weapon equipped was unique the vampire should burn an additional blood after equipping - but the other restrictions on the card would have to be removed, otherwise it'd be wallpaper. I know that it's a major re-write, but such things have happened in the past, and why not making a card for e.g. Toreador Gun-decks playable? They need a little boost. At least I'd think so... :) Carl

carl.pi...@chello.at (Carl Pilhatsch) wrote in message >(...) > I know that it's a major re-write, but such things have happened in > the past, and why not making a card for e.g. Toreador Gun-decks > playable? They need a little boost. At least I'd think so... :) I think that a reprint should only have minor changes, like removing a clan symbol. If it has major changes, then it shouldn't be reprinted and a new card should be developed. Regards, .- Luis Duarte (Portugal) - - - Powerbase:Lisbon-[ http://planeta.clix.pt/vampire ]

On 23 Oct 2001, Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > The CW debate has been around for a long time and please forgive me if > this already has been proposed. > Making CW disciplinless and costing one blood could be a possible > solution. That way alies wouldn't have access to this card... > Also, if the weapon equipped was unique the vampire should burn an > additional blood after equipping - but the other restrictions on the > card would have to be removed, otherwise it'd be wallpaper. personally, i have no problem at all with it being just made disciplineless. i don't care if allies get sengir daggers or ivory bows. allies suck, in general. if they became "good", how is that bad? s:ce decks will still ignore allies. combat decks should either be able to prevent the weapon being used (IG), or dodge it (cel) or prevent it (for, vic, chi, ser, etc). decks that can't deal with a muddled with an ivory bow would still be in the poo against pretty much any combat deck, so what if there is one more way to get hurt by combat? and then, let's not forget the risks involved: far Mastery, Entrancement, Lure of the Serpent, Corruption, etc. Plus Release the Shackled Soul (currently rather underused, but if suddenly there were muddles with ivories and war ghouls with sengirs running around, i bet more people would play it). sure, the global metagame would shift somewhat. but no more than with any bunch of new cards. suddenly, cards that people always thought were too expensive to be used effectively (allies and weapons) whether together or just the weapons, are now a lot more useful. I say reprint Concealed Weapon as disciplineless in the Camarilla base set. At the very least it'll be interesting. O:) salem.

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message > In the case of Concealed Weapon, making it a disciplineless card would > be The End Of The World As We Know It (tm). I am still amazed that anyone actually believes this. Have you ever even tried to make a Disguised Weapon deck work? For that matter, have you ever tried to make a worthwhile ally deck? Or a decent weapon deck of any sort? And the only reason weapon decks work as well as they do is because the metagame is so low on all those highly effective weapon-hosers that people don't play because nobody is expecting weapon decks. > The idea of Muddled > Vampire Hunter, War Ghoul, Renegade Garou, etc. being able to attack a > vampire, whip out a Sengir Dagger or Ivory Bow is quite unpleasant. Since all vampires will have precisely the same option (and MANY more besides), this will hardly lead to imbalance. > Even if it was limited to non-unique weapons, Muddles pulling out a > Saturday Night special loaded with Dragon Breath Rounds would be quite > rude. This manuever requires 3 cards (4 if you count Muddles), and costs 1 blood (3 if you count Muddles). And it is hardly unbeatable. Ever heard of Dodge, or Immortal Grapple, or S:CE, or Skin of Steel, or Cryptic Mission, or Far Mastery, or Blood to Water or Direct Intervetion ................ ? Not only is such a combo NOT broken, it is barely worth the cost and trouble to set up, and I would not recommend it being relied on in tournament-level play (were the option available). And the only thing that MIGHT save such a strategy in tournaments is if no one is expecting you to play ally decks, and are therefore not packing Cryptic Missions and Far Mastery and such. If such strategies start being percieved as competitive then the metagame will shift, and you will need plenty intercept on your vampires to defend your Muddles investment on the round after you get him into play and before he can act. Your "simple" 4-card strategy above is suddenly looking alot more complex -- Gilbert Duane had better make sure he has a 2nd Tradition in his hand before he invests 2 pool and an action to bring Muddles out - plus some combat cards to defend himself in the resulting combat. Otherwise he is bleeding himself for 2 instead of his prey. The Malkavians are supposedly weak in combat. From the way you talk, one wonders how this might possibly be the case, since they all have obfuscate, and therefore access to such a wonderfully broken combo. -- John Whelan

carl.pi...@chello.at (Carl Pilhatsch) wrote in message > You know, normally I don't interfere in such discussions, but I > couldn't resist this time. :) > > The CW debate has been around for a long time and please forgive me if > this already has been proposed. > Making CW disciplinless and costing one blood could be a possible > solution. That way alies wouldn't have access to this card... Why in heaven would you want to prevent Allies from having access to the card? > Also, if the weapon equipped was unique the vampire should burn an > additional blood after equipping - but the other restrictions on the > card would have to be removed, otherwise it'd be wallpaper. IMNSHO, the card requires (for balance)no alteration besides the removal of the discipline symbol. The only weapons that allies or non-obfuscate vampires should have restricted access to are those that are designed with restricted access in mind. I see no reason why obfuscate should make unique weapons extra accessible, nor why a unique weapon should be hard to conceal in one's jacket simpley because it is unique. However, the old restriction is a bit silly, and awkward, and I would not mind seeing it replaced by something that made more sense. I would not mind seeing something in the tradition of Meat Hook - that granted the opponent some sort of option if he had Auspex (for instance).

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > It was reprinted because it was scheduled to be. > In reprinting, it's function was chnaged to be more playable. > This is not errata, so the RT position on errata doesn't come to bear. I guess that means that *if* CW is reprinted as disciplineless, it will be reprinted in the Camarilla set that will be out next year. Dare I hope? -- John Whelan

Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > Making CW disciplinless and costing one blood could be a possible > solution. That way alies wouldn't have access to this card... Why not just put the "Requires a ready vampire" thing on it like all the other cards (Clan Impersonation, Purity of the Beast, Return to Innocence, Delaying Tactics, Surprise Influence, Cryptic Rider, The Embrace, Blood Bond, any Political Action card in existence) that can't be used by allies? Seems a much simpler solution. Fred

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in message news:<bb705c59.01102...@posting.google.com>... > In the case of Concealed Weapon, making it a disciplineless card would > be The End Of The World As We Know It (tm). The idea of Muddled > Vampire Hunter, War Ghoul, Renegade Garou, etc. being able to attack a > vampire, whip out a Sengir Dagger or Ivory Bow is quite unpleasant. So is having muddles killed by sup. Arms of the Abyss, Catatonic Fear or Acrobatics. Muddles + dagger = 4 pool. Ouch. All of those are quite reasonable plays without the "ally problem". The ivory bow is actually pretty useless for most of these (esp muddles). The don't have the manuevers to support it for long range, and it's only 1pt. The dagger gives them strength based damage, which is a bit more threatening. That being said, allies in general aren't worthwhile, even if you do give them the option to pull out guns/daggers without an equip action. > Even if it was limited to non-unique weapons, Muddles pulling out a > Saturday Night special loaded with Dragon Breath Rounds would be quite > rude. How is that any worse than Smudge the Ignored doing it? Btw, since those DBRs burn the gun, this combo is card intensive and pool intensive.

Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:<3BD6D393...@netcom.com>... > Carl Pilhatsch wrote: > > Making CW disciplinless and costing one blood could be a possible > > solution. That way alies wouldn't have access to this card... > > Why not just put the "Requires a ready vampire" thing on it Again, why? Why should access for allies be restricted?

In message <fd166f83.0110...@posting.google.com>, John B. Whelan <nys...@cs.com> writes: >> Why not just put the "Requires a ready vampire" thing on it > >Again, why? Why should access for allies be restricted? For a start, the large number of weapons that have been created *secure in the knowledge* that allies couldn't access them via combat cards. For another, the many extremely nasty combos that have been illustrated. [ quoted text not captured ]

>John B. Whelan <nys...@cs.com> writes: >>> Why not just put the "Requires a ready vampire" thing on it >> >>Again, why? Why should access for allies be restricted? > > For a start, the large number of weapons that have been created >*secure > in the knowledge* that allies couldn't access them via combat cards. If you mean cards like "Femur of Toomler", then CW will not give access anyway. If you mean things like Meat Hook, then these were designed on the assumption that allies would NOT have lesser access than other vampires. You might as well say such weapons were printed "*secure in the knowledge* that vampires without obfuscate" could not access them. But I was specifically asking why you allies should be restricted. >For another, the many extremely nasty combos that have >been illustrated. Hmm. Like the 4-card Muddles / Sat Nite Special / Concealed Weapon / DBR combo that was just mentioned? I sure hope you do much much better than that if you want to impress. -- John Whelan

In message <20011024155913...@mb-fz.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >If you mean cards like "Femur of Toomler", then CW will not give access anyway. > If you mean things like Meat Hook, then these were designed on the assumption >that allies would NOT have lesser access than other vampires. You might as >well say such weapons were printed "*secure in the knowledge* that vampires >without obfuscate" could not access them. Which is fine - you can give other vampires Obfuscate rather easily if you choose to (Changeling Skin Mask, for example). You can give vampires stealth etc. too, as other concerns. Allies have, in many ways, been significantly helped out - Charisma, The Summoning, Vagabond Mystic and such like. They're getting much closer to balanced than they ever were. And a not insignificant number of allies are combat-wombats in one card - the Tzimisce War Ghoul being one of the better examples. Significantly powering, say, Arcanum Investigator (a fairly poor ally) would be done by a disciplineless CW. This would also, however, *hugely* power up a War Ghoul, a Garou or whatever. They are already *highly* playable cards. Ally decks are quite possible with things like Memories of Mortality and Vagabond Mystic to protect you. Giving them Concealed Weapon as well would remove another vital point of interaction. >>For another, the many extremely nasty combos that have >>been illustrated. > >Hmm. Like the 4-card Muddles / Sat Nite Special / Concealed Weapon / DBR combo >that was just mentioned? I sure hope you do much much better than that if you >want to impress. The key word was "many". Picking one of the harder combos and using it to undermine the whole point is not useful. A number of such combos have been given. (Myself, I prefer the Muddles/Ivory Bow combination, it's usually so much easier.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 24 Oct 2001 03:35:23 -0700, John B. Whelan wrote: >However, the old restriction is a bit silly, and awkward, and I would >not mind seeing it replaced by something that made more sense. It makes sense that big powerful weapons are hard to conceal. What makes less sense is the similar restriction on Illegal Search and Seizure. The sense of that seems to be that the police mug you for your good weapons. If you are strolling around with a flamethrower then they steal it and beat you up for good measure. If they just find a concealed Magnum or White Phosphorus Grenade, they sneer at it and send you on your way. If that card is reprinted, it should work on all weapons and the weapon should be stolen rather than burnt. Andrew

On 24 Oct 2001 19:59:13 GMT, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote: >>John B. Whelan <nys...@cs.com> writes: > >>>> Why not just put the "Requires a ready vampire" thing on it >>> >>>Again, why? Why should access for allies be restricted? >> >> For a start, the large number of weapons that have been created >>*secure >> in the knowledge* that allies couldn't access them via combat cards. > >If you mean cards like "Femur of Toomler", then CW will not give access anyway. > If you mean things like Meat Hook, then these were designed on the assumption >that allies would NOT have lesser access than other vampires. You might as Meat Hook was designed for the current environment. I doubt the idea of allies getting one was even CONSIDERED, much less worried about, because for an ally to get a Meat Hook is significantly more difficult than for a vampire; allies can't play stealth cards and have no access to any Disguised Weapon-like card. How's about that Ambrosius, the Ferryman gets a Meat Hook thing? I bet THAT's fun for guys without Potence (although with no built-in Rush, he's not as bad as some other examples). >>For another, the many extremely nasty combos that have >>been illustrated. > >Hmm. Like the 4-card Muddles / Sat Nite Special / Concealed Weapon / DBR combo >that was just mentioned? I sure hope you do much much better than that if you >want to impress. Muddles/Garrotte. War Ghoul/Garrotte. Renegade Garou/Bang Nakh. Take your pick. Too many weapons have been designed with the current rules set in mind, and the current rules set includes "no free way for allies to get weapons". Keep in mind that all it takes to give ANY vampire access to Disguised Weapon is an OBF skill card, so it's not like it's difficult to bypass a vamp needing OBF. But there's no way to give an ally a Discipline master... -- Derek

>Meat Hook was designed for the current environment. Such arguments are not relevant. The designer for Black Cat did not anticipate Pier 13 would be printed, nor did the designer for Muddles anticipate Charisma. Nonetheless, it is the nature of designers to continue to introduce new cards. Whether or not designer X intended allies to have access to card Y has nothing to do with whether printing card Y is a good idea. >I doubt the idea of >allies getting one was even CONSIDERED, much less worried about, because >for an ally to get a Meat Hook is significantly more difficult than for >a vampire; allies can't play stealth cards and have no access to any >Disguised Weapon-like card. > >How's about that Ambrosius, the Ferryman gets a Meat Hook thing? I bet >THAT's fun for guys without Potence (although with no built-in Rush, >he's not as bad as some other examples). A 4-card strategy involving Ambrosius, CW, Meat Hook, and Bum’s Rush. It costs a vampire action and 3 pool. It requires CM and MH to be in your hand simultaneously. It requires a Giovanni, who lack easy access to stealth such as might be needed to ensure the action gets through.. It does not work against Potence Vampires (one third of the vampires in the game) – but it can also be countered by maneuvers, by dodges (Ambrosious can’t immortal grapple) by S:CE, by any aggravated damage. So it won’t work against the Nossies, Lasombra, Giovanni or Brujah (potence), nor against the Gangrel (wolf claws, earth meld), nor the Toreador (majesty, dodge, maneuver, entrancement) or Ventrue (majesty, far mastery) or Settites (majesty, lure of the serpent, corruption, tongue of the serpent), nor Assamites (agg damage, dodge, maneuver), nor Tremere (steal blood, far mastery, agg-damage). I guess it might work against the Ravnos, if they rely on Fortude for combat defense, or against the Malks if they don’t have enough dodges and maneuevers. But the Malks, of course, can do Far Mastery with extra stealth. >>>For another, the many extremely nasty combos that have >>>been illustrated. >> >>Hmm. Like the 4-card Muddles / Sat Nite Special / Concealed Weapon / DBR >combo >>that was just mentioned? I sure hope you do much much better than that if >you >>want to impress. > >Muddles/Garrotte. Clearly a bad option. Despite the fixing of Pulled Fangs, Muddles & PF is far better. It only requires Muddles + PF. Your alternative requires 3 cards, 2 of which must be in your hand simultaneously – meaning a much higher opportunity cost and library-space cost. Your alternative also costs 1 pool. Yeah, I know ... PF does not burn vampires outright – but it can make it so hard to get them out of torpor that it is barely worth the trouble. Sure, burning a vamp is marginally better than sending him to torpor with his fangs pulled, but its not THAT much better. Not nearly better enough to be worth the one extra pool cost and radically increased opportunity cost. A deck that plans on making use of this Muddles + CW + Garrotte combo could be radically improved by replacing every copy of CW with Lucky Blow, and every copy of Garrotte with PF. >War Ghoul/Garrotte. Once again, PF is a better option, and for the same reasons. In this case PF is even more advantageous, because it can be used in situations where the additional damage inflicted could matter. Imagine your War Ghoul in combat, and you have 2 combat cards in your hand. Which is better CW + Garrott, or Lucky Blow + PF? CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with 3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands causes your strike to fizzle. Lucky Blow + PF. No pool cost. You can send into torpor with Fangs Pulled any vampire with 6 blood or less. Works even if Immortally Grappled. Cannot be countered by Fast Hands. >Renegade Garou/Bang Nakh. Costs seven pool – a ridiculous investment that goes up in smoke when it takes 3 damage. 7 pool down the drain, and you’re still no match for Hasina Kesi Pushing the Limit with Immortal Grapple. Actually, it is even more expensive than that. The problem with DW decks (and CW decks would be no different) is that in order to rely on pulling the combo, you have to have multiples of each card. You have to keep on playing the combo, or your hand jams up with CW and Bang Nakh. Your predator jumps for joy while you bleed yourself out. Of course you could just put in one of each and pray REAL hard, but it might be wiser to replace them with Dodges, Lucky Blows, or Pulled Fangs. These are far more likely to make your Garou effective. >Take >your pick. You have yet to come up with an impressive example. >Too many weapons have been designed with the current rules >set in mind, and the current rules set includes "no free way for allies >to get weapons." I am aware of no such principle. If designers are reluctant to allow allies action-free access to weapons, it is probably because they lack sufficient sense of humor to appreciate Hell Hounds shooting .44 magnums. If designers are really doing this consciously, maybe they are doing it for such thematic reasons. But if they are doing it because they are concerned that weapons or allies would somehow become overpowered, then they are obviously DEAD WRONG. >Keep in mind that all it takes to give ANY vampire >access to Disguised Weapon is an OBF skill card, so it's not like it's >difficult to bypass a vamp needing OBF. But there's no way to give an >ally a Discipline master... Okay, noted. But I’m not sure it leads us anywhere. It certainly does nothing to show that Allies should NOT have access to lesser versions of certain vampiric powers. In many cases they do have such access (lucky blow, flash, dodge, arson, computer hacking, boxed-in). Whether they can have access to lesser versions of other powers can be evaluated on a case by case basis. But I think the best argument that can be made against a disciplineless version of DW is that DW is a lousy card that wise players don’t bother trying to use, and printing a lesser, even more marginal, version of it would be a waste of printing space. Why print a card that nobody is going to play with? Now I am not sure I entirely agree with the above argument, but it is certainly far closer to the truth than the arguments I see being actually put foreward – namely that a disciplineless CW would be totally broken, and as Noal McDonald stated, would be “The End of the World as We Know It [tm].” I almost fell off my seat when I read that. I wondered, are people here playing the same game that I am? I can only assume that such arguments are being put forward by folks who have never tried to play a disguised weapon deck, or who have never tried to build an effective ally-based deck, or who never tried out disciplineless CW as a house rule. If they had done any of the above, then surely their opinions would be closer to the former than the latter. I have specialized in playing obfuscate as long as I have played V:tES. I have won tournaments using cards that most people have little respect for like Behind You and Spying Mission. But Disguised Weapon is one of those cards that I have had extreme trouble making effective use of, and not for lack of effort. It looks nice, and seems like it could be good. But I almost always end up taking it out and replacing it with zip guns or something else. If DW allowed one to go through one’s deck in search of a weapon it might be worth something. But it doesn’t, and so most of the time it just jams your hand. The ideal use for for DW or CW is to have 1 or 2 of them in a deck that has multiple weapons, and can thus serve as minor enhancement to a strategy that mainly relies on getting out weapons by other means. Anything else risks hand jam, in which an imperfect draw leaves you stuck with cards in your hand you cannot play. But very few decks can effectively make use of multiple weapons at this point. If you already have a deck that uses multiple weapons AND uses obfuscate vampires, then throwing in a couple disguised weapons might be a good idea. But putting obfuscate on a vampire (like Black Cat) just so she can play disguised weapon is hardly worth it. This is no power card. -- John Whelan

On 26 Oct 2001 07:57:16 -0700, nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote: >>Meat Hook was designed for the current environment. > >Such arguments are not relevant. The designer for Black Cat did not >anticipate Pier 13 would be printed, nor did the designer for Muddles >anticipate Charisma. Nonetheless, it is the nature of designers to Neither situation is an accurate parallel to my statement. When Pier 13 was designed, Black Cat's special ability was taken into account as to whether it was a good idea. When Charisma was designed, all existing allies and their costs were taken into account. Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' >>How's about that Ambrosius, the Ferryman gets a Meat Hook thing? I >bet >>THAT's fun for guys without Potence (although with no built-in Rush, >>he's not as bad as some other examples). > >A 4-card strategy involving Ambrosius, CW, Meat Hook, and Bum’s >Rush. It costs a vampire action and 3 pool. It requires CM and MH to >be in your hand simultaneously. It requires a Giovanni, who lack easy >access to stealth such as might be needed to ensure the action gets >through.. It does not work against Potence Vampires (one third of the >vampires in the game) – but it can also be countered by >maneuvers, by dodges (Ambrosious can’t immortal grapple) by >S:CE, by any aggravated damage. An astonishing amount of nit-picking. A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul Escorts, Masquers). Getting CW and MH in your hand simultaneously is a simple affair. I have built multiple Disguised Weapon decks, "Mr. Obfuscate". I have made many of them work very, very well. Including 5-6 of each in your deck will do just fine; and with CW/MH, they cycle out every time you get into combat, because they're both free. Anyone who gets into combat promptly moves them out of your hand, no matter if this results in Ambrosius carrying around 5 Meat Hooks. It's handy anyway, as the Meat Hook *can* be broken. Once Ambrosius has the Meat Hook, the combo requires ONE card; a Bum's Rush. I will actually be playing with a TWO-card combo: Bum's Rush/Trap. So much for dodges and maneuvers, even though the Trap at first seems redundant v. a Meat Hook. The cheapest Giovanni with access to "good" stealth is Rudolfo, a 3-cap. He can play Spectral Divination to make the recruit action 2 stealth, and then either inferior or superior Call of the Grateful Dead, as appropriate. That is PLENTY of stealth. As I analysed in another thread, while 1/3 of the vampires in the game have Potence, only about 60 of those see any sort of actual play. This means that unless I'm up against a CLAN with Potence, I'm not actually going to have to worry about my Meat Hooks being broken; and if I am, oh well, bad luck... but it's unlikely to happen. When you get right down to it, to get away from Ambrosius and his Meat Hook, you need to have S:CE, a Potence clan, two presses to end (very rare), or 2 points of aggravated damage (also rare). Fortitude won't save you. This is the FULL effect. (more nit-picking deleted; just because each individual clan has a 'way' to stop Ambrosius doesn't mean they'll have it handy, or even in their deck. And I even admit that Ambrosius is a WEAK version of this, because he doesn't have a built-in Rush action.) >>Muddles/Garrotte. > >Clearly a bad option. Despite the fixing of Pulled Fangs, Muddles & >PF is far better. It only requires Muddles + PF. Your alternative >requires 3 cards, 2 of which must be in your hand simultaneously >– meaning a much higher opportunity cost and library-space cost. > Your alternative also costs 1 pool. Yeah, I know ... PF does not >burn vampires outright – but it can make it so hard to get them >out of torpor that it is barely worth the trouble. Sure, burning a >vamp is marginally better than sending him to torpor with his fangs >pulled, but its not THAT much better. Not nearly better enough to be >worth the one extra pool cost and radically increased opportunity >cost. A vampire in torpor with a Blood Doll on it won't need to hunt when it gets rescued. Blood Dolls are pretty common around here. Burning vamps is always better than putting them in torpor. The only saving grace for a long time has been that it is difficult to burn vamps. >A deck that plans on making use of this Muddles + CW + Garrotte combo >could be radically improved by replacing every copy of CW with Lucky >Blow, and every copy of Garrotte with PF. At which point someone rescues the guy from torpor and pushes blood to him through the Blood Doll (invert order, but you get the idea). >>War Ghoul/Garrotte. > >Once again, PF is a better option, and for the same reasons. In this PF is a good card. But burning vampires left and right is more effective, even if it costs 1 pool per vamp. >CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with >3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands >causes your strike to fizzle. Fast Hands: Technicolor-power-corner-case example. Discarded. Immortally Grappled: Fine, my War Ghoul strikes HANDS for 4, I prevent one, and since we're under a Trap, we go to the second round. Grab me again? By the way, War Ghoul/Trap is an effective combo even BEFORE you get the Meat Hook on it. S:CE, press to end, or die... or hit back for 6+. >>Renegade Garou/Bang Nakh. > >Costs seven pool – a ridiculous investment that goes up in smoke >when it takes 3 damage. 7 pool down the drain, and you’re still >no match for Hasina Kesi Pushing the Limit with Immortal Grapple. This is even more ridiculous corner-case. Renegade Garou are feared everywhere; when one hits the table, it generally spends a lot of time ripping up vampires before someone FINALLY draws into their Far Mastery, or FINALLY figures out a way to kill it. So it dies to IG: SO WHAT? This doesn't make the combo any less brutally effective. I'll gladly spend two extra pool to let the Garou strike for 4 each -- a Garou by itself is just as hosed by Pushing the Limit, so what do I care? If someone can kill the Garou without Bang Nakh, my deck is hosed anyway. >Actually, it is even more expensive than that. The problem with DW >decks (and CW decks would be no different) is that in order to rely on >pulling the combo, you have to have multiples of each card. You >have to keep on playing the combo, or your hand jams up with CW and >Bang Nakh. Your predator jumps for joy while you bleed yourself out. >Of course you could just put in one of each and pray REAL hard, but it >might be wiser to replace them with Dodges, Lucky Blows, or Pulled >Fangs. These are far more likely to make your Garou effective. Again, I have made multiple Disguised Weapon decks. When doing this sort of thing, you PLAN for it ahead of time; either with the Barrens, Dreams, and a Fraggie in order to be able to dump the extras, or you put in plenty of pool gain so that you can afford the extras and EVERYONE can get a weapon. Pulled Fangs is great. A Garou striking for 8 each combat is even better. >You have yet to come up with an impressive example. You have yet to come up with anything other than corner-case nitpicks countering my examples. In a realistic environment, Muddles, War Ghoul, and Garou are considered "good" allies and significant threats. I fail to see how making any of them able to burn vampires gratuitously, or adding +4 damage per round for 2 pool is not "impressive". I do not want to see this game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots, where you pack maneuvers *plus* S:CE and probably still die. >magnums. If designers are really doing this consciously, maybe they >are doing it for such thematic reasons. But if they are doing it >because they are concerned that weapons or allies would somehow become >overpowered, then they are obviously DEAD WRONG. Judging from the appearance of (so far) two brand-new disciplines on the Bloodlines, it seems obvious that you and the designers are going to be disagreeing a lot. "dead wrong" is your opinion, and a not-very-well supported one at that. Again, I hold up the success that War Ghouls, Garou, and Muddles have when they hit the table, and I reiterate that a game which is based solely around combat and avoiding it is DEAD WRONG. All the counters to "war ghoul + x" already exist for the war ghoul itself; why do people still say "oh shit" whenever someone gets a Ghoul out? >boxed-in). Whether they can have access to lesser versions of other >powers can be evaluated on a case by case basis. Gosh, that's what I thought I was doing. >But I think the best argument that can be made against a >disciplineless version of DW is that DW is a lousy card that wise >players don’t bother trying to use, and printing a lesser, even >more marginal, version of it would be a waste of printing space. Why >print a card that nobody is going to play with? Disguised Weapon is an excellent card, for a number of reasons. You pay for it in discard space, but the ability to have Kite whip out a .44 Magnum and turn into a permanent single-vampire intercept wall is unparallelled. >when I read that. I wondered, are people here playing the same game >that I am? I can only assume that such arguments are being put >forward by folks who have never tried to play a disguised weapon deck, >or who have never tried to build an effective ally-based deck, or who >never tried out disciplineless CW as a house rule. If they had done >any of the above, then surely their opinions would be closer to the >former than the latter. I have done all three of the above, actually. Disciplineless CW is painfully good in weenie CEL decks, *AS WELL* as in ally decks. Almost too good, really. I have built COUNTLESS effective disguised-weapon decks, to the point where players in this group pause before getting into combat with ANY minion with obf -- including Anton, ever since he pulled out a Femur of Toomler once. Time to take that "surely" out back and shake the dust off it. >I have specialized in playing obfuscate as long as I have played >V:tES. I have won tournaments using cards that most people have >little respect for like Behind You and Spying Mission. But Disguised I disagree with "most people". Everyone locally is -well- aware of Behind You and SM, and the abilities thereof. >Anything else risks hand jam, in which an imperfect draw leaves you >stuck with cards in your hand you cannot play. But very few decks However, realistically, you can put 5 DW and 5 weapons in a deck, and be reasonably assured of getting one out rapidly, and the rest out as need. No, you don't want to be doing it with Assault Rifles, because you don't even give yourself the OPTION of everyone getting one; but with 5 DW and 5 .44, you CAN get more than just one out. Especially if you plan your deck for it. >idea. But putting obfuscate on a vampire (like Black Cat) just so she >can play disguised weapon is hardly worth it. This is no power card. I dunno. I'd rather put OBF on Black Cat so she can play Forgotten Labyrinth on the Pier 13 action, myself, but that's really sort of different from the point at hand. I'm not going to go throwing around skill masters just to get DW out, but DW is a pretty damn strong card if you already HAVE obf. -- Derek

>All the counters to "war ghoul + x" already exist for the war ghoul >itself; why do people still say "oh shit" whenever someone gets a Ghoul >out? Because people don't metagame against allies? How many vote decks run Kindred Segregation now? How many would if the metagame was replete with allies? See the same thing with guns/equipment. There are answers that just don't see common play because the threats aren't considered great enough. For example, there was one game we had not too long ago where a player playing a gun deck was squeezed between Tha with Blood Rage/Fury/Soul Burn and Ani/For with lots of DOtBs. It was somewhat amusing (probably not for him) because his deck was so completely screwed by the wacky match ups. Wacky now but possible answers if weapons ever become more threatening. WW seems to be making an effort to make allies and equipment better. Okay. Well, once they become really good, then the answers get dusted off, and they might not be so good anymore. Just have to see, I guess.

nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote in message > > I have specialized in playing obfuscate as long as I have played > V:tES. I have won tournaments using cards that most people have > little respect for like Behind You and Spying Mission. But Disguised > Weapon is one of those cards that I have had extreme trouble making > effective use of, and not for lack of effort. It looks nice, and > seems like it could be good. But I almost always end up taking it out > and replacing it with zip guns or something else. If DW allowed one > to go through one’s deck in search of a weapon it might be worth > something. But it doesn’t, and so most of the time it just jams > your hand. I would agree that putting four DW and four .44's isn't a very efficient thing to do. What that means is that the only way to use DW is to make it a basis of your deck. For instance, a DW rush deck is completely playable expecially with Assamites. If you have 8 of each, suddenly you have the cards when you need them, and you need to discard the extras. Which means you can't put too many other toys in the deck. DW is useful because it saves actions at the expense of card flow. If you are a weapons rush deck all you need in most cases is a rush, a Blur, and maybe a Pysche!, once you have the gun. Before you have the gun, your vampire is Completely useless. DW allows you to get the Gun with the Rush. In a rush deck, that would be your hand. .44, Blur, Bum's Rush, DW, Psyche!, a manuver, and a taste. As for the DW/.44 combo clogging up your hand, you only need to take into account the number of discards in your deck when you put in .44/DW. 12 Discards, my three vampires will need to get a gun in combat, so I have 10 cards that are set aside for discards, or back-up for weapon theft etc. > The ideal use for for DW or CW is to have 1 or 2 of them in a deck > that has multiple weapons, and can thus serve as minor enhancement to > a strategy that mainly relies on getting out weapons by other means. > Anything else risks hand jam, in which an imperfect draw leaves you > stuck with cards in your hand you cannot play. But very few decks > can effectively make use of multiple weapons at this point. If you > already have a deck that uses multiple weapons AND uses obfuscate > vampires, then throwing in a couple disguised weapons might be a good > idea. But putting obfuscate on a vampire (like Black Cat) just so she > can play disguised weapon is hardly worth it. This is no power card. Having one or two dead spots in your hand is not a problem for a deck that relies upon permanents. You only need 3 cards once you have the gun to torporise most minions. Putting Obfuscate on vampires is a less efficient but still a powerful option. If you are going to utilize their other disciplines. If you use toreadors, you can intercept and bleed, bounce bleeds, and be effective in combat. Felicia with an obfuscate skill card can do all of that. If you are going to put one or two DW in a deck that has weapons and obfuscate than it is just about as good as putting in a Tortured Confession, or any other prayer card. It might help you, it might not. It is a power card in high intercept environments. If you are in a place where 1 stealth actions routinely get through, or even 2 stealth actions go through then it is not that necessary. It just allows you to play with bigger vampires. With Weenies taking the action to get the gun is no big deal. If its an 8 cap, getting the gun, and then rushing next turn leaves you even more vunerable to speed/sneakbleed decks. Colin Riggs DC Disguised Weapon user, and proud.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote > > Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' > cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power > level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile > to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The > question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' Now wait just a second. Shouldn't someone have dusted off this argument when the powers-that-be taped on the tacky no-ammo-for-Zip rules change? My point is that you shouldn't so quickly dismiss ideas about card changes when similarly flagrant rules changes have already been made in the face of the designers' existing cards. And no, silly. Potence breaks Meat Hook. I mean read the card already. - Jason Bell

Jason wrote: >>Shouldn't someone have dusted off this argument when the powers-that-be taped on the tacky no-ammo-for-Zip rules change?>> Zip Gun was changed because when it could use ammo, it was too powerful for what it cost--the Zip Gun was downgraded. Concealed Weapon isn't going to get changed 'cause there is a standing plan to *not* reprint or errata to upgrade weak cards. Sure, sometimes replacements are made (Gas Powered Chainsaw: Chainsaw), but the previous weak cards will not be errataed or reprinted. The cost of Zip Gun when compared to its effect when allowed to use ammo was not high enough. Thus the card was changed to weaken it. Kevin's point is that if CW becomes disciplineless, all the weapons in the game become *more* powerful. >>My point is that you shouldn't so quickly dismiss ideas about card changes when similarly flagrant rules changes have already been made in the face of the designers' existing cards.>> Not similarly flagrant rules changes. Zip Gun was *weakened*. The proposed change to CW *strengthens* it, and consequently all weapons in the game. Not similar--polar opposite. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "...and the only person I can stand to be around is a neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!" -Buffy

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote [ quoted text not captured ] Nope, same. Both would be changes made in spite of the designers' existing cards, which is the point I was challenging. That the one change weakened an entire card type (ammo) while the other would strengthen an entire card type (weapons) is not of interest to me in the context of responding to the "designers' intent" point. - Jason Bell

Jason wrote: >>Both would be changes made in spite of the designers' existing cards, which is the point I was challenging.>> The desginers made mistakes in both cases. In the first case (Zip Gun and ammo), Zip Gun was downgraded because it was necessary to contribute to the balance of the game environment. In the second case (Concealed Weapon) is it *not* necessary to be upgraded, as that would have a deleterious effect on the game environment. >>That the one change weakened an entire card type (ammo) while the other would strengthen an entire card type (weapons)>> Ammo needed to be less effective (particularly the Zip Gun/DBR combo). Guns don't need to be more effective. >>is not of interest to me in the context of responding to the "designers' intent" point.>> I think it is clear that at some point in time, the designers intent was that CW was to be disciplineless. However, it then seems likely that it became the designers intent that it not be disciplineless. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:<5ruittk9cs32me1pr...@4ax.com>... > On 26 Oct 2001 07:57:16 -0700, nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote: > >>How's about that Ambrosius, the Ferryman gets a Meat Hook thing? I > bet > >>THAT's fun for guys without Potence (although with no built-in Rush, > >>he's not as bad as some other examples). > >A 4-card strategy involving Ambrosius, CW, Meat Hook, and Bum’s > >Rush. It costs a vampire action and 3 pool. It requires CM and MH to > >be in your hand simultaneously. It requires a Giovanni, who lack easy > >access to stealth such as might be needed to ensure the action gets > >through.. It does not work against Potence Vampires (one third of the > >vampires in the game) – but it can also be countered by > >maneuvers, by dodges (Ambrosious can’t immortal grapple) by > >S:CE, by any aggravated damage. > An astonishing amount of nit-picking. > A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many > Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; > even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul > Escorts, Masquers). Ambrosius + T. Chain Saw, while a fun deck, has the annoying habit of not winning games. > As I analysed in another thread, while 1/3 of the vampires in the game > have Potence, only about 60 of those see any sort of actual play. This > means that unless I'm up against a CLAN with Potence, I'm not actually > going to have to worry about my Meat Hooks being broken; and if I am, oh > well, bad luck... but it's unlikely to happen. Only 60? Chances of not seeing at least some pot at table -- pretty weak. Either someone will play a pot clan, or they'll have a random vampire with it (Francois Villon, Spirodonas). > When you get right down to it, to get away from Ambrosius and his Meat > Hook, you need to have S:CE, a Potence clan, two presses to end (very > rare), or 2 points of aggravated damage (also rare). Fortitude won't > save you. This is the FULL effect. Apparation, Illusions of the Kindred, Theft, Blood to Water. And that's under the trap, and only the more plausible ones (though BtW is a stretch). Also, since this is assuming CW becomes playable, bow and dagger also beat it. Caileen beats it. > Burning vamps is always better than putting them in torpor. The only > saving grace for a long time has been that it is difficult to burn > vamps. Muddles/Garrote is hardly a fool-proof way of burning vamps. > >A deck that plans on making use of this Muddles + CW + Garrotte combo > >could be radically improved by replacing every copy of CW with Lucky > >Blow, and every copy of Garrotte with PF. > At which point someone rescues the guy from torpor and pushes blood to > him through the Blood Doll (invert order, but you get the idea). Only to get sent right on back to torpor, again with zero blood on it. If muddles was working before, there's no reason a blood doll on a torporous vamp is going to be a big deal. > >>War Ghoul/Garrotte. > >Once again, PF is a better option, and for the same reasons. In this > PF is a good card. But burning vampires left and right is more > effective, even if it costs 1 pool per vamp. This is a *lot* more powerful than muddles combo, thanks to the massive increase in longevity of a war ghoul compared to a muddles, unless there happens to be a fairly serious combat deck at the table. It also requires 2 actions set up. > >CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with > >3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands > >causes your strike to fizzle. > > Immortally Grappled: Fine, my War Ghoul strikes HANDS for 4, I prevent > one, and since we're under a Trap, we go to the second round. IG's gives a press, no second round if they don't want it. Also they are playing potence combat, how long is that war ghoul going to live again? Signpost+strength, signpost. So much for the WG. > Grab me > again? By the way, War Ghoul/Trap is an effective combo even BEFORE you > get the Meat Hook on it. S:CE, press to end, or die... or hit back for > 6+. It's not bad, and one of the *very* few allies that ever see any use. But it doesn't get a whole lot better using MH or Garrote. If anything they want a dagger, which makes them a much bigger pain (goes for muddles too). That being said, the war ghoul can just take the action to get it, and pummel the blocker. If they could deal with it they could deal with it.. if not, well, that's their problem for not playing combat and not stopping the recruit actions :) > >>Renegade Garou/Bang Nakh. > > > >Costs seven pool – a ridiculous investment that goes up in smoke > >when it takes 3 damage. 7 pool down the drain, and you’re still > >no match for Hasina Kesi Pushing the Limit with Immortal Grapple. > > This is even more ridiculous corner-case. Renegade Garou are feared > everywhere; when one hits the table, it generally spends a lot of time > ripping up vampires before someone FINALLY draws into their Far Mastery, > or FINALLY figures out a way to kill it. So it dies to IG: SO WHAT? > This doesn't make the combo any less brutally effective. Somethign that cost 5 pool and dies before the might of Torn Signpost is an utter waste. Something that cost SEVEN pool... > I'll gladly spend two extra pool to let the Garou strike for 4 each -- a > Garou by itself is just as hosed by Pushing the Limit, so what do I > care? If someone can kill the Garou without Bang Nakh, my deck is hosed > anyway. There is the entirely reasonable chance that your gangrel deck, with its zero in-clan bleed bounce, limited intercept, and which is bleeding itself for five/seven, is hosed anyway. > >You have yet to come up with an impressive example. > You have yet to come up with anything other than corner-case nitpicks > countering my examples. In a realistic environment, Muddles, War Ghoul, > and Garou are considered "good" allies and significant threats. I fail > to see how making any of them able to burn vampires gratuitously, or > adding +4 damage per round for 2 pool is not "impressive". Garou is terrible, muddles just restricts your opponent some (and that's assuming he has no combat). The war ghoul is the only really nasty ally due to the fact that it takes a lot of work to kill, and if WG decks become popular, FM and a variety of other cards screw it over. > I do not want to see this game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots, where you > pack maneuvers *plus* S:CE and probably still die. Hardly. The Malks already have obf in clan, muddles, DW, and tons of useful non-combat stuff. If muddles/any weapon was a good combo, people could already play it (cloak it up a few times, you'll generally get the weapon). Since this is by no means an issue now, I don't see it being THE END OF THE WORLD. > >But I think the best argument that can be made against a > >disciplineless version of DW is that DW is a lousy card that wise > >players don’t bother trying to use, and printing a lesser, even > >more marginal, version of it would be a waste of printing space. Why > >print a card that nobody is going to play with? > You pay for it in discard space, but the ability to have Kite whip out a .44 > Magnum and turn into a permanent single-vampire intercept wall is > unparallelled. Oh no, a ranged strike for two. Someone help. > However, realistically, you can put 5 DW and 5 weapons in a deck, and be > reasonably assured of getting one out rapidly, and the rest out as need. > No, you don't want to be doing it with Assault Rifles, because you don't > even give yourself the OPTION of everyone getting one; but with 5 DW and > 5 .44, you CAN get more than just one out. Especially if you plan your > deck for it. You can, but most of the time you're better off doing something more important than working on getting a 44. If you want to do (ranged) combat you're better off with ani, tha, or pot (which accounts for about 2/3rds of the vampires in the game).

Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:<5ruittk9cs32me1pr...@4ax.com>... > On 26 Oct 2001 07:57:16 -0700, nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote: > > >>Meat Hook was designed for the current environment. > > > >Such arguments are not relevant. The designer for Black Cat did not > >anticipate Pier 13 would be printed, nor did the designer for Muddles > >anticipate Charisma. Nonetheless, it is the nature of designers to > > Neither situation is an accurate parallel to my statement. > > When Pier 13 was designed, Black Cat's special ability was taken into > account as to whether it was a good idea. When Charisma was designed, > all existing allies and their costs were taken into account. The situations are precisely parallel. The person who decided to print Pier 13 took existing cards into account. A designer who is considering whether to include a disciplineless version of DW should also take existing cards into account. I have given my opinion that, taking into account the current state of the game, having such an effect would be good for the game. You have countered with arguments that the original designers did not know about current weapons. This seems hardly relevant, especially since the original designers did NOT in fact print a disciplineless version of DW. > Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' > cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power > level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile > to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The > question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' Meat Hook was designed to be balanced with other weapons. If a disciplineless version of DW is printed, it will still be balanced compared to other weapons, though, of course, weapons and allies will both be (very marginally) enhanced compared to other equipement and other minions (and they still could use such enhancement, IMHO). > >>How's about that Ambrosius, the Ferryman gets a Meat Hook thing? I > bet > >>THAT's fun for guys without Potence (although with no built-in Rush, > >>he's not as bad as some other examples). > > > >A 4-card strategy involving Ambrosius, CW, Meat Hook, and Bum’s > >Rush. It costs a vampire action and 3 pool. It requires CM and MH to > >be in your hand simultaneously. It requires a Giovanni, who lack easy > >access to stealth such as might be needed to ensure the action gets > >through.. It does not work against Potence Vampires (one third of the > >vampires in the game) – but it can also be countered by > >maneuvers, by dodges (Ambrosious can’t immortal grapple) by > >S:CE, by any aggravated damage. > > An astonishing amount of nit-picking. Merely listing the costs to show that the effect is appropriate to cost. > A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many > Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; > even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul > Escorts, Masquers). 3 pool, a Unique action requiring a clan, and a high-opportunity cost combo involving two cards will get you as much or better if other strategies are chosen. The effect is by no means overpowered considering the cost and difficulty. That is my point, not that it is unreasonable or impossible. It is rather difficult to come up with precise analogies, because their are so few combos with so high an opportunity cost -- so few that require two cards in the hand before either can be played. But I would imagine that Rush, Trap, Pulled Fangs would be at least as effective way to go with Ambrosius. Not a precise analogy because, on the down side, you don't keep the equipement, while, on the plus side, it's an easier combo that ends with the torpored vampire's fangs pulled, the trap effects are not foiled by dodges and maneuvers, and it can be used against vampires with potence. > Getting CW and MH in your hand simultaneously is a simple affair. I > have built multiple Disguised Weapon decks, "Mr. Obfuscate". I have > made many of them work very, very well. Including 5-6 of each in your > deck will do just fine; and with CW/MH, they cycle out every time you > get into combat, because they're both free. Anyone who gets into combat > promptly moves them out of your hand, no matter if this results in > Ambrosius carrying around 5 Meat Hooks. It's handy anyway, as the Meat > Hook *can* be broken. Well, I am glad to hear that others are putting it to use besides myself. Around here, I am the only one who uses them, and I am the only person I have ever seen use it in a tournament (referring to personal experience only). But if you are arguing that the card is not wallpaper, and not totally useless, I am happy to concede defeat. Maybe a disciplineless version would not be wallpaper, as some hypothetical person might conceivably claim. Maybe it really would be a good way to give allies a few marginally useful options. > Once Ambrosius has the Meat Hook, the combo requires ONE card; a Bum's > Rush. I will actually be playing with a TWO-card combo: Bum's > Rush/Trap. So much for dodges and maneuvers, even though the Trap at > first seems redundant v. a Meat Hook. You are relying on press combat in a game that does not metagame against press combat because it is never used. The answer to a "Trap" is a press to end combat. Which brings us to why press combat is rarely used -- it is useless against S:CE. > The cheapest Giovanni with access to "good" stealth is Rudolfo, a 3-cap. > He can play Spectral Divination to make the recruit action 2 stealth, > and then either inferior or superior Call of the Grateful Dead, as > appropriate. That is PLENTY of stealth. OK, but it depends on the environment. Around here I often like to play Forgotten Labyrinth for +4 total stealth with my Nossies. Intercept can be pretty heavy here. > As I analysed in another thread, while 1/3 of the vampires in the game > have Potence, only about 60 of those see any sort of actual play. This > means that unless I'm up against a CLAN with Potence, I'm not actually > going to have to worry about my Meat Hooks being broken; and if I am, oh > well, bad luck... but it's unlikely to happen. Hmm. My Sheldon intercept deck would not let you get him, not at +3 stealth, and I'd break all your meat hooks anyway. My Tremere deck would just steal his vitae, plus the Succubus would just kill him as an action when she came out. My deep stealth Nossies have a fair amount of potence, dodges, maneuvers, and presses to end combat. It might not be enough in the long run, but you'd probably do as well with double traps. My Toreador deck has majesty and maneuvers, plus an entrancement. Against my Cailean deck you would never even get close. My Nos/Gangrel allies deck will of course be packing ivory bows and sengir daggers (enhanced by the ability to whip them out with CW), so we will be in fair shape against Ambrosius. But I concede you could probably wreak havoc with my Celerity Guns deck (though it does include Black Cat, who has potence). > When you get right down to it, to get away from Ambrosius and his Meat > Hook, you need to have S:CE, Gangrel, Settites, Toreador, Ventrue > a Potence clan, Nosferatu, Brujah, Giovanni, Lasombra > two presses to end (very rare), Conceded. > or 2 points of aggravated damage (also rare). Gangrel, Assamites > Fortitude won't > save you. King of the Mountain (Inferior), Hidden Strength, Indomitability, Superior Mettle (Superior, but you'd have to play of these against a Trap/Meat Hook combo) You neglected to mention steal blood effects, Tremere, Settites > This is the FULL effect. > > (more nit-picking deleted; just because each individual clan has a 'way' > to stop Ambrosius doesn't mean they'll have it handy, or even in their > deck. Admittedly, people don't metagame against allies OR against weapons. But they have plenty of defenses available. If they choose not to use them, and they lose, they cannot claim to have been unfairly treated. > And I even admit that Ambrosius is a WEAK version of this, > because he doesn't have a built-in Rush action.) Look. I'm not saying that Ambrosius with a Meat Hook might not be a good deal in the right circumstances. I'm just saying that it ain't broken, even with concealed weapon option. Sure, it just even be possible to sweap the table with such a strategy. You have to kill alot of vampires to achieve that, right? How is it horribly unbalanced if an ally-based strategy actually stands a chance of winning? > >>Muddles/Garrotte. > > > >Clearly a bad option. Despite the fixing of Pulled Fangs, Muddles & > >PF is far better. It only requires Muddles + PF. Your alternative > >requires 3 cards, 2 of which must be in your hand simultaneously > >– meaning a much higher opportunity cost and library-space cost. > > Your alternative also costs 1 pool. Yeah, I know ... PF does not > >burn vampires outright – but it can make it so hard to get them > >out of torpor that it is barely worth the trouble. Sure, burning a > >vamp is marginally better than sending him to torpor with his fangs > >pulled, but its not THAT much better. Not nearly better enough to be > >worth the one extra pool cost and radically increased opportunity > >cost. > > A vampire in torpor with a Blood Doll on it won't need to hunt when it > gets rescued. Blood Dolls are pretty common around here. OK, but you've just bled your prey for one, possibly for much more if he keeps on using that blood doll to keep out of torpor. > >A deck that plans on making use of this Muddles + CW + Garrotte combo > >could be radically improved by replacing every copy of CW with Lucky > >Blow, and every copy of Garrotte with PF. > > At which point someone rescues the guy from torpor and pushes blood to > him through the Blood Doll (invert order, but you get the idea). Your points may be adequate to show that the CW/Garrotte option is "just as good" in the right circumstances (though I remain skeptical) but certainly not adequate to show that it is radically better to the point of being broken, especially not in the case of a War Ghoul. > >>War Ghoul/Garrotte. > > > >Once again, PF is a better option, and for the same reasons. In this > > PF is a good card. But burning vampires left and right is more > effective, even if it costs 1 pool per vamp. I acknowledge that Burning outright is better than Pulled Fangs (though in some cases you WANT him to spend that pool trying to get his vampires out again). That is why I listed it as an advantage, against which the disadvantages were compared in an attempt to determine if the effect is balanced.. > >CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with > >3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands > >causes your strike to fizzle. > > Fast Hands: Technicolor-power-corner-case example. Discarded. I was comparing one two-card combo to another two-card combo on a War Ghoul. For the sake of completeness, I was listing ALL disadvantages, and ALL advantages that I could think of. My intent was to show the combo is not overpowered or imbalanced compared to other effects. I’ll present it again. CW + Garrotte ---- versus ---- PF + Lucky Blow ADVANTAGES: Burns a vampire that it sends to Torpor, as opposed to sending him with Fangs Pulled. DISADVANTAGES: Costs an extra pool Higher opportunity cost and hand-jam potential, since combo can ONLY be played as a combo in combat. Torporizes a vampire with 3 blood or less, as opposed to the alternative, which torporizes a vampire with 5 or (with somewhat less certainty) 6 blood (by forcing a hunt attempt). Affected by Weapon Hosers, unlike the alternative Feel free to ignore the last consideration if you consider it too corner case. I am merely listing all advantages/disadvantages for the sake of completeness. But I really don’t think that weapon hosers would be that irrelevant in an environment where weapons were more common. I don’t see how anyone can view this comparison of advantages vs. disadvantages, and possibly claim that CW + Garrotte is an unbalanced 2-card effect that is somehow going going to break the game and make allies overpowered. But I’m not sure, at this point, if that is what you are trying to say. If you are merely saying that CW would give allies different, playable, and appropriately powered options, then fine. I agree. That’s why I like the idea. (Actually, the main reason I like the idea is that I think combat should be unpredictable and suspenseful, and that an attacker should not necessarily know what his opponent is packing. I think this should be true even in combat with Allies. To be appropriately powered, a disciplineless DW-type card should be good enough to see play occasionally, but not good enough to see play constantly or drive out other options) > Immortally Grappled: Fine, my War Ghoul strikes HANDS for 4, I prevent > one, and since we're under a Trap, we go to the second round. Grab me  again? A vampire who wishes to avoid being burned against a war ghoul with Garrotte will save the IG for the round that he expects torpor. And going 2 rounds against the sort of vampire who plays IG is not wise even for a war ghoul. We’re also getting sidetracked here from the comparison I was making between two War Ghoul options. Trap can be played with either option, and is just as good with one as with the other..  By the way, War Ghoul/Trap is an effective combo even BEFORE you > get the Meat Hook on it. S:CE, press to end, or die... or hit back for > 6+. I acknowledge that they are the best combat allies in the game. This is only correct, thematically. Tzimisce clan membership is a resource license analogous to, say Obfuscate. It gives you the best combat allies in the same way that Obfuscate gives you the best stealth. And this is as it should be. But if, even after taking this into consideration, War Ghouls are still judged to be “too good” (I am not saying this is the case), then it would be better to fix the War Ghoul than allow every other ally to languish as wallpaper for want of the support cards needed to make them viable. But if War Ghoul decks are able to occasionally sweep tables, this is only as it should be. After all, the purpose of the game is to win. If the best combat allies cannot do it, then who can?. > >>Renegade Garou/Bang Nakh. > > > >Costs seven pool – a ridiculous investment that goes up in smoke > >when it takes 3 damage. 7 pool down the drain, and you’re still > >no match for Hasina Kesi Pushing the Limit with Immortal Grapple. > > This is even more ridiculous corner-case. Renegade Garou are feared > everywhere; when one hits the table, it generally spends a lot of time > ripping up vampires before someone FINALLY draws into their Far Mastery, > or FINALLY figures out a way to kill it. So it dies to IG: SO WHAT? > This doesn't make the combo any less brutally effective. I’ve never made a “combat deck” that would have much trouble with a Garou, Bang Nakh or no. But the current metagame is fairly low on both combat offence and combat defense. > I'll gladly spend two extra pool to let the Garou strike for 4 each -- a > Garou by itself is just as hosed by Pushing the Limit, so what do I > care? If someone can kill the Garou without Bang Nakh, my deck is hosed > anyway. At best, it is a viable combat option. By no means is it overpowered. For 7 pool, you deserve to get an effect that will help you win the game. This could pay off, but it is very risky – and the more people expect trouble from combat allies, the riskier it becomes. It does not take much to replace some of the Social Charms in your presence bleed deck with some Entrancements, and they can still be used to bleed. People are scared of Garous (and combat allies generally) because they it can prevent targeted Methuselahs from winning by depriving them of victory points. Less often do they help their owners win victory points. > >Actually, it is even more expensive than that. The problem with DW > >decks (and CW decks would be no different) is that in order to rely on > >pulling the combo, you have to have multiples of each card. You > >have to keep on playing the combo, or your hand jams up with CW and > >Bang Nakh. Your predator jumps for joy while you bleed yourself out. > >Of course you could just put in one of each and pray REAL hard, but it > >might be wiser to replace them with Dodges, Lucky Blows, or Pulled > >Fangs. These are far more likely to make your Garou effective. > > Again, I have made multiple Disguised Weapon decks. When doing this > sort of thing, you PLAN for it ahead of time; either with the Barrens, > Dreams, and a Fraggie in order to be able to dump the extras, or you put > in plenty of pool gain so that you can afford the extras and EVERYONE > can get a weapon. If you’re saying it is possible to make decent DW decks with careful design and effort, I do not care to contradict you. It is not my position that DW is wallpaper, nor that printing an some sort of inferior disciplineless version of DW would be a pointless waste of cardboard. It is merely my position that such a card could give allies additional, appropriate, and balanced options. > Pulled Fangs is great. A Garou striking for 8 each combat is even > better. For two extra pool, one extra card, and a high opportunity cost, it bloody well better be, in order to be considered a balanced effect. > >You have yet to come up with an impressive example. > > You have yet to come up with anything other than corner-case nitpicks  countering my examples. In a realistic environment, By “realistic” you mean the current game environment. But an environment where weapons were more common, and weapon hosers more worthy of inclusion, is not inconceivable nor necessarily a bad thing.  Muddles, War Ghoul,  and Garou are considered "good" allies and significant threats. Indeed they are.  I fail > to see how making any of them able to burn vampires gratuitously, or > adding +4 damage per round for 2 pool is not "impressive". You have yet to give an “impressive” example of an unbalanced effect, considering costs in pool, opportunity, uniqueness, card slots, etc. But perhaps that was not your intent. You seem to be merely arguing that the effect is playable and competitive. > I do not want to see this game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots, where you > pack maneuvers *plus* S:CE and probably still die. Against one of my combat decks, this is often what happens. > Judging from the appearance of (so far) two brand-new disciplines on the > Bloodlines, it seems obvious that you and the designers are going to be  disagreeing a lot. I am aware of no such disagreement. I am very impressed so far with what I see on the Bloodlines previews, as well as with the ingeniously creative card mechanics. I’m not sure what you are getting at here. I suspect you have misunderstood my opinions on the fragmentation subject. If you recall, I was never opposed to the introduction of the new disciplines as a THEME, and said so specifically. I was only opposed to their introduction in accordance with the standard approach and standard card mechanic – the approach taken in every expansion so far. I was not opposed to finding creative alternatives, and said so specifically. It was always my position that creative means might be found to incorporate the THEME of alternate disciplines using different card mechanics. It ought to be obvious, however, that the standard approach has been dispensed with in bloodlines. The specific solutions seem quite clever, and far better than any solution I had anticipated. To the extent that I have been “proven wrong”, I am quite happy about it. It is clear to me that the game is in the right hands. Of course, it remains to be seen how successful and playable these new bloodlines will be. But any approach that makes 12 different bloodline playable in a single 150+ card expansion, while simultaneously providing support for existing clans, have obviously found ways of coping with fragmentation issues. We have already seen some of them: cards that relate two disciplines, Masters that relate two or 3 different clans.  "dead wrong" is your opinion, and a not-very-well  supported one at that. Yes. It’s my opinion. I support it as best I can.  Again, I hold up the success that War Ghouls,  Garou, and Muddles have when they hit the table, They are a gamble that occasionally pays off. They need to kill a lot of minions before dying themselves in order to be worth the cost. Precisely because they have a semi-reasonable chance of doing this, they are considered “scary” by potential victims.  and I reiterate that a > game which is based solely around combat and avoiding it is DEAD WRONG. Of course. There should be a balance between the various strategies of bleed, vote, and combat. Combat is still the weaker strategy in the opinion of most. Weapons are still considered weak compared to many other combat options. > All the counters to "war ghoul + x" already exist for the war ghoul > itself; why do people still say "oh shit" whenever someone gets a Ghoul > out? Because, in order to be worth 3 pool and two actions, it should be scary in order to be worth playing. If a War Ghoul were not scary, it would hardly be worth the trouble to bring into play. In fact, it is quite possible for something to be “scary” in terms of threatening another’s minions and chances of victory, and still be worse than other options in terms actually gaining victory points for the person playing it. I have a DW / .44 Magnum deck obfuscate/celerity deck that is considered extremely scary by its victims. But it rarely wins victory points because of its pool cost. Perhaps after some tweaking ... > >boxed-in). Whether they can have access to lesser versions of other > >powers can be evaluated on a case by case basis. >  Gosh, that's what I thought I was doing. Of course. We both are. > >But I think the best argument that can be made against a > >disciplineless version of DW is that DW is a lousy card that wise > >players don’t bother trying to use, and printing a lesser, even > >more marginal, version of it would be a waste of printing space. Why > >print a card that nobody is going to play with? > > Disguised Weapon is an excellent card, for a number of reasons. You pay > for it in discard space, but the ability to have Kite whip out a .44 > Magnum and turn into a permanent single-vampire intercept wall is > unparallelled. I would say that DW is a reasonable card. I would say that it is the best offensive combat card of the Obfuscate discipline – which is not SUPPOSED to be a strong combat discipline -- and, as such, is fairly appropriate in power level. I’m not sure I am saying anything much different than you are. > >when I read that. I wondered, are people here playing the same game > >that I am? I can only assume that such arguments are being put > >forward by folks who have never tried to play a disguised weapon deck, > >or who have never tried to build an effective ally-based deck, or who > >never tried out disciplineless CW as a house rule. If they had done > >any of the above, then surely their opinions would be closer to the > >former than the latter. > > I have done all three of the above, actually. Disciplineless CW is > painfully good in weenie CEL decks, *AS WELL* as in ally decks. Almost  too good, really. I’m not sure what you mean by “almost” too good. If you are not really claiming it is “too good”, we are really not in disagreement. In any event, you seem to be suggesting that if the card is “too good” it is as much because of weenies as because of allies. This seems to suggest to me that if some lesser disciplineless version of DW is printed, there is little reason to pick on allies for exclusion. It is merely a matter of making the card appropriately powered for any minion that plays it; either that or not printing it at all. Do you agree?  I have built COUNTLESS effective disguised-weapon > decks, to the point where players in this group pause before getting > into combat with ANY minion with obf -- including Anton, ever since he > pulled out a Femur of Toomler once. > > Time to take that "surely" out back and shake the dust off it. I will concede that “countless” effective DW decks is a few more than I have made. Still, I am the only person who plays the card in my area. > >I have specialized in playing obfuscate as long as I have played > >V:tES. I have won tournaments using cards that most people have > >little respect for like Behind You and Spying Mission. But Disguised > > I disagree with "most people". Everyone locally is -well- aware of > Behind You and SM, and the abilities thereof. No argument. I don’t know the world, just my corner of it. > >Anything else risks hand jam, in which an imperfect draw leaves you > >stuck with cards in your hand you cannot play. But very few decks > > However, realistically, you can put 5 DW and 5 weapons in a deck, and be > reasonably assured of getting one out rapidly, and the rest out as need. > No, you don't want to be doing it with Assault Rifles, because you don't > even give yourself the OPTION of everyone getting one; but with 5 DW and > 5 .44, you CAN get more than just one out. Especially if you plan your > deck for it. Actually, I have done just that with .44s and DWs. I don’t find it nearly as effective as my other combat decks, but then again, I have not spent as much time tweaking it as some of my other decks. (BTW, I have also had the joy of pulling out Disguised Assault Rifles. This was in a Nossie bloat deck. It was worth it for the fun factor, and sometimes I actually got away with it and won victory points. But, as you say, it is not really good strategy. The deck is usually stronger without it, but it once really saved my ass against a Garou) > >idea. But putting obfuscate on a vampire (like Black Cat) just so she > >can play disguised weapon is hardly worth it. This is no power card. > > I dunno. I'd rather put OBF on Black Cat so she can play Forgotten > Labyrinth on the Pier 13 action, myself, but that's really sort of > different from the point at hand. > > I'm not going to go throwing around skill masters just to get DW out, > but DW is a pretty damn strong card if you already HAVE obf. Agreed. -- John Whelan

Peter D. Bakija wrote: >The desginers made mistakes in both cases. In the first case (Zip Gun and >ammo), Zip Gun was downgraded because it was necessary to contribute to the >balance of the game environment. In the second case (Concealed Weapon) is it >*not* necessary to be upgraded, as that would have a deleterious effect on >the >game environment. This latter part says to much. The reasons given by the Rules Team for not upgrading CW was simply that it was not their policy to use erratta to upgrade underpowered cards. (It was recently clarified that IF underpowered cards are upgraded, it is done by the Design Team when reprints are scheduled.) Perhaps they do feel that disciplineless CW would have a deleterious effect on the game environment, but I do not recall that that has been stated by the RT's netrep. - John Whelan

In message <20011029093524...@mb-bh.news.cs.com>, Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> writes: >Perhaps they do feel that disciplineless CW would have a deleterious effect on >the game environment, but I do not recall that that has been stated by the RT's >netrep. The Rules Team, via LSJ, rarely proffer opinions about something where unnecessary. An opinion *was* offered on "We won't issue errata to upgrade cards, unless there's a rules conflict in the card already that needs to be resolved" (paraphrase, of course). Since this is a hard and fast rule, stating anything else seems unnecessary and, indeed, it's often useful in many situations for groups like the Rules Team to keep schtum. "We aren't going to look at this because of <X>. But even if we were, we'd turn it down on points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5." <conversation spirals off into the appropriateness of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, even though the over-riding principle of "It's not going to change" is still there> Happens a lot. YMMV. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <lmyC7.37977$Hw3.10...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes: >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> >> Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' >> cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power >> level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile >> to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The >> question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' > >Now wait just a second. > >Shouldn't someone have dusted off this argument when the >powers-that-be taped on the tacky no-ammo-for-Zip >rules change? They did. Zip Gun was at a certain abusive power level. It was errata-ed. Taking the question that must be answered as "does this break Zip Gun?" the answer is no. Zip Gun was already abusive, this toned it down. The difference between errata-ing a single, specific card down and errata-ing a card which affects a very large class of cards up is significant. Attempting to draw 1-1 parallels is unlikely to prove fruitful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:09:37 GMT, "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yah00.com> wrote >> >> Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' >> cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power >> level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile >> to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The >> question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' > >Now wait just a second. Or wait an entire weekend, depending. >Shouldn't someone have dusted off this argument when the >powers-that-be taped on the tacky no-ammo-for-Zip >rules change? Zip Gun/DBR was truly obnoxious in a Toreador AUS/PRE deck, since you can play ammo cards *after* the opposing minion declares their strike. Bleed for lots with PRE. If they don't dodge and don't S:CE, you drop the DBR and see if they prevent. Anyone in torpor never leaves, since you're the Red Pansies and have piles of AUS. >My point is that you shouldn't so quickly dismiss ideas about >card changes when similarly flagrant rules changes have >already been made in the face of the designers' existing >cards. I'm not dismissing it for -that- reason; I believe that disciplineless CW will slide the game in a direction it doesn't need to go, and create a few borderline-broken situations that don't need to exist. While I prefer to maintain the designers' original INTENT whenever possible, it's worth noting that intent and function often ended up vastly differing. >And no, silly. Potence breaks Meat Hook. I mean read the >card already. Potence doesn't break Meat Hooks; Vampires break Meat Hooks. Don't blame the Potence, it's not its fault! -- Derek

In message <8f507d2e.01102...@posting.google.com>, Shaun McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: >> An astonishing amount of nit-picking. >> A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many >> Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; >> even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul >> Escorts, Masquers). > >Ambrosius + T. Chain Saw, while a fun deck, has the annoying habit of >not winning games. With Ambrosius being able to get a T. Chain Saw disciplinelessly in combat, it's likely to do significantly better. >> Burning vamps is always better than putting them in torpor. The only >> saving grace for a long time has been that it is difficult to burn >> vamps. > >Muddles/Garrote is hardly a fool-proof way of burning vamps. That's not the issue or, indeed, the contention. ("Fool-proof" ways, of course, don't exist in V:TES.) Muddles is, of course, in no way perfect. A decent combat deck will tear him to pieces. Against certain decks, he will do very well. He gives the Malkavians an anti-weenie strategy, for example - they can slowly pick off the weenies who aren't going to hit back. (Or maybe they will, in which case kudos to the weenie player.) So sometimes he won't work. And sometimes he'll get blocked. Or someone will hit him with a Cryptic Mission or twelve. When he *does* work, he'll torporise a vampire. For him to do anything else requires significant investment - a source of aggravated damage, say, or a Heidelberg Castled piece of equipment, or something. Being able to drop Garotte in without having any set-up requirements is a *significant* upgrade. Sure, it's not going to work every time. But it's a significant upgrade. At 2 pool, he's pretty balanced as things stand - unique, good at what he does, but not perfect. Being able to burn vampires outright when timed well is not something he can do by design. By design, Garotte can't be put on him without some work. So we violate two basic functions of the design and create one nasty, nasty situation. Violating designer intent has to be done *very* carefully. Making Concealed Weapon disciplineless has some extremely powerful interactions, and cannot be done carefully. What *can* be done carefully are new niche cards - like Pier 13 to upgrade equipment somewhat, or Charisma to upgrade allies - in a way that is consistent with and interacts with the established power level of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <fd166f83.01102...@posting.google.com>, John B. Whelan <nys...@cs.com> writes: >> Neither situation is an accurate parallel to my statement. >> >> When Pier 13 was designed, Black Cat's special ability was taken into >> account as to whether it was a good idea. When Charisma was designed, >> all existing allies and their costs were taken into account. > >The situations are precisely parallel. The person who decided to >print Pier 13 took existing cards into account. A designer who is >considering whether to include a disciplineless version of DW should >also take existing cards into account. The parallel falls down, however, in that of the flexibility available. When $whoever sat down and designed Pier 13, they might have had it cost 1 blood. Or decided that it should only be available to the !Brujah. Or required a ready Archbishop, Priscus or Cardinal (who was controlling the whole operation). Perhaps it should cost 3 blood and allow unique items to be brought in. Or maybe it should work during your untap phase. Or maybe it should actually The decision to reprint CW disciplineless is considerably less flexible, in that you can't easily fundamentally change the very existence of the card. (The Design Team has shown such with a number of card reprints; The Rules Team has consistently shown they won't errata cards up.) And whilst disciplineless CW may have been appropriate for Jyhad[0], its appropriateness now is affected by many, many more cards - hence the absolute *need* for flexibility in dealing with the issue, rather than the constraints of CW's original text. [0] Many would argue otherwise, due to a number of items. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 29 Oct 2001 00:23:59 -0800, smci...@onesourcecorp.com (Shaun McIsaac) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:<5ruittk9cs32me1pr...@4ax.com>... >> A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many >> Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; >> even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul >> Escorts, Masquers). > >Ambrosius + T. Chain Saw, while a fun deck, has the annoying habit of >not winning games. Note that I quoted two highly-effective uses for Ambrosius that do NOT involve Talbot's Chainsaw, in an effort to remind people that he's useful for MORE than that. Also note that Ambrosius and the Chainsaw are probably a highly effective counterpoint to a Giovanni stealth/bleed deck, which WILL win games... although you'd have to take the chance of not getting the combo off by not putting -too- many in your deck. Your notions of what is "good" and what isn't are about two years old, I'm afraid. The game has advanced since then. >> As I analysed in another thread, while 1/3 of the vampires in the game >> have Potence, only about 60 of those see any sort of actual play. This >> means that unless I'm up against a CLAN with Potence, I'm not actually >> going to have to worry about my Meat Hooks being broken; and if I am, oh >> well, bad luck... but it's unlikely to happen. > >Only 60? Chances of not seeing at least some pot at table -- pretty >weak. Not as weak as you'd think. >Either someone will play a pot clan, or they'll have a random vampire >with it (Francois Villon, Spirodonas). So my grand-predator has Emerson Bridges. Big deal. This won't save anyone else. I don't have to have POT not at the table; I just have to have it not on my prey/predator. Or, more accurately, how often will you keep Emerson Bridges untapped to block the Meat Hook Rush? ...because I'll just kill all your OTHER vampires first, who CAN'T break the Meat Hook. >> When you get right down to it, to get away from Ambrosius and his Meat >> Hook, you need to have S:CE, a Potence clan, two presses to end (very >> rare), or 2 points of aggravated damage (also rare). Fortitude won't >> save you. This is the FULL effect. > >Apparation, Illusions of the Kindred, Theft, Blood to Water. And >that's under the trap, and only the more plausible ones (though BtW is >a stretch). Also, since this is assuming CW becomes playable, bow and >dagger also beat it. Caileen beats it. Illusions of the Kindred: stretch. Theft and BtW require Tremere, who still aren't all THAT common to see despite the boost they got. Cailean is one vamp: color me unimpressed. Bow and dagger have to be in play and not contested by everyone ELSE playing the bow and dagger. The odds are still pretty good, and this is, as I repeat, a WEAK version of the objection. Ambrosius' lack of a built-in Rush makes him much less suitable for this sort of thing, although his inclusion in a good stealth/bleed clan helps. >> Burning vamps is always better than putting them in torpor. The only >> saving grace for a long time has been that it is difficult to burn >> vamps. > >Muddles/Garrote is hardly a fool-proof way of burning vamps. Doesn't have to be foolproof. Just has to be too effective. >> >A deck that plans on making use of this Muddles + CW + Garrotte combo >> >could be radically improved by replacing every copy of CW with Lucky >> >Blow, and every copy of Garrotte with PF. >> At which point someone rescues the guy from torpor and pushes blood to >> him through the Blood Doll (invert order, but you get the idea). > >Only to get sent right on back to torpor, again with zero blood on it. >If muddles was working before, there's no reason a blood doll on a >torporous vamp is going to be a big deal. You Rush me with Muddles and kill Isabel Giovanni, pulling her fangs. I push blood and rescue her with Rudolfo. I now bleed my prey with Scouting Mission, Call of the Grateful Dead, and Foreshadowing Destruction for 5 and the oust. If you had burned Isabel, my game is probably over -- as it stands, I now have 4 extra pool and a VP (if Isabel is not rushed again, I will push a second blood to her to keep her from hunting, and begin removing PF). >> >>War Ghoul/Garrotte. >> >Once again, PF is a better option, and for the same reasons. In this >> PF is a good card. But burning vampires left and right is more >> effective, even if it costs 1 pool per vamp. > >This is a *lot* more powerful than muddles combo, thanks to the >massive increase in longevity of a war ghoul compared to a muddles, >unless there happens to be a fairly serious combat deck at the table. >It also requires 2 actions set up. *sigh* Anastasia Grey gets a Raven Spy. Wendy Wade gets a War Ghoul. Look, mom, two actions, and a War Ghoul on turn 3. Saw this happen just a couple games ago, actually; unfortunately for me, it was directly in front of my Venenation/Corruption/Change of Target deck. Bad news for small fragile Setites. If you can intercept the War Ghoul action, it doesn't matter the slightest bit if there are CW/Garrotte in the deck. >> >CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with >> >3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands >> >causes your strike to fizzle. >> >> Immortally Grappled: Fine, my War Ghoul strikes HANDS for 4, I prevent >> one, and since we're under a Trap, we go to the second round. > >IG's gives a press, no second round if they don't want it. Also they >are playing potence combat, how long is that war ghoul going to live >again? Signpost+strength, signpost. So much for the WG. And possibly so much for the vampire as well. Weenie POT has an awful lot of inferior POT running around, and an awful lot of weenie running around - it's no good Tasting when you've been splatted on the first try. Whether or not big POT can kill a War Ghoul is not especially relevant as to whether or not CW/Garrotte should be permitted. >> Grab me >> again? By the way, War Ghoul/Trap is an effective combo even BEFORE you >> get the Meat Hook on it. S:CE, press to end, or die... or hit back for >> 6+. > >It's not bad, and one of the *very* few allies that ever see any use. >But it doesn't get a whole lot better using MH or Garrote. If >anything they want a dagger, which makes them a much bigger pain (goes >for muddles too). That being said, the war ghoul can just take the >action to get it, and pummel the blocker. If they could deal with it >they could deal with it.. if not, well, that's their problem for not >playing combat and not stopping the recruit actions :) Rather have one blocker pummelled stopping an equip action than ALL my guys burned because there weren't any equip actions to stop. Also, it's possible to use something (Read Intentions, say) to survive blocking the equip action, whereas you'll just end up running out of combat defense eventually otherwise. >Somethign that cost 5 pool and dies before the might of Torn Signpost >is an utter waste. Something that cost SEVEN pool... Uh, yeah. There are a number of effective Garou decks out there. I suggest you revisit the "utter waste" theory. >> I'll gladly spend two extra pool to let the Garou strike for 4 each -- a >> Garou by itself is just as hosed by Pushing the Limit, so what do I >> care? If someone can kill the Garou without Bang Nakh, my deck is hosed >> anyway. > >There is the entirely reasonable chance that your gangrel deck, with >its zero in-clan bleed bounce, limited intercept, and which is >bleeding itself for five/seven, is hosed anyway. *snort* You mean my Big-Ass Gangrel deck that is playing Minion Tap/5th backed by Earth Control/Form of Mist, 2nd Tradition (with a couple Raven Spies) for intercept, Earth Meld/Flesh of Marble/Claws for defense, and a few Governs and Conditionings for bleed? Ah, yes, I can see where that deck would be hosed. *snort, again* Again, your ideas of "powerful" are about two years out of date, if not more. Give us some credit; we're not going to be building a multiple-Garou deck without covering the pool gain SOMEHOW. >Garou is terrible, muddles just restricts your opponent some (and >that's assuming he has no combat). The war ghoul is the only really >nasty ally due to the fact that it takes a lot of work to kill, and if >WG decks become popular, FM and a variety of other cards screw it >over. You CANNOT rely on the metagame to balance an overpowerful card. If every deck MUST include defense against the WG/Garrotte, then you've got the X/Anti-X situation all over again, which melts the game slowly. People need to be able to build their OWN decks and OWN ideas, and as long as they include reasonable combat defense, they should have a reasonable chance of survival against combat (whoever's deck draws better/cycles better should 'win'). If they include no combat defense, they just go splat no matter WHAT you hit them with. I'm just noting how much "casual" combat defense can be turned worthless on the face of it. >> I do not want to see this game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots, where you >> pack maneuvers *plus* S:CE and probably still die. > >Hardly. The Malks already have obf in clan, muddles, DW, and tons of >useful non-combat stuff. If muddles/any weapon was a good combo, >people could already play it (cloak it up a few times, you'll >generally get the weapon). Since this is by no means an issue now, I >don't see it being THE END OF THE WORLD. *sigh* I have, in fact, seen Muddles get the Bow via Cloaks. It works reasonably well as backup to stealth/bleed; dedicated combat blows it away, of course, but it is a VERY powerful setup against everything else; most decks aren't quite prepared to have someone take runs at them repeatedly in this fashion. The reason it only works reasonably well at the moment is because games are, on average, 12 turns long, and generally you want Muddles doing Rush things immediately upon his recruitment, instead of wasting an action (and possibly some of your stealth) trying to get a unique Bow. When he comes out of the chute taking Rush actions, he's notably more effective, even if he doesn't get the Bow/Garrotte right away. And he doesn't have to burn the Garrotte on every minion (although that's amusing as hell) -- he can wait for a key one and use it then. >> You pay for it in discard space, but the ability to have Kite whip out a .44 >> Magnum and turn into a permanent single-vampire intercept wall is >> unparallelled. > >Oh no, a ranged strike for two. >Someone help. You'll sing a different tune if you're my predator trying to get an action past him. Meanwhile, my other vamps will be over here ousting my prey. Again, your ideas of effectiveness are well out of date. A minion with permanent +1 intercept and a .44 Magnum ruin an INORDINATE amount of decks. I have a couple highly effective obf/AUS decks based around just that principle; even though I'm not killing your minions, I *am* stopping your actions, and that will screw your deck up very quickly. And I'm also not being ousted. Feel free to corner-case nitpick this all you like, but maintaining long range isn't all that difficult with Spirit's Touch and Behind You. >> However, realistically, you can put 5 DW and 5 weapons in a deck, and be >> reasonably assured of getting one out rapidly, and the rest out as need. >> No, you don't want to be doing it with Assault Rifles, because you don't >> even give yourself the OPTION of everyone getting one; but with 5 DW and >> 5 .44, you CAN get more than just one out. Especially if you plan your >> deck for it. > >You can, but most of the time you're better off doing something more >important than working on getting a 44. If you want to do (ranged) >combat you're better off with ani, tha, or pot (which accounts for >about 2/3rds of the vampires in the game). All of which require large amounts of transients, taking up huge chunks of deck room. Permanents have their own advantages. Sewer lids and Carrion Crows aren't necessarily better, just different. -- Derek

> > You pay for it in discard space, but the ability to have Kite whip out a .44 > > Magnum and turn into a permanent single-vampire intercept wall is > > unparallelled. > > Oh no, a ranged strike for two. > Someone help. > Okay how about Anton instead he has obf and cel plus the built in +1 intercept plus sup Animalism and Auspex if you want to crank it up any higher. Now that is a wall. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>In message <20011029093524...@mb-bh.news.cs.com>, Nystulc ><nys...@cs.com> writes: >>Perhaps they do feel that disciplineless CW would have a deleterious effect >on >>the game environment, but I do not recall that that has been stated by the >RT's >>netrep. > >The Rules Team, via LSJ, rarely proffer opinions about something where >unnecessary. Of course. That was my point. And I am not trying to identify my opinions with those of LSJ. I wish others would do the same. -- John Whelan

On 29 Oct 2001 06:19:17 -0800, nys...@cs.com (John B. Whelan) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yah00.com> wrote in message news:<5ruittk9cs32me1pr...@4ax.com>... >> When Pier 13 was designed, Black Cat's special ability was taken into >> account as to whether it was a good idea. When Charisma was designed, >> all existing allies and their costs were taken into account. > >The situations are precisely parallel. The person who decided to >print Pier 13 took existing cards into account. A designer who is >considering whether to include a disciplineless version of DW should >also take existing cards into account. I have given my opinion that, Which I have included numerous examples of. >taking into account the current state of the game, having such an >effect would be good for the game. You have countered with arguments >that the original designers did not know about current weapons. This >seems hardly relevant, especially since the original designers did NOT >in fact print a disciplineless version of DW. The original designers surely INTENDED to. However, the entire thrust of those particular arguments was to point out that it's not so easy as to just "reprint CW!" -- that quite a lot of examination needs to take place before any of that sort of glop can happen. >> Therefore, if Concealed Weapon is reprinted, all previous designers' >> cards must be taken into account. Meat Hook is at a certain power >> level, and was created at that power level knowing that allies (fragile >> to begin with) would have to take an extra action to get it. The >> question that must be answered is 'does CW break Meat Hook?' > >Meat Hook was designed to be balanced with other weapons. If a >disciplineless version of DW is printed, it will still be balanced >compared to other weapons, though, of course, weapons and allies will >both be (very marginally) enhanced compared to other equipement and >other minions (and they still could use such enhancement, IMHO). Could they? Allies are supposed to suck compared to vampires -- this is a game about vampires, after all, not a game about the War Ghoul. Weapons already have their own advantages; once you get them, they're generally pretty nasty in some form or other. The big problems with weapons have always been: spending the action to get them, OR getting the action blocked, OR affording the pool for the weapon, OR figuring out how to get them early enough to matter. There will never be a solution for the fourth -- to get any specific weapon (the Crimson Sentinel, say) early on simply requires that you put lots of them in your deck. This is the same for any card. Vast Wealth looks good until you realize you have to get Vast Wealth early on too... it's a wash. So any improvements will have to be based around the other three. Disciplineless Concealed Weapon removes the first two completely, leaving ONLY the pool cost for the weapon as a balancing factor, and possibly creating two major imbalances with specific vampires or allies no longer having to take the "get blocked" risk to be effective. One case that occurs to me is Anneke being able to CW out an Assault Rifle -- and with the Fragment available for her use, it shouldn't be difficult to get rid of the extra 4 CW and extra 4 AR after she gets the first. With superior Auspex and 2nd Tradition, nothing that she doesnt like will happen, and with superior Celerity, it should be damn near impossible to hit her (unless you ALSO have Celerity). Offense can be "bleed for 3 with Social Charm", which not incidentally gains a pool. MT/5th could be thrown in as necessary, although just plain old MT probably wouldn't hurt. Whether the deck is broken or not would be up for debate; it would need to see some playtesting first. But whether or not the deck even needs to exist is probably better; what direction does it take the game in? >> A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many >> Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; >> even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul >> Escorts, Masquers). > >3 pool, a Unique action requiring a clan, and a high-opportunity cost >combo involving two cards will get you as much or better if other >strategies are chosen. The effect is by no means overpowered >considering the cost and difficulty. That is my point, not that it is >unreasonable or impossible. My point is that you are understating the cost and difficulty by a not-insignificant amount -- there is minimal opportunity cost, because Ambrosius is also useful WITHOUT a Meat Hook. Requiring a clan is no cost at all, as it is not difficult to locate 12 Giovanni to stick in your crypt. 3 pool is a minimal cost if you are planning for it. >But I would imagine that Rush, Trap, Pulled Fangs would be at least as >effective way to go with Ambrosius. Not a precise analogy because, on >the down side, you don't keep the equipement, while, on the plus side, >it's an easier combo that ends with the torpored vampire's fangs >pulled, the trap effects are not foiled by dodges and maneuvers, and >it can be used against vampires with potence. However, it also requires an extra card every time you want the combo to happen -- and it's not inconceivable to only need a single card (the Rush action) for vampires who aren't packing maneuvers or dodges. I'd have some backup Traps in the deck as well, of course. There is also the matter of miscellaneous "press to end" cards being not as useful against someone who has two presses to continue every round. >But if you are arguing that the card is not wallpaper, and not totally >useless, I am happy to concede defeat. Maybe a disciplineless version >would not be wallpaper, as some hypothetical person might conceivably >claim. Maybe it really would be a good way to give allies a few >marginally useful options. I can't imagine anyone claiming disciplineless CW would be wallpaper at this point, if only for the "Sarah Brando pulls a .44 out of her bra" angle. Which, by the way, is ANOTHER thing to consider; do you really want to give Celerity weenies a stack of .44s? That particular deck is extremely nasty, especially if you toss 4-5 CEL skill cards in -- combining weenies who bleed for 1-2 every turn with effective permanents-based combat is very, VERY borderline. >> Once Ambrosius has the Meat Hook, the combo requires ONE card; a Bum's >> Rush. I will actually be playing with a TWO-card combo: Bum's >> Rush/Trap. So much for dodges and maneuvers, even though the Trap at >> first seems redundant v. a Meat Hook. > >You are relying on press combat in a game that does not metagame >against press combat because it is never used. The answer to a "Trap" >is a press to end combat. Which brings us to why press combat is >rarely used -- it is useless against S:CE. *sigh* So now you need to play maneuvers AND presses to end, since Trap/Meat Hook gives two presses to continue each round. And I can always just play an extra Trap. And someone who packs enough maneuvers and presses to end to get away from this will die miserably when they sit next to the non-combat decks, as a press-to-end is a forced discard when nobody is pressing to continue, and maneuvers are hand jam when nobody wants to fight you. There's a reason nobody metagames against press combat specifically -- it's too damn complicated to put all the stuff in to survive. >> The cheapest Giovanni with access to "good" stealth is Rudolfo, a 3-cap. >> He can play Spectral Divination to make the recruit action 2 stealth, >> and then either inferior or superior Call of the Grateful Dead, as >> appropriate. That is PLENTY of stealth. > >OK, but it depends on the environment. Around here I often like to >play Forgotten Labyrinth for +4 total stealth with my Nossies. >Intercept can be pretty heavy here. Intercept can be pretty heavy down here, as well, ...but in a tournament, 2 stealth and a transient-hoser will be sufficient 95% of the time, as the most common intercept will be 2nd Tradition. Also, intercept decks just took a beating with the new "game win" rules, in case you didn't notice -- the odds of sitting next to Joe Churchill (HI JOE =) are still the same as they always were, but the chances of J. Random Munchkin bringing his new, cool intercept deck are way, way down. >Hmm. My Sheldon intercept deck would not let you get him, not at +3 >stealth, and I'd break all your meat hooks anyway. My Tremere deck >would just steal his vitae, plus the Succubus would just kill him as >an action when she came out. My deep stealth Nossies have a fair >amount of potence, dodges, maneuvers, and presses to end combat. It >might not be enough in the long run, but you'd probably do as well >with double traps. My Toreador deck has majesty and maneuvers, plus >an entrancement. Against my Cailean deck you would never even get >close. My Nos/Gangrel allies deck will of course be packing ivory >bows and sengir daggers (enhanced by the ability to whip them out with >CW), so we will be in fair shape against Ambrosius. How many of these decks are "tier 1" tournament quality, in your honest opinion? And I'm talking "I'd play it in the National Championships" tournament quality, too. Having not seen any of the decks, I shall not presume to judge (against my first instinct). >> (more nit-picking deleted; just because each individual clan has a 'way' >> to stop Ambrosius doesn't mean they'll have it handy, or even in their >> deck. > >Admittedly, people don't metagame against allies OR against weapons. >But they have plenty of defenses available. If they choose not to use >them, and they lose, they cannot claim to have been unfairly treated. However, those defenses are useless when not sitting next to an "allies with weapons" deck. >> And I even admit that Ambrosius is a WEAK version of this, >> because he doesn't have a built-in Rush action.) > >Look. I'm not saying that Ambrosius with a Meat Hook might not be a >good deal in the right circumstances. I'm just saying that it ain't >broken, even with concealed weapon option. Isn't it? Again, see my "rockem-sockem-robots" bit below. >Sure, it just even be possible to sweap the table with such a >strategy. You have to kill alot of vampires to achieve that, right? >How is it horribly unbalanced if an ally-based strategy actually >stands a chance of winning? Oh, no no no, you misunderstand me. It's more than possible to sweep the table with such a strategy, because you're playing Giovanni sneak and bleed right alongside it, which was ALREADY a strong strategy before you gave it a handy, convenient thug to go beating up people's Deflectors and intercept monkeys. >> A vampire in torpor with a Blood Doll on it won't need to hunt when it >> gets rescued. Blood Dolls are pretty common around here. > >OK, but you've just bled your prey for one, possibly for much more if >he keeps on using that blood doll to keep out of torpor. Or if he opts to oust his own prey with that vampire, making the 1 pool spent plenty worth it. Or if he 5th Traditions himself with the first blood. Or if a Hunting Ground is around. Or if if if if... I can play the what-if game too. =/ >> At which point someone rescues the guy from torpor and pushes blood to >> him through the Blood Doll (invert order, but you get the idea). > >Your points may be adequate to show that the CW/Garrotte option is >"just as good" in the right circumstances (though I remain skeptical) >but certainly not adequate to show that it is radically better to the >point of being broken, especially not in the case of a War Ghoul. Burning people's vampires is supposed to be difficult to achieve, as it is a PERMANENT option. Which reminds me, just for laughs; give Ambrosius a Garrotte and then start Daemonically Possessing the vampires he nails back into play. Now it really IS a complete stunt deck, but boy, it's a funny thought. >> >CW + Garrott: You lose 1 pool. You can burn outright a vampire with >> >3 blood or less. Does not work if Immortally Grappled. Fast Hands >> >causes your strike to fizzle. >> >> Fast Hands: Technicolor-power-corner-case example. Discarded. > >I was comparing one two-card combo to another two-card combo on a War >Ghoul. For the sake of completeness, I was listing ALL Such comparisons are facetious. Fast Hands requires that a Celerity deck has wasted one of its slots hoping that someone will play weapons, and will actually bother to remain at close range with that weapon (since the most common weapons are guns) for them to steal it. >disadvantages, and ALL advantages that I could think of. My intent >was to show the combo is not overpowered or imbalanced compared to >other effects. I’ll present it again. ^^^^^^^ Using outlook express? >CW + Garrotte ---- versus ---- PF + Lucky Blow > ADVANTAGES: > Burns a vampire that it sends to Torpor, as opposed to >sending him with Fangs Pulled. > DISADVANTAGES: > Costs an extra pool ...which you will immediately recoup by having one less vampire who can bleed you for 1 (if used on your predator). > Higher opportunity cost and hand-jam potential, since >combo can ONLY be played as a combo in combat. ...which isn't too difficult to find, since you've got a minion who can get into combat as an inherent ability. > Torporizes a vampire with 3 blood or less, as opposed to >the alternative, which torporizes a vampire with 5 or (with somewhat >less certainty) 6 blood (by forcing a hunt attempt). ...which isn't too difficult to find either, since most vampires tend to spew blood off themselves like Old Faithful. > Affected by Weapon Hosers, unlike the alternative ...which aren't worthwhile to put in your deck in quantity even WITH disciplineless CW, because weapon hosers (except Canine Horde) will screw up your hand very badly if you don't sit next to weapons. One deck slot to a weapon hoser is a wasted slot that you can recover from, but you also won't see it when you need it. Any more are actively wasted slots that will hurt you. >Feel free to ignore the last consideration if you consider it too >corner case. I am merely listing all advantages/disadvantages for the >sake of completeness. But I really don’t think that weapon >hosers would be that irrelevant in an environment where weapons were >more common. (shrug) Most weapon hosers suck pretty badly anyway. Not to mention that now you're on the X/Anti-X thread of things, which is a clear symptom of broken. >I don’t see how anyone can view this comparison of advantages >vs. disadvantages, and possibly claim that CW + Garrotte is an >unbalanced 2-card effect that is somehow going going to break the game >and make allies overpowered. But I’m not sure, at this point, >if that is what you are trying to say. I believe that having simple ways to burn vampires is bad. And when you get right down to it, it's actually fairly simple to burn vamps with CW/Garrotte... say, by using the Lasombra? Now there's an idea. Lisette Vizquel enters combat with you and plays Thoughts Betrayed, CW, Garrotte. Her strike: Pushing the Limit for 4. Add Torn Signpost as necessary, though you should catch most vampires with 4. If you can manage a Taste of Vitae, even better. And you don't have to burn the Garrotte immediately; you can just torporize the weenies without the TB and wait on Rushing the big guy until you have all the stuff in hand. >If you are merely saying that CW would give allies different, >playable, and appropriately powered options, then fine. I agree. Of course not. Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. >That’s why I like the idea. (Actually, the main reason I like >the idea is that I think combat should be unpredictable and >suspenseful, and that an attacker should not necessarily know what his >opponent is packing. I think this should be true even in combat with >Allies. To be appropriately powered, a disciplineless DW-type card >should be good enough to see play occasionally, but not good enough to >see play constantly or drive out other options) Right. I think purely reprinting CW would both see play constantly AND drive out other options. A modified CW -- well, that depends on what modifications were made. >I acknowledge that they are the best combat allies in the game. This >is only correct, thematically. Tzimisce clan membership is a resource >license analogous to, say Obfuscate. It gives you the best combat >allies in the same way that Obfuscate gives you the best stealth. And >this is as it should be. But if, even after taking this into >consideration, War Ghouls are still judged to be “too >good” (I am not saying this is the case), then it would be >better to fix the War Ghoul than allow every other ally to languish as >wallpaper for want of the support cards needed to make them viable. War Ghoul isn't broken at this point. Printing cards that break it and then going back and making errata to un-break it strikes me as a very, very poor design decision to a game that's already had a good share of errata. >But if War Ghoul decks are able to occasionally sweep tables, this is >only as it should be. After all, the purpose of the game is to win. >If the best combat allies cannot do it, then who can?. The best VAMPIRES, since this is a game about vampires. Allies should always be best-used as a sideline, and require truly heroic efforts to be brought to the forefront. >I’ve never made a “combat deck” that would have much >trouble with a Garou, Bang Nakh or no. But the current metagame is >fairly low on both combat offence and combat defense. Not to mention that combat decks tend not to win, which is why the current tourney metagame IS so low on such things. The extra options are improving things though, and Final Nights still hasn't really made its presence felt. >At best, it is a viable combat option. By no means is it overpowered. > For 7 pool, you deserve to get an effect that will help you win the >game. This could pay off, but it is very risky – and the more >people expect trouble from combat allies, the riskier it becomes. It >does not take much to replace some of the Social Charms in your >presence bleed deck with some Entrancements, and they can still be >used to bleed. Which people could *already* stand to do, and still don't. >People are scared of Garous (and combat allies generally) because they >it can prevent targeted Methuselahs from winning by depriving them of >victory points. Less often do they help their owners win victory >points. And pushing the game more towards random combat hell is a good thing? >> Pulled Fangs is great. A Garou striking for 8 each combat is even >> better. > >For two extra pool, one extra card, and a high opportunity cost, it >bloody well better be, in order to be considered a balanced effect. Permanents make up for their own opportunity cost, generally. (Left for Dead helps this out somewhat.) >> >You have yet to come up with an impressive example. >> >> You have yet to come up with anything other than corner-case nitpicks > countering my examples. In a realistic environment, > >By “realistic” you mean the current game environment. But >an environment where weapons were more common, and weapon hosers more >worthy of inclusion, is not inconceivable nor necessarily a bad thing. The existing weapon hosers aren't, by and large, worthy of inclusion under ANY circumstances. > I fail >> to see how making any of them able to burn vampires gratuitously, or >> adding +4 damage per round for 2 pool is not "impressive". > >You have yet to give an “impressive” example of an >unbalanced effect, considering costs in pool, opportunity, uniqueness, >card slots, etc. But perhaps that was not your intent. You seem to >be merely arguing that the effect is playable and competitive. Again, please do not waste both of our time putting words in my mouth like this. I am arguing that the difference between a burned vampire and a torporized vampire is much larger than you represent it, along with a number of other issues. >> I do not want to see this game turn into Rockem-Sockem-Robots, where you >> pack maneuvers *plus* S:CE and probably still die. > >Against one of my combat decks, this is often what happens. Congrats! Why didn't we see them at GenCon? >> Judging from the appearance of (so far) two brand-new disciplines on the >> Bloodlines, it seems obvious that you and the designers are going to be > disagreeing a lot. > >I am aware of no such disagreement. I am very impressed so far with Then you've totally forgotten your multiple rants about how new disciplines were bad for the game and shouldn't be included in Bloodlines under ANY circumstances, so long ago. Your recent rants have included the "if done in the standard fashion" disclaimer; a clear CYA attempt. >what I see on the Bloodlines previews, as well as with the ingeniously >creative card mechanics. I’m not sure what you are getting at >here. I suspect you have misunderstood my opinions on the >fragmentation subject. I suspect I haven't at ALL misunderstood what you've said in the past. >If you recall, I was never opposed to the introduction of the new >disciplines as a THEME, and said so specifically. I was only opposed This is pure semantics. You were violently against new disciplines; you wanted special text printed on the vampires and cards, and the new cards to be printed as simply "paths" of the old disciplines. This is not a 'THEME' of new disciplines at all. >to their introduction in accordance with the standard approach and >standard card mechanic – the approach taken in every expansion This is the recent disclaimer added. >so far. I was not opposed to finding creative alternatives, and said >so specifically. It was always my position that creative means might >be found to incorporate the THEME of alternate disciplines using >different card mechanics. All of this is still pure semantics. >It ought to be obvious, however, that the standard approach has been >dispensed with in bloodlines. The specific solutions seem quite >clever, and far better than any solution I had anticipated. To the >extent that I have been “proven wrong”, I am quite happy >about it. It is clear to me that the game is in the right hands. Which certainly seems to be a big change from the "DEAD WRONG" I saw recently, isn't it? (and those two words being the reason i said anything in the first place) It's great that you're willing to change your mind and all, but most of us still remember you CLEARLY as the "no-new-disciplines-ever under-any-circumstances" proponent. Trying to obfuscate the past with disclaimers and fudge phrases is probably not such a good idea. > and I reiterate that a >> game which is based solely around combat and avoiding it is DEAD WRONG. > >Of course. There should be a balance between the various strategies >of bleed, vote, and combat. Combat is still the weaker strategy in >the opinion of most. Weapons are still considered weak compared to >many other combat options. Correct. Disciplineless CW without changing the text would skew the game sharply towards combat being SUPERIOR to all other options, as it would now be easy to include effective combat with a minimum of cards. Decks would now be forced to include 20-30 combat cards, or die. This isn't a good way to go, IMO; we've already seen it happen locally when I and a few others were on their "thug deck" kick. It makes non-combative decks non-viable in the extreme, and I don't think that's appropriate. >Because, in order to be worth 3 pool and two actions, it should be >scary in order to be worth playing. If a War Ghoul were not scary, it >would hardly be worth the trouble to bring into play. In fact, it is >quite possible for something to be “scary” in terms of >threatening another’s minions and chances of victory, and still >be worse than other options in terms actually gaining victory points >for the person playing it. Right. But in general, successfully getting a War Ghoul is almost ALWAYS a good option; it generally allows you to terminate minions with extreme prejudice for the rest of the game. You simply don't pick on the minions that can kill it. Taking an already-good option and making it already-better... hmm.. maybe not such a good plan. >I have a DW / .44 Magnum deck obfuscate/celerity deck that is >considered extremely scary by its victims. But it rarely wins victory >points because of its pool cost. Perhaps after some tweaking ... Right. And you're encouraging more people to make decks that splatter stuff all over creation, but don't ever quite go anywhere... doing nothing but skewing the game without purpose? >I would say that DW is a reasonable card. I would say that it is the >best offensive combat card of the Obfuscate discipline – which >is not SUPPOSED to be a strong combat discipline -- and, as such, is >fairly appropriate in power level. I’m not sure I am saying >anything much different than you are. (shrug) It's not an I-win-the-game card, no. >> I have done all three of the above, actually. Disciplineless CW is >> painfully good in weenie CEL decks, *AS WELL* as in ally decks. Almost > too good, really. > >I’m not sure what you mean by “almost” too good. >If you are not really claiming it is “too good”, we are >really not in disagreement. Well, put it this way. In a weenie CEL deck, your vampires cost between 1-3 each. Add a couple news locations for access to light intercept -- you'll never have trouble leaving a vampire untapped, so you won't need much Wake. Put in lots of Computer Hacks, and a few Bum's Rushes to cycle when you get full of combat. Put in 5 CEL skill cards, and a lot of CEL combat cards, and 6 each of CW/.44. Add either Blood Dolls or Tribute to the Master, whichever you like better. Play as the cards arrive. You should be in great shape -- shrugging off most all early-pool damage, and your weenie bleeders will be doing a lot of damage per turn just by virtue of being weenies; except now your prey can't effectively just leave people up to block, because you'll be handing out lots of damage. I don't think a deck like this needs to exist. It's a huge skew for the metagame towards combat, which would push things well into the "lots of combat, all the time" department. That bodes very poorly for a lot of things, including variety. And I *LIKE* playing combat. >In any event, you seem to be suggesting that if the card is “too >good” it is as much because of weenies as because of allies. >This seems to suggest to me that if some lesser disciplineless version >of DW is printed, there is little reason to pick on allies for >exclusion. It is merely a matter of making the card appropriately >powered for any minion that plays it; either that or not printing it >at all. Do you agree? That's a dreadfully trap-ridden question, by the way. One must consider ALL minions that play it, but there is certainly plenty of reason to pick on allies, as I've shown. I believe that it's damn near impossible to make the card appropriately powered, as the need to balance all the weapons with all the allies, all the weenies, all the OTHER cards, etc. create a far-too-complicated situation to resolve adequately in a single card. At least without making it like Fata Amria. I think the correct approach would be to print newer cards that address individual problems with weapons, instead of such a broadly sweeping card like CW. Experience tells us that the cards with huge, broad effects tend to be the ones that get broken in combos (rti, golconda), as opposed to the narrowly defined effects. >(BTW, I have also had the joy of pulling out Disguised Assault Rifles. > This was in a Nossie bloat deck. It was worth it for the fun factor, >and sometimes I actually got away with it and won victory points. >But, as you say, it is not really good strategy. The deck is usually >stronger without it, but it once really saved my ass against a Garou) I made a deck like that once: MT/5th, Night Moves/Spying Mission, and DW/Assault Rifle. It was pointed out to me that since I kept stealthing the bleeds through anyway (had to cycle stealth, nobody was stopping the 5ths), why was I wasting time getting Assault Rifles? Oops. I never did go back and tweak it, but it was still amusing. -- Derek "Agricultural barbarians? What do THEY do... rape, pillage, and plant?"

> I made a deck like that once: MT/5th, Night Moves/Spying Mission, and > DW/Assault Rifle. It was pointed out to me that since I kept stealthing > the bleeds through anyway (had to cycle stealth, nobody was stopping the > 5ths), why was I wasting time getting Assault Rifles? > Derek Well, one answer might be, if the crypt looked about like I think it looked, is to get under for the Parity Shift. I recently built a deck that did that. I was looking to keep it at a nice, tight, eighty cards (yeah, you guys sold me on that one), and I wanted staying power for late game. A Pulsed Sheldon with an Assault Rifle and the Labyrinth is a package. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham

On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <8f507d2e.01102...@posting.google.com>, Shaun > McIsaac <smci...@onesourcecorp.com> writes: > >> An astonishing amount of nit-picking. > >> A vampire action and three pool is not difficult to come by. Many > >> Giovanni decks have Ambrosius included anyway, for his special ability; > >> even before he gets the Meat Hook, he's hardly a waste of time (Ghoul > >> Escorts, Masquers). > > > >Ambrosius + T. Chain Saw, while a fun deck, has the annoying habit of > >not winning games. > > With Ambrosius being able to get a T. Chain Saw disciplinelessly in > combat, it's likely to do significantly better. talbot's costs three pool. beyond the scope of CW, disciplineless or not. O:) salem.