October 25 2007, The Day the Imbued Died

Will the new cards in Lords of Night actually kill Imbued decks? October 25 is when they become tournament legal (If I calculated correctly). Going off the spoiler list Uriel posted on 9/23, here are vamps and cards I think will kill ally decks in general, and maybe Imbued in particular: Jamal Ogwon Pentweret Lorenzo Detuono Durga Syn Ambulance Permanent Vacation Autonomic Mastery Trochomancy Set's Curse Or not? best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Sep 29, 11:44 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Will the new cards in Lords of Night actually kill Imbued decks? > > October 25 is when they become tournament legal (If I calculated correctly). > > Going off the spoiler list Uriel posted on 9/23, here are vamps and > cards I think will kill ally decks in general, and maybe Imbued in > particular: > > Jamal > Ogwon > Pentweret > Lorenzo Detuono > Durga Syn > > Ambulance > Permanent Vacation > Autonomic Mastery > Trochomancy > Set's Curse > > Or not? If we were only so lucky..... Commetns Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

librarian skrev: > Will the new cards in Lords of Night actually kill Imbued decks? > > October 25 is when they become tournament legal (If I calculated > correctly). > > Going off the spoiler list Uriel posted on 9/23, here are vamps and > cards I think will kill ally decks in general, and maybe Imbued in > particular: > > Jamal > Ogwon > Pentweret > Lorenzo Detuono > Durga Syn > > Ambulance > Permanent Vacation > Autonomic Mastery > Trochomancy > Set's Curse > > Or not? > > > best - > > chris > Also consider that lots of these effects the Imbued will be able to cancel by using react with conviction. All actions and strikes requiering chimestry, dementation, dominate, presence or serpentis can be canceled by this card. Only an effect from a vampire (or ally) or an action like Chair of Hades: Chair of Hades LotN - rare +1 stealth action nec: Remove a mortal or ghoul (ally or retainer) from the game NEC: Remove and non-wraith ally or retainer or vampire with capacity less than 3 from the game. can't be canceled with react. But I guess it's a good thing that the Imbued has to put more reacts in their libraries. Cardslots that could have been Strike or Second. Regards Alex

[ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com I'm pretty sure the answer is NO. I think its a great set, very much so. But adding a few anti ally cards is not going to change the situation regarding imbued at all. We already have GREAT anti-ally tech. Steal an ally, at 1 stealth for no cost, it doesn't get much better than that. As I and many others have said - releasing anti imbued cards is not the way to fix the imbued, they need to be changed.. and the rules that surround them, not make a few cards to help deal with them. Ant

> We already have GREAT anti-ally tech. Steal an ally, at 1 stealth for > no cost, it doesn't get much better than that. As I and many others > have said - releasing anti imbued cards is not the way to fix the > imbued, they need to be changed.. and the rules that surround them, > not make a few cards to help deal with them. Correct. I doubt the new anti ally tech will weaken imbued, anymore than Vessel will make Blood Dolls extinct. After a few games of "set's curse the ally lol" people will realise there are better and more effective cards to use in their decks, rather than cornercase bane tech. 1] powers covered under NRA 2] MoM nerfed to 1 per, or something similar 3] Jennie nerfed so her text only applies when she is ready That will do it.

> I doubt the new anti ally tech will weaken imbued, anymore than Vessel > will make Blood Dolls extinct. After a few games of "set's curse the > ally lol" people will realise there are better and more effective > cards to use in their decks, rather than cornercase bane tech. > > 1] powers covered under NRA > 2] MoM nerfed to 1 per, or something similar > 3] Jennie nerfed so her text only applies when she is ready > > That will do it. MoM changed so that you just burn the blood to burn the card, maybe burn 2 blood to burn the card, or you do it in the untap phase rather than discard. Otherwise, I agree. It is really only multiple Powers a turn and MoM that are the problem - and yes, Jennie should only get her power when ready. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

On Oct 3, 3:58 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > MoM changed so that you just burn the blood to burn the card, maybe > burn 2 blood to burn the card, or you do it in the untap phase rather > than discard. Otherwise, I agree. It is really only multiple Powers > a turn and MoM that are the problem - and yes, Jennie should only get > her power when ready. Agreed here too. While new anti-ally is nice and all, most of it won't work any better than the current ones do. Champion + Determine hoses most direct attacks on the Imbued, anyway. The changes outlined above sound like a pretty sane way of balancing things. //Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like " I don't want to adapt to current situation, ban this card."

In message <1191397976....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, IC- [ quoted text not captured ] The distinction being drawn is between: - adapting your game in a way that will give you defences against a wide variety of decks, which will also work against the Imbued - adapting your deck in a way that will give you defences against the Imbued. For example, consider the Laibon. Have you had to evolve your decks to deal with the new options that Laibon players have? Sure, I can see players being perturbed by - say - the Eldest Command Undeath, or by Tsunda/The Eldest are Kholo decks, or all sorts of other decks. Have you tweaked your decks as a result - perhaps using the new tech in Legacies of Blood? Sure, that seems reasonable. But, have you (the general you) been forced to put specific anti-Laibon tech in a deck? Cards that won't work (or will be very, very weak) against Camarilla decks, or against the Imbued, or the Sabbat, or a mixed-clan deck, or...? That's the problem that a number of people are seeing. The problem is that a number of deck types can continue to use existing tech against the Imbued, so some players won't see all that much of a problem. Other decks don't have existing tech to use against the Imbued, and the players of those decks object to being told to put in specific anti-Imbued tech that won't see any use nine games out of ten, but they'll be absolutely dead in the tenth game without it. If I never see an ally deck, why should I put ten anti-Imbued cards in an S&B deck? I don't need to against the Laibon - I use stealth, intercept, bounce and everything else that I can use against everyone else. So if I don't need specific anti-Laibon tech, why do I need specific anti-Imbued tech? I don't need specific anti-Corruption tech to save me from Setites - rush combat, intercept etc. will save me. I don't need specific anti- Assamite/Contract tech, because I can use combat defence as usual. If the answer for a given deck is "Put in some anti-Imbued cards", why is it the case that I don't have to put in other specific anti-tech to defend against other clans and sects? I certainly do think that cards with incidental anti-Imbued effects are good e.g. a combat card that is good, but particularly effectively effective against Imbued/allies generally, or a vote that can hurt anyone but will hurt Imbued/allies just a little bit more. And I do think that if a particular deck finds it easier to cope with the Imbued by including specific anti-tech (to cope with a particular metagame shift, say) then it should have the options to (if it wants). But that's all different from (some) deck-styles having to specifically deal with the Imbued with anti-Imbued cards. And that's what a number of players are objecting to being told to do. Now, it's entirely possible that some of those players could adapt their decks in a generic way that will help against Imbued - but they just haven't worked out how (yet). But being told "Pack anti-Imbued tech" feels like being told "Pack anti-Return to Innocence tech." If I need to pack specific anti-tech, it's a good indication that something is awry and should be discussed and investigated. It may turn out that you can find the generic way, as part of that investigation. It may turn out that the deck(s) having problems are substandard in a lot of other ways too. But it may also turn out that there's a problem. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Oct 3, 4:38 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1191397976.743667.36...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, IC- [ quoted text not captured ] It's a false dilemma. > The problem is that a number of deck types can continue to use existing > tech against the Imbued, so some players won't see all that much of a > problem. Other decks don't have existing tech to use against the > Imbued, and the players of those decks object to being told to put in > specific anti-Imbued tech that won't see any use nine games out of ten, > but they'll be absolutely dead in the tenth game without it. If I never > see an ally deck, why should I put ten anti-Imbued cards in an S&B deck? Don't. > I don't need to against the Laibon - I use stealth, intercept, bounce > and everything else that I can use against everyone else. So if I don't > need specific anti-Laibon tech, why do I need specific anti-Imbued tech? > I don't need specific anti-Corruption tech to save me from Setites - > rush combat, intercept etc. will save me. I don't need specific anti- > Assamite/Contract tech, because I can use combat defence as usual. Rush combat and intercept will "save" you against the imbued as well. > If the answer for a given deck is "Put in some anti-Imbued cards", why > is it the case that I don't have to put in other specific anti-tech to > defend against other clans and sects? If your deck has no rush combat or intercept, you're likely to have problems with that corruption deck mentioned above, no? Why should I have to put ten rush/intercept cards in my deck to defend myself against that? Oh, right, I don't have to. I just have to suck it up if they manage to beat me. > I certainly do think that cards with incidental anti-Imbued effects are > good e.g. a combat card that is good, but particularly effectively > effective against Imbued/allies generally, or a vote that can hurt > anyone but will hurt Imbued/allies just a little bit more. These already exist (quietus anti-ally strikes, entombment, ancient influence, reins of power, smiling jack...). But people like to complain. > And I do > think that if a particular deck finds it easier to cope with the Imbued > by including specific anti-tech (to cope with a particular metagame > shift, say) then it should have the options to (if it wants). > > But that's all different from (some) deck-styles having to specifically > deal with the Imbued with anti-Imbued cards. And that's what a number > of players are objecting to being told to do. Which ones? I get why rush combat has a lot of trouble *ousting* the imbued, but even they have not-specifically-anti-imbued options (Anarch Revolt). > Now, it's entirely possible that some of those players could adapt their > decks in a generic way that will help against Imbued - but they just > haven't worked out how (yet). But being told "Pack anti-Imbued tech" > feels like being told "Pack anti-Return to Innocence tech." If I need > to pack specific anti-tech, it's a good indication that something is > awry and should be discussed and investigated. If someone's only answer to you is "pack anti-imbued tech", they deserve a good slapping. If someone gives you a list of good, generically useful cards to use and you reject them all as "specifically anti-imbued tech" because you just don't want to adapt to the metagame, you deserve a good slapping. > It may turn out that you > can find the generic way, as part of that investigation. It may turn > out that the deck(s) having problems are substandard in a lot of other > ways too. But it may also turn out that there's a problem. I am personally of the opinion that the metagame has yet to fully adapt to the imbued, and also that the imbued have yet to fully adapt to the metagame. Until this happens, I don't think tinkering with rules and errata is necessary. witness1

> >I'm sorry, but that sounds to me like " I don't want to adapt to > >current situation, ban this card." > > The distinction being drawn is between: > > - adapting your game in a way that will give you defences against a wide > variety of decks, which will also work against the Imbued > > - adapting your deck in a way that will give you defences against the > Imbued. > > For example, consider the Laibon. [ snip rest of awesome post ] James, thankyou. That is one of the most clear-headed, sane and rational points anyone has put forward in this debate. That is really the essence of the problem.

> Rush combat and intercept will "save" you against the imbued as well. That's what everyone thought. Then they realised that it's not true. Rush cards can be cancelled with Determine. Or Memories can be put on the most dangerous rushing or blocking vampires each turn. They can be recycled with Parthenon / Anthelios. Even assuming your rushes aren't cancelled and your fighty vampires aren't Memoried, taking down an Imbued doesn't do much because they can come out of "sleep" unblockably (since it's not even an action). Also they are cheap, can bloat easily, and multiply. Your scary combat dude might cost 6 or 7 (or more). Their dudes cost 3 or 4 or 5 pool, and they generally quickly get out Travis / Church and gain 3 pool a turn. Take one down, they'll bring another one out. Or the same one will slide out of the bin unblockably and you are back where you started. > These already exist (quietus anti-ally strikes, entombment, ancient > influence, reins of power, smiling jack...). But people like to > complain. Not really. I don't like to complain, which is why I do it very rarely. Most people don't either, which is why there isn't very much complaining on this newsgroup. Mainly just people asking rules questions, posting decks, tourney reports, etc. But there has been a lot of complaining recently, because Imbued need to be fixed. > Which ones? I get why rush combat has a lot of trouble *ousting* the > imbued, but even they have not-specifically-anti-imbued options > (Anarch Revolt). You can't be serious... Imbued with Travis and Church can bloat for 3 pool a turn *without playing a card*. Sure, some vampire with dominate can bloat with Govern for 3 pool a turn, but he needs a Govern in his hand every turn, and spends a blood every turn. Imbued can very easily set this up to do it for free (costs them convictions, but those tend to multiply with terrifying rapidity). Putting down Anarch Revolts are going to probably increase the chance an Imbued deck is going to win, especially if other narky players start blocking their prey going anarch. The Imbued player can also block or Champion THEIR prey going anarch. Their prey probably also isn't bloating for 3 pool a turn. There is of course a finite limit to the amount of times someone can Champion, but that's a complicated one we will leave for now. > If someone's only answer to you is "pack anti-imbued tech", they > deserve a good slapping. If someone's only answer is "pack some intercept and combat", they deserve a good slapping. > If someone gives you a list of good, generically useful cards to use > and you reject them all as "specifically anti-imbued tech" because you > just don't want to adapt to the metagame, you deserve a good slapping. No no no. People have been using good, generically useful cards in their decks, and they have been getting thrashed by Imbued over and over and over again. Imbued are cheap. They get to continuously put awesome useful cards on their vampires every turn from their hand, library, or ash heap, for free. They get a card that gives them all +1 intercept, for free. They are completely immune to many of the "good generically useful" cards in the game (Disarm, Taste, Drawing out the Beast, three super ultra good, and useful combat cards, not to mention the fact they can block Daring the Dawn type stuff). They all treat agg damage as normal. They get a master that gives them a pool once a turn whenever any of them does an action. They get to come out of torpor without an action. If White Wolf printed the Imbued as a vampire clan (i.e. printed a vampire that cost 4, had super useful cards put down on them from anywhere in your deck, treats agg damage as normal, immune to all frenzy cards, comes out of torpor automatically, blah blah blah blah), they would be howled down as the most ridiculously overpowered clan in the game. Take Unmasking, for example. Decks with vampires might use a card like KRCG (Imbued might also, but let's also leave that for the moment). Imbued are different; they tend to use Unmasking. Let's compare them. KRCG costs TWO pool and can tap (i.e. usable once between your untap phases) to give one minion +1 intercept. Unmasking is free, and permanently gives +1 intercept to ALL your minions (assuming you are playing Imbued). Which one sounds better to you? When the only allies were Garous, War Ghouls and Hordes, that wasn't so much of a problem, because those allies couldn't get much other intercept. Imbued get Second Sight, and also have access to a large number of action cancelling or redirecting or screwing-around-with cards. Giving them Unmasking is crazy. No vampire clan in the game has access to anything remotely NEAR that good for intercept. The only thing close to it is Anima Gathering, which is also possibly overpowered, but balanced by the fact that it can not only be DI'ed, but also quite easily blocked. The KRCG / Unmasking thing is also another excellent example of James' point. Let's say you are playing S&B, and you want some ways of thwarting other methuselahs getting out intercept locations. You might put a couple of Suddens in your deck to cancel a KRCG, and maybe a couple of Unnatural Disasters (gets rid of it if you don't have a sudden in your hand at the right time). Those cards are also excellent against many other cards and strategies. Suddens can cancel Blood Dolls or whatever, Disaster can burn a Secure Haven that your crosstable buddy needs removed to take down Arika, or whatever. What do those cards do against The Unmasking? Nothing whatsoever, it's an Event, not a Master. OK so you need to put anti-event cards in your deck. They will really help you against Imbued, because Imbued usually pack at least a couple of events (Unmasking and E.E.). But what about against vampire decks? Does bugger all, since 95% of vampire decks don't use events at all. See? Is your answer then to "put some anti- event cards in your deck"? Is that "adapting to the metagame"? See James' point? > I am personally of the opinion that the metagame has yet to fully > adapt to the imbued, and also that the imbued have yet to fully adapt > to the metagame. Pfft, the Imbued don't have to "adapt" to the metagame. They are just doing their own thing, putting in all their standard cards that do general Imbued stuff, and riding the metagame like a bitch all the way to the (blood) bank. What "adapting" are you suggesting they do? Putting 5 memories in all their decks, because it completely screws a vampire on the table for 1 pool? And some Champion / Determine to totally and permanently shut down any threatening actions from the entire table? Oh wait they already do. If your suggestion of vampires "adapting to the metagame" is putting some intercept and combat in decks, people have been doing that too, and in case you hadn't noticed yet, it hasn't really been working.

On 3 , 11:38, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1191397976.743667.36...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, IC- > The distinction being drawn is between: > > - adapting your game in a way that will give you defences against a wide > variety of decks, which will also work against the Imbued > > - adapting your deck in a way that will give you defences against the > Imbued. I don't think so. My point is: Adapt your defense against what annoys you much. So imbued have to put Smiling Jack, cause if it hit the table they are screwed. So big fatties have to put Aranthebes, cause if they meet weenie they are screwed. If the opportunity cost to play the card is low (as with Laibon), then there is no reason to put it in deck. But imbued deck became more and more popular, so you can ignore them and get screwed ( it's personal deckbuilding problem) or kill them (that's your VP).

On Oct 3, 8:48 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Rush combat and intercept will "save" you against the imbued as well. Well, as noted, Rush combat really won't save you against the Imbued-- they are incredibly resilient. They come out of the Hospital with incredible ease (Jennie Orne) and without taking actions. Most of the important offense for Rush decks don't work on the Imbued (as they aren't vampires). Many important cards that make rush decks go don't work on the Imbued (as they aren't vampires). It is possible that Rush decks need to evolve to deal with the Imbued, but as the necessary cards to evolve in that way don't exist, the ability to evolve is highly limited (there is no Haven Uncovered that works on the Imbued; there is no Taste that works on the Imbued; there is no Fame that works on the Imbued; there is no Decapitate that works on the Imbued; etc.) I suspect that in their inception, there was fear that the Imbued would be too vulnerable to combat. So they were given good combat resilience. Which in the end turned out to be too resilient. -Peter

<IC-O...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1191397976....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sometimes, "I don't want to adapt to the current situation, ban this card" is a totally reasonable suggestion. That's why certain cards get banned or at least changed via errata or text update in a later printing. Note: this is a side point, not necessarily an endorsement of Chris's position vis-a-vis Imbued. I just want to challenge what appears to be an unjustified assumption: that all cards that are printed must be perfectly good additions to the game as printed. Sometimes the original card design was a mistake. Fred

On Oct 3, 10:00 am, leon.tran...@gmail.com wrote: > > Rush combat and intercept will "save" you against the imbued as well. > > That's what everyone thought. Then they realised that it's not true. > Rush cards can be cancelled with Determine. Okay, let's get something straight. Using Determine to cancel any action card not named Reins of Power or Ancient Influence is, generally speaking a BAD IDEA. I'll tap my guy and burn a conviction to cancel your action, leave you untapped, and oh my, you can't play the same action card again. Let me do that three more times so I can be all tapped out. Now you turn forward on your prey (using different action cards or cardless bleeds) and my predator bleeds me out because I can't untap worth shit? Oops... > Or Memories can be put on > the most dangerous rushing or blocking vampires each turn. They can be > recycled with Parthenon / Anthelios. Even assuming your rushes aren't > cancelled and your fighty vampires aren't Memoried, taking down an > Imbued doesn't do much because they can come out of "sleep" > unblockably (since it's not even an action). You mean, the imbued players adapt to their weaknesses? > Also they are cheap, can > bloat easily, and multiply. Your scary combat dude might cost 6 or 7 > (or more). Their dudes cost 3 or 4 or 5 pool, and they generally > quickly get out Travis / Church and gain 3 pool a turn. Take one down, > they'll bring another one out. They can multiply easily if nobody has any intercept. Bloating less so, because "gaining 3 pool a turn" requires an Information Highway in addition to Travis and the Church. Your "scary combat dude" can just as easily be a 2-cap with pot or a 4- cap with ANI as a 6 or 7 cost guy. But don't let facts get in the way of your hyperbole. > Or the same one will slide out of the > bin unblockably and you are back where you started. If you can't finish the job. > > These already exist (quietus anti-ally strikes, entombment, ancient > > influence, reins of power, smiling jack...). But people like to > > complain. > > Not really. I don't like to complain, which is why I do it very > rarely. Most people don't either, which is why there isn't very much > complaining on this newsgroup. Mainly just people asking rules > questions, posting decks, tourney reports, etc. But there has been a > lot of complaining recently, because Imbued need to be fixed. So you say. > > Which ones? I get why rush combat has a lot of trouble *ousting* the > > imbued, but even they have not-specifically-anti-imbued options > > (Anarch Revolt). > > You can't be serious... Imbued with Travis and Church can bloat for 3 > pool a turn *without playing a card*. And an Information Highway. And you assume Travis has conviction to pay for his special, which he won't if you kill him with your big scary combat. And even then they can't bloat for much more than that 3 no matter how many cards they play. In any case you just bleed me and don't even bother with rush cards (they can all point right, with maybe a special exception for Travis). If I block, hey, that's as good as a rush, right? And if I don't, I lose pool. Which you stack on top of the Anarch Revolt loss and I can't survive it for long. Even if I do have Travis, the Church, the Info Highway, and a Specialization (and 2 cards to pitch to it every turn), I'm treading water at best against 2 Anarch Revolts and 2 bleeds of 1 each. My pool total cannot rise for the rest of the game without ousting my prey or getting some kind of crosstable help. > Sure, some vampire with dominate > can bloat with Govern for 3 pool a turn, Minion Tap/Voter Cap can gain you up to 12 pool in a turn. Consanguineous Boon can get you a ridiculous sum of pool. Yes, they're transient. Transients are generally more powerful (in the short term) than permanents. > but he needs a Govern in his > hand every turn, and spends a blood every turn. Imbued can very easily > set this up to do it for free (costs them convictions, but those tend > to multiply with terrifying rapidity). Putting down Anarch Revolts are > going to probably increase the chance an Imbued deck is going to win, > especially if other narky players start blocking their prey going > anarch. The Imbued player can also block or Champion THEIR prey going > anarch. Their prey probably also isn't bloating for 3 pool a turn. > There is of course a finite limit to the amount of times someone can > Champion, but that's a complicated one we will leave for now. If the imbued player is trying to Champion an undirected action, you should take away his cards. > > If someone's only answer to you is "pack anti-imbued tech", they > > deserve a good slapping. > > If someone's only answer is "pack some intercept and combat", they > deserve a good slapping. I didn't say that you *ought* pack intercept and combat against the imbued. See some of my other posts for why I don't actually think that's the greatest of ideas. James Coupe said that intercept and combat is good enough against Corruption decks that we don't need specific anti-corruption tech. I think they're good enough against imbued to do the same (in the abstract; I realize that some combat options are going to be less good against imbued, just as some options are going to be less good against Setites). The point was not that you should pack this tech against the imbued unless its in your deck already. But if we're fine with non- intercepty, non-rushy decks not having good defenses against Corruption, I'm not sure why there's a problem with some decks not having good defenses against the imbued. > > If someone gives you a list of good, generically useful cards to use > > and you reject them all as "specifically anti-imbued tech" because you > > just don't want to adapt to the metagame, you deserve a good slapping. > > No no no. People have been using good, generically useful cards in > their decks, and they have been getting thrashed by Imbued over and > over and over again. Just a few threads down, someone rejected Misdirection as being "specifically anti-imbued tech" when it was suggested as a means to deal with Champion. Which is crazytalk. > Imbued are cheap. They get to continuously put > awesome useful cards on their vampires every turn from their hand, > library, or ash heap, for free. They get a card that gives them all +1 > intercept, for free. They are completely immune to many of the "good > generically useful" cards in the game (Disarm, Taste, Drawing out the > Beast, three super ultra good, and useful combat cards, not to mention > the fact they can block Daring the Dawn type stuff). Those cards are not "generically useful" by definition. They're *specifically* useful against vampires. > They all treat > agg damage as normal. They get a master that gives them a pool once a > turn whenever any of them does an action. They get to come out of > torpor without an action. > If White Wolf printed the Imbued as a vampire clan (i.e. printed a > vampire that cost 4, had super useful cards put down on them from > anywhere in your deck, treats agg damage as normal, immune to all > frenzy cards, comes out of torpor automatically, blah blah blah blah), > they would be howled down as the most ridiculously overpowered clan in > the game. And they would be, because they would have none of the weaknesses of the imbued, and all of the advantages of being vampires. Hell, when the set first came out, a lot of people were like "What are these guys even good for, anyway?" because of all the shit they _just_can't_do_. Turns out the stuff they _can_ do is good enough to win games, which I think of as a feature, but several other people seem to think of as a bug. > Take Unmasking, for example. Decks with vampires might use a card like > KRCG (Imbued might also, but let's also leave that for the moment). > Imbued are different; they tend to use Unmasking. Let's compare them. > KRCG costs TWO pool and can tap (i.e. usable once between your untap > phases) to give one minion +1 intercept. Unmasking is free, and > permanently gives +1 intercept to ALL your minions (assuming you are > playing Imbued). Which one sounds better to you? When the only allies > were Garous, War Ghouls and Hordes, that wasn't so much of a problem, > because those allies couldn't get much other intercept. Imbued get > Second Sight, and also have access to a large number of action > cancelling or redirecting or screwing-around-with cards. Giving them > Unmasking is crazy. No vampire clan in the game has access to anything > remotely NEAR that good for intercept. The only thing close to it is > Anima Gathering, which is also possibly overpowered, but balanced by > the fact that it can not only be DI'ed, but also quite easily blocked. Lets compare some more: Vampires can play cards like Lost in Crowds, Forgotten Labyrinth, and now Blithe Acceptance. The amount of stealth an action can see is pretty high. So The Unmasking, combined with Second Sight, and maybe a Discern gets me to three intercept. Which is great, but getting much higher than that requires a much greater investment than it would for vampires who wanted to do the same. Gee, I wonder if we take away nearly all transient effects, and give them a few permanent effects, maybe we can achieve some balance? I guess not. > The KRCG / Unmasking thing is also another excellent example of James' > point. Let's say you are playing S&B, and you want some ways of > thwarting other methuselahs getting out intercept locations. You might > put a couple of Suddens in your deck to cancel a KRCG, and maybe a > couple of Unnatural Disasters (gets rid of it if you don't have a > sudden in your hand at the right time). Those cards are also excellent > against many other cards and strategies. Suddens can cancel Blood > Dolls or whatever, Disaster can burn a Secure Haven that your > crosstable buddy needs removed to take down Arika, or whatever. What > do those cards do against The Unmasking? Nothing whatsoever, it's an > Event, not a Master. OK so you need to put anti-event cards in your > deck. They will really help you against Imbued, because Imbued usually > pack at least a couple of events (Unmasking and E.E.). But what about > against vampire decks? Does bugger all, since 95% of vampire decks > don't use events at all. See? Is your answer then to "put some anti- > event cards in your deck"? Is that "adapting to the metagame"? WTF? Put the same cards in your deck to get around The Unmasking that you'd use to get around 3 guys with a Raven Spy each. THAT is adapting to the metagame. Use the anti-event tech if you actually see enough EVENTS to make it worthwhile (Dragonbound, Anthelios, The Unmasking [it's not just for the imbued!], Inconnu Tutelage, Narrow Minds...) >See James' point? I absolutely see James' point. I disagree with him about some particulars, but I agree with him that saying "pack anti-imbued tech" isn't terribly helpful. However, it's often difficult to be helpful in the abstract - if someone were to post a particular deck and ask how it might be made better able to handle the imbued, without sacrificing its ability to win otherwise, it would be a lot easier to help that person. > > I am personally of the opinion that the metagame has yet to fully > > adapt to the imbued, and also that the imbued have yet to fully adapt > > to the metagame. > > Pfft, the Imbued don't have to "adapt" to the metagame. Bullshit. > They are just > doing their own thing, putting in all their standard cards that do > general Imbued stuff, and riding the metagame like a bitch all the way > to the (blood) bank. What "adapting" are you suggesting they do? > Putting 5 memories in all their decks, because it completely screws a > vampire on the table for 1 pool? I don't play with Memories, because I don't think the card is worth my pool and MPA. But my opinions on *that* card are documented elsewhere. >And some Champion / Determine to > totally and permanently shut down any threatening actions from the > entire table? Ah, that's right. The BS how every imbued deck is a Defense/Vision/ Judgment/Memories/I always have every card that shuts down my opponent crap. And what seems to be a misunderstanding about how Champion and Determine even work (hint: they can't shut down the entire table unless there's 3 or fewer people left). >Oh wait they already do. > If your suggestion of vampires "adapting to the metagame" is putting > some intercept and combat in decks, people have been doing that too, > and in case you hadn't noticed yet, it hasn't really been working. Bullshit. That's _not_ my idea of adapting to the metagame. It was a specific response to a specific statement by James. Adapting to the metagame is considering options like Misdirection or Blind Spot or even (heaven forbid) .44 Magnum in your stealth bleed deck as a means to help deal with Champion. None of these are "specific anti-imbued cards". All of them are plenty useful in other scenarios that crop up, and it's your job as a player to decide which is the best option. There are plenty of other, similarly broad cards to consider. And there are specific anti-imbued hosers you can consider as well (Wave of Insanity, Break the Code), if you think they'll get the job done better overall. If you would like more specific ideas on how to adapt, please post a specific deck. I would be delighted to help you include choices that work well against both vampires and imbued. witness1

On Oct 3, 10:27 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 3, 8:48 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Rush combat and intercept will "save" you against the imbued as well. > > Well, as noted, Rush combat really won't save you against the Imbued-- > they are incredibly resilient. They come out of the Hospital with > incredible ease (Jennie Orne) and without taking actions. Most of the > important offense for Rush decks don't work on the Imbued (as they > aren't vampires). Many important cards that make rush decks go don't > work on the Imbued (as they aren't vampires). It is possible that Rush > decks need to evolve to deal with the Imbued, but as the necessary > cards to evolve in that way don't exist, the ability to evolve is > highly limited (there is no Haven Uncovered that works on the Imbued; > there is no Taste that works on the Imbued; there is no Fame that > works on the Imbued; there is no Decapitate that works on the Imbued; > etc.) There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular claim. Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. The rest of your points are all pretty valid except... > I suspect that in their inception, there was fear that the Imbued > would be too vulnerable to combat. So they were given good combat > resilience. Which in the end turned out to be too resilient. ...I'm specifically talking about *defending* against the imbued. There's no good reason that backrushing them off the table shouldn't be able to do that in a satisfactory manner in at least some fair chunk of the cases. I know it's happened to me at least a few times in the past. witness1

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, witness1 wrote: >> That's what everyone thought. Then they realised that it's not true. >> Rush cards can be cancelled with Determine. > > Okay, let's get something straight. Using Determine to cancel any > action card not named Reins of Power or Ancient Influence is, > generally speaking a BAD IDEA. > > I'll tap my guy and burn a conviction to cancel your action, leave you > untapped, and oh my, you can't play the same action card again. Let me > do that three more times so I can be all tapped out. Now you turn > forward on your prey (using different action cards or cardless bleeds) > and my predator bleeds me out because I can't untap worth shit? > Oops... I sort of had the same opinion of Determine - that it was break glass in case of emergency only - until I saw some players using it very effectively. At the EC day 1 event, I was playing an Ishtarri vote deck preying on an Imbued deck. I had considered Imbued when I made my deck and attempted to make a deck that would be effective against them. I spent a long time tuning my hand for the perfect lunge. I had stealth, Majesty, a KRC, a Secret Must be Kept and an Anarchist Uprising as well as a Dreams of the Sphinx and a Barrens, so I could keep cycling throughout my turn. My prey used Determine to cancel every good action card I played, playing 4-5 of them in the same turn. I was left with having to bleed for 1, which didn't do the job. Then my prey ousted his prey. I kept trying, but my prey ended up sweeping because he'd just use his Unity to make sure he always had plenty of Determines. Also, he'd kill a new prey every turn or two, so the cost of Unity was pretty negligible and he could absorb a few bleeds as well as the KRC I managed to get through. I think a deck that plans to get the most out of Determine can go pretty far. Conviction costs are no big deal if you put enough Convictions in your deck. Tapping isn't that costly if you were otherwise going to get burned or ousted. I'm sure you know that Imbued decks often have a minion advantage anyway. So anyway, I think you could be right in some cases. In my case, I was ready to have one or two of my actions cancelled - I had more good things to do, but when I ended up having 4-5 actions cancelled, I completely ran out of juice. Matt Morgan

On Oct 3, 11:23 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works > on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular > claim. Except that Break the Code isn't a Master card and you can't play multiples of them--how many Break the Code is reasonable to have in a deck? 1? You don't draw it. 2-3? Maybe you draw it, and then the rest are dead cards. 5? You are clogging your deck with cards that are pretty much totally dead if you aren't sitting next to the Imbued. Break the Code is pretty good *specific* anti-Imbued tech. Including one or two in a combat deck is reasonable. But then you are often just as likely to not draw it as you are. > Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on > the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. I'm not complaining that Break the Code doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that there should probably be an analog to Haven Uncovered that works on *both* Vampires and the Imbued. That doesn't shoot you in the foot, like Frontal Assault does ("Yaa! I play Frontal Assault and attack my prey's 5 Imbued with my 4 vampires. But 2 of my vampires have Memories of Mortality on them. And so I get lucky and uncapacitate 2 of them! And then I lose 3 pool. And the two Imbued get out of the hospital during my prey's untap phase...") > ...I'm specifically talking about *defending* against the imbued. I'm talking about being viable against the Imbued. Which are, granted, different things. Yes. Rush combat can slow the Imbued down. And maybe keep them from winning. But lots of decks can do that. > There's no good reason that backrushing them off the table shouldn't > be able to do that in a satisfactory manner in at least some fair > chunk of the cases. I know it's happened to me at least a few times in > the past. Sure. But then the Rush deck loses. 'Cause it had to play irrationally and backrush the Imbued off the table. And instead of ousting its prey, it had to go backwards. And if the Imbued is your prey, you are totally hosed. 'Cause you can't oust them. You just can make both of you lose. -Peter

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1191425027.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works > on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular > claim. Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on > the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. > The rest of your points are all pretty valid except... This is classic example of a huge canard in disputes about CCG metagames: "Card X exists which totally kills the thing your trying to claim is overpowered. Ergo, what you're complaining about isn't really a problem." Unfortunately, a card existing and a card being playable are two different things. Sorry for all the whining but the card has to be reasonable to use in the greater metagame, too - or else it should be left out of the conversation. Fred hell, Brainwash kills everything - therefore, nothing can be overpowered...

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, conviction costs are no big deal if you're only spending one per turn per dude. It doesn't matter how many are in your deck if you're spending them much faster than that (Well, there's Edge Explosion, but then you need to be taking successful actions). > So anyway, I think you could be right in some cases. In my case, I was > ready to have one or two of my actions cancelled - I had more good things > to do, but when I ended up having 4-5 actions cancelled, I completely ran > out of juice. I would very much like to see this deck. There are six minions in the game that can play Determine. Two of them cost 6, 1 of them costs 5. One of the 6-cost guys burns a conviction every turn if you have more than 2 ready imbued. None of them is named Travis Miller, so assuming he was using Travis to help bring out the others. That's 4-5 minions he left untapped at the end of the turn to Determine 4-5 of your actions. Did he pack a lot of Vigilance to keep them untapped? How was he ousting his prey? Or was this 4-5 actions over multiple turns? I'm sure it could work in the right circumstances. But I'm sure the deck is pretty unique. Not at all a "generic" imbued deck. witness1

On Oct 3, 12:12 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 3, 11:23 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works > > on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular > > claim. > > Except that Break the Code isn't a Master card and you can't play > multiples of them--how many Break the Code is reasonable to have in a > deck? 1? You don't draw it. 2-3? Maybe you draw it, and then the rest > are dead cards. 5? You are clogging your deck with cards that are > pretty much totally dead if you aren't sitting next to the Imbued. That depends a lot on the rest of your deck. If you're also packing Dragonbound, I'd suggest 1 BtC and 2 Fortschritt Library (depending on how prevalent imbued are in your metagame). Then you fetch Dragonbound with Fortschritt if you're not seeing imbued, and Break the Code if you are. You may need a bit more flush tech (Dreams, Barrens) than you usually play to help you get rid of the excess, or you may be able to make do without. > Break the Code is pretty good *specific* anti-Imbued tech. Including > one or two in a combat deck is reasonable. But then you are often just > as likely to not draw it as you are. Sure. But the statement "there's no Haven Uncovered that works on the Imbued" isn't really true. Which was all I was trying to get at. > > Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on > > the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. > > I'm not complaining that Break the Code doesn't exist. I'm pointing > out that there should probably be an analog to Haven Uncovered that > works on *both* Vampires and the Imbued. That doesn't shoot you in the > foot, like Frontal Assault does ("Yaa! I play Frontal Assault and > attack my prey's 5 Imbued with my 4 vampires. But 2 of my vampires > have Memories of Mortality on them. And so I get lucky and > uncapacitate 2 of them! And then I lose 3 pool. And the two Imbued get > out of the hospital during my prey's untap phase...") I'm not at all opposed to the idea. It also looks like the Design Team is headed in that direction. > > ...I'm specifically talking about *defending* against the imbued. > > I'm talking about being viable against the Imbued. Which are, granted, > different things. Yes. Rush combat can slow the Imbued down. And maybe > keep them from winning. But lots of decks can do that. > > > There's no good reason that backrushing them off the table shouldn't > > be able to do that in a satisfactory manner in at least some fair > > chunk of the cases. I know it's happened to me at least a few times in > > the past. > > Sure. But then the Rush deck loses. 'Cause it had to play irrationally > and backrush the Imbued off the table. And instead of ousting its > prey, it had to go backwards. And if the Imbued is your prey, you are > totally hosed. 'Cause you can't oust them. You just can make both of > you lose. ? I seem to recall that someone with your initials once wrote that it was often a _good_ idea to wreck their predator. Maybe I misunderstood. Or maybe the circumstances are always going to be radically different when it's an imbued predator. witness1

On Oct 3, 8:02 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <IC-Odd...@yandex.ru> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] And sometimes the original card design was fine, but addition of new cards breaks it or makes it too powerful. Many people consider Memories of Mortality to fall into this category now that Imbued are better, cheaper and easier to use compared to most old school allies. Jeff

On Oct 3, 12:34 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > > news:1191425027.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > > > There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works > > on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular > > claim. Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on > > the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. > > The rest of your points are all pretty valid except... > > This is classic example of a huge canard in disputes about CCG > metagames: "Card X exists which totally kills the thing your trying to > claim is overpowered. Ergo, what you're complaining about isn't really > a problem." Unfortunately, a card existing and a card being playable > are two different things. Sorry for all the whining but the card has > to be reasonable to use in the greater metagame, too - or else it should > be left out of the conversation. A) I was specifically addressing the claim that "there is no Haven Uncovered that works on the Imbued". The issue of overpoweredness notwithstanding, that claim is demonstrably false. Peter has clarified his statement (he wants one that works on both vampires and the imbued, and isn't called Frontal Assault). B) An event card is exactly as expensive to cycle out of your hand as it is to put into play (either choice costs you a DPA). So it doesn't make much sense to me to claim that Break the Code is somehow unreasonable to use in the larger metagame. In some games, it gives you a gigantic advantage (free, unremovable rush on all your predator's/prey's minions, plus they get -1 intercept) for a small cost (one DPA). In other games it just gives you a tiny cost (one DPA to get rid of it and find something useful). But when you're building your deck, you already know you're going to be short one DPA per event you draw, no matter what else happens. So, assuming you're going to pack the event in the first place, you plan on getting around that DPA loss one way or another (flush tech, a homogeneous deck, whatever). If, for whatever reason, it's difficult to fit that amount of flush tech, or you're just not likely enough to either see the imbued at all, or capitalize on the advantage BtC gives you, then don't bother. witness1

On Oct 3, 12:25 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > B) An event card is exactly as expensive to cycle out of your hand as > it is to put into play (either choice costs you a DPA). So it doesn't > make much sense to me to claim that Break the Code is somehow > unreasonable to use in the larger metagame. In some games, it gives > you a gigantic advantage (free, unremovable rush on all your > predator's/prey's minions, plus they get -1 intercept) for a small > cost (one DPA). In other games it just gives you a tiny cost (one DPA > to get rid of it and find something useful). But when you're building > your deck, you already know you're going to be short one DPA per event > you draw, no matter what else happens. > > So, assuming you're going to pack the event in the first place, you > plan on getting around that DPA loss one way or another (flush tech, a > homogeneous deck, whatever). If, for whatever reason, it's difficult > to fit that amount of flush tech, or you're just not likely enough to > either see the imbued at all, or capitalize on the advantage BtC gives > you, then don't bother. > > witness1 The other drawback of Break the Code and the other events is you cannot play it if it has already been played. If a player in a weak position plays it and then gets ousted, everbody else is denied that resource. This is probably a minor effect as it does not occur often (and may be outweighed by BtC getting onto the table earlier than if just 1 player had it) but in the late game BtC cannot be counted on, and this effect increases the more people actually play BtC. (as likelihood of someone else playing it increases). Frontal Assault works nice against the imbued for rushes but its likely to cost its player pool as they do not gain pool from incapacitating the imbued, but can still lose pool if they fail to incap all the imbued. Its nice when you need the rushes but a haven uncovered that applies to minion would have higher use due to its repeatability and less risk. <<Wandering off topic my playing the Unmasking at a table with the imbued in the LCQ in LA forced the imbued to try and keep me around so as to not lose the effect. But the benefit was lost to me as my prey was playing non-imbued allies able to block my recruits of my own allies. In that game my former prey (I having been ousted already) used Frontal Assault to kill his imbued prey's deck but lost pool and was weakened, only a deal to kill the imbued kept my former prey around long enough to finish the task. >> John P. Winnipeg

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1191432324.4...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > A) I was specifically addressing the claim that "there is no Haven > Uncovered that works on the Imbued". The issue of overpoweredness > notwithstanding, that claim is demonstrably false. Peter has clarified > his statement (he wants one that works on both vampires and the > imbued, and isn't called Frontal Assault). I don't imagine it matters what it's called. I would suspect it's more along the lines of, "..doesn't cost me 1 for every Imbued he has that I fail to pillowface." > B) An event card is exactly as expensive to cycle out of your hand as > it is to put into play (either choice costs you a DPA). So it doesn't > make much sense to me to claim that Break the Code is somehow > unreasonable to use in the larger metagame. No, but it doesn't make sense to claim that an Event card, which costs a DPA whether played or discarded, is a substitute for Haven Uncovereds which cost MPAs. I think a critic would have a pretty good argument in saying the opportunity cost of the former is higher than the latter in a combat deck. > So, assuming you're going to pack the event in the first place, you > plan on getting around that DPA loss one way or another (flush tech, a > homogeneous deck, whatever). This is waving your hands over a cost. You're suggesting that one must be resigned to the cost of the thing you think does the trick. That's a circular counterargument. The point is, you're not actually giving a reason that the DPA loss isn't a bad thing relative to its overall benefit in a combat deck. It may be arguable that one or two are worth packing, depending on your metagame. But it really isn't the same thing as the multiple Havens, which are almost always playable in a master phase, even if they're not always useful. > If, for whatever reason, it's difficult > to fit that amount of flush tech, or you're just not likely enough to > either see the imbued at all, or capitalize on the advantage BtC gives > you, then don't bother. Right. And "not bothering" = "it doesn't do any good". Fred

On Oct 3, 1:21 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > That depends a lot on the rest of your deck. If you're also packing > Dragonbound, I'd suggest 1 BtC and 2 Fortschritt Library (depending on > how prevalent imbued are in your metagame). Then you fetch Dragonbound > with Fortschritt if you're not seeing imbued, and Break the Code if > you are. You may need a bit more flush tech (Dreams, Barrens) than you > usually play to help you get rid of the excess, or you may be able to > make do without. And all of this is vastly deproving your ability to actually be effective at winning games with such a deck--masters are at a premium and deck space is at a premium. As a result, the deck's ability to win on a reliable basis is being degraded in the name of making it work better against the Imbued. > Sure. But the statement "there's no Haven Uncovered that works on the > Imbued" isn't really true. Which was all I was trying to get at. Well, it is true. Haven Uncovered and Break the Code work very differently. And Break the Code is completely Imbued specific. And isn't a Master card. And isn't something you can reasonably use multiples of in a given deck. If Haven Uncovered (or some new version of the card) said "minion" instead of "vampire", then there'd be a Haven Uncovered that works on the imbued. Replacing Haven Uncovered with Break the Code is an untennable solution. Adding Break the Code in along with Haven Uncovered is either unreliable ('cause you have 1 or 2) or degrades the deck considerably ('cause you have multiples and/or Forschritts). > I'm not at all opposed to the idea. It also looks like the Design Team > is headed in that direction. Sure. But one doesn't exist yet--if the new set came with "We Know Where You Live: Master. Place this card on a Minion. Other minions may enter combat with this minion as a (D) action. This minion can take a +1 stealth action to burn this card.", then we'd be getting somewhere. But it didn't. And the last similar card (Frontal Assault) is considerably disadvantagous against the Imbued in a way that it doesn't really need to be. > ? I seem to recall that someone with your initials once wrote that it > was often a _good_ idea to wreck their predator. No, no. I think you misunderstood. I am a vast advocate of wrecking your prey, getting 1VP, and then playing backwards as neccessary. If you go and read the write up from when I won a Qualifier with a Rush deck, it is all about how I rarely ever backrushed. I am a vast proponent of avoiding backrushing as much as possible--yeah, you gotta back rush once and a while in most games, but in general, the less backrushing you do, the more likely you are to actually win. Sometimes you are *forced* to backrush extensively, but that is a sign that you are losing anyway--if you are forced to backrush significantly to stay alive, you are losing the game. Which sometimes is unfortunately the case. But it isn't generally something you should be designing the deck to do. > Maybe I > misunderstood. Or maybe the circumstances are always going to be > radically different when it's an imbued predator. Nope. When you have an Imbued predator and you are a Rush deck? Things aren't actually that bad--back rush once and a while as necessary, and just go forward. Not really much of a problem. When your *prey* is imbued, however, and you are a Rush deck? Totally screwed. You aren't going to oust them. You are going to be running up hill against a river. Bad news. -Peter

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, witness1 wrote: > Well, conviction costs are no big deal if you're only spending one per > turn per dude. It doesn't matter how many are in your deck if you're > spending them much faster than that (Well, there's Edge Explosion, but > then you need to be taking successful actions). Yeah, he spent a pile of Convictions to first thwart my lunge and then oust his prey. Pretty much any amount of resources is worth that, don't you think? > I would very much like to see this deck. There are six minions in the > game that can play Determine. Two of them cost 6, 1 of them costs 5. > One of the 6-cost guys burns a conviction every turn if you have more > than 2 ready imbued. None of them is named Travis Miller, so assuming > he was using Travis to help bring out the others. I believe this is the deck I was playing against: http://vtes-hunter-net.tripod.com/decks/determinated-teemu.htm I couldn't tell you if any changes had been made. Yes, Travis was in play. > That's 4-5 minions he left untapped at the end of the turn to > Determine 4-5 of your actions. Did he pack a lot of Vigilance to keep > them untapped? How was he ousting his prey? Or was this 4-5 actions > over multiple turns? He did have Vigilance, yes. In at least one case, he played an On the Qui Vive to enable a Determine by a tapped Imbued, then later untapped that guy with Angel of Berlin so he'd be available to take actions in the upcoming turn. There might've been another OtQV/Determine play that left the minion tapped. > I'm sure it could work in the right circumstances. But I'm sure the > deck is pretty unique. Not at all a "generic" imbued deck. Well, judge for yourself. I would say there are some pretty typical elements in there, but the deck runs more Determine and On the Qui Vive than I'm used to seeing. It seems like the theory is that if you cancel enough actions, decks will run out of good things to do. It worked in my case. Matt Morgan

On Oct 3, 2:07 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 3, 1:21 pm, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > That depends a lot on the rest of your deck. If you're also packing > > Dragonbound, I'd suggest 1 BtC and 2 Fortschritt Library (depending on > > how prevalent imbued are in your metagame). Then you fetch Dragonbound > > with Fortschritt if you're not seeing imbued, and Break the Code if > > you are. You may need a bit more flush tech (Dreams, Barrens) than you > > usually play to help you get rid of the excess, or you may be able to > > make do without. > > And all of this is vastly deproving your ability to actually be > effective at winning games with such a deck--masters are at a premium > and deck space is at a premium. As a result, the deck's ability to win > on a reliable basis is being degraded in the name of making it work > better against the Imbued. Welcome to my life. > > Sure. But the statement "there's no Haven Uncovered that works on the > > Imbued" isn't really true. Which was all I was trying to get at. > > Well, it is true. Haven Uncovered and Break the Code work very > differently. And Break the Code is completely Imbued specific. Haven Uncovered is completely vampire specific. > And > isn't a Master card. And isn't something you can reasonably use > multiples of in a given deck. >From the receiving end, I've never seen that multiples were necessary. Either it comes out and there's a permarush on me for the rest of the game (on top of giving me -1 intercept), or the guy playing rush combat has plenty of rush actions to take. Sometimes both. > If Haven Uncovered (or some new version of the card) said "minion" > instead of "vampire", then there'd be a Haven Uncovered that works on > the imbued. Replacing Haven Uncovered with Break the Code is an > untennable solution. Adding Break the Code in along with Haven > Uncovered is either unreliable ('cause you have 1 or 2) or degrades > the deck considerably ('cause you have multiples and/or Forschritts). Sure. I'm not sure that it's necessary. > > I'm not at all opposed to the idea. It also looks like the Design Team > > is headed in that direction. > > Sure. But one doesn't exist yet--if the new set came with "We Know > Where You Live: Master. Place this card on a Minion. Other minions may > enter combat with this minion as a (D) action. This minion can take a > +1 stealth action to burn this card.", then we'd be getting somewhere. > But it didn't. And the last similar card (Frontal Assault) is > considerably disadvantagous against the Imbued in a way that it > doesn't really need to be. I'm not actually sure there _needs_ to be such a card. I mean, I see why iterative rushes are really good, particularly against opponents who are packing lots of prevent or chump-blockers. But imbued don't have so much prevention, and it seems like you'd pretty much paste anyone who got in your way. And I see that it's annoying not to be able to play the card against them when its your only rush in hand. But then, I don't see much value in rushing forward against the imbued anyway (except maybe Travis). Just bleed. If they block, you're in combat and get to crush them. Otherwise, you take away their pool (which is really the goal anyway). It's not like you're going to oust them with a Fame or Tension any time soon. > > ? I seem to recall that someone with your initials once wrote that it > > was often a _good_ idea to wreck their predator. > > No, no. I think you misunderstood. I am a vast advocate of wrecking > your prey, getting 1VP, and then playing backwards as neccessary. If > you go and read the write up from when I won a Qualifier with a Rush > deck, it is all about how I rarely ever backrushed. I am a vast > proponent of avoiding backrushing as much as possible--yeah, you gotta > back rush once and a while in most games, but in general, the less > backrushing you do, the more likely you are to actually win. Sometimes > you are *forced* to backrush extensively, but that is a sign that you > are losing anyway--if you are forced to backrush significantly to stay > alive, you are losing the game. Which sometimes is unfortunately the > case. But it isn't generally something you should be designing the > deck to do. Fair enough. If Vengeance combat wasn't so crappy, I'd probably be learning most of this on my own. > > Maybe I > > misunderstood. Or maybe the circumstances are always going to be > > radically different when it's an imbued predator. > > Nope. When you have an Imbued predator and you are a Rush deck? Things > aren't actually that bad--back rush once and a while as necessary, and > just go forward. Not really much of a problem. This is approximately the point I was trying to make. > When your *prey* is > imbued, however, and you are a Rush deck? Totally screwed. You aren't > going to oust them. You are going to be running up hill against a > river. Bad news. Well, for most rush decks. I've been ousted by them before, but only with Anarch Revolt tech or cross-table help (or both). witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Agree. LSJ, please don't nerf the MoM as it would drastically weaken most of the ally decks before Imbueds. Repeat. Fixing Imbueds = OK, changing MoM card text not OK :) - Guzmo

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered >> that works on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making >> that particular claim. > > Except that Break the Code isn't a Master card and you can't play > multiples of them--how many Break the Code is reasonable to have in a > deck? 1? You don't draw it. 2-3? Maybe you draw it, and then the rest > are dead cards. 5? You are clogging your deck with cards that are > pretty much totally dead if you aren't sitting next to the Imbued. Well, I don't have any rush deck, or have seen any rush deck, with more than 3x Haven Uncovered, and given that, I don't see much difference between 3x HU and 3x BtC. And given the fact that imbued exist, you probably SHOULD be playing 2-3x BtC in your rush decks nowadays. [rest of post snipped, mostly agreed with] Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

On Oct 2, 5:50 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > We already have GREAT anti-ally tech. Steal an ally, at 1 stealth for > > no cost, it doesn't get much better than that. As I and many others > > have said - releasing anti imbued cards is not the way to fix the > > imbued, they need to be changed.. and the rules that surround them, > > not make a few cards to help deal with them. > > Correct. > > I doubt the new anti ally tech will weaken imbued, anymore than Vessel > will make Blood Dolls extinct. After a few games of "set's curse the > ally lol" people will realise there are better and more effective > cards to use in their decks, rather than cornercase bane tech. > > 1] powers covered under NRA > 2] MoM nerfed to 1 per, or something similar > 3] Jennie nerfed so her text only applies when she is ready > > That will do it. 4) Convictions only gained for free when ready and not incapacitated. 5) If not powers under NRA, then no free untap when getting a power. 6) Make all powers cost 1 conviction to acquire. Lots of options without changing any card texts, though I still think MoM is kinda really strong. Jeff

On Oct 3, 4:33 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 5:50 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > > > > > > > We already have GREAT anti-ally tech. Steal an ally, at 1 stealth for > > > no cost, it doesn't get much better than that. As I and many others > > > have said - releasing anti imbued cards is not the way to fix the > > > imbued, they need to be changed.. and the rules that surround them, > > > not make a few cards to help deal with them. > > > Correct. > > > I doubt the new anti ally tech will weaken imbued, anymore than Vessel > > will make Blood Dolls extinct. After a few games of "set's curse the > > ally lol" people will realise there are better and more effective > > cards to use in their decks, rather than cornercase bane tech. > > > 1] powers covered under NRA > > 2] MoM nerfed to 1 per, or something similar > > 3] Jennie nerfed so her text only applies when she is ready > > > That will do it. > > 4) Convictions only gained for free when ready and not incapacitated. Never leave incapacitated again? Or were you going to suggest something along the lines of they could tap to gain it if incapacitated? > 5) If not powers under NRA, then no free untap when getting a power. Pretty reasonable, as I've stated elsewhere. > 6) Make all powers cost 1 conviction to acquire. This seems bad to me. Some powers would still be worth acquiring with the increased costs, but many of the already-sub-par powers just go down the tubes to the point of just being bad. I'd hate to discourage variety in imbued decks. > Lots of options without changing any card texts, though I still think > MoM is kinda really strong. > > Jeff witness1

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:EiSMi.149007$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx... > Well, I don't have any rush deck, or have seen any rush deck, with more > than 3x Haven Uncovered, and given that, I don't see much difference > between 3x HU and 3x BtC. Wow! How much self-nerfing can one rush deck take?!? I mean, I'm no expert on playing rush but throwing three useless event cards (against any but Imbued) into a combat deck? I was given to think the balance issues in combat decks were already sort of critical. And even so, it's amazing how often three critical cards can be in the bottom 50 out of your 90 cards. I mean, like, this happens to me A LOT! My idea of, "I must draw this card" usually starts at around six and goes up from there. Fred

On Oct 4, 7:32 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > But then, I don't see much value in rushing forward against the imbued > anyway (except maybe Travis). Just bleed. If they block, you're in > combat and get to crush them. Otherwise, you take away their pool > (which is really the goal anyway). It's not like you're going to oust > them with a Fame or Tension any time soon. You know this actually makes a lot of sense and to be fair I hadn't really thought about it like that. Like I'm totally on the side of some combat cards that don't work against Imbued (eg Taste) should do, but I agree with witness that it's partly people haven't adapted to how to beat them yet. Including a couple of copies of Break the Code for a pure rush deck doesn't seem unreasonable if you're planning on ousting via Fame and Tension you're a bit hosed otherwise. Threaten backwards and bleed forward pausing only to bin Travis as required. Simon

In article <EiSMi.149007$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Well, I don't have any rush deck, or have seen any rush deck, with more > than 3x Haven Uncovered, and given that, I don't see much difference > between 3x HU and 3x BtC. Well, 4 Haven Uncovered still strikes me as totally reasonable, but in any case, the difference is that 3xHaven Uncovered are 3 cards that are useful 90% of the time where 3xBreak the Code are 3 cards that are useless 90% of the time. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

In article <1191436377.9...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Haven Uncovered is completely vampire specific. Which means it works 90% of the time, as opposed to Break the Code with works 10% of the time (numbers made up but not that far off off reasonable). And Haven Uncovered is useable in multiples. Different animal. > From the receiving end, I've never seen that multiples were necessary. > Either it comes out and there's a permarush on me for the rest of the > game (on top of giving me -1 intercept), or the guy playing rush > combat has plenty of rush actions to take. Sometimes both. Sure--really, the ability to get into combat with the Imbued isn't a huge problem--the side discussion on Break the Code came up simply because Haven Uncovered is yet another example of a totally standard tool in a combat deck that is rendered useless by the Imbued (like Fame, Taste, Dragonbound, Disarm, Decapitate, etc). Getting into combat with them is rarely an issue for most combat decks--you can play Bum's Rush instead. The big problem is that when you get there, you don't accomplish much. > Sure. I'm not sure that it's necessary. I don't positively think it is necessary either (the "works on Imbued too" Haven Uncovered). But that so many standard tools that combat decks rely on to be playable are rendered toothless by the Imbued and no viable replacements on the horizon *is* a significant problem. > I'm not actually sure there _needs_ to be such a card. I mean, I see > why iterative rushes are really good, particularly against opponents > who are packing lots of prevent or chump-blockers. But imbued don't > have so much prevention, and it seems like you'd pretty much paste > anyone who got in your way. And I see that it's annoying not to be > able to play the card against them when its your only rush in hand. Again, the big issue is not Haven Uncovered not working on the Imbued. It is that a large number of standard cards in combat decks don't work against the Imbued, making combat decks largely hindered against the Imbued. Add in multiples of Memories, a few Determines, and Jennie Orne and combat decks become incredibly toothless when faced by the Imbued. > But then, I don't see much value in rushing forward against the imbued > anyway (except maybe Travis). Just bleed. If they block, you're in > combat and get to crush them. Otherwise, you take away their pool > (which is really the goal anyway). It's not like you're going to oust > them with a Fame or Tension any time soon. Exactly. So you bleed forward for 3 or 4 pool a turn. They spend not a ton of pool on minions, gain pool regularly, and grow as you aren't mangling them. Not a workable solution. > Fair enough. If Vengeance combat wasn't so crappy, I'd probably be > learning most of this on my own. Heh. > Well, for most rush decks. I've been ousted by them before, but only > with Anarch Revolt tech or cross-table help (or both). See. That is a significant problem. Rush decks are already pretty knife edge. Against the Imbued, they are toothless, in terms of viably ousting them. So when folks say "combat kills the imbued", I'm unconvinced. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:24:32 -0400, Peter D Bakija wrote: >So when folks say "combat kills the imbued", I'm unconvinced. Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. Combat absolutely kills the Imbued. Just not Fame/Tension/Path of Lilith combat.

> 4) Convictions only gained for free when ready and not incapacitated. > 5) If not powers under NRA, then no free untap when getting a power. > 6) Make all powers cost 1 conviction to acquire. > > Lots of options without changing any card texts, though I still think > MoM is kinda really strong. Those changes are too extreme. Imbued are not the problem. MoM and multiple powers a turn really is it, and mainly, it's MoM. One of the other things about imbued, is how little people know about their cards - even players playing Imbued. Leon mentioning use of Champion against undirected actions. Imbued players thinking they can use Determine against anyone, not only Predator or Prey. People not understanding that MoM doesn't affect environmental damage or theft. People not understanding that when an Imbued is burned, you get their stuff. People not realising that Imbued live and die by their convictions. Force them to burn them and they are weak. Other than Leon's gaff, I have seen ALL the other mistakes made in tournaments by players I would have thought should know better. Now, if people understood Imbued better, they wouldn't be as scared of them, coz really fear is all it comes down to. (And a broken MoM/ Power getting ability). --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

In article <1191453016.3...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, Shade <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like I'm totally on the side of some combat cards that don't work > against Imbued (eg Taste) should do, but I agree with witness that > it's partly people haven't adapted to how to beat them yet. It isn't really a matter of adaptation. It is a matter that most of the really important cards that make combat decks go (Haven Uncovered, Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, Taste) don't work against the Imbued, and there aren't viable alternatives. If you could adapt with viable alternatives, there would be an argument here. But the viable alternatives simply don't exist: -Haven Uncovered: You could use Frontal, but that is just as likely to kill you as not against the Imbued; Break the Code *only* works on the Imbued, making it dead, like, 90% of the time. -Fame/Tension/Dragonbound: Anarch Revolt is also just as likely to get you killed as not, and is *much* less effective against the not imbued. -Taste: One of the most important cards in the arsenal of the combat deck for being viable. Doesn't work against the Imbued. No alternative. Mind you, I have played Break the Code in every rush deck I have played in competition since the Imbued hit the scene, and really, it doesn't help that much. Yeah, it lets you attack them more often, and lets other folks block them more often, but still, if the Imbued is your prey, you simply aren't ousting them any time soon, if ever. > Including > a couple of copies of Break the Code for a pure rush deck doesn't seem > unreasonable if you're planning on ousting via Fame and Tension you're > a bit hosed otherwise. Threaten backwards and bleed forward pausing > only to bin Travis as required. You are hosed due to Fame and Tension (and Dragonbound) not working against the Imbued, and these are the cards that were invented/reworded pretty much specifically to make combat decks viable, in terms of ousting folks. You sit behind the Imbued? Your most viable ousting mechanisms are removed. So you get to bleed some, choke on combat cards, and swim upstream to survive. If you don't press the Imbued (and by "press", I mean "beat up a lot"), they get set up, gain steam, and oust folks. If you do press the Imbued, you slow them down, don't oust them, and eventually get ousted by either your first predator or your new predator after you mangle your original predator and get him ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

"The Lasombra" <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0d98g35gnrto3c9gf...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Um, was this the Imbued deck that you mention you would have preferred to play with a half a dozen Memories of Mortality but couldn't find any copies? Fred

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:09:53 -0700, "Frederick Scott" wrote: >>>So when folks say "combat kills the imbued", I'm unconvinced. >> Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three >> different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. >> Combat absolutely kills the Imbued. >> Just not Fame/Tension/Path of Lilith combat. >Um, was this the Imbued deck that you mention you would have preferred >to play with a half a dozen Memories of Mortality but couldn't find >any copies? Yes. In two of the three games Travis was killed while attempting his first action, and pillowfaced before my turn came around. No chance of Jenny Orne, extremely unlikely chance of MoM in the opening hand, even if I had 6 in the deck. Prey made it happen one game, predator the other.

In article <0d98g35gnrto3c9gf...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three > different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. Did these decks oust you? Did they win the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three > > different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. > > Um, was this the Imbued deck that you mention you would have preferred > to play with a half a dozen Memories of Mortality but couldn't find > any copies? > Carrion Crows doesn't care one bit about Memories of Mortality. The number of people who don't realise, or forget this in tournament play is astounding. So, yes, Carrion Crows kills Imbued dead... end of. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:20:04 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >In article <0d98g35gnrto3c9gf...@4ax.com>, > The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three >> different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. > >Did these decks oust you? Did they win the game? Oust me, yes. Win the game, one of the three times, yes.

On Oct 4, 12:41 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > -Haven Uncovered: You could use Frontal, but that is just as likely to > kill you as not against the Imbued; Break the Code *only* works on the > Imbued, making it dead, like, 90% of the time. > > -Fame/Tension/Dragonbound: Anarch Revolt is also just as likely to get > you killed as not, and is *much* less effective against the not imbued. > > -Taste: One of the most important cards in the arsenal of the combat > deck for being viable. Doesn't work against the Imbued. No alternative. Totally agree with all those not working being very annoying and the lack of good alternatives. I don't think it's unreasonable to include a Break the Code to at least ensure you're going to get into combat although as you point out that isn't always helpful as it's more how to oust that's the problem rather than getting into combat per se. I myself haven't played enough combat against Imbued to know what does and doesn't work yet which is basically the point I'm making. > You are hosed due to Fame and Tension (and Dragonbound) not working > against the Imbued, and these are the cards that were invented/reworded > pretty much specifically to make combat decks viable, in terms of > ousting folks. You sit behind the Imbued? Your most viable ousting > mechanisms are removed. So you get to bleed some, choke on combat cards, > and swim upstream to survive. If you don't press the Imbued (and by > "press", I mean "beat up a lot"), they get set up, gain steam, and oust > folks. If you do press the Imbued, you slow them down, don't oust them, > and eventually get ousted by either your first predator or your new > predator after you mangle your original predator and get him ousted. If your only method of ousting is due to Fame / Tension / Dragonbound then preying on an Imbued is bad news for sure. Similar if you're playing Baltimore Purge (been there, most annoying) and a few others. Like I totally agree with you that those cards (maybe not Fame but at leas the other two) should work. But they don't and that means combat decks planning on ousting using those cards *only* need to come up with a plan B. Which of course might not actually exist for some decks or in general even, but it's no different to playing many decks, looking left and right and thinking oh dear... Simon

In article <1191460848....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Shade <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Totally agree with all those not working being very annoying and the > lack of good alternatives. I don't think it's unreasonable to include > a Break the Code to at least ensure you're going to get into combat > although as you point out that isn't always helpful as it's more how > to oust that's the problem rather than getting into combat per se. Oh, sure--I'm not here saying Break the Code is *bad*; as noted elsewhere, I use Break the Code in every combat deck I play in competition, as it is virtually necessary. But also as noted, it doesn't actually help that much, in terms of ousting the Imbued. It helps you mess them up, but you were already messing them up with Bum's Rush most of the time. It is making the messing up actually take that is the issue. > If your only method of ousting is due to Fame / Tension / Dragonbound > then preying on an Imbued is bad news for sure. Well, there is also always bleeding for 1 (or 2 with Hacking), but the cards that push the combat deck up into viable territory tend to be the Fame/Tension/Dragonbounds. > playing Baltimore Purge (been there, most annoying) and a few others. > Like I totally agree with you that those cards (maybe not Fame but at > leas the other two) should work. But they don't and that means combat > decks planning on ousting using those cards *only* need to come up > with a plan B. And that is one of the big problems--combat decks spent years and years coming up with a viable Plan A, and suddenly the legs have been kicked out from under Plan A, and nothing new has been introduced to make Plan B viable yet. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191460848....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, Shade <sha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Totally agree with all those not working being very annoying and the > lack of good alternatives. I don't think it's unreasonable to include > a Break the Code to at least ensure you're going to get into combat > although as you point out that isn't always helpful as it's more how > to oust that's the problem rather than getting into combat per se. Oh, sure--I'm not here saying Break the Code is *bad*; as noted elsewhere, I use Break the Code in every combat deck I play in competition, as it is virtually necessary. But also as noted, it doesn't actually help that much, in terms of ousting the Imbued. It helps you mess them up, but you were already messing them up with Bum's Rush most of the time. It is making the messing up actually take that is the issue. > If your only method of ousting is due to Fame / Tension / Dragonbound > then preying on an Imbued is bad news for sure. Well, there is also always bleeding for 1 (or 2 with Hacking), but the cards that push the combat deck up into viable territory tend to be the Fame/Tension/Dragonbounds. > playing Baltimore Purge (been there, most annoying) and a few others. > Like I totally agree with you that those cards (maybe not Fame but at > leas the other two) should work. But they don't and that means combat > decks planning on ousting using those cards *only* need to come up > with a plan B. And that is one of the big problems--combat decks spent years and years coming up with a viable Plan A, and suddenly the legs have been kicked out from under Plan A, and nothing new has been introduced to make Plan B viable yet. Peter D Bakija [ quoted text not captured ]

> Oh, sure--I'm not here saying Break the Code is *bad*; as noted > elsewhere, I use Break the Code in every combat deck I play in > competition, as it is virtually necessary. But also as noted, it doesn't > actually help that much, in terms of ousting the Imbued. Sure it does. Break the Code gives all imbued -1 intercept against Monsters. If you're looking at it from a purely combat perspective, it also allows more rush against them. More rush means more chance of removing their vamp from play so that's got to help. If you're only looking at it inflicting pool damage, then you are looking at it the wrong way. IMO, every deck at a tournament should pack a Break the Code (except the Imbued obviously). For stealth decks, it's like a permanent 1 point of stealth against the Imbued. For rush decks, it's permarush, for other decks it means that they have to spend more resources to keep going. For 1 card. For decks playing a couple events, Break the Code should be the Enabler Event of choice. It's automatically replaced, doesn't do anything negative to you in any way, and enables your other events. Events such as Blood Trade/Anthelios which have been used as Enabling Events can bite you back if your prey/predator can get better use out of them than you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." wrote: >> Well, I don't have any rush deck, or have seen any rush deck, >> with more than 3x Haven Uncovered, and given that, I don't >> see much difference between 3x HU and 3x BtC. > > Well, 4 Haven Uncovered still strikes me as totally reasonable, > but in any case, the difference is that 3xHaven Uncovered are > 3 cards that are useful 90% of the time where 3xBreak the Code > are 3 cards that are useless 90% of the time. OK, perhaps we could (should?) look at what a typical Potence "rush" deck begins with. I would say, assuming 90 cards, it goes something like this: the Master module [15 cards]: 3x "Blood gain" (e.g. Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master) 3x "Blood gain stoppers" (e.g. Wash/Sudden, Vessel) 3x Fame 3x Haven Uncovered 1x Frontal Assault 1x Tension in the Ranks 1x Fortschritt Library the Combat module [50 cards]: 12x "Get-into-combat" (e.g. Bum's Rush, Ambush) 8x Torn Signpost 5x Anti-maneuver-to-long (Fake Out, Celerity-whatever) 10x Immortal Grapple 8x "Damage-booster" (e.g. Undead Strength, Slam) 7x Taste of Vitae the Event module [2 cards]: (remember: 1x Fortschritt Library) 1x Dragonbound 1x Break the Code OK, that is 67 cards. The other 23 you fill to taste, such as: * some Dreams of the Sphinx (I prefer 3x Wash + 3x Dreams) * a Barrens * a Secure Haven, for contesting * a Heart of Cheating * some Trap * some Wake-type cards (or 2nd Tradition if possible) * more or different Get-into-combat cards (Rumble, Harass, * some bleed cards (Computer Hacking, I recommend 4-8 of them) * some permanents giving +Bleed (Camera Phone, Heart o'the City, retainers) * more useful actions (Carlton, Aranthebes, Scrounging) * more useful (D)actions that sometimes work as rushes (Rampage, Brick Laying) * additions to the Combat module (Pushing the Limit, Disarm, Thrown Sewer Lid) * modification of the Combat module if you have another discipline-- Animalism: Carrion Crows, Taunt the Caged Beast, Song of Serenity Auspex: Nose of the Hound, Telepathic Tracking, wake+bounce/intercept Celerity: maneuvers/presses, additional strikes, Psyche, Fast Hands Dominate: +Bleed, Graverobbing, Far Mastery, wake+bounce Fortitude: prevent, "unblockable", Freak Drive Necromancy: +Stealth, "regrowth", Shambling Hordes Obfuscate: +Stealth, maneuvers/presses, Spying Mission, Mask of 1k Faces Obtenebration: +Stealth, maneuver, Black Metamorphosis, Entombment Presence: +Bleed, Heart of the City, Entrancement Protean: maneuvers/presses, agg damage Those 23 cards are what makes the necessarily vanilla rush deck into your own personal portrait of what you like and think will do well. Comments? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1191425027.1...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> writes: >There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works >on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular >claim. Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on >the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. Compare your earlier statement: > If someone's only answer to you is "pack anti-imbued tech", they > deserve a good slapping. Yay, you're telling people to quit whining about Haven Uncovered because they can use a card that "gives you no help if there's no imbued on the table". Please, give yourself a good, hard slapping. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <EiSMi.149007$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >Well, I don't have any rush deck, or have seen any rush deck, with more >than 3x Haven Uncovered, and given that, I don't see much difference >between 3x HU and 3x BtC. Given that you were telling Daneel off for parochial views just recently, you can do better than this. TWDA, over the last few years (remembering that heavy pro-combat is hard to win with): First hit, 5 * Haven Uncovered, 3 * Bum's Rush. Invoking the Beast, 4 Ambush, 3 Harass, 3 Bum's Rush, 6 Haven Uncovered The Mongols, 4 Haven Uncovered, 5 Ambush, 5 Bum's Rush And, of course, quite a few decks using 1-3 of them. It may also be worth remembering that, for many years, standard rush deck tech - as pioneered by people like Peter - was tiny weenies, 10-12 Bum's Rush, 4 Haven Uncovered. This later evolved to including a number of Computer Hackings instead of Rush (to speed the oust) - 8 of each is the number I remember. But the Haven Uncovereds were often left alone. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > -Taste: One of the most important cards in the arsenal of the combat > deck for being viable. Doesn't work against the Imbued. No alternative. I was thinking "But what about Orgy of Blood"?? Then I read it's text, and it doesn't work for so many reasons. :( Maybe *it's* the card that needs errata-ing, not taste? Change it from: Only usable when a minion you control burns an ally controlled by another Methuselah. Each of your vampires gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the recruitment cost of the ally. (Remove excess blood.) to Only usable when an ally controlled by another Methuselah is no longer ready after combat with a minion you control. Each of your vampires gains X blood from the blood bank, where X is the cost of the ally. (Remove excess blood.) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Matthew T. Morgan schrieb: > Well, judge for yourself. I would say there are some pretty typical > elements in there, but the deck runs more Determine and On the Qui Vive > than I'm used to seeing. It seems like the theory is that if you cancel > enough actions, decks will run out of good things to do. It worked in > my case. Also I might add (being the predator of Matt in this game) that Matt did have 0 (in word zero) pressure from me since I had a hard time being one of the Atonio Erlette Decks on the table. So even with a nicely dialed hand and no worries to tap out Matt wasn´t able to inflict serious damage to the Imbued deck not even thinking about ousting.

On Oct 3, 2:23 pm, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, witness1 wrote: > > Well, conviction costs are no big deal if you're only spending one per > > turn per dude. It doesn't matter how many are in your deck if you're > > spending them much faster than that (Well, there's Edge Explosion, but > > then you need to be taking successful actions). > > Yeah, he spent a pile of Convictions to first thwart my lunge and then > oust his prey. Pretty much any amount of resources is worth that, don't > you think? Oh sure. Conviction + pool lost to bleeds. I'm not used to being in a position where I can survive that for more than a turn or two, but obviously some people can. > > I would very much like to see this deck. There are six minions in the > > game that can play Determine. Two of them cost 6, 1 of them costs 5. > > One of the 6-cost guys burns a conviction every turn if you have more > > than 2 ready imbued. None of them is named Travis Miller, so assuming > > he was using Travis to help bring out the others. > > I believe this is the deck I was playing against: > > http://vtes-hunter-net.tripod.com/decks/determinated-teemu.htm > > I couldn't tell you if any changes had been made. Yes, Travis was in > play. > > > That's 4-5 minions he left untapped at the end of the turn to > > Determine 4-5 of your actions. Did he pack a lot of Vigilance to keep > > them untapped? How was he ousting his prey? Or was this 4-5 actions > > over multiple turns? > > He did have Vigilance, yes. In at least one case, he played an On the Qui > Vive to enable a Determine by a tapped Imbued, then later untapped that > guy with Angel of Berlin so he'd be available to take actions in the > upcoming turn. Not really any more helpful than just playing the Angel in the first place, but okay. > There might've been another OtQV/Determine play that left > the minion tapped. > > > I'm sure it could work in the right circumstances. But I'm sure the > > deck is pretty unique. Not at all a "generic" imbued deck. > > Well, judge for yourself. I would say there are some pretty typical > elements in there, but the deck runs more Determine and On the Qui Vive > than I'm used to seeing. There *have* to be some of the "pretty typical elements" there. There's not enough different options available to the imbued to do otherwise. But I'll note that there's not a single Champion, for example, nor any way to get more than +2 intercept. No Suddens or Smiling Jack to contest. No NRA PAC or Leather Jacket to go with all the Vigilance. > It seems like the theory is that if you cancel > enough actions, decks will run out of good things to do. It worked in my > case. Obviously. I'm not used to being in situations favorable to that kind of thing. witness1

On Oct 4, 4:47 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1191425027.142542.133...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> writes: > >There is a card so many light-years beyond Haven Uncovered that works > >on the imbued that it's laughably silly to keep making that particular > >claim. Granted, that card gives you no help if there's no imbued on > >the table, but complaining that it doesn't exist is really baffling. > > Compare your earlier statement: > > > If someone's only answer to you is "pack anti-imbued tech", they > > deserve a good slapping. > > Yay, you're telling people to quit whining about Haven Uncovered because > they can use a card that "gives you no help if there's no imbued on the > table". > > Please, give yourself a good, hard slapping. Because clearly, that's the only thing I've said in this whole thread. witness1

On Oct 4, 5:05 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > I was thinking "But what about Orgy of Blood"?? > > Then I read it's text, and it doesn't work for so many reasons. :( > > Maybe *it's* the card that needs errata-ing, not taste? Orgy of Blood *only* works on allies--which is another example of hobbling yourself so that you are viable against the Imbued. If Orgy of Blood worked against Vampires *and* the Imbued, then there might be somewhere to go here. -Peter

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, witness1 wrote: >> He did have Vigilance, yes. In at least one case, he played an On the Qui >> Vive to enable a Determine by a tapped Imbued, then later untapped that >> guy with Angel of Berlin so he'd be available to take actions in the >> upcoming turn. > > Not really any more helpful than just playing the Angel in the first > place, but okay. No, actually you can't Angel of Berlin to untap and Determine an action card as it's announced. On the Qui Vive is necessary here. >> There might've been another OtQV/Determine play that left >> the minion tapped. >> >>> I'm sure it could work in the right circumstances. But I'm sure the >>> deck is pretty unique. Not at all a "generic" imbued deck. >> >> Well, judge for yourself. I would say there are some pretty typical >> elements in there, but the deck runs more Determine and On the Qui Vive >> than I'm used to seeing. > > There *have* to be some of the "pretty typical elements" there. > There's not enough different options available to the imbued to do > otherwise. But I'll note that there's not a single Champion, for > example, nor any way to get more than +2 intercept. No Suddens or > Smiling Jack to contest. No NRA PAC or Leather Jacket to go with all > the Vigilance. Maybe some of that stuff was added, but I don't recall seeing it. I guess Champion is less necessary if you don't mind bouncing bleeds to your grandpredator. Anyway, that stuff could certainly be in a deck with 8 Determines. >> It seems like the theory is that if you cancel >> enough actions, decks will run out of good things to do. It worked in my >> case. > > Obviously. I'm not used to being in situations favorable to that kind > of thing. Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying you always play games where everybody can cross-table you all they want? If so, that is a bit of a bummer. In the game I'm talking about here, I was the only vote deck, so I couldn't get any KRC help from afar. Matt Morgan

On Oct 4, 12:02 am, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > OK, perhaps we could (should?) look at what a typical Potence "rush" deck > begins with. I would say, assuming 90 cards, it goes something like this: Fair enough. > the Master module [15 cards]: > 3x "Blood gain" (e.g. Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master) > 3x "Blood gain stoppers" (e.g. Wash/Sudden, Vessel) > 3x Fame > 3x Haven Uncovered > 1x Frontal Assault > 1x Tension in the Ranks > 1x Fortschritt Library Yeah, I generally fine 15 Masters are too many Masters--you end up choking on them. I generally hover around the 10-12 Masters zone. > the Combat module [50 cards]: > 12x "Get-into-combat" (e.g. Bum's Rush, Ambush) > 8x Torn Signpost > 5x Anti-maneuver-to-long (Fake Out, Celerity-whatever) > 10x Immortal Grapple > 8x "Damage-booster" (e.g. Undead Strength, Slam) > 7x Taste of Vitae This looks pretty low to me. I just put my POT/obf Rush deck back together to take advantage of the new Slam, and ended up with: 11 Masters (3 Haven/1Frontal/2 Blood Doll/2 Fame/1Tension/1 Potence/1 Dreams?) 12 Rush 12 Torn Signpost 12 Immortal Grapple 9 Slam (all I owned at the time--I probably want 10) 4 Mighty Grapple 3 Disarm 7 Taste 6 Behind You 2 Pulled Fang 8 Computer Hacking 4 Glancing Blow Which I haven't played yet, so it might not work. But maybe. -Peter

On Oct 4, 10:23 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, witness1 wrote: > >> He did have Vigilance, yes. In at least one case, he played an On the Qui > >> Vive to enable a Determine by a tapped Imbued, then later untapped that > >> guy with Angel of Berlin so he'd be available to take actions in the > >> upcoming turn. > > > Not really any more helpful than just playing the Angel in the first > > place, but okay. > > No, actually you can't Angel of Berlin to untap and Determine an action > card as it's announced. On the Qui Vive is necessary here. Ah. I guess you're right. Could've Angeled during a previous action, though, or even during your master phase. > >> There might've been another OtQV/Determine play that left > >> the minion tapped. > > >>> I'm sure it could work in the right circumstances. But I'm sure the > >>> deck is pretty unique. Not at all a "generic" imbued deck. > > >> Well, judge for yourself. I would say there are some pretty typical > >> elements in there, but the deck runs more Determine and On the Qui Vive > >> than I'm used to seeing. > > > There *have* to be some of the "pretty typical elements" there. > > There's not enough different options available to the imbued to do > > otherwise. But I'll note that there's not a single Champion, for > > example, nor any way to get more than +2 intercept. No Suddens or > > Smiling Jack to contest. No NRA PAC or Leather Jacket to go with all > > the Vigilance. > > Maybe some of that stuff was added, but I don't recall seeing it. I guess > Champion is less necessary if you don't mind bouncing bleeds to your > grandpredator. I would think so. > Anyway, that stuff could certainly be in a deck with 8 > Determines. If you sacrifice the Vigilance side, you could add Champion. Only two unique guys in that crypt could play Champion without Edge Explosion, and Travis has better things to do. Only 3 in the crypt can play his 6 Vigilance without Edge Explosion. It would probably be a worse deck. Vigilance is too important if you need that many untapped guys. > >> It seems like the theory is that if you cancel > >> enough actions, decks will run out of good things to do. It worked in my > >> case. > > > Obviously. I'm not used to being in situations favorable to that kind > > of thing. > > Not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying you always play games > where everybody can cross-table you all they want? If so, that is a bit > of a bummer. In the game I'm talking about here, I was the only vote > deck, so I couldn't get any KRC help from afar. I'm used to playing games where two turns of "I bleed for my base bleed with every minion" is sufficient to oust me if I'm tapped out because I played 4-5 determines. Particularly if there's any bounced bleeds that come in against me beforehand, because Determine can't even be played there. Possibly with enough modifications I could make it work here. I'll give it a try sometime. The players here in Atlanta are actually pretty good about not cross- tabling me without reason. At last year's NAC, Robyn even discarded Ancient Influence as my grandpredator rather than calling it to gain 4 pool. But in other games, that 4-6 pool is too good to pass up, or I've been established as the table threat and I just have to have the Poison Pill in my hand if I don't want to eat 5 pool loss. > Matt Morgan witness1

In article <1191466831.2...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Sure it does. > Break the Code gives all imbued -1 intercept against Monsters. If > you're looking at it from a purely combat perspective, it also allows > more rush against them. More rush means more chance of removing their > vamp from play so that's got to help. If you're only looking at it > inflicting pool damage, then you are looking at it the wrong way. See, here is the thing. I play a lot of combat decks, to say the least. And I play generally pretty good combat decks. And win games with pure Rush. And in the last few years, I have played pretty good Rush decks (i.e. Rush decks that in practice get 1VP on a regular basis, win games reasonably often) in large, blind competitive events. And even *with* Break the Code? The Imbued totally hose me. Maybe it is just me. Maybe the decks I build suck against the Imbued. But the combination of: A) Memories of Mortality. B) The ease of becoming uncapacitated. C) The horrible events which tend to permiate Imbued decks. D) The failing of a large number of vital cards that make Rush decks go. Makes the Imbued a really horrible thing to run into. > IMO, every deck at a tournament should pack a Break the Code (except > the Imbued obviously). Oh, I agree. And am pretty certain that every deck I have played in competition since NoR came out *has* had Break the Code in it. Heck, one game I was in at the NERQ (North East coast qualifier) last year went like this: -Player A: "For my discard phase action, I play Break the Code." -Player B: "For my discard phase action, I discard Break the Code." -Player C: "For my discard phase action, I discard Break the Code." -Player D: "Well, damn. For my discard phase action, I discard Break the Code too." -Player E: "Huh. I don't discard anything. Good thing no one is playing the Imbued at this table..." Break the Code is, I suspect, pretty common in competition. And yet the Imbued are still doing pretty darn well across the board. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> OK, perhaps we could (should?) look at what a typical Potence "rush" >> deck begins with. I would say, assuming 90 cards, it goes something >> like this: > > Fair enough. > >> the Master module [15 cards]: >> 3x "Blood gain" (e.g. Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master) >> 3x "Blood gain stoppers" (e.g. Wash/Sudden, Vessel) >> 3x Fame >> 3x Haven Uncovered >> 1x Frontal Assault >> 1x Tension in the Ranks >> 1x Fortschritt Library > > Yeah, I generally fine 15 Masters are too many Masters--you end up > choking on them. I generally hover around the 10-12 Masters zone. Note a part of my post that you clipped states that I use 3x Wash/3x Dreams, which puts the Master count at 12. >> the Combat module [50 cards]: >> 12x "Get-into-combat" (e.g. Bum's Rush, Ambush) >> 8x Torn Signpost >> 5x Anti-maneuver-to-long (Fake Out, Celerity-whatever) >> 10x Immortal Grapple >> 8x "Damage-booster" (e.g. Undead Strength, Slam) >> 7x Taste of Vitae > > This looks pretty low to me. I just put my POT/obf Rush deck back > together to take advantage of the new Slam, and ended up with: Again, in the part that you clipped, I state to use the rest of the open space in the deck to do many things, and one of which is to add more cards to the combat module. > 11 Masters (3 Haven/1Frontal/2 Blood Doll/2 Fame/1Tension/1 Potence/1 > Dreams?) > 12 Rush > 12 Torn Signpost > 12 Immortal Grapple > 9 Slam (all I owned at the time--I probably want 10) > 4 Mighty Grapple > 3 Disarm > 7 Taste > 6 Behind You > 2 Pulled Fang > 8 Computer Hacking > 4 Glancing Blow > > Which I haven't played yet, so it might not work. But maybe. It won't work without some Wash/Sudden. I thought we had discussed this! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:51:16 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >The Imbued totally hose me. Maybe it is just me. Maybe >the decks I build suck against the Imbued. But the combination of: >A) Memories of Mortality. MoM is not the Imbued. >B) The ease of becoming uncapacitated. >C) The horrible events which tend to permiate Imbued decks. Events are not the Imbued. >D) The failing of a large number of vital cards that make Rush decks go. >Makes the Imbued a really horrible thing to run into. Nope. Premise is flawed, so conclusion is flawed. Tournament winning decks featuring the Imbued are more likely to only have The Unmasking and Edge Explosion, and a starter event or two in case Edge Explosion shows up before The Unmasking. See also: http://vtes-hunter-net.tripod.com/ITWDA.htm

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:03:36 -0700, Peter D Bakija wrote: >Orgy of Blood *only* works on allies--which is another example of >hobbling yourself so that you are viable against the Imbued. If Orgy >of Blood worked against Vampires *and* the Imbued, then there might be >somewhere to go here. Orgy of Blood doesn't work on Imbued... (unless you are playing with Autonomic Mastery or Entombment). That was Salem's point.

In article <ecoag3dd07os9bvfp...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Orgy of Blood doesn't work on Imbued... > (unless you are playing with Autonomic Mastery or Entombment). No, no. I know that. His point was "if we changed Orgy of Blood to work on the Imbued, then it might be a good replacement for Taste..." My response was "[even if Orgy of Blood were errated so that it] only works on the Imbued, it is a card that only works on the Imbued..." See where I was going there? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:09:14 -0400, Peter D Bakija wrote: >> Orgy of Blood doesn't work on Imbued... >> (unless you are playing with Autonomic Mastery or Entombment). >No, no. I know that. His point was "if we changed Orgy of Blood to work >on the Imbued, then it might be a good replacement for Taste..." >My response was "[even if Orgy of Blood were errated so that it] only >works on the Imbued, it is a card that only works on the Imbued..." >See where I was going there? No. The card was trash when it was printed, there is no redeeming it. Play the game. New cards, no errata! Can I has game win?

In article <LAbNi.115825$xZ2....@newsfe10.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> the Master module [15 cards]: > >> 3x "Blood gain" (e.g. Blood Doll, Tribute to the Master) > >> 3x "Blood gain stoppers" (e.g. Wash/Sudden, Vessel) > >> 3x Fame > >> 3x Haven Uncovered > >> 1x Frontal Assault > >> 1x Tension in the Ranks > >> 1x Fortschritt Library > > > > Yeah, I generally fine 15 Masters are too many Masters--you end up > > choking on them. I generally hover around the 10-12 Masters zone. > > Note a part of my post that you clipped states that I use 3x Wash/3x > Dreams, which puts the Master count at 12. Well, sort of. The "module" you present above does not include 3 Dreams (so above becomes 18 Masters if you have 3 Dreams), and even with 15, including 3 Wash, you still have 15 Master cards, and the problem with too many Master Cards in your deck is not not having enough Master Phase Actions to play them, but that you draw them in the middle of the turn when you are cycling cards like crazy and they tend to clog you up in the middle of a turn, which shuts you down. So playing 15 Masters, even if 3 of them are Trifles, still, is cutting it close. If you have 3xDreams and 3xWash, then you have 3 trifles and 3 hand size increasers, which helps some, but then you also have 6 Master cards already spoken for. Add in 3xFame, 3xHaven Uncovered, 3xBlood Doll, 1x Frontal Assault, and you have 16 Masters. And then you still want Tension and/or Forschritt. That is a lot of masters, trifles or no. > Again, in the part that you clipped, I state to use the rest of the open > space in the deck to do many things, and one of which is to add more cards > to the combat module. Sure. I didn't clip that part of your post to somehow trip you up or catch you in some sort of elaborate web of logic. It just seemed unecessary to address. > It won't work without some Wash/Sudden. I thought we had discussed this! Ya know, I was trying that, and really, the Washes didn't actually make much of a difference--if you can kill their guys before they get Tapped/Blood Dolled/Whatever, then you don't need to Wash the Minion Tap. I mean, in theory, it seems like a good idea, but in practice, I didn't find them that necessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <c7oag3ltg06l2195k...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > MoM is not the Imbued. Sigh. No, Memories is not the Imbued. But Memories is one of the cards that facilitate the Imbued being useful. If not too useful. > >B) The ease of becoming uncapacitated. > >C) The horrible events which tend to permiate Imbued decks. > > Events are not the Imbued. Sigh. No, Events are not the Imbued. But Events are some of the cards that facilitate the Imbued being useful. If not too useful. > >Makes the Imbued a really horrible thing to run into. > > Nope. > > Premise is flawed, so conclusion is flawed. What premise? That Memories and Events make the Imbued a really horrible thing to run into? What part of that is flawed? > Tournament winning decks featuring the Imbued are more likely to only > have The Unmasking and Edge Explosion, and a starter event or two in > case Edge Explosion shows up before The Unmasking. That doesn't mean that The Imbued don't use other Events. 'Cause they do. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 3:51 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > C) The horrible events which tend to permiate Imbued decks. I think you've misplaced a word there. C) The * events which tend to perm[e]ate *horrible* Imbued decks. There, that's much more accurate, from what I've seen. :-) (I know that wasn't actually what you meant, but really truly, the better Imbued decks *don't* use the "horribly debilitating" events - they might help you win, in the long game, if the table hate doesn't off you, but they might just as easily destabilize the table into someone else winning. In my experience, anyway.) - D.J.

In article <1191537196....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > I think you've misplaced a word there. > > C) The * events which tend to perm[e]ate *horrible* Imbued decks. > > There, that's much more accurate, from what I've seen. :-) Heh--really, I have seen other debilitating Events in Imbued decks (Thirst, Nightmares upon Nightmares) that are held till late in the game--when the game is down to 3 people, say, generating extra table hate is irrelevant. Yeah, if you bust out of the gate with all the evil Events in the game, things go badly for you. But if you hold a few clinch evil Events till late? Often a game winner. > (I know that wasn't actually what you meant, but really truly, the > better Imbued decks *don't* use the "horribly debilitating" events - > they might help you win, in the long game, if the table hate doesn't > off you, but they might just as easily destabilize the table into > someone else winning. In my experience, anyway.) Sure. If you play them dumb. So you play them smart :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <84pag31rr0tu200h7...@4ax.com>, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > No. > > The card was trash when it was printed, there is no redeeming it. Yes. I know. I wasn't suggesting that it get redeemed. > Play the game. > > New cards, no errata! I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Salem suggested that Orgy might benefit from some errata, and then might be a viable replacement for Taste. I disagreed on all levels. Even ones that might not have been envisioned. > Can I has game win? Kitties are cute. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 2:37 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:20:04 -0400, Peter D Bakija > > <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >In article <0d98g35gnrto3c9gf28h8id3qulstfq...@4ax.com>, > > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three > >> different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. > > >Did these decks oust you? Did they win the game? > > Oust me, yes. > > Win the game, one of the three times, yes. Sorry to jump in late into the game Peter. I can see you need some backing up here. And sorry, Jeffrey, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've played against imbued extensively here (probably 20+ competitive tournament worthy imbued decks with me playing rush combat). I've adapted the shit out of my rush combat decks, and must admit, the combat decks that do tend to work against the imbued, tend not to work in any other decent table environment. Yes, I agree that Carrion Crows combat does work, specifically when tied in with weenie animalism and aid from bats. Unfortunately, weenie animalism is not the strongest *rush* deck archetype, especially when facing (A) Imbued with Flash Grenades, which is a popular choice, or (B) any kind of S:CE decks, which are very popular everywhere, BTW, or (C) a deck that can deal far range damage back, like gun decks, or thrown sewer lid decks, etc. Yes, you can pack canine hordes to get around (A), but then you are devoting a large amount of deck space for a problem in a very few decks. And as anyone who plays rush combat knows, deck space is not something you can afford to waste. Carrion crows in other combat decks may help you knock down the Imbued, but if you were playing smartly as the Imbued player, you wouldn't waste your conviction on anything but returning your imbued from incapacitated, and blocking your predator from pillow facing your imbued. Chances are, that if he is playing rush combat, he is probably not going to waste deck space on stealth anyway. And if he is not playing animalism weenies, you will have more minions out than he will. Also, your 'carrion crows' predator winning the game 1 out of 3 times is actually quite a piss-poor percentage. 1 out of 3 is also about the percentage of games I get help from others on the table to oust the imbued player when I play a rush combat deck. All sorts of other things can account for that table win that have little to do with the strength of that carrion crows deck. >From the sounds of things, what got you ousted from the game was more table hate than a strong combat predator. If a deck archetype needs table hate in order to take it down, that's usually a very good indicator that the deck archetype is overpowered. It's tough for most decks to win if they have table hate, especially if people have the ability to do more than sneak-bleed their prey (i.e are capable of going backwards or cross-table). One thing I'd also like to just mention is "Anarch revolt". A lot of imbued players advicate this as a better option for combat decks to use instead of Dragonbound, Fame, et al., as they say it affects vampires and imbued (in an even greater fashion). Anarch revolt is NOT a viable alternative. Trust me, I've tried against a couple of imbued decks and it has failed every time. Firstly, every anarch revolt is another master phase gone, for starters, and you need a whole whackload of them to oust in a timely fashion. Secondly, anarch revolt affects the whole table, including yourself. It doesn't help if your imbued player is blocking all of your own attempts to become anarch. Unless you are packing galarics etc - which equates to less deck space devoted to combat. This makes your combat module *much* weaker, and, in turn, causes you to oust much less frequently then any other combat ousting module (backup bleed, fame et al., etc.) Yes, you could also play stealth to push the generic action through, and stealth is useful for some other actions, but generally, as a combat deck, you usually need to pack as much combat as possible into your deck if you dream of ousting more than a single player, otherwise you simply run out of combat to play - especially when you are facing little guys like the imbued that need loads of combat. Thirdly, this also means the imbued can block their prey from becoming anarchs as well (as was previously mentioned), making it even easier for their prey to be ousted, and the imbued player becoming 6 pool richer. Forthly, if anyone is playing a vote deck with titled vamps, they are rather just going to call the vote to burn anarch revolt, especially on a table that you come across with little or no imbued (increasing the likelihood of someone voting it off). You generally need the whole table on your side to pull of anarch revolts, otherwise it just gets voted away and your combat deck falls apart. Yes, and this has happened repeatedly to me whenever I play anarch revolts, and I imagine it would happen to most people the moment they start looking like any sort of table threat - which combat-heavy decks are prone to looking like (even when they're not).

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:52:00 -0700, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >(A) Imbued with Flash Grenades, which is a popular choice, or >Yes, you can pack canine hordes to get around (A), but t No, actually, you cannot. The Canine Horde strike will not resolve. Strike: combat ends resolves before the first offensive strike of Canine Horde.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:52:00 -0700, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >Also, your 'carrion crows' predator winning the game 1 out of 3 times >is actually quite a piss-poor percentage. It wasn't my predator 3 times. Sorry to burst your bubble Val. You don't have the full story, you cannot comment on it validly.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:52:00 -0700, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >Trust me, I've tried against a couple of imbued >decks and it has failed every time. You are failing. Why should I trust that? My Anarch Revolt rush deck does not fail to oust Imbued.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:52:00 -0700, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > You generally need the whole >table on your side to pull of anarch revolts, otherwise it just gets >voted away and your combat deck falls apart. I have never seen this happen, in 13+ years of playing the game. I am glad that your players have become so self-enlightened so quickly.

[ quoted text not captured ] In what world is winning 1 out of 3 5-player games a piss-poor percentage? witness1

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Salem suggested that Orgy > might benefit from some errata, and then might be a viable replacement > for Taste. I disagreed on all levels. Even ones that might not have been > envisioned. yeah i never said it was a _good_ idea... :) but i don't like the idea of Taste being useful against allies. I'd rather there be some thought involved in deck construction. If Taste worked against allies and vampires, it would be a complete no-brainer, every time. And since Orgy gives the blood to _all_ your vampires from the play of the one card, it could be worth including in lesser amounts, because you wouldn't need to play it as often. And if you only need lesser amounts, then that's a lower risk to your overall deck when you _don't_ face allies. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 6:52 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Oct 4, 2:37 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:20:04 -0400, Peter D Bakija > > > <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > >In article <0d98g35gnrto3c9gf28h8id3qulstfq...@4ax.com>, > > > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three > > >> different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. > > > >Did these decks oust you? Did they win the game? > > > Oust me, yes. > > > Win the game, one of the three times, yes. > > Sorry to jump in late into the game Peter. I can see you need some > backing up here. > > And sorry, Jeffrey, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. > I've played against imbued extensively here (probably 20+ competitive > tournament worthy imbued decks with me playing rush combat). I've > adapted the shit out of my rush combat decks, and must admit, the > combat decks that do tend to work against the imbued, tend not to work > in any other decent table environment. Potence and Animalism work wonders against imbued. Protean, Viccitude and Aggro really don't. > Yes, I agree that Carrion Crows combat does work, specifically when > tied in with weenie animalism and aid from bats. Unfortunately, weenie > animalism is not the strongest *rush* deck archetype, especially when > facing (A) Imbued with Flash Grenades, which is a popular choice, or > (B) any kind of S:CE decks, which are very popular everywhere, BTW, or > (C) a deck that can deal far range damage back, like gun decks, or > thrown sewer lid decks, etc. > > Yes, you can pack canine hordes to get around (A), but then you are > devoting a large amount of deck space for a problem in a very few > decks. And as anyone who plays rush combat knows, deck space is not > something you can afford to waste. Pack Immortal Grapples. > Carrion crows in other combat decks may help you knock down the > Imbued, but if you were playing smartly as the Imbued player, you > wouldn't waste your conviction on anything but returning your imbued > from incapacitated, and blocking your predator from pillow facing your > imbued. Chances are, that if he is playing rush combat, he is probably > not going to waste deck space on stealth anyway. And if he is not > playing animalism weenies, you will have more minions out than he > will. lol, a player blocking my pillow face attempts just ends up with all his imbued in the incapacitated region. > Also, your 'carrion crows' predator winning the game 1 out of 3 times > is actually quite a piss-poor percentage. 1 out of 3 is also about the > percentage of games I get help from others on the table to oust the > imbued player when I play a rush combat deck. All sorts of other > things can account for that table win that have little to do with the > strength of that carrion crows deck. You must play on 2 person tables for 1 of 3 wins to be below average. 1 out of 5 wins is average for 5 person tables, and any more than that is better than average (see, 1/3 is greater than 1/5). > >From the sounds of things, what got you ousted from the game was more > > table hate than a strong combat predator. If a deck archetype needs > table hate in order to take it down, that's usually a very good > indicator that the deck archetype is overpowered. It's tough for most > decks to win if they have table hate, especially if people have the > ability to do more than sneak-bleed their prey (i.e are capable of > going backwards or cross-table). > > One thing I'd also like to just mention is "Anarch revolt". A lot of > imbued players advicate this as a better option for combat decks to > use instead of Dragonbound, Fame, et al., as they say it affects > vampires and imbued (in an even greater fashion). Anarch revolt is NOT > a viable alternative. Trust me, I've tried against a couple of imbued > decks and it has failed every time. My anarch revolt decks crush imbued. > Firstly, every anarch revolt is another master phase gone, for > starters, and you need a whole whackload of them to oust in a timely > fashion. But the game ends alot faster. ALOT faster when you have done 5+ pool damage to every player on the table. > Secondly, anarch revolt affects the whole table, including yourself. > It doesn't help if your imbued player is blocking all of your own > attempts to become anarch. Unless you are packing galarics etc - which > equates to less deck space devoted to combat. Go Anarchs work well too! They cycle fantastically if you haven't tried them. I use them alot. Since I am not using Anarch combat cards, I get to beat the crap out of anyone who blocks me. <snip your Anarch Hardway explanation> > > Thirdly, this also means the imbued can block their prey from becoming > anarchs as well (as was previously mentioned), making it even easier > for their prey to be ousted, and the imbued player becoming 6 pool > richer. ....but they are blocking the combat deck and generally, using convictions to do it. Don't they need those convictions to get themselves out of the incapacitated regioan that my combat deck puts them? > Forthly, if anyone is playing a vote deck with titled vamps, they are > rather just going to call the vote to burn anarch revolt, especially > on a table that you come across with little or no imbued (increasing > the likelihood of someone voting it off). You generally need the whole > table on your side to pull of anarch revolts, otherwise it just gets > voted away and your combat deck falls apart. Yes, and this has > happened repeatedly to me whenever I play anarch revolts, and I > imagine it would happen to most people the moment they start looking > like any sort of table threat - which combat-heavy decks are prone to > looking like (even when they're not). That's actually a bonus, someone voting the anarch revolts away means that you take one less pool damage if you don't control an anarch yet. I pack anarch revolts in presence voter decks to do some damage to my prey and to cycle any vote push that might have clumped in my hand. Anarch Revolt is strong. GRRR! Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> It won't work without some Wash/Sudden. >> I thought we had discussed this! > > Ya know, I was trying that, and really, the Washes didn't actually > make much of a difference--if you can kill their guys before they get > Tapped/Blood Dolled/Whatever, then you don't need to Wash the > Minion Tap. I mean, in theory, it seems like a good idea, but in practice, > I didn't find them that necessary. Wow. I guess you must be talking about weenie-rush, then, since pretty much every time I play mid-cap rush around here, I take down a guy who has already been Blood Doll'd/Minion Tap'd/Groom'd. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > 11 Masters (3 Haven/1Frontal/2 Blood Doll/2 Fame/1Tension/1 Potence/1 > Dreams?) > 12 Rush > 12 Torn Signpost > 12 Immortal Grapple > 9 Slam (all I owned at the time--I probably want 10) > 4 Mighty Grapple > 3 Disarm > 7 Taste > 6 Behind You > 2 Pulled Fang > 8 Computer Hacking > 4 Glancing Blow you forgot 4x Orgy of Blood....in case of ...umm...Shamblers? :D [ quoted text not captured ]

J wrote: >>> Carrion Crows plus a press or hand damage killed my Imbued in three >>> different tournament games at the Week of Nightmares. >> Um, was this the Imbued deck that you mention you would have preferred >> to play with a half a dozen Memories of Mortality but couldn't find >> any copies? >> > > Carrion Crows doesn't care one bit about Memories of Mortality. > The number of people who don't realise, or forget this in tournament > play is astounding. > > So, yes, Carrion Crows kills Imbued dead... end of. > I would also recommend Theft of Vitae. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

> > So, yes, Carrion Crows kills Imbued dead... end of. > > I would also recommend Theft of Vitae. Yup, I mentioned this early on. Any theft effect or Enviromental damage effect couldn't care less about MoM. Ghoul Retainer with Assault Rifle! I Grapple you, my Ghoul shoots you in the face. :D --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] i could get a whole new vampire for the price of that set-up, though! one that could play Theft... [ quoted text not captured ]

> i could get a whole new vampire for the price of that set-up, though! > > one that could play Theft... And? Assault Rifles are more fun. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 4, 10:04 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > you forgot 4x Orgy of Blood....in case of ...umm...Shamblers? Or war ghouls, procurers, thuggees, Mylan, Carlton Van Wyk, etc. There are a good number of decent ally targets now, some of which show up pretty consistently. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for putting 1 Orgy in their deck now as a prayer card... but 4 would still be crazy. Brent Ross

On Oct 4, 7:52 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Sorry to jump in late into the game Peter. I can see you need some > backing up here. Heh--and don't think I don't appreciate it :-) > I've > adapted the shit out of my rush combat decks, and must admit, the > combat decks that do tend to work against the imbued, tend not to work > in any other decent table environment. Which is where I have been going all along. -Peter

On Oct 4, 9:59 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Wow. I guess you must be talking about weenie-rush, then, since pretty > much every time I play mid-cap rush around here, I take down a guy who has > already been Blood Doll'd/Minion Tap'd/Groom'd. Heh--probably. All my viable Rush decks have an average capacity of, like, 3-4, so I guess that is the difference. I rarely find mid cap Rush decks to work out well. Maybe it is 'cause I don't use enough SR/ Wash :-) -Peter

On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > yeah i never said it was a _good_ idea... :) Heh. > but i don't like the idea of Taste being useful against allies. I'd > rather there be some thought involved in deck construction. If Taste > worked against allies and vampires, it would be a complete no-brainer, > every time. There is certainly an argument to be made here. I would suggest, however, that before the Imbued, Taste already *was* a complete no- brainer, and also one of the only things that made Rush combat a viable archetype. If you make it less of a no brainer, yeah, more choices need to be made, but you also kick the legs out from under a deck archetype that is already far behind on the "effective" train and constantly struggling to catch up. In the last few exapansions (barring NoR...), Combat has been gifted with countless strong cards to make it more competetive (Tension, Dragonbound, Frontal, etc.). Except that all the gound gained by combat decks with all these cool new cards is completely nullified by the kick in the junk (in terms of being competetive--yes, combat can wreck the Imbued, but combat can't reliably *oust* the imbued, unless the combat deck is specifically tuned to deal with the Imbued, which makes it worse in every other situation) by the Imbued. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: >> but i don't like the idea of Taste being useful against allies. I'd >> rather there be some thought involved in deck construction. If Taste >> worked against allies and vampires, it would be a complete no-brainer, >> every time. > > There is certainly an argument to be made here. I would suggest, > however, that before the Imbued, Taste already *was* a complete no- > brainer, and also one of the only things that made Rush combat a > viable archetype. I disagree a bit. I have had various levels of success with non-taste Rush combat (agg-based, mostly, but not exclusively). I do agree Taste was very very close to a no-brainer, though, and I didn't like that then (pre-Imbued), either. > If you make it less of a no brainer, yeah, more > choices need to be made, but you also kick the legs out from under a > deck archetype that is already far behind on the "effective" train and > constantly struggling to catch up. Maybe it was never meant to be an archetype? Just a consequence of blocking (for the most part). > In the last few exapansions (barring NoR...), Combat has been gifted > with countless strong cards to make it more competetive (Tension, > Dragonbound, Frontal, etc.). I still need some Frontals to give them a go... > Except that all the gound gained by > combat decks with all these cool new cards is completely nullified by > the kick in the junk (in terms of being competetive--yes, combat can > wreck the Imbued, but combat can't reliably *oust* the imbued, unless > the combat deck is specifically tuned to deal with the Imbued, which > makes it worse in every other situation) by the Imbued. You totally need to win the NAC or something so they can make a new POT card called "Kick in the Junk", with a picture of you kicking someone. That'd be awesome. But back to the matter at hand, i'd like to see Orgy betterified, and other viable things added to the rush archetype (since I do think it _should_ be a viable archetype, even if i was questioning Garfield's intent to whether it should be an archetype), rather than to continue to have Taste be the shiny golden star of every non-agg rush deck. Like in Jyhad, Bum's Rush was the rush card you used. It was it. Haven for a little variety. But Bum's Rush was the only choice. Then more sets came out with other options. Ambush, Harass, etc. as well as some discipline based rushes. So then you got to choose the one that suited your deck best, or mix them up a bit, or whatever. Currently, Taste is the only choice (barring Provisions, I guess...but we all know Assamites suck. That's why they have "Ass" in their name). I'd like to see _other_ choices. Orgy (with new text as per my other post), and maybe a new card, say something like: Suck them off while they're lying down Combat Play at the end of combat where this vampire is ready and the opposing minion is not. Move 2 blood from the opposing vampire to this vampire, or add 1 blood to this vampire if the opposing minion was an ally. which would be useful for agg decks, and still useful against Imbued to a minor extent (assuming your agg deck can get them to torpor). Just...options. Viable options. Like Vessel is seemingly going to be to Blood Doll. Previously Blood Doll was pretty much a first choice, unless strong reasons otherwise (Fatties might prefer minion tap, etc). But now you can have Blood Doll or Vessel, Blood Doll AND Vessel. Only Vessel, whatever. Much more options for tweaking and shifting. I'd like to see that, but in the 'gain blood on my vamp for beating shit up' category that Taste pretty much has the market cornered in. Plus I want the one Orgy of Blood I own to be not-wallpaper. I've already given up on my Twisting the Knife, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] probably more like you're not using enough Deflection/Conditioning. :) How awesome is Dr Julius Sutphen?!? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, true. Sorry, I must admit I don't pack all too much canine horde's anyway, and I generally wouldn't waste them on something that will burn anyway.

bwross wrote: > On Oct 4, 10:04 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: >> you forgot 4x Orgy of Blood....in case of ...umm...Shamblers? > > Or war ghouls, procurers, thuggees, Mylan, Carlton Van Wyk, etc. 3 blood, 2 blood, 1, 1, 1... So not really that useful for the ones you can kill easily...although you don't have to be ready to play Orgy, from what I understand of it's text (it does NOT have the "not usable by a vampire being burned or going into torpor" text like Decapitate, Taste, Disarm have). So if you burn a War Ghoul and it simultaneously torpors your poor POT weenie, then I think you can still have an Orgy to get 3 blood on each of your vampires (ready and torpored, including the weenie the War Ghoul just torpored). > There are a good number of decent ally targets now, some of which show > up pretty consistently. I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for putting > 1 Orgy in their deck now as a prayer card... but 4 would still be > crazy. The more I think about it, the more I am willing to have a try... (The one card prayer option, that is....I don't even own 4...) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 5, 8:33 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Except that all the gound gained by > > combat decks with all these cool new cards is completely nullified by > > the kick in the junk (in terms of being competetive--yes, combat can > > wreck the Imbued, but combat can't reliably *oust* the imbued, unless > > the combat deck is specifically tuned to deal with the Imbued, which > > makes it worse in every other situation) by the Imbued. > > You totally need to win the NAC or something so they can make a new POT > card called "Kick in the Junk", with a picture of you kicking someone. > That'd be awesome. Target: Junk Aim. Play when choosing a strike. The opposing minion's controller may cancel this card by discarding one combat card. If any damage is successfully inflicted by this strike, the opposing minion cannot maneuver, strike, or press this action. A minion may play only one aim card each strike. Picture is Peter Bakija firing a bazooka at a boat. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] I know I don't have the full story. But using an example without giving the full story isn't very helpful in a discussion. At least give us enough information that we can make valid comments, otherwise it's not very useful. A decklist + the general decks the table was playing would be a good start. The average reader can't tell whether your deck lost to some design flaw that wasn't expecting that sort of metagame, or if your deck is truly representative of Imbued decks. Plus your Imbued deck is only one style of Imbued decks. As much as some people might like to think that they're all the same, they're not. There are a whole range of options that an Imbued player makes at the design stage, some have their strengths in one area, others have their strengths in another.

[ quoted text not captured ] In my world? I find that tournaments are often won by the same bunch of people whose decks are often tiers ahead of the other players. Now, if you claim that X deck is the bane of your imbued deck, and still does very well against vampires, I'd expect that if they were sitting as your predator (which might have been an incorrect assumption on my behalf, but that's what it sounded like to me) they should at least get your VP (since they are your antithesis). After having a VP, one out of three wins is well below average for a deck in the hands of a skilled player - especially considering the event of a four player table.

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh sure, I'm not arguing that Anarch Revolt rush decks won't oust their Imbued prey. For me, it's usually a 50-50 chance, cos it depends if there is a cross-table voter who will let me keep the anarch revolts in play for long enough to oust my prey. As often as not, other players will just wait for me to cripple the imbued player, then vote off my anarch revolts, making both me and my prey easy sweep targets. Also after ousting the imbued player, it get's more and more difficult to hold onto the anarch revolts, which makes a game win much more unlikely than the old fame/ dragonbound et al. decks. I won't deny that it may be my failing, but I doubt it. Usually my rush decks own the kazbah. I don't usually win tournaments with them, but I often come 2nd / 3rd - often thanks to the imbued decks. Now days, though, I hardly play combat decks in tournaments anymore. I just don't find them viable enough to play and expect regular wins like I did pre- Imbued.

[ quoted text not captured ] Perhaps they just know me too well to let me get away with much.

On Oct 5, 8:45 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > You don't have the full story, you cannot comment on it validly. > I know I don't have the full story. But using an example without > giving the full story isn't very helpful in a discussion. Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and slanders. Poking holes in those statements to reveal the reality as seen by a player who plays against Imbued in every local game session, if not every single game, is sort of a duty. I played the Champion Vigilantes deck (Oh, The Humanity - NAC LCQ thread) twice during the week of tournaments in Los Angeles. In the Monday event, I took zero vps with the deck. In the Friday event, I took 4.5 vps with the deck. With the bane of my deck as my predator (Nosferatu Antitribu with permanent intercept, Carrion Crows and Potence strikes) crippling me, he can still get ousted by his block fails dominate bleed predator and not win the game. That you feel he should win a 5 player game because 1 player is destroyed by his deck is naive. I did not find that the players at the North American Continental Championship were tiers apart in ability. A few had less experience against certain things than others, but they were definitely not tiers apart.

On Oct 5, 3:38 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Oct 4, 6:52 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2:37 am, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:20:04 -0400, Peter D Bakija > > > > <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >In article <0d98g35gnrto3c9gf28h8id3qulstfq...@4ax.com>, > > > > The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > Potence and Animalism work wonders against imbued. Protean, Viccitude > and Aggro really don't. Not if you can't burn the Imbued as well. Yes, you slow them down, but it's very tough to oust them without table support. > > > Yes, I agree that Carrion Crows combat does work, specifically when > > tied in with weenie animalism and aid from bats. Unfortunately, weenie > > animalism is not the strongest *rush* deck archetype, especially when > > facing (A) Imbued with Flash Grenades, which is a popular choice, or > > (B) any kind of S:CE decks, which are very popular everywhere, BTW, or > > (C) a deck that can deal far range damage back, like gun decks, or > > thrown sewer lid decks, etc. > > > Yes, you can pack canine hordes to get around (A), but then you are > > devoting a large amount of deck space for a problem in a very few > > decks. And as anyone who plays rush combat knows, deck space is not > > something you can afford to waste. > > Pack Immortal Grapples. It sounds like you're suggesting the only typical combat deck that's useful against the imbued actually consists of all two clans of Nos/! Nos since they're the only ones who have ANI and POT, unless you're reaching for 4th disciplines. Unfortunately, Nos/!Nos have a whole host of other weaknesses, like say, your typical agg deck (Tzi, Gangrels, Akunanse, etc.) or heavy manuever/set range deck, and that's just the combat. With little access to bleed deflect or loads of intercept (which again, wears down your combat module) they don't last long against your very typical bleed decks. I don't see too many Nos/! Nos winning tournaments. Anyway, I do pack IG, and plenty of it anyway. Here is the decklist of my last attempt at an Anarch Revolt rush deck - although I do remember making a few tweaks here or there to the decklist, but the basic framework is there. Deck Name: Anarch Revolt POT/dom weenies Created By: Val Teixeira Description: Crypt: (12 cards, Min: 11, Max: 24, Avg: 4.33) ---------------------------------------------- 1 Arnold Simpson pot 2 Brujah 1 Wah Chun-Yuen cel dom pre POT 5 Brujah Antitribu 1 Hugo pre vic POT 4 Brujah Antitribu 1 Chas Giovanni Tello DOM POT 4 Giovanni 1 Paul DiCarlo pot 2 Giovanni 1 Cameron dom pot 3 Lasombra 1 Dr. Julius Sutphen dom obt POT 5 Lasombra 1 Dr. Julius Sutphen (ADV) dom obt POT 5 Lasombra 1 Agatha obf POT 4 Nosferatu Antitribu 1 Jimmy Dunn for CEL POT 4 Pander 2 Theo Bell cel dom pre POT 7 Brujah Library: (90 cards) ------------------- Master (15 cards) 4 Blood Doll 1 KRCG News Radio 1 Potence 1 Yawp Court 8 Anarch Revolt Action (14 cards) 2 Bum`s Rush 4 Games of Instinct 1 Rampage 1 Aranthebes, The Immortal 4 Harass 2 Ambush * I play around alot with different rush cards to see what works best - this was just my last saved one. Reaction (14 cards) 8 Deflection 6 Wake with Evening`s Freshness *Some of these were OtQV Combat (46 cards) 2 Disarm 6 Earthshock 12 Immortal Grapple 4 Increased Strength 4 Taste of Vitae 10 Torn Signpost 8 Undead Strength Event (1 card) 1 Break the Code *A very similar variant of this deck got me second place in a 14- player tournament, and I lost at time-out, and on an Imbued prey, having earned 1.5 VP on the final table, if memory serves me correctly (I can't remember so well, there have just been way too many games in between - I know I ousted my first prey, and that the imbued was my next predator - after sitting herself on the other end of the table from me, and I remember she managed to oust 1 player for sure, and either managed to oust the second, or came very close). The imbued deck of choice there played quite a bit of gehenna events, but 2 of the 4 decks there were completely useless against the imbued, which didn't help me (an agg-rotshreck wall deck and a dawn op, weather control, skin of night big bleeder - which was my first prey). > > Carrion crows in other combat decks may help you knock down the > > Imbued, but if you were playing smartly as the Imbued player, you > > wouldn't waste your conviction on anything but returning your imbued > > from incapacitated, and blocking your predator from pillow facing your > > imbued. Chances are, that if he is playing rush combat, he is probably > > not going to waste deck space on stealth anyway. And if he is not > > playing animalism weenies, you will have more minions out than he > > will. > > lol, a player blocking my pillow face attempts just ends up with all > his imbued in the incapacitated region. Only if you have more minions/actions than he does, and you aren't afraid to be tapped out all the time. Typically, if you have 3 decent combat machines, which is pretty ideal, then you typically can only afford to rush and try to burn a minion and leave one untapped for defense. I'm not saying this is true of all combat decks, but I'm just taking a typical one. Plus combat decks that are stuck with cards they can't play, like taste of vitae and disarm, tend not to cycle so nicely that they can expect perfect combat every time. > > Also, your 'carrion crows' predator winning the game 1 out of 3 times > > is actually quite a piss-poor percentage. 1 out of 3 is also about the > > percentage of games I get help from others on the table to oust the > > imbued player when I play a rush combat deck. All sorts of other > > things can account for that table win that have little to do with the > > strength of that carrion crows deck. > > You must play on 2 person tables for 1 of 3 wins to be below average. > 1 out of 5 wins is average for 5 person tables, and any more than that > is better than average (see, 1/3 is greater than 1/5). Again, that may be true in a general game, but definitely not if you consider yourself an above average player who stands a very good chance of landing on a final table - AND you are supposedly the best there is out there in combating your first prey (which should be the equivalent of a bonus VP and 6 pool minus some cards and a few turns). > [snip] > > My anarch revolt decks crush imbued. Yes, but do they crush entire tables regularly is the question. Maybe you are lucky enough that yours do. In our metagame they certainly don't. Put one out there and it's bound to be voted away the moment you make headway. > > Firstly, every anarch revolt is another master phase gone, for > > starters, and you need a whole whackload of them to oust in a timely > > fashion. > > But the game ends alot faster. ALOT faster when you have done 5+ pool > damage to every player on the table. If they don't go anarch cross-table before hand. Taking on an entire table is hardly a situation you want to put yourself in to make sure they all stay week, especially when they can all get together and vote off your anarch revolts. > > Secondly, anarch revolt affects the whole table, including yourself. > > It doesn't help if your imbued player is blocking all of your own > > attempts to become anarch. Unless you are packing galarics etc - which > > equates to less deck space devoted to combat. > > Go Anarchs work well too! They cycle fantastically if you haven't > tried them. I use them alot. Since I am not using Anarch combat > cards, I get to beat the crap out of anyone who blocks me. > <snip your Anarch Hardway explanation> Lemme quote myself again here: "Unless you are packing galarics etc - which equates to less deck space devoted to combat." By "galarics etc" I include Go Anarchs. Less space for combat = less effective. > > Thirdly, this also means the imbued can block their prey from becoming > > anarchs as well (as was previously mentioned), making it even easier > > for their prey to be ousted, and the imbued player becoming 6 pool > > richer. > > ....but they are blocking the combat deck and generally, using > convictions to do it. Not necessarily, with the typical Unmasking out, firstly, and secondly - they would only be blocking the combat deck if they had the combat deck as both predator and prey, in this example. I was talking about being the predator of an imbued deck playing a rush combat deck - using Anarch Revolt's, which is supposed to be the saving grace of combat rush decks against the imbued. Needless to say, I'm not convinced. > Don't they need those convictions to get > themselves out of the incapacitated regioan that my combat deck puts > them? Yes, they need two (with Jennie in play, which is pretty typical of majority of Imbued tournament decks). Not a tall stretch for most imbued unless the combat deck can consistantly rush and bin more than 2 imbued every turn with no breaks in between. Otherwise they just bounce out of torpor, and you did nothing more than slow them down a little. And if you're playing loads of little guys, chances is you are taking as much as you are giving, but you'll recover slower than they will. > > Forthly, if anyone is playing a vote deck with titled vamps, they are > > rather just going to call the vote to burn anarch revolt, especially > > on a table that you come across with little or no imbued (increasing > > the likelihood of someone voting it off). You generally need the whole > > table on your side to pull of anarch revolts, otherwise it just gets > > voted away and your combat deck falls apart. Yes, and this has > > happened repeatedly to me whenever I play anarch revolts, and I > > imagine it would happen to most people the moment they start looking > > like any sort of table threat - which combat-heavy decks are prone to > > looking like (even when they're not). > > That's actually a bonus, someone voting the anarch revolts away means > that you take one less pool damage if you don't control an anarch > yet. I pack anarch revolts in presence voter decks to do some damage > to my prey and to cycle any vote push that might have clumped in my > hand. Gee, that's a way of really looking for a silver lining. Yes, it's really great when the only decent pool damaging card you have in the game is completely nullified on a regular basis. And Sarcasm is just a service that I'm happy to provide. > > Anarch Revolt is strong. GRRR! > Yeah, you're a big boy now :)

On Oct 5, 1:54 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 4, 9:59 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > > Wow. I guess you must be talking about weenie-rush, then, since pretty > > much every time I play mid-cap rush around here, I take down a guy who has > > already been Blood Doll'd/Minion Tap'd/Groom'd. > > Heh--probably. All my viable Rush decks have an average capacity of, > like, 3-4, so I guess that is the difference. I rarely find mid cap > Rush decks to work out well. Maybe it is 'cause I don't use enough SR/ > Wash :-) > > -Peter Agreed. I actually attribute a fair whack of my decent combat rush decks here to ideas that have filtered down from you. Weenies are generally the way to go in a rush deck. Other than multi-rush 'team- captain' decks (also known as superstar etc. decks). When Count Germaine grabs an Assualt Rifle, you better be prepared for some pain ;) Then again, with Ravnos and Setites on the rise again, superstar decks will have a harder time working, when they're corrupted and sense dep'ed.

On Oct 5, 9:37 am, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 8:45 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? > > I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and > slanders. Oh, Jeff. Really? Slander? You are honestly going to call my statements "slander"? Talk about hyperbole... Listen. What I have said is "The Imbued make it hard for combat decks to win." Which I think they do. And "Combat is not necessarily the answer to the Imbued that folks think it is." Which I think is true. And I have said that the The Imbued combined with Memories of Mortality and brutal events make life very hard for combat decks. And yes, I know that Memories of Mortality and Events are not the Imbued. But that is irrelevant to the point of "The Imbued with Memories of Mortality and events make life hard for combat decks." You can disagree with this all you want. But slander? Is that really where you want to go here? > Poking holes in those statements to reveal the reality as seen by a > player who plays against Imbued in every local game session, if not > every single game, is sort of a duty. Sure. Go nuts. So actually poke holes with something other than single line vagueties and accusations of slander.

On Oct 5, 8:33 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > I disagree a bit. I have had various levels of success with non-taste > Rush combat (agg-based, mostly, but not exclusively). > I do agree Taste was very very close to a no-brainer, though, and I > didn't like that then (pre-Imbued), either. Fair enough. From my experience, Taste is one of the main enabling factors for viable combat decks. So they tend to rely on it to go. Which means there is a good chunk of them in the deck, for the most part. And then you run into the Imbued, and you suddenly have +/-8 dead cards (along with all the other ones that end up in the same boat). Which makes decks that rely on Taste to actually go not work out so well. Sure, there are ways to make combat decks *without* Taste. But I think it is a common experience that Taste is often a very important cog in the wheel of combat. > Maybe it was never meant to be an archetype? Just a consequence of > blocking (for the most part). Maybe--there is also certainly an argument to be made there (well, except from the original statement of the designer about how the game is meant to have a three sided strategy situation, of which combat was one of them). But even then, the constant inclusion of cards that seem specifically designed to make combat a viable ousting mechanism would seem to indicate that the designers want it to *be* a viable archetype. > I still need some Frontals to give them a go... They are ok--I find that they are kind of one of those cards where if you are already winning, and you play Frontal, you start winning more, but if you aren't doing so hot, the Frontal tends not to help much and often shoots you in the foot. And against the Imbued, they often just shoot you in the foot. > Currently, Taste is the only choice (barring Provisions, I guess...but > we all know Assamites suck. That's why they have "Ass" in their name). > I'd like to see _other_ choices. Orgy (with new text as per my other > post), and maybe a new card, say something like: Sure--other viable choices would be good. But there currently aren't other viable choices. Which is part of the problem. -Peter

On Oct 5, 10:35 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 8:33 am, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I disagree a bit. I have had various levels of success with non-taste > > Rush combat (agg-based, mostly, but not exclusively). > > I do agree Taste was very very close to a no-brainer, though, and I > > didn't like that then (pre-Imbued), either. > > Fair enough. From my experience, Taste is one of the main enabling > factors for viable combat decks. So they tend to rely on it to go. > Which means there is a good chunk of them in the deck, for the most > part. And then you run into the Imbued, and you suddenly have +/-8 > dead cards (along with all the other ones that end up in the same > boat). Which makes decks that rely on Taste to actually go not work > out so well. I imagine this would be somewhat less of a problem in practice if you could at least cycle the Taste with no effect against allies. If you're grappling, the imbued have the option of hitting you back for 1, 2 if they're willing to spend the conviction they'll likely need to get out of incap. You ought to be able to beat on them for a while, then backrush one of your predator's vamps to Taste up as needed. But that's harder to do if you're jammed on those 8 Tastes. witness1 witness1

On Oct 5, 3:37 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 8:45 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > You don't have the full story, you cannot comment on it validly. > > I know I don't have the full story. But using an example without > > giving the full story isn't very helpful in a discussion. > > Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? > > > I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and > slanders. > I'd consider that being helpful. Trying to show people the error of someone's beliefs is being helpful. Yes, it maybe isn't helpful in the sense that it strengthenes Peter's argument, but if it was simply stating your difference of opinion, and you weren't trying to be helpful in adding to the debate, then you would've messaged him privately, and not publicly. > Poking holes in those statements to reveal the reality as seen by a > player who plays against Imbued in every local game session, if not > every single game, is sort of a duty. For a long time I played against Imbued as regularly as you have, probably (to say at least a bi-weekly, if not weekly basis). Not so much now, unless it's at a tournament scene, because my local group shuts down the imbued deck pretty much as soon as it gets started, so the local players have moved on. But at tournaments with a whole lot of people who have precious little experience against imbued decks (and mostly against badly built 'cute' imbued decks) these decks often run rampant. > I played the Champion Vigilantes deck (Oh, The Humanity - NAC LCQ > thread) twice during the week of tournaments in Los Angeles. > > In the Monday event, I took zero vps with the deck. > > In the Friday event, I took 4.5 vps with the deck. > > With the bane of my deck as my predator (Nosferatu Antitribu with > permanent intercept, Carrion Crows and Potence strikes) crippling me, > he can still get ousted by his block fails dominate bleed predator and > not win the game. Yeah, which is exactly typical of a combat deck that can battle the imbued decently. They tend to die from their own predator, and often without taking out the imbued prey. > That you feel he should win a 5 player game because 1 player is > destroyed by his deck is naive. No, but I do expect that a very good tournament deck that should supposedly white-wash their prey should have a better than even chance of getting the game win at that table. My point is that these Carrion Crow, Immortal Grapple-wielding decks may be very good at knocking out the imbued, but they tend to be pretty weak against the rest of the decks around, and rarely earn table wins. Maybe we are arguing different points? To clarify - my point is that I have not seen or played a rush deck that is capable of ousting the imbued as easily as a vampire player AND has the ability to get game wins on a regular basis (better than even chance, 25%+, they'll take at least one game win at a tournament where they encounter Imbued). > I did not find that the players at the North American Continental > Championship were tiers apart in ability. I'd hardly consider the NAC championship to have the ratio of players typical in an average tournament. They are most likely to include the top players who generally get onto final tables on a regular basis (or, to account for tournament size, end up in the top 40% in at least every second/third local tournament they enter). Of course, you'll have a few players who are 'tiers apart' as such, but the ratio will be much smaller. (Tiers apart may be a bit of a hyperbole, but at least 1/2 tier/s apart is pretty typical of more than half the players here in a typical tournament scene.) > A few had less experience > against certain things than others, but they were definitely not tiers > apart. Well, I'll take for granted that this may be less of a problem in the USA where the ratio of long-term, experienced, well-resourced players to all the other players is a lot more even in an average tournament than here, if you take for granted that not everywhere in the world there are tournaments filled with people that have hundreds and thousands of cards at their disposal, and a vast knowledge of the game. Generally, it is pretty easy to build a cheap-man's imbued deck that is exceptionally nasty, if you know what you are doing, it's almost as easy as building a focussed S&B deck.

On Oct 5, 10:25 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? > > I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and > > slanders. > Oh, Jeff. Really? Slander? You are honestly going to call my > statements "slander"? > Talk about hyperbole... This is what you said: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5ce2357e3e4ff341 That is what I object to. My replies to Val and to you are all based from that message.

On Oct 5, 10:25 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >Sure. Go nuts. So actually poke holes with something other than single >line vagueties and accusations of slander. No thanks. I prefer slander. :> (Late arriving smilie brought to you by Damnans, and by getting caught at work posting to Usenet.)

On Oct 5, 4:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 9:37 am, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 5, 8:45 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? > > > I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and > > slanders. > > Oh, Jeff. Really? Slander? You are honestly going to call my > statements "slander"? > > Talk about hyperbole... > > Listen. What I have said is "The Imbued make it hard for combat decks > to win." Which I think they do. And "Combat is not necessarily the > answer to the Imbued that folks think it is." Which I think is true. > And I have said that the The Imbued combined with Memories of > Mortality and brutal events make life very hard for combat decks. And > yes, I know that Memories of Mortality and Events are not the Imbued. > But that is irrelevant to the point of "The Imbued with Memories of > Mortality and events make life hard for combat decks." > > You can disagree with this all you want. But slander? Is that really > where you want to go here? Hey, he's already accused me of 'failing'. Did you see me go there when Jeff said he picked up no VP's at the tournament with his imbued deck? No. I trust that he built an actual decent imbued deck that may have failed due to a metagame issue (that's where I hedged my bet), or unlucky card draws or seating, not that he built a crap deck, cos I actually have faith in his deck building skills. Would be nice if he could at least have a little faith that we actually build decent combat decks. I mean, we have been doing combat decks for a lot longer than he's been building Imbued decks, and generally successful ones I might add. For a good long while my combat decks were feared in my local games, and people were putting in hoser cards to get back at them. Yes, I know the players here aren't all of the caliber that the players there might be, but my local group I reckon could play as mean a game as any other local group out there.

On Oct 5, 11:34 am, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > This is what you >said:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.tradingcards.jyhad/msg/5ce2... (the link you provided only links to your response to something I wrote, so I'm still a little unclear as to what exactly you are calling "slander") > That is what I object to. > My replies to Val and to you are all based from that message. So please feel free to again explain what you object to. The link you provided didn't actually illuminate anything. But I went back and found the post that you were replying to. And here is what it said: "See, here is the thing. I play a lot of combat decks, to say the least. And I play generally pretty good combat decks. And win games with pure Rush. And in the last few years, I have played pretty good Rush decks (i.e. Rush decks that in practice get 1VP on a regular basis, win games reasonably often) in large, blind competitive events. And even *with* Break the Code? The Imbued totally hose me. Maybe it is just me. Maybe the decks I build suck against the Imbued. But the combination of: A) Memories of Mortality. B) The ease of becoming uncapacitated. C) The horrible events which tend to permiate Imbued decks. D) The failing of a large number of vital cards that make Rush decks go. Makes the Imbued a really horrible thing to run into." This is slander? This is hyperbole? I said "the Imbued totally hose me". Which, is true, in my experience. Me listing a combination of Memories, ease at becoming uncapacitated, horrible events, and the failing of a large number of vital cards (all of which are pretty much just statement of fact) make running into the Imbued horrible, is somehow a misstatement? Like, honestly here, I'm kind of confused as to what you were reacting to. -Peter

On Oct 5, 11:35 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Hey, he's already accused me of 'failing'. No, you typed that you were failing. I simply repeated it and said that this was not indicitive of my rush decks with Anarch Revolt. Rush combat is more likely to convince players to leave the game than anything else I have experienced. (And I have experienced A LOT of players leaving the game in the last 13+ years. I can only attribute 90% of that to my personality, the rest must be the game.) Scenario Rush: Player 1 influences a minion into play. His predator has already done so. Before player 1 ever gets a master phase with that minion in play, the minion is removed by rush combat from that predator's minion. Player 1 gets up and walks away. Scenario Imbued: Player 1 influences a minion into play. His predator brings out an Imbued minion. Player 1 plays for another hour and then is ousted. I think rush and all of the enhancements to rush can hurt the play of the game at the local level a lot more than the Imbued, even with events and Memories of Mortality. This idea above is certainly going to be an unpopular position, but I will not play a rush deck for months after a new player shows up, just to ensure that they have enjoyed the game and the playgroup enough to come back after being crushed like that. I wouldn't play an Imbued deck against that new player either, not until they had a firm grasp on stealth and intercept. Tournaments should be the nastiest decks and dirty tricks (as enabled solely by the cards, not table talk) that you can find. That is some of the joy of the event. Seeing the things that work really well in refined, tuned decks. This has rambled quite a bit, and it is time for lunch. Enjoy.

On Oct 5, 11:51 am, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Rush combat is more likely to convince players to leave the game than > anything else I have experienced. (And I have experienced A LOT of > players leaving the game in the last 13+ years. I can only attribute > 90% of that to my personality, the rest must be the game.) Sure. But that is a completely different discussion than "The Imbued make Rush difficult to play". Lots of decks convince players to leave the game--weenie bleed, power S+B, weenie vote, Sensory Deprivation lockdown, whatever. Some decks in this game are horrible to play against. That is part of the game. > This idea above is certainly going to be an unpopular position, but I > will not play a rush deck for months after a new player shows up, just > to ensure that they have enjoyed the game and the playgroup enough to > come back after being crushed like that. I don't either. Play Rush decks against new players, that is. But that isn't what is being discussed here--what is being discussed here is that the Imbued are tough on combat decks. That Rush decks are mean and make people elave the game isn't really justification for the Imbued making them hard to play. > Tournaments should be the nastiest decks and dirty tricks (as enabled > solely by the cards, not table talk) that you can find. That is some > of the joy of the event. Seeing the things that work really well in > refined, tuned decks. Sure. And in such an environment, the Imbued make Rush decks very difficult to play. Which might be a good result, for your money, sure. But that doesn't make it any less true. -Peter

On Oct 5, 11:49 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >So please feel free to again explain what you object to. The conflation of Imbued with other broken objects. Memories of Mortality is broken with any sufficient quantity of allies that can bleed. See also: Nephandus Mage, Shadow Court Satyr. Gehenna events can break the game with any minions. See also: Weenie disciplineless Computer Hack, Weenie disciplineless vote. Imbued are suceptible to good rush decks, as the minions are very similar in capacity and the rush predator should win, as Jennie Orne is the only one that "has to be" pillowfaced. Good weenie rush decks bleed to win, with an occasional spike from Fame/Tension/Dragonbound/ Path of Lilith. This bleeding can be accomplished as soon as the Imbued are tapped out. Tapping out the Imbued is not much of a challenge for a weenie deck. Tangentially, I have observed that posting from work is poor for my communication skills, so this will be my last post from work.

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1191598445.5...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 10:25 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> > Where did you get the impression I was trying to be helpful? > >> > I was slamming Peter's overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and >> > slanders. > >> Oh, Jeff. Really? Slander? You are honestly going to call my >> statements "slander"? > >> Talk about hyperbole... > > This is what you said: > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/5ce2357e3e4ff341 > > That is what I object to. OK....so where are the "overstatements, misattributions, hyperbole, and slanders"? Not in that post. "Overstatements" may be arguable in your "MoM is not the Imbued" line of a argument. But personally, I think that's a classic case of misrepresentation of multiple causes logic error. Yes, it's true, that Memories of Mortality is a card that was printed long before Nights of Reckoning and that it is also partially to blame for the situation, separately from Nights of Reckoning. Still, allies before NoR did not cause the degree of problems that combat decks have with allies until NoR came along. It's the Imbued which are the fundamentally new and separate "thing" in VtES and it can be expected that players building Imbued decks will pick up any useful tools that already existed before the Imbued came along. I mean, by the same logic, you could claim the problem with Return to Innocence was OBFUSCATE STEALTH, for crying out loud! Your assertions that "MoM is not the Imbued" and "Events are not the Imbued" miss the point by huge margin. If you insist on that form of argumentation you are absolutely guaranteed to wind up talking past anyone you argue with in this kind of thread. > My replies to Val and to you are all based from that message. That's just plain confusing, then. Look at the post you linked to. Overstatements? Arguable. Hyperbole? Maybe. Misattributions and Slander? Certainly not. Fred

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1191599475.0...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Rush combat is more likely to convince players to leave the game than > anything else I have experienced. (And I have experienced A LOT of > players leaving the game in the last 13+ years. I can only attribute > 90% of that to my personality, the rest must be the game.) That's an ironic statement. I thought so, too - until I experience the Imbued. I've had experience with players in my area having horribly negative experiences and lots of anger about Nights of Reckoning to a degree I've never witness to rush combat, which is more of a personal reaction. Now it's probably arguable that Imbued are one of those things that players need experience with to realize they're not quite as bad in reality as one might think from one's first encounter with them - especially after some adjustment of decks to a new metagame. But still, I find it absolutely amazing to see this quote in this context. Fred

On Oct 5, 5:51 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 11:35 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > Hey, he's already accused me of 'failing'. > > No, you typed that you were failing. Yeah, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Don't worry, I didn't take it that way, was just saying that I could've, and was trying to tell Peter (in my tongue in cheek way) that he shouldn't take the slander comment personally, cos it was probably said in the same manner. [snip] > > I think rush and all of the enhancements to rush can hurt the play of > the game at the local level a lot more than the Imbued, even with > events and Memories of Mortality. This really becomes very subjective. Personally, if someone knows a little bit about combat, they generally know that there are things that can counter-act your rush combat that will be as useful to that rush combat deck as to a vast multitude of other decks - i.e. they don't have to 'dilute' there deck in order to survive rush combat solely. On the other hand, spending an hour bashing up against a wall and getting absolutely nowhere seems far more likely to annoy a player out of the game. Or being told that, sorry, you can't really taste my damage, or you can't put a haven uncovered on my minion, or a host of other things that suddenly get completely shut down by the imbued decks. Having a deck that you've spent a long time building suddenly become completely useless, to me, would seem like a far better reason for someone to leave the game - because it is a hugely demoralising thing to happen. I can't recall anyone ever thinking that rush combat is ridiculous as say, a Malk 94 deck, or an Arika PTO deck. Being rushed out of existence in the first turn of bringing out a minion happens, but not so frequently that people complain about it regularly. There are too many weaknesses to exploit in combat. > This idea above is certainly going to be an unpopular position, but I > will not play a rush deck for months after a new player shows up, just > to ensure that they have enjoyed the game and the playgroup enough to > come back after being crushed like that. Geez, that's a pretty hardline approach. Look I won't play my leanest and meanest combat decks around new players, unless I explicitly tell them before hand that I want to showcase the deck and what some top- tier decks are capable of - but that showcase is usually followed by an explanation of the decks shortcomings, and explaining how to adapt to that sort of deck. However, I will play more cute rush style decks against a new player from fairly early. > I wouldn't play an Imbued deck against that new player either, not > until they had a firm grasp on stealth and intercept. Yeah, Imbued are admittedly a bit more tricky for a new player to grasp, because it has it own set of rules. I generally wouldn't play them against a newbie either, but more because it would confuse the hell out of them than because I thought they were overpowered or anything (not that I really think the imbued are that overpowered - although I do believe they are on the high end of the power scale). > Tournaments should be the nastiest decks and dirty tricks (as enabled > solely by the cards, not table talk) that you can find. That is some > of the joy of the event. Seeing the things that work really well in > refined, tuned decks. > Yes and no. Some tournaments I think should be like this, especially qualifiers and championships, or any tournament that has a decently large prize. But a lot of tournaments are, for me at least, just a chance to get players together who may not normally play with each other (after all, it's difficult to host 12+ players on a regular basis at somebodies house, and even more difficult for everyone to travel the distance every time), showcase some decks that you've been able to build that are reasonably powerful, but are not necessarily uber-powered Master of the Universe decks, as we call them round here. Still, I advocate that both views of VTES tournament play have their merit, and both should have their place. Some tournaments should be downright balls to the wall competitive, some should be more like conventions where people have a few games against decks and players they don't see very often, and also promote the game in the meanwhile. I know I've gone to a quite a few tournaments with a deck that I was pretty sure wouldn't win, but was such an interesting concept that people probably would be interested to see. A good example of this is my current favorite Guruhi Restricted Vitae steal blood and farm deck. Not exactly tier 1, but very interesting when it gets going and in the right (lucky) environment. Hey, that rambling is infectious... :)

"The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1191603279.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 5, 11:49 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >>So please feel free to again explain what you object to. > > The conflation of Imbued with other broken objects. > > Memories of Mortality is broken with any sufficient quantity of allies > that can bleed. See also: Nephandus Mage, Shadow Court Satyr. Ah, _that_ explains something. I think you will find that a hard argument to back up as few people recognized MoM as being even close to broken apart from use with the Imbued. > Gehenna events can break the game with any minions. See also: Weenie > disciplineless Computer Hack, Weenie disciplineless vote. Likewise, Gehenna events were never particularly popular or feared prior to the arrival of the Imbued. If you truly believe this stuff, then difference between you and Peter (and me and some other people) are inevitable and irreconcilable. Fred

On Oct 5, 12:54 pm, The Lasombra <thelasom...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The conflation of Imbued with other broken objects. Ok. But I'm not doing that. My post, that you responded to, discussed how Imbued decks, in combination with things like Memories of Mortality and Events, are hard to beat with Rush decks. Which is not a statement of The Imbued=Memories of Mortality. It is perfectly possible that the problem in that chain is actually, say, Memories of Mortality. And that what needs fixing is Memories of Mortality. But that doesn't make the statement of "The Imbued with Memories of Mortality are brutal on combat decks" any less true. > Memories of Mortality is broken with any sufficient quantity of allies > that can bleed. See also: Nephandus Mage, Shadow Court Satyr. Yes. This is likely true. You'll note that most of the discussion about fixing the Imbued generally start with "fix Memories of Mortality and go from there". I suspect if you go back and research my participation in discussions involving fixing the Imbued, you'll note that my suggestions involve: A) Fix Memories of Mortality. B) Fix Jennie Orne. C) Maybe remove the free untap from getting a power. This is not conflating the Imbued with other broken objects. This is noting that there are certain problems the Imbued have, possibly in combination with other cards, that tend to make them overpowered in many situations, and these are possible ways to remedy that. > Imbued are suceptible to good rush decks, as the minions are very > similar in capacity and the rush predator should win, as Jennie Orne > is the only one that "has to be" pillowfaced. As I mentioned in my earlier post, this has not been my experience. I also mentioned, in the same post, that it might just be that I suck. -Peter

On Oct 5, 1:55 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Yeah, Imbued are admittedly a bit more tricky for a new player to > grasp, because it has it own set of rules. "Eeek! It's almost five hundred words worth of new rules (including the list of virtues and creeds and the redundant definitions card)! And if you include the guidelines for how to figure out how pre-imbued cards interact with them, that adds another whole hundred! OMGWTF! How is anyone ever supposed to learn all that, even if they are printed on five handy reference cards for easy location and review at the table? Oh, the standard game rules that take up 17,000 words just for the rules alone, then countless online clarifications and FAQ? No problem." Sheesh. Can we give this ridiculous argument a rest, folks? If you teach a new player the Imbued as part of the process of teaching, it's just fine. Or are people seriously claiming that the rules for Imbued are that arcane? - D.J.

On Oct 5, 11:26 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Generally, it is pretty easy to build a cheap-man's imbued deck > that is exceptionally nasty, if you know what you are doing, it's > almost as easy as building a focussed S&B deck. Huh. Are you advocating that the people who spend more money on cards should be able to build nastier decks, then? You seem like a reasonable person, and I don't *think* that's the position you're taking here, but I can't figure out another way to parse your statement that makes sense. Did I miss something? John Eno

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Wow. I guess you must be talking about weenie-rush, then, since >> pretty much every time I play mid-cap rush around here, I take down >> a guy who has already been Blood Doll'd/Minion Tap'd/Groom'd. > > Heh--probably. All my viable Rush decks have an average capacity of, > like, 3-4, so I guess that is the difference. I rarely find mid cap > Rush decks to work out well. Maybe it is 'cause I don't use enough SR/ > Wash :-) Well, perhaps we are talking about the same subject but different genres, then. At least we know why we were disagreeing, now. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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

[ quoted text not captured ] Sheesh. Can we relax a little here? It all depends on how much of a noob the player is. Generally I don't go throwing newbies into the deep end of vampire-based decks either. I find it's usually better to start with a simplistic combat module, for example, with basic manuevers, strikes, prevention, additionals, and presses. I leave out things like Carrion Crows, etc for later. I usually leave votes out as well when I start as well. I'm not trying to say that one should not teach a new player about the imbued until much, much later, I'm just saying that I'd probably only teach them once all the basics are down. Although I haven't sat there and counted every last word, even if what you say is true, my counter-argument would still be - what is easier to teach - 17 000 words or 17 600 words? Cos without those first 17 000 words, that last 600 will be highly confusing. Still, your point is valid - even a relatively new player can grasp the concept of the imbued. Although having known someone who started learning the game from the imbued perspective, I reckon it would've been easier for them to learn the normal vampire rules first (and have heard comments that confirm this from them).

> Listen. What I have said is "The Imbued make it hard for combat decks > to win." Which I think they do. And "Combat is not necessarily the > answer to the Imbued that folks think it is." Which I think is true. > And I have said that the The Imbued combined with Memories of > Mortality and brutal events make life very hard for combat decks. And > yes, I know that Memories of Mortality and Events are not the Imbued. > But that is irrelevant to the point of "The Imbued with Memories of > Mortality and events make life hard for combat decks." I shutdown my predator the other day in a social game with my Outcast Mage bleed deck. He was playing CEL/POT/FOR rush. And I was packing MoM. My prey had put Anthelios into play, so I was pitching masters to get my MoM back and leaving just enough Mages untapped to stop his rushes dead. I could have done this before Imbued hit the gaming scene. So is it really a problem with Imbued? --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmmm. I don't know whether to agree or disagree with that statement. Yes, to some extent I think that someone who has spent a significant amount of money on the game should be able to build nastier decks - and I mean this in the descriptive sense - I'm not advocating that this should be the way, merely that it is, and that in the current situation, I'd assume that someone with more cards should be able to build nastier decks than someone who has very few. A quick count of the number of hard-to-get-hold-of cards in the majority of decks in the TWDA tends to confirm this suspicion. Of course, I'm very happy about the fact that someone can invest a relatively small amount of money in the game and still build an incredibly effective deck. The big problem with this tho, is that every other schmoo with a bit of money who is also new to the game is probably going to come to the same conclusions that you do, and then you end up with a situation like we have here, with an average of 3 ! Malk decks running around every tournament because they are so easy, affordable and effective. Of course, this brings out lovely contestation battles, which is just fun all round. In other words, I'm not trying to advocate that this should/shouldn't be the case, merely that it is generally the case (with some exceptions). Do you not think that somebody who has infinite access to any card they want would build a far nastier deck than, say, a beginning player with 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters?

On Oct 6, 12:55 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I shutdown my predator the other day in a social game with my Outcast > Mage bleed deck. He was playing CEL/POT/FOR rush. And I was packing > MoM. My prey had put Anthelios into play, so I was pitching masters > to get my MoM back and leaving just enough Mages untapped to stop his > rushes dead. > > I could have done this before Imbued hit the gaming scene. > > So is it really a problem with Imbued? > > --> J > grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com Yes, it is a problem with Imbued. The rush deck that attempting to oust you is merely one of many. Here are some major differences: 1) For Outcast Mage deck you need at least a tremere to bring them out - which immediately serves as a weak chain. This already allows that player to play cards that would ordinarily have no effect, and still get something out of them, such as Fame, Tension in the Ranks, Haven Uncovered etc. which means at least the player won't have dead cards in their hand. 2) Outcast Mage's have 0 hand damage, and their strike is easily avoided by play IG, prevention, or dodges (covering pot, cel, and for). 3) Any enviroment damage can quickly burn your Outcasts, instead of sending them to incapacitated where they will pop out in 2 turns. 4) Outcast Mages can't outright kill your rush actions with Determines, meaning they at least have to fight. 5) Outcast Mages take actions to bring out, and cost 3 pool - hardly as cost-effective as the Imbued, especially if the main vamp get's taken out very early. 6) Until you get Unmasking/Sport Bike out, using a Haven Uncovered is sure to send your Tremere to a dirt nap, and then your whole deck falls apart. I'm sorry, but a single game against one type of rush deck is hardly enough to convince me that MoM is good in other ally decks. Having built plenty, I can say that CEL/POT/FOR rush decks are not the easiest to get right as they need a whole lot to get going and work, especially because the discipline spread is tough to get right and vamps and usually requires some very high caps. The only feasible version of them would be to use a multi-rush version, in which case you'd be playing forced marches (which is also extra stealth to get your rush actions through) and freak drives - at least 12 of them in total, to make the deck feasible as a tournament worthy rush deck. Still, I've built that kind of rush deck before, and it has loads of weaknesses and is hardly representative of a good rush deck. For example, if you were playing against my weenie POT/dom deck I listed above, the chances is that I would tear your poor Outcast Mage deck apart, as I'd probably have 1 more minion out than the number of Outcast mages you have out in the early game, and I'd take out your Tremere before you even got going. And you'd have to play loads of MoM to keep up as well. MoM in this fashion, only really works in combat decks that rely on very big cap vamps with no stealth or environment damage - which is a small percentage of rush decks.

On Oct 5, 7:12 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Do you not think that somebody who has infinite access to any card > they want would build a far nastier deck than, say, a beginning player > with 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters? I think the important distinction that you're ignoring in your statement is the "beginning player" part. If you consider the hypothetical case of an experienced player with a small card collection and a beginning player who started out by spending lots of money on cards, I think the former is going to build a better deck. Regardless, I'm not sure why you think that NoR being a near-complete set is a bad thing, which is what you seem to be getting at. I think it's great that WW produced a very small, possibly self-contained set. John Eno

On Oct 7, 8:42 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 7:12 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > Do you not think that somebody who has infinite access to any card > > they want would build a far nastier deck than, say, a beginning player > > with 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters? > > I think the important distinction that you're ignoring in your > statement is the "beginning player" part. > Ok. Let's say the skill levels are equal. Not that I meant beginning player in terms of skill level in this instance, btw, but I meant it more in the sense that they not heavily invested in the game (resource- wise). If skill levels are equal - I'd still think that some with infinite access to any card they want is going to build a far nastier deck than if s/he had access to only 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters. Now, also include in this example that a huge group of players will have access to the same resources as you - i.e. if everybody in your playgroup had infinite access to any card they want, the level of the decks will be substatially higher than a group in which each person in that group has only 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters - mostly because it is possible to build a substantially good deck using minimal resources - but if there are a substantial number of people in the same boat, than it becomes exceedingly more difficult to build one that isn't going to be the same as someone elses. Having a group of the same/similar style of decks in tournaments/social games on a regular basis makes it harder for each of those decks in turn, as the metagame shifts to prepare for that style of decks. To give a case study of things here: When 3rd Edition came out, every player who wanted to build a lethal deck without a huge investment went out and got a couple of starters of the !Malk deck, because it is very easy to build a lethal deck with that precon (S&B is pretty easy to get right in alot of games). Now, we had a long period of regular appearance of G4 !Malk in every tournament and almost every social game. In steps 2 problems: 1) People playing !Malk begin contesting like crazy, making it more difficult for those !Malk decks to succeed because of lack of resources for variety. 2) People not playing !Malk start wising up to the huge increase in S&B decks, and, where they have access to cards, start putting in defenses against that sort of thing, making it more difficult for those !Malk decks to succeed because of lack of resources for variety. > If you consider the hypothetical case of an experienced player with a > small card collection and a beginning player who started out by > spending lots of money on cards, I think the former is going to build > a better deck. Maybe the difference might not be so noticable for a *single* player comparison - but in my original post I was talking about the difference between resources of a playing *group*. Plus, as I said, I wasn't talking about a beginning player in the sense of skill, but in the sense of monetary investment into the game - which is not the same thing. Someone who is just beginning to spend money in the game may have played the games for years using someone else's cards, for example. > Regardless, I'm not sure why you think that NoR being a near-complete > set is a bad thing, which is what you seem to be getting at. I think > it's great that WW produced a very small, possibly self-contained set. I never said it was a bad thing to release a set like this. (I can't seem to find exactly what I said, and you haven't quoted me, so I'm finding it very difficult to clarify). My stance would be more in line with: It's relatively easy to build a small range of very competitive Imbued-only deck with minimal resources - say 2-4 booster boxes. For each person to build a deck that can combat them reasonably without worrying about contestation, and still be useful against vampire-based decks as well, requires a much higher (IMO 2/3 x at least) investment. In the USA, and especially in a Continentals Championship, this sort of investment is probably more common than in the average tournament in many other places in the world (at least, by looking at the posted decks, people's comments etc.) Thus, it is possible that it is easier and less of a problem to combat Imbued and vampire-based decks when you do have access to more cards. In a setting like ours, however, were the majority of decks built for tournaments are 'cheap-man' decks - i.e. are built by players who have a very limited amount of cards - it is far easier for the 'cheap- man's' Imbued deck to run rampant and earn loads of VP's, and there definitely is a disparity in the levels of decks between players, as all the good cheap decks get taken very quickly, so players are forced to chose between running the risk of playing the same decks as other players OR play an inferior deck that will work in most conditions, but will likely fail if it comes across, say, an imbued player. Also, on a side note, all the cards that make Imbued powerful (such as the ones Peter refered to) can be shared by all the imbued players on the table - i.e. Jennie's text affects all imbued, not just the one's that are controlled by the same methuselah. MoM affects all imbued equally - meaning that vampire will not be able to damage or block all the Imbued players. And powers, obviously, are commonly found in all Imbued decks and aren't contested. Meaning, it is often as beneficial to play on the same table as another Imbued as it is a hindrance - as compared to two G4 !Malk sitting on the same table, even if their deck- styles are different (one playing stealth-votes and one playing s&b for example). That being said - a small, self-contained set that allows for a variety of decks to be built is a great thing, in my book, which is why I'm equally pleased with LotN - especially since I find the precons to be more usable for a group of players with little resources than 3rd Ed was.

In message <47062ee7$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> There is certainly an argument to be made here. I would suggest, >> however, that before the Imbued, Taste already *was* a complete no- >> brainer, and also one of the only things that made Rush combat a >> viable archetype. > >I disagree a bit. I have had various levels of success with non-taste >Rush combat (agg-based, mostly, but not exclusively). >I do agree Taste was very very close to a no-brainer, though, and I >didn't like that then (pre-Imbued), either. I certainly wouldn't object to seeing a Taste-like card that was a bit different to Taste, and better in some circumstances and worse in others (perhaps unpredictably). >> If you make it less of a no brainer, yeah, more >> choices need to be made, but you also kick the legs out from under a >> deck archetype that is already far behind on the "effective" train and >> constantly struggling to catch up. > >Maybe it was never meant to be an archetype? Just a consequence of >blocking (for the most part). Well, we roughly know the following: - combat was one of three legs of the game as Garfield envisaged it (politics and bleed being the other two legs) - their combat decks were generally closer to bruise-bleed - the Gangrel were considered the better combat clan (between them and Brujah, basically), this being a consequence, so far as we can guess, of Majesty etc. not having been abused in 12+ quantities - Garfield generally wanted the very best decks to combine more than one element of the game (though he wasn't explicit about quite how) But we also know that they printed: - Wynn (built in rush) - Bum's Rush - Haven Uncovered - Archon - Bloodhunt - Talbot's Chainsaw all of which - TC, in particular - point to the possibility of much more aggressive combat being a possibility. That TC isn't that great is possibly more a facet of the general overcostedness of equipment. Now, I'm not sure that the pot/cel weenies or pot/obf weenies with 12 Rush and 4 Havens would be quite what they had in mind or tested. But I'd be hard pressed to believe that the original designers would go "Woah, that's totally out of nowhere, we didn't think of that at all!" if a deck included, say, 6 Bum's Rush, 2 Havens and a Chainsaw, say, which would probably still be pretty heavy on combat. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In article <1191624954.4...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I shutdown my predator the other day in a social game with my Outcast > Mage bleed deck. He was playing CEL/POT/FOR rush. And I was packing > MoM. My prey had put Anthelios into play, so I was pitching masters > to get my MoM back and leaving just enough Mages untapped to stop his > rushes dead. > > I could have done this before Imbued hit the gaming scene. > > So is it really a problem with Imbued? Yes. In the combination of Imbued+Memories, likely the real problem is the Memories and not the Imbued. But this is mostly an irrelevant point--the argument is "The Imbued with Memories is too powerful", and taking that and pointing out that it is Memories is too powerful and not necessarily the Imbued doesn't actually do anything. Most discussions that address fixing the Imbued tend to start with "Fix Memories of Mortality" and go from there. The academic point of "well, it is Memories that is broken, not the Imbued" is not really relevant to the discussion. Especially as most folks who are addressing the subject suggest fixing Memories before doing anything else. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

James Coupe wrote: > Well, we roughly know the following: > > - combat was one of three legs of the game as Garfield envisaged it > (politics and bleed being the other two legs) .. which isn't the same thing as "combat decks were one of the three legs of the game". Garfield perhaps envisioned decks making use of combat, bleed, and vote in various degrees.

In message <wpcOi.1280$lE2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ [ quoted text not captured ] That's why I also wrote, just a few lines down: - Garfield generally wanted the very best decks to combine more than one element of the game (though he wasn't explicit about quite how) However, Garfield did explicitly write about combat decks (*his* combat decks, which aren't the same as our rush decks) as an explicit archetype: After Gamma I was pretty sure that I wanted to equalize the pursuit of combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, or political decks. Ideally the best decks would have elements of at least two of these pursuits. After all, a few enhanced bleed cards in a Brujah combat deck can really be an improvement. So "combat monster" was a deck style he wanted to allow as a legitimate pursuit; the ideal was making combinations the best, but it seems pretty likely that he both planned for, and expected, players to not do that. As discussed earlier, though, combat monster was a bit less explicitly rush-y: The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires were so deadly in combat that no one dared to block them, you could waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she might have to face one of your servants in combat. So there's a likelihood of some sort of bleed for 1-get blocked, and block people doing the same. Presumably, a few rush cards would be for taking out people who were annoying in some specific way, or to combat a sneak-bleed predator. Garfield talks about sneak-bleeders being able to evade blocks and so not needing combat defence for that, so I guess rush cards might well have been see as one reasonable way to handle that - part of the balancing of Gamma, perhaps. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1191759881.2...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes: >If skill levels are equal - I'd still think that some with infinite >access to any card they want is going to build a far nastier deck than >if s/he had access to only 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters. Up to a point, this is true. But once you get beyond a relatively small number of cards, purchased with some advice[0] from another player, you can build very good decks. You won't be able to build the same decks as the other player and if you want to play a heavy combat deck, say, this might be frustrating - a combat deck will often rely on multiples of particular cards that might not be in starters (say, a lot of Psyche! or a lot of Telepathic Tracking or Immortal Grapple or...). But you can certainly put together a very solid deck with only a few hundred cards. You might also want to allow for a small number of trades or singles purchases, to get that particular card that hasn't been reprinted in ages, or which would require purchasing 8 starters (or 8 tins!) to get 8 copies (1 in each) when a player will lend or trade you them. If you were doing this for real, it would potentially be prudent to buy your boosters (i.e. the random source of cards) first. Look what you've got in your, say, dozen boosters. A lot of sneak bleed? Okay then, you should buy... It's also often really easy to pick up a load of commons for free or cheap, and some archetypes can be put together really well, just with commons. Sneak-bleed is obvious, as is weenie bleed. And you absolutely can win with those archetypes, using masses and masses of common cards and fixed cards. Yeah, the infinite-cards player can put together decks with 15 War Ghouls and the 8 PTO Inner Circle dance. But you know what? You don't need to play those to win. [0] By which I mean, players trying to tell you that Legacies of Blood boosters won't be the best start for you, or that maybe you don't want to buy Camarilla Edition and Lords of the Night, or whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

> The academic point of "well, it is Memories that is broken, not the > Imbued" is not really relevant to the discussion. Especially as most > folks who are addressing the subject suggest fixing Memories before > doing anything else. Of course it is relevant. If MoM was modified so that it was as dominant a card as it was, the majority of all arguments against the imbued would be made moot, especially yours that they hose combat. It is not the Imbued that hose combat, as my example with the Outcast Mages proove. Sure, with normal allies rush could still get some love from Fame, Tension etc, but with well timed and placed MoM and allies, anyone can really shut down a rush predator that isn't relying on stealth. This has always been availble, just not as prevalent since we have gotten decks with ally only crypts. If we were able to use normal allies such as Garou/Mages etc as crypt cards, but with no new mechanics for them, you'd make the same arguments, but it would all boil down to MoM. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191801722.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course it is relevant. > If MoM was modified so that it was as dominant a card as it was, the > majority of all arguments against the imbued would be made moot, > especially yours that they hose combat. Sigh. Listen. The statement I have made is "The Imbued and Memories are too powerful." No one is saying "don't fix Memories.". In fact, I'm pretty sure everyone is saying "Fix Memories." That people are continually saying "But Memories is a problem! Not Imbued!" is the irrelevant part. And unecessary to point out. As no one is saying that Memories should not be fixed. > It is not the Imbued that hose combat, as my example with the Outcast > Mages proove. It is the Imbued and Memories (among other things) that hoses combat. Yes. It is probably true that fixing Memories would fix a lot of this. Pointing this out in this discussion is the irrelevant part. As no one is claiming otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sigh. Listen. The statement I have made is "The Imbued and Memories are > too powerful." No one is saying "don't fix Memories.". In fact, I'm > pretty sure everyone is saying "Fix Memories." That people are > continually saying "But Memories is a problem! Not Imbued!" is the > irrelevant part. And unecessary to point out. As no one is saying that > Memories should not be fixed. Your point that Imbued and Memories are too powerful is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Imbued, so why continually bring them up? If you think that it is unneccesary to point out MoM, then I conjecture that it is irrelevant to blame Imbued UNTIL MoM is modified and see if it still is a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-EDF26D.1...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >Yes. In the combination of Imbued+Memories, likely the real problem is >the Memories and not the Imbued. But this is mostly an irrelevant >point--the argument is "The Imbued with Memories is too powerful", and >taking that and pointing out that it is Memories is too powerful and not >necessarily the Imbued doesn't actually do anything. The fact that it's the combination is relevant, though, and I for one don't want to see the conversation dumbed down to "Memories is evil! Fix it!" The fact that it's the Imbued+Memories combination that causes some people problems is important. People don't appear to have the same issues with Memories and 10 War Ghouls, or Memories and Shamblers, or Memories and Mummies, or whatever else... I'd rather keep that point in focus, if LSJ is considering errata. If people are having similar "Argh, it's unstoppable and unoustable" problems with the War Ghouls and Shamblers and everything else, in concert with Memories of Mortality, it would be *great* if they could mention it too, so that those experiences could be considered in the round. Or even just "They're really powerful, even if I can oust them." But that doesn't seem to be happening. Example: if there was a keyword like "monster" that applied to allies except the Imbued, that would strictly return Memories to pre-Nights of Reckoning power (plus any newly printed allies, of course). Put this card on a vampire; this vampire cannot attempt to block library allies. Any damage this vampire inflicts on library allies is reduced to 0. This vampire may burn 1 blood during his or her controller's influence phase to burn this card; he or she then goes into torpor. Where "library ally" means "an ally that's a library card". Whether that would include Absimiliard's Army or Spell of Life is up for grabs. It could just be "non-Imbued ally", or something. Alternatives: - library ally - ally with a recruit cost greater than zero. ("Any damage this vampire inflicts on those allies..." to keep the text down.) - non-Imbued ally - ally that was recruited [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <z$ODFLR7x...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > The fact that it's the combination is relevant, though, and I for one > don't want to see the conversation dumbed down to "Memories is evil! > Fix it!" The fact that it's the Imbued+Memories combination that causes > some people problems is important. Oh, I totally agree with you here. But still, in the statement "Imbued+Memories is too good", it is still very possible that the big issue in the combination is Memories. Thus, most discussion starts with "Fix Memories and go from there...", which does not exclude *also* tweaking the Imbued after Memories takes a hit. > People don't appear to have the same issues with Memories and 10 War > Ghouls, or Memories and Shamblers, or Memories and Mummies, or whatever > else... I'd rather keep that point in focus, if LSJ is considering > errata. Well, to be fair, Memories and War Ghouls or Memories and Hordes is pretty brutal, but due to the Ghouls and Hordes being fragile in a way that the Imbued are not (i.e. if you kill one, it is dead), the combination isn't quite as horrible. The whole "Memories and Nephandus" issue is also significant, but it is only very recently that this became something that anyone noticed, due to Nephandus suddenly being available in huge numbers *and* the near simultaneous introduction of Antonio d'Erlette (is that his name?)--both of which facilitated the winning Nephandus deck. And while Memories is certainly a significant factor here, I'd submit that the real clincher in this deck is the existence of Antonio. > If people are having similar "Argh, it's unstoppable and unoustable" > problems with the War Ghouls and Shamblers and everything else, in > concert with Memories of Mortality, it would be *great* if they could > mention it too, so that those experiences could be considered in the > round. Or even just "They're really powerful, even if I can oust them." > But that doesn't seem to be happening. True. Although even pre Imbued, whenever I played Memories on someone and then killed them with Hordes, they were all like "Man. That card sucks.", but that is kind different :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191805580.3...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Your point that Imbued and Memories are too powerful is irrelevant. > It has nothing to do with Imbued, so why continually bring them up? Well, no. I realize you are just being pedantic here, but the issue I am addressing is specifically the Imbued in combination with Memories of Mortality (along with all the bits available that make them really tougher on combat than they probably ought to be). It has *everything* to do with the Imbued. As noted elsewhere, yes, it is very possible that Memories is in and of itself, way too good. But until the Imbued were around to really take advantage of it, no one noticed. Which doesn't mean that Memories isn't possibly a huge problem. But really, it is only a *huge* problem in combination with the Imbued, as other allies are still saddled with serious disadvantages (i.e. they tend to die quickly; tend to be expensive for what they do; they don't come with powerful, continually recurring resources; you have to recruit them). That suddenly Nephandai decks are doing really well, honestly, has likely more to do with Antonio existing than Memories of Mortality. > If you think that it is unneccesary to point out MoM, then I > conjecture that it is irrelevant to blame Imbued UNTIL MoM is modified > and see if it still is a problem. And you notice how I have continually said "so let's fix Memories and go from there...", right? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 8, 1:30 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1191759881.278577.244...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, The > > Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> writes: > >If skill levels are equal - I'd still think that some with infinite > >access to any card they want is going to build a far nastier deck than > >if s/he had access to only 2/3 starters and a handful of boosters. > > Up to a point, this is true. But once you get beyond a relatively small > number of cards, purchased with some advice[0] from another player, you > can build very good decks. You won't be able to build the same decks as > the other player and if you want to play a heavy combat deck, say, this > might be frustrating - a combat deck will often rely on multiples of > particular cards that might not be in starters (say, a lot of Psyche! or > a lot of Telepathic Tracking or Immortal Grapple or...). But you can > certainly put together a very solid deck with only a few hundred cards. Very much agreed on this point. > You might also want to allow for a small number of trades or singles > purchases, to get that particular card that hasn't been reprinted in > ages, or which would require purchasing 8 starters (or 8 tins!) to get 8 > copies (1 in each) when a player will lend or trade you them. Yeah, here it's much more of, "okay here, have these cards" than actual trading. > It's also often really easy to pick up a load of commons for free or > cheap, and some archetypes can be put together really well, just with > commons. Sneak-bleed is obvious, as is weenie bleed. And you > absolutely can win with those archetypes, using masses and masses of > common cards and fixed cards. Yeah, s&b is probably the easiest to build, weenie bleed takes a little more cards IMO, but is easy enough to manage if someone gives you the right commons and the right weenies en masse. Like I said, we've been lucky enough here to have quite a big influx of players recently, some of them old players who had sold off their cards and are returning to the game again, some brand spanking new, and some who still have their old stock, or a few old decks, but aren't really keen on buying more cards at the moment. This tends to mean that alot of S&B are present on our tables - and so going to tournaments without some deflects or archon investigations in your deck is usually a very, very bad idea. Even high-intercept decks have a rough time, mostly cos they spend a whole lot of their resources just surviving their predator, or because it takes a while to build up that high level of intercept. > Yeah, the infinite-cards player can put together decks with 15 War > Ghouls and the 8 PTO Inner Circle dance. But you know what? You don't > need to play those to win. Maybe not, but it certainly helps. 8^P Still, whenever I look through the TWDA, the vast, vast majority of decks I see winning are decks that, if we are lucky, maybe around 3 players here can put together due to the high number of hard-to-get cards. That being said, we are pretty much the exceptions though, being at the ass-end of the world (South Africa) and really only having a strong playing group in one city - although Blooded Sand may enlighten me otherwise. Then again, gimme another year and we'll get there. At the end of the day, it was a highly contextualised argument. I was trying to point out that the NAC isn't best place to observe decks as representations of what happens at local tournaments around the world. You are likely to get a greater variety of very strong decks, probably including the 15 War Ghoul deck, and/or the 8 PTO Inner Circle Dance, than you will observe in the rest of the world's local tournaments. On a side note, I don't think there is a single player here who has a 15 War Ghoul deck or an 8 PTO deck.

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-630EC6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com... > In article <z$ODFLR7x...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> The fact that it's the combination is relevant, though, and I for one >> don't want to see the conversation dumbed down to "Memories is evil! >> Fix it!" The fact that it's the Imbued+Memories combination that causes >> some people problems is important. > > Oh, I totally agree with you here. But still, in the statement > "Imbued+Memories is too good", it is still very possible that the big > issue in the combination is Memories. Thus, most discussion starts with > "Fix Memories and go from there...", which does not exclude *also* > tweaking the Imbued after Memories takes a hit. Besides that, if you look at Memories in combination with non-Imbued allies, it seems pretty near balanced to me. It strikes me as being a shame to neuter Memories plus non-Imbued Allies decks in the course of fixing Memories because it's too powerful used _with_ the Imbued. All of this kind of spotlights a point that people need to be aware of as they jigger around with solutions to Imbued decks: Imbued are allies who make for more powerful decks than vampire-recruited ally-focused decks. Of course, this is understandable: prior to NoR, allies were kind of a sideshow. I always thought they were too underpowered in the vast majority of cases and cards like Charisma and the odd ally- enhancing vampire power like Antonio d'Erlette tended to make me feel justified in that outlook. Memories of Mortality is one of the things you use to help make all those ally cards something more viable than useless pieces of cardboard and it would be nice if it could continue to do so. The Unmasking is another huge one. In general, I would advocate that anyone considering whether errata or reprinting changes for these sorts of cards in view of their contribution to the success of Imbued decks stay alert to the differences between Imbued decks and vampire-recruited ally decks. So "fixing" cards like Memories of Mortality would be better accomplished to the degree the fix addresses Imbued, specifically, and not allies generally. Fred

On Oct 5, 6:29 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Sheesh. Can we relax a little here? Heh; yeah, I suppose I can. "They work under a whole different set of rules that are too much to figure out" is an argument that I keep hearing (not from you particularly, to be honest) that really gets under my skin, though, since it's, in my opinion, patently ridiculous. Looking back at your post again, I'm sorry I posted this in response to you, as that's not quite what you were saying there. Mea culpa. > I'm not trying to say that one should not teach a new player about the > imbued until much, much later, I'm just saying that I'd probably only > teach them once all the basics are down. Sure. Same here. And I'm not saying I'd try to teach a new player about Imbued right off the bat, either. > Although I haven't sat there and counted every last word, even if what > you say is true, Well, I let Word's word-count feature count a pasted-in version of both rules sets off of White Wolf's webpage. Beyond that, I can't completely vouch for them, but there weren't weird glitchy formatting things making either word count grossly off, if anything. So it's not precise, but it's valid. > my counter-argument would still be - what is easier > to teach - 17 000 words or 17 600 words? Cos without those first 17 > 000 words, that last 600 will be highly confusing. Sure, true. I'd just argue that, functionally, there's no appreciable difference between 17k and 17.6k. And actually, that was sort of my point - if without the first 17,000 the last 600 would be highly confusing, then it's not "a whole new game" or "a whole different set of rules" at all. Again, I recognize that wasn't what you were posting, now. > Still, your point is valid - even a relatively new player can grasp > the concept of the imbued. Although having known someone who started > learning the game from the imbued perspective, I reckon it would've > been easier for them to learn the normal vampire rules first (and have > heard comments that confirm this from them). Yeah, they're not easy to play well, and knowing how the game as a whole works is a much better strategy... - D.J.

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 12:08:28 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message > news:pdb6-630EC6.0...@news-server.stny.rr.com... >> In article <z$ODFLR7x...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, >> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> The fact that it's the combination is relevant, though, and I for one >>> don't want to see the conversation dumbed down to "Memories is evil! >>> Fix it!" The fact that it's the Imbued+Memories combination that >>> causes some people problems is important. >> >> Oh, I totally agree with you here. But still, in the statement >> "Imbued+Memories is too good", it is still very possible that the big >> issue in the combination is Memories. Thus, most discussion starts with >> "Fix Memories and go from there...", which does not exclude *also* >> tweaking the Imbued after Memories takes a hit. > > Besides that, if you look at Memories in combination with non-Imbued > allies, it seems pretty near balanced to me. It strikes me as being > a shame to neuter Memories plus non-Imbued Allies decks in the course > of fixing Memories because it's too powerful used _with_ the Imbued. I agree. Memories never struck me as an overpowered card. I've played it some and got hosed by it sometimes but nothing spectacularly game-breaking. In order to avoid drawing a parallel with the old joke about spirits and water I think that even if we agree that Imbued + Memories is strong we need to look at why because it can be the Imbued, it can be Memories, or it can be a specific, unhealthy synergy between them. For my money, I say it's the Imbued, because on the one hand, in other combinations Memories doesn't strike me as overpowered; the closest would probably be the Antonio d'Erlette + horde of Nephandi deck, as Nephandi can actually burn torpid vampires; but even that deck isn't overpowered, although it is probably Tier 1. On the other hand, even without Memories, Imbued strike me as an overpowered bunch because of their combat resilience and their denial power cards like Determine and Champion. -- Regards, Daneel

> In order to avoid drawing a parallel with the old joke about spirits and > water I think that even if we agree that Imbued + Memories is strong we > need to look at why because it can be the Imbued, it can be Memories, or > it can be a specific, unhealthy synergy between them. For my money, I > say it's the Imbued, because on the one hand, in other combinations > Memories doesn't strike me as overpowered; the closest would probably be > the Antonio d'Erlette + horde of Nephandi deck, as Nephandi can actually > burn torpid vampires; but even that deck isn't overpowered, although it > is probably Tier 1. On the other hand, even without Memories, Imbued > strike me as an overpowered bunch because of their combat resilience and > their denial power cards like Determine and Champion. Slapping down 2 MoM a turn and recycling them with Anthelios and then bleeding with Allies that actually have a bleed is powerful. As to Imbued Combat resilience, I laugh at that. Take MoM out and they have virtually 0 resilience unless you build a deck that is designed to be a combat deck. Most Imbued decks only pack a couple of combat cards because when in conjunction with MoM they don't need them. So where does this combat resilience come from? Jennie Orn? Right - so without MoM she gets bashed and eaten. Imbued are actually pretty squishy when you get down to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 9, 12:32 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: [snip] > As to > Imbued Combat resilience, I laugh at that. Take MoM out and they have > virtually 0 resilience unless you build a deck that is designed to be > a combat deck. Most Imbued decks only pack a couple of combat cards > because when in conjunction with MoM they don't need them. So where > does this combat resilience come from? Jennie Orn? Right - so > without MoM she gets bashed and eaten. > > Imbued are actually pretty squishy when you get down to it. > This is beginning to be repetitive - especially since we seem to be repeating the same things to the same people. Combat resilience factors: 1) Jennie Orne text works even if she is incapacitated. A combat deck needs to burn her outright to stop the imbued from popping out of hospital all of the time. 2) Imbued don't worry about agg, making all agg-damage related combat decks almost entirely useless. 3) You can't taste Imbued - ensuring that they will probably wear your combat deck down slowly, especially if they start using their strikes with conviction. This is bigger than most people realise - combat decks need to keep gaining their blood back to keep going, otherwise they end up in torpor more often than their opponents - combat is costly (as a general rule). 4) You can't Fame/Dragonbound/Path of Lilith them, and Tension in the Ranks and Frontal Assualt only works when you burn them. This makes sure it's really difficult for a rush combat deck to oust them without strapping on another ousting method (like bleed or vote). 5) You can't play Haven Uncovered on them, and many of your rush cards can simply be determined away. 6) Imbued use conviction use all their powers - not blood/life, so being on one life after they bounce out of hospital is fine for them, so long as they can keep avoiding combat or bouncing out of hospital. Fixing Memories of Mortality for the Imbued will help combat decks defeat them, but the Imbued would still be pretty damn resilient against combat decks. They may not win with a combat deck on it's tail, but the chances of the combat deck winning are pretty slim (unless, as has been said, you strap on another ousting strategy to them, like vote or bleed).

On Oct 9, 1:25 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Oct 9, 12:32 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: (snip) > > So where > > does this combat resilience come from? Jennie Orn? Right - so > > without MoM she gets bashed and eaten. > > > Imbued are actually pretty squishy when you get down to it. > > This is beginning to be repetitive - especially since we seem to be > repeating the same things to the same people. It is, definitely, getting repetitive. > Combat resilience factors: > 1) Jennie Orne text works even if she is incapacitated. A combat deck > needs to burn her outright to stop the imbued from popping out of > hospital all of the time. Well, popping out once every two untaps (2 conviction, after all). But if a combat deck's doing its job, I'd hope it can spare an action now and then to pillowface one on the same turn. If that's blocked, fine - consider it another rush. I'll grant that if the Imbued have enough conviction, they bounce back a few times, but... well, see your point 6 below. > 2) Imbued don't worry about agg, making all agg-damage related combat > decks almost entirely useless. Wait - agg-damage combat decks that don't work the Rotschreck loophole actually work, in your experience? Huh. Maybe I've just seen too much fortitude for that. (Agg-based burning at the end of big combat works, sometimes; agg-poke is, in my experience and metagame at least, fairly terrible anyway, vampires or Imbued.) > 3) You can't taste Imbued - ensuring that they will probably wear your > combat deck down slowly, especially if they start using their strikes > with conviction. This is bigger than most people realise - combat > decks need to keep gaining their blood back to keep going, otherwise > they end up in torpor more often than their opponents - combat is > costly (as a general rule). Well, bad combat or overwhelming combat is costly, sure. But, um, you can't taste against a Fortitude deck either, and in that case your combat didn't even have any effect. At least with Imbued, Taste or no, your damage *did* something. And if Taste is the sole blood- management strategy a combat deck has, well... > 4) You can't Fame/Dragonbound/Path of Lilith them, and Tension in the > Ranks and Frontal Assualt only works when you burn them. This makes > sure it's really difficult for a rush combat deck to oust them without > strapping on another ousting method (like bleed or vote). Completely, 100% true. Fixing those cards, or printing reasonable alternatives, is completely a good idea, IMO. (Of course, that has little to do with them being resilient *in combat* and more to do with combat decks not working well to oust them as a solo strategy. And it seems to start with the opinion that rush combat decks don't have a difficult time ousting without strapping something on anyway, which isn't my experience...) > 5) You can't play Haven Uncovered on them, and many of your rush cards > can simply be determined away. Haven - see point 4. Could easily be fixed, and probably should. The "Determine" situation - good. Uses up convictions, and then you can go pillowface something, or bleed, or whatever. Sure, you don't actually get to hit Jennie, but stressing Convictions at a rate higher than one a turn - whether that's through recovering from the hospital or making them spend Convictions to Determine actions or on Vigilance untaps for extra block or whatever - stressing Convictions *is* what ousts the Imbued, in the end. Start it early and don't let up any more than you strictly need to. This is what folks who seem to panic and wall up miss. Imbued are like roaches - let them breed, and set up, and they're hard to get rid of. Smacking a few now and then won't stop anything. But going on a full-scale, high-pressure extermination program works. > 6) Imbued use conviction use all their powers - not blood/life, so > being on one life after they bounce out of hospital is fine for them, > so long as they can keep avoiding combat or bouncing out of hospital. If they can keep bouncing out, they're avoiding combat anyway long enough to rack up another 2 convictions. Even *with* Jennie, they can only do that every other turn after a little while... And if you're talking about combat resilience, saying "they can keep going just fine after coming out of the hospital if they can avoid combat" isn't, really, all that convincing.

> This is beginning to be repetitive - especially since we seem to be > repeating the same things to the same people. You don't listen. > Combat resilience factors: > 1) Jennie Orne text works even if she is incapacitated. A combat deck > needs to burn her outright to stop the imbued from popping out of > hospital all of the time. Irrelevant, because without MoM she is dead. > 2) Imbued don't worry about agg, making all agg-damage related combat > decks almost entirely useless. Irrelevant, because agg combat sucks balls anyway. And there are plenty of ways to prevent agg for vampires, so if combat decks are just relying on 1 or 2 agg for their punch, they are shit to start with, Imbued or no. > 3) You can't taste Imbued - ensuring that they will probably wear your > combat deck down slowly, especially if they start using their strikes > with conviction. This is bigger than most people realise - combat > decks need to keep gaining their blood back to keep going, otherwise > they end up in torpor more often than their opponents - combat is > costly (as a general rule). Irrelevant, it doesn't make Imbued combat resilient, it just means that the vampire can't fill up easily after bashing them. The Imbued is still in hospital though. > 4) You can't Fame/Dragonbound/Path of Lilith them, and Tension in the > Ranks and Frontal Assualt only works when you burn them. This makes > sure it's really difficult for a rush combat deck to oust them without > strapping on another ousting method (like bleed or vote). Irrelevant. We aren't talking about pool damage here at the moment, but whether Imbued are resilient to combat. And anyway, combat decks shouldn't rely solely on ousting with Fame/Dragonbound/Path/Tension but should also be capable of old fashion ousting (bleed). Weenie combat decks, (the most viable before Imbued) are perfect for doing this, because Imbued only have so many wakes. Bleed en masse is fine. As to Imbued not being affected by these cards, it's moot - they still end up in hospital or burned. > 5) You can't play Haven Uncovered on them, and many of your rush cards > can simply be determined away. Partially Irrelevant. It doesn't make them more resilient once you get into combat, if you cannot succeed in rush, bleed with all of your minions and watch them start to block you. Eventually you'll get them. And anyway, I've had pretty decent success bleeding forward and rushing back with my combat decks. Eventually, they will be forced to block you. > 6) Imbued use conviction use all their powers - not blood/life, so > being on one life after they bounce out of hospital is fine for them, > so long as they can keep avoiding combat or bouncing out of hospital. Irrelevant. When they bounce out of hospital they have 1 life, it's pretty easy to do 1 more point of damage to them. If they bounce out of hospital, they generally have 0 convictions. If they are doing the hospital yo-yo dance, then they aren't really being resilient are they? > Fixing Memories of Mortality for the Imbued will help combat decks > defeat them, but the Imbued would still be pretty damn resilient > against combat decks. They may not win with a combat deck on it's > tail, but the chances of the combat deck winning are pretty slim > (unless, as has been said, you strap on another ousting strategy to > them, like vote or bleed). Every deck has bleed as a strategy (unless you're playing a Martin Frankle Superstar deck). Weenie decks excel at bleeding, with or without cards. 5 minions bleeding for 1 every turn is more than most decks can handle for long, especially if it is backed up with brutal combat. You have not really argued successfully that Imbued are combat resilient, indeed you have missed that angle pretty much entirely. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191968779....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Irrelevant, because without MoM she is dead. Hardly. You have other minions to block. You have Determine to cancel Rush actions. You have Champion to save her from a successful Rush. And Flash Grenade. As noted, Imbued with Memories are super good. Even without Memories, they are pretty resilient against combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191953274.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Imbued are like roaches - let them breed, and set up, and they're hard > to get rid of. Smacking a few now and then won't stop anything. But > going on a full-scale, high-pressure extermination program works. Heh. This is something I agree with completely. Which means that the next time I'm in a tournament, and my predator or prey bring out an Imbued, and I then proceed to completely and with absolute predjudice, exterminate them, let them not take a single action, and essentially back oust them (if they are my predator), I wanna have this statement archived somewhere so I can point them to it when they whine... [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Irrelevant, because without MoM she is dead. > > Hardly. You have other minions to block. You have Determine to cancel > Rush actions. You have Champion to save her from a successful Rush. And > Flash Grenade. > > As noted, Imbued with Memories are super good. Even without Memories, > they are pretty resilient against combat. Fine, I don't want to turn this into a measuring contest, we'll agree to disagree. You are the eternal pessimist, content to say "woe is me", I am the optimist, happy to say "where there is a will, there is a way". --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.clom

In article <1191975950.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Fine, I don't want to turn this into a measuring contest, we'll agree > to disagree. You are the eternal pessimist, content to say "woe is > me", I am the optimist, happy to say "where there is a will, there is > a way". You could do that. Or you could illuminate problems in the game in hopes of getting them fixed. I choose to illuminate problems, rather than hope it all just works out ok. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You could do that. Or you could illuminate problems in the game in hopes > of getting them fixed. I choose to illuminate problems, rather than hope > it all just works out ok. You believe that the problem is Imbued, I declare MoM (and multiple powers) is the only issue. Why is it then that your belief that there are problems is more valid than mine that there are relatively few? I feel that you just don't want to adapt your game to new challenges. Right or wrong, but that is the kind of attitude you are displaying. This game is about meeting challenges and adapting, else there'd never be a point to printing new cards - ever. Now I might be wrong, I haven't discounted that - but I feel that you have discounted the possiblity that you are wrong, and are content to be the little emo kid crying about how bleak the future is Play a few games with some mods to MoM and see how it turns out p'haps. Play the same games with mods to Power rules with NRA dictating only 1 per turn per Imbued, or not untapping after getting them. Play the same games where you are the one playing the Imbued. Then, see if it is a problem with the Imbued themselves, or the way that you respond to them when they hit the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1191978365....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You believe that the problem is Imbued, I declare MoM (and multiple > powers) is the only issue. Oh, for fuck sake. I have said multiple times that I think the problem is The Imbued plus various things that interact with them. One of which is Memories of Mortality. Others of which include the mostly unintentional fact that a lot of cards say "vampire" instead of "minion", and you kinda need them to say "minion". And some of the capabilities the Imbued have access to (Jennie Orne, untap after getting powers). Oh, wait. That is pretty much exactly what you are saying too. > Right or wrong, but that is the kind of attitude you are displaying. Who the hell cares what kind of "attitude" I am displaying? > Play a few games with some mods to MoM and see how it turns out > p'haps. > Play the same games with mods to Power rules with NRA dictating only 1 > per turn per Imbued, or not untapping after getting them. > Play the same games where you are the one playing the Imbued. If there were things to playtest that I felt were worth playtesting (as opposed to me just screwing around with house rules", I'd be all over it. Sadly, nothing like this looms on the horizion. But if I did play with Memories being removed from play and not untapping after getting a power? I'd be playing with the things I have already suggested as likely the best ideas to start with. Oh, wait, you suggested the same thing. It is like we actually agree. Yet you seem compelled to be a crank. For reasons that are beyond me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <1191953274.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Imbued are like roaches - let them breed, and set up, and they're hard > > to get rid of. Smacking a few now and then won't stop anything. But > > going on a full-scale, high-pressure extermination program works. > > Heh. This is something I agree with completely. Which means that the > next time I'm in a tournament, and my predator or prey bring out an > Imbued, and I then proceed to completely and with absolute predjudice, > exterminate them, let them not take a single action, and essentially > back oust them (if they are my predator), I wanna have this statement > archived somewhere so I can point them to it when they whine... Ha! Well, I suppose I did say it. A little stronger interpretation on your part than what I'd meant, though it will certainly work. What I meant, really, was that if it becomes necessary to (back)oust them or whatever, the way to do it is to stress the hell out of their convictions. And frankly, given that you can do that with just about any sort of deck if you try, their predator really should be doing so anyway, rather than their prey (except in odd or extreme circumstances). 'Cause it's always necessary to oust your prey, anyhow. Mostly, it's just a case of "stop the key setup actions or, if they get them off, terminate with extreme prejudice." At least, that's been my experience playing Imbued - if the hurt gets laid down early, or my key actions get blocked, or my convictions get extra-stressed, trouble. (Which, again, is why my Imbued deck works on S:CE and has OBF mixed in. 'Cause otherwise, around here, I get blocked and/or killed.) - D.J.

In message <pdb6-AB972F.2...@news-server.stny.rr.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >In article <1191968779....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: <Jennie Orne> >> Irrelevant, because without MoM she is dead. > >Hardly. You have other minions to block. You have Determine to cancel >Rush actions. You have Champion to save her from a successful Rush. And >Flash Grenade. Secure Haven and/or Hide might well also feature as protective measures for individual key minions, if you couldn't use Memories to take out the combat wombats. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 9, 11:10 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Ha! Well, I suppose I did say it. A little stronger interpretation > on your part than what I'd meant, though it will certainly work. Yeah, I suspect that the best way, really, to adapt to the Imbued is not to let them play the game as it is the best way to keep them from getting set up. Which is sad, but I suppose necessary. So I am warning you all--if: A) I am playing a Rush deck. and B) You influence out an Imbued. I will do everything in my power to ensure that you don't ever take a single action, and that every minion you influence out is immediately uncapacitated and eaten. That'll teach'em. -Peter

On Oct 10, 8:29 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 9, 11:10 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Ha! Well, I suppose I did say it. A little stronger interpretation > > on your part than what I'd meant, though it will certainly work. > > Yeah, I suspect that the best way, really, to adapt to the Imbued is > not to let them play the game as it is the best way to keep them from > getting set up. Which is sad, but I suppose necessary. (snip) > That'll teach'em. I still say that's overkill, at least as an absolute - I mean, if they're your prey, sure. If you're spending all your time and energy doing their predator's (and prey's too, in some cases) job for them, though, you're going to throw your game away too. There's a point in between this reaction (exterminate on sight) and the "I don't know if I can get this one action through, so I'll just sit back and pray for an opening that's not going to show up, then complain when one doesn't" that a lot of people seem to take. (At least, they must, 'cause when you keep applying *any* real pressure to the Imbued, not even needing "complete extermination" tactics, they typically crumble.) In other words, I don't see a reason to be quite so extreme as all that - it's not like they're the Nergal deck or something. Ruining a whole table's balance completely, as opposed to just "keeping the Imbued in check," seems like a sure way to make sure someone other than you wins. Sure, it makes sure someone other than the Imbued wins, too, but... well... cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, and all that. - D.J. - D.J.

On Oct 10, 10:06 am, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > I still say that's overkill, at least as an absolute Oh, it is certainly overkill. > - I mean, if > they're your prey, sure. If you're spending all your time and energy > doing their predator's (and prey's too, in some cases) job for them, > though, you're going to throw your game away too. Probably. But if I was gonna lose anyway? I'll throw away my position to spite my opponents. I love spite. > In other words, I don't see a reason to be quite so extreme as all > that In a rational sense, you are probably right. But as the answer to the Imbued being too handy is "you need to adapt", I think the most (satisfying?) adaptation is simply to never let them take actions. Extermination absolute. > Ruining a > whole table's balance completely, as opposed to just "keeping the > Imbued in check," seems like a sure way to make sure someone other > than you wins. This is true. But then again, if I was in a bad seat anyway... -Peter

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Peter D Bakija wrote: > Probably. But if I was gonna lose anyway? I'll throw away my position > to spite my opponents. I love spite. You'll throw away a shot at 1 or more VPs to make sure the Imbued never do anything useful? I hate to start another PTW thread.... Matt Morgan

On Oct 10, 12:26 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Combat resilience factors: > > 1) Jennie Orne text works even if she is incapacitated. A combat deck > > needs to burn her outright to stop the imbued from popping out of > > hospital all of the time. > > Irrelevant, because without MoM she is dead. No, without MoM she is incapacitated. Her text still works while she is incapacitated. Getting her dead i.e. burnt, is a little more tricky. She needs to be burnt for her text not to affect the game. > > > 2) Imbued don't worry about agg, making all agg-damage related combat > > decks almost entirely useless. > > Irrelevant, because agg combat sucks balls anyway. And there are > plenty of ways to prevent agg for vampires, so if combat decks are > just relying on 1 or 2 agg for their punch, they are shit to start > with, Imbued or no. Agg combat was at least a viable way to win a tourney. Now it isn't. That is a BIG difference in my books. Vampire's may have plenty of ways to prevent agg damage - but I'd hardly say they were in the majority of tournament decks (with 2 agg being the average they'd need to prevent on a regular basis), and especially not in big numbers. At least, that has been my experience here. S:CE is a far greater and more prevalent tool for combat defence. > > 3) You can't taste Imbued - ensuring that they will probably wear your > > combat deck down slowly, especially if they start using their strikes > > with conviction. This is bigger than most people realise - combat > > decks need to keep gaining their blood back to keep going, otherwise > > they end up in torpor more often than their opponents - combat is > > costly (as a general rule). > > Irrelevant, it doesn't make Imbued combat resilient, it just means > that the vampire can't fill up easily after bashing them. The Imbued > is still in hospital though. Yes, but with the Vampire not filling up, he becomes a weaker opponent, and soon he is unable to play his cards or take the little bit of damage you are dealing him, and then it's dirt nap time. And once your vamp takes a dirt nap, good luck getting him out, cos you'll need stealth and blood everytime. Hence the Imbued will out-survive the combat deck, making them combat resilient. > > 4) You can't Fame/Dragonbound/Path of Lilith them, and Tension in the > > Ranks and Frontal Assualt only works when you burn them. This makes > > sure it's really difficult for a rush combat deck to oust them without > > strapping on another ousting method (like bleed or vote). > > Irrelevant. We aren't talking about pool damage here at the moment, > but whether Imbued are resilient to combat. And anyway, combat decks > shouldn't rely solely on ousting with Fame/Dragonbound/Path/Tension > but should also be capable of old fashion ousting (bleed). Weenie > combat decks, (the most viable before Imbued) are perfect for doing > this, because Imbued only have so many wakes. Bleed en masse is fine. First - as I said - without strapping on another ousting method. Bleed, vote and combat should each be able to oust in their own right, even though I believe having multiple methods of ousting is generally better. The big problem there is that combat decks are notoriously difficult to find space with. Other ousting methods take up space. That being said - combat decks shouldn't be forced to become bruise- bleed decks. They should have a reasonable chance of ousting their prey, just like the other deck types do. The issue you brought up was that Imbued are combat resilient. Telling me that combat decks should rely on other ousting methods as well, is already admitting that the Imbued are resilient to combat decks ousting methods. > As to Imbued not being affected by these cards, it's moot - they still > end up in hospital or burned. > The thing is that the Imbued Meth will usually survive - hence they are resilient to combat decks. > > > 5) You can't play Haven Uncovered on them, and many of your rush cards > > can simply be determined away. > > Partially Irrelevant. It doesn't make them more resilient once you > get into combat, if you cannot succeed in rush, bleed with all of your > minions and watch them start to block you. Eventually you'll get > them. And anyway, I've had pretty decent success bleeding forward and > rushing back with my combat decks. Eventually, they will be forced to > block you. Again, this means your deck becomes a bleed deck, or a vote deck, with combat as a way of delivering the payload. > > 6) Imbued use conviction use all their powers - not blood/life, so > > being on one life after they bounce out of hospital is fine for them, > > so long as they can keep avoiding combat or bouncing out of hospital. > > Irrelevant. When they bounce out of hospital they have 1 life, it's > pretty easy to do 1 more point of damage to them. If they bounce out > of hospital, they generally have 0 convictions. If they are doing the > hospital yo-yo dance, then they aren't really being resilient are > they? Yes, but when they do the yo-yo dance, you were lucky enough to (A) get into combat with them, and (B) play enough cards that they couldn't get out of the combat. Having to do this repeatedly quickly depletes your resources, but does nothing to them, as their conviction keeps coming back. > > Fixing Memories of Mortality for the Imbued will help combat decks > > defeat them, but the Imbued would still be pretty damn resilient > > against combat decks. They may not win with a combat deck on it's > > tail, but the chances of the combat deck winning are pretty slim > > (unless, as has been said, you strap on another ousting strategy to > > them, like vote or bleed). > > Every deck has bleed as a strategy (unless you're playing a Martin > Frankle Superstar deck). I beg to differ. Every deck is able to bleed. Not every deck has a bleed strategy. Just like every deck is able to vote (given that they are able to get the edge), not every deck has a vote strategy. A strategy would have to include cards that improve the damage you do while bleeding, otherwise it's not a strategy. > Weenie decks excel at bleeding, with or > without cards. 5 minions bleeding for 1 every turn is more than most > decks can handle for long, especially if it is backed up with brutal > combat. Weenies are just one form of combat decks. And weenies can be knocked down fairly easily by the Imbued, and will have a much harder time recovering than the Imbued will. > > You have not really argued successfully that Imbued are combat > resilient, indeed you have missed that angle pretty much entirely. > I have argued very successfully, it's that you are arguing a different and much smaller point, and from a different viewpoint than the issues that people have brought up here. You are coming from the viewpoint that you think it will be difficult for the Imbued to win with a strong combat deck predator, especially if MoM is no longer in the picture. I agree with you there, on the most part. However, the general point has always been, and still remains, that combat decks struggle to oust the Imbued, and that's the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as playing combat decks in tournaments go. The argument about combat decks are that they have difficulty ousting an imbued prey. Your argument is that, without MoM, it's much easier for combat decks to dunk the Imbued. At least, that's as much as you have proved. My argument is, "So what? Just cos we can dunk the Imbued, doesn't mean we can oust them." Weenie combat decks have their minions dunked just as much as the Imbued do, but have a much harder time getting out of torpor, plus they have a difficult time entering combat - no Haven's, frontals really bad for them, no other funky permanent rushes, like blood hunts. Multi-rush combat decks (i.e. freak-drivers), which are the worst affected by MoM, still struggle cos they need to find ways of getting blood back fast enough without tastes. A standard combat deck that doesn't fall under one of these two categories, relies on a 3 vamp average. Either they are forced to go full-tilt at their Imbued prey, in which case they are leaving themselves wide open for their predator, or the Imbued get to do the yo-yo dance, cos they'll block your pillow-facing, and you have roughly 2 actions a turn to do something to your prey (dunk and blocked pillow-face attempt). For most imbued, this level of recovery is a joke if you have Jennie alive, and still pretty feasible if you don't. You would have to dunk the blocker in each and every single combat to make this even remotely feasible - which would mean a really good hand for you, and/or little/no combat defence in theirs (i.e. no flash grenades, manuevers with guns, surge etc.) Plus, you'd need to get sufficient rush right - which is again, highly unlikely, cos bleeding with two minions for 1 bleed is laughable. The Imbued can easily handle that. Your solution to my issue is, well, strap on some bleed. My response is that combat decks should not be forced to become bleeding decks in order to be playable in a tournament. They were feasible before and they should remain so. Even before Imbued, getting a combat deck right was tricky. Now it's nearly impossible.

On Oct 9, 8:07 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 9, 1:25 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 9, 12:32 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > (snip) > > > 2) Imbued don't worry about agg, making all agg-damage related combat > > decks almost entirely useless. > > Wait - agg-damage combat decks that don't work the Rotschreck loophole > actually work, in your experience? Uhm, I did say agg-damage *related* decks didn't I? > Huh. Maybe I've just seen too > much fortitude for that. (Agg-based burning at the end of big combat > works, sometimes; agg-poke is, in my experience and metagame at least, > fairly terrible anyway, vampires or Imbued.) Yeah, they generally don't work so well, but most vampire players will squirm when they see someone hit the table who has permanent hand agg- damage. It is often a fantastic deterent. I know whenever Hector hit's the table I begin to worry. > > 3) You can't taste Imbued - ensuring that they will probably wear your > > combat deck down slowly, especially if they start using their strikes > > with conviction. This is bigger than most people realise - combat > > decks need to keep gaining their blood back to keep going, otherwise > > they end up in torpor more often than their opponents - combat is > > costly (as a general rule). > > Well, bad combat or overwhelming combat is costly, sure. But, um, you > can't taste against a Fortitude deck either, and in that case your > combat didn't even have any effect. Unless you happen to play environmental damage as well. Then it's usually a whole lot of prevention they need to play, and taste only needs pay out a few times to really count. > At least with Imbued, Taste or > no, your damage *did* something. And if Taste is the sole blood- > management strategy a combat deck has, well... No, it's not the sole, but it often makes the difference between winning and losing. Fortitude is a bitch, but thankfully, not to many clans have fortitude as an in-clan discipline. > > 4) You can't Fame/Dragonbound/Path of Lilith them, and Tension in the > > Ranks and Frontal Assualt only works when you burn them. This makes > > sure it's really difficult for a rush combat deck to oust them without > > strapping on another ousting method (like bleed or vote). > > Completely, 100% true. Fixing those cards, or printing reasonable > alternatives, is completely a good idea, IMO. > > (Of course, that has little to do with them being resilient *in > combat* and more to do with combat decks not working well to oust them > as a solo strategy. And it seems to start with the opinion that rush > combat decks don't have a difficult time ousting without strapping > something on anyway, which isn't my experience...) I've had reasonable success pre-Imbued with rush decks without strapping on bleed on vote. Although I have done so as often as not. > The "Determine" situation - good. Uses up convictions, and then you > can go pillowface something, or bleed, or whatever. Sure, you don't > actually get to hit Jennie, but stressing Convictions at a rate higher > than one a turn - whether that's through recovering from the hospital > or making them spend Convictions to Determine actions or on Vigilance > untaps for extra block or whatever - stressing Convictions *is* what > ousts the Imbued, in the end. Start it early and don't let up any > more than you strictly need to. This is what folks who seem to panic > and wall up miss. Yes, just like most people miss the fact that the Imbueds predator has a predator too, who isn't exactly going to let you throw all your weight into the imbued and do absolutely nothing in return (barring some odd table situations). > > Imbued are like roaches - let them breed, and set up, and they're hard > to get rid of. Smacking a few now and then won't stop anything. But > going on a full-scale, high-pressure extermination program works. Yes, but also leaves you completely open, and makes your predators job of ousting you fairly simple. > > 6) Imbued use conviction use all their powers - not blood/life, so > > being on one life after they bounce out of hospital is fine for them, > > so long as they can keep avoiding combat or bouncing out of hospital. > > If they can keep bouncing out, they're avoiding combat anyway long > enough to rack up another 2 convictions. Even *with* Jennie, they can > only do that every other turn after a little while... Yes, but they really begin racking up the convictions when edge explosion comes out, often gaining two convictions a turn. With Jennie out, the average Imbued is gaining the convictions as fast as they are losing them, but you are slowly losing your resources. In the war of attrition the Imbued will pull out ahead. > And if you're talking about combat resilience, saying "they can keep > going just fine after coming out of the hospital if they can avoid > combat" isn't, really, all that convincing. It is if they have good ways of avoiding combat - and they do. As I've said, it's very difficult to rush into combat with them, without putting in hosers, at least.

On Oct 9, 12:32 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Take MoM out and they have > virtually 0 resilience unless you build a deck that is designed to be > a combat deck. Sorry, I misread the second part of this sentence. In the context of the thread, I thought you were saying that that have virtually 0 resilience *when* you build a deck that is designed to be a combat deck. Guess we're closer to the same point than I thought. Although, a deck that has little combat resilience against a deck that isn't designed to be a combat deck is really admitting a tiny problem, as the least worries you have from them is that they'll be playing much combat. So, really, it's a very minor point.

On Oct 10, 11:19 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > You'll throw away a shot at 1 or more VPs to make sure the Imbued never do > anything useful? I hate to start another PTW thread.... Well, ya know, as one poster said, I need to adapt. And as another poster said, they are like roaches, and you need to get them before they breed. Add them together, and there you go. -Peter

On Oct 10, 11:40 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Agg combat was at least a viable way to win a tourney. When was this? John Eno

[ quoted text not captured ] Round about the time Jyhad was released? Some still complain about Rotschreck decks. (I saw a post on this newsgroup within the last 2 days of people talking about this very issue). I'm not saying it was tier 1, but it did have a reasonable chance, if built very well (around tier 2). In a recent tournament around here, a Tzimisce weenie sneak-bleeder did very well with just agg damage pokes and rotschrecks as it's combat defense (and funnily enough, it was stopped dead as soon as it hit the imbued in the finals). While not an agg combat deck, it definitely shows that agg is very useful in combat. As for aggressive combat decks, I've seen Hektor decks still do very well recently, and I've seen a Karsh multi-rush deck, which I'm sure could do very well if it gets some tuning. Pre-imbued, we had some powerful Tzimisce & Tremere wall combat decks which used agg very effectively. I'd still say these decks would be quite effective in a tournament without the Imbued around, and I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find out that one won in these conditions. As I said, maybe not tier 1, cos it ain't no Ventrue Obfuscate, or Malk 94 S&B deck, but it's still powerful enough to expect a final table seating with it, generally (in a 15 player tournament).

[ quoted text not captured ] and you did start out by saying 'if i'm going to lose anyway'. So, obviously if letting the imbued get going means you have no chance at a vp, you may as well take another path to that 0vps which involves pillowfacing a bunch of filthy mortals instead. :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

The Name Forgotten wrote: > On Oct 10, 8:15 pm, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 10, 11:40 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> >> > Agg combat was at least a viable way to win a tourney. >> >> When was this? >> >> John Eno > > Round about the time Jyhad was released? Some still complain about > Rotschreck decks. (I saw a post on this newsgroup within the last 2 > days of people talking about this very issue). There's a bunch of decks in the TWDA choc full o' Breath of the Dragon goodness (6+ copies, plus as many or more Chiropterans). I'd count them as 'agg combat' decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <470d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > and you did start out by saying 'if i'm going to lose anyway'. > > So, obviously if letting the imbued get going means you have no chance > at a vp, you may as well take another path to that 0vps which involves > pillowfacing a bunch of filthy mortals instead. :) Indeed! And I gotta say that multiple times, at multiple tournaments, I have been sitting next to an Imbued deck while playing a Rush deck, and I said "Huh. I could never let them take an action and irrationally exterminate all the Imbued as soon as they hit the table, or I could just play normally...", and then chose "play normally" (i.e. go forward, back rush as needed to survive, bleed as often as possible). And ya know what happend? Every time? The Imbued killed me (either as a predator or by being too hard to oust as my prey). So what history has shown me is that if I don't irrationally exterminate the Imbued when I am sitting next to them? I'm going to lose. Therefore, (seemingly) irrationally exterminating them as soon as they hit the table? Playing to win. It will be sad when the Imbued player never gets to take an action. And will be sad when they get ousted when they are my predator. But what are you gonna do? I'm adapting! [ quoted text not captured ]

> It will be sad when the Imbued player never gets to take an action. And > will be sad when they get ousted when they are my predator. But what are > you gonna do? I'm adapting! You know, since Touch of Pain has come out, I find that with my POT combat decks that there has been less of a neccessity in rushing backwards. Sure I've still done it, but not so much anymore. I've also found that this then allows me to play less rush, more bleed. Have you tried Touch of Pain against Imbued? A ToP + Wake + Retribution module in a Potence deck will murder an Imbued Predator and you never have to rush them, thus worrying about Champion/Flash Grenade/Determine. Sure, you still have to worry some about MoM, but you can choose to wake the non-MoM minion and play the cards. And Retribution doesn't care a bit about MoM. This module is also really good against Weenie Vote, Bleed or even mid cap vote/bleed, so it's not like it's only anti-ally tech. Of course, YMMV but this is what I've found, and it is a good card that allows you to adapt without really compromising your deck or play style. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1192058881.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You know, since Touch of Pain has come out, I find that with my POT > combat decks that there has been less of a neccessity in rushing > backwards. My experience is that Touch of Pain is kind of awful in most situations--it costs a blood, you need to be untapped/have a Wake, and you need to be being bled in the first place (or being hit by KRC...). It is kinda funny in a few decks here and there (mostly really sketchy ones that also use Anarch Feind of Mine tech), but in a combat deck, it generally just gums up the works and doesn't really save you from someone bleeding you for 5. If I'm gonna have reaction cards, really, Deflection is kinda the best option. [ quoted text not captured ]

> My experience is that Touch of Pain is kind of awful in most > situations--it costs a blood, you need to be untapped/have a Wake, and > you need to be being bled in the first place (or being hit by KRC...). You don't need to be getting hit by any vote. It's just as long as the vote is successful. Touch of Pain Reaction, 1 blood Only usable when a bleed against you is successful or a referendum passes. Play after resolution. [pot] This vampire inflicts one damage on the acting minion. Only one Touch of Pain can be played each action. [POT] As above, but for 2 damage. So the vote can be across table, and do nothing to you, and you can still ToP them. And I've found the blood cost negligible since I can taste it back generally. I have killed Arika before with this module. She bled, I ToP her, she freak drived and then Voted, I ToP her and then Retributed her into torpor and diablerized her. All when the opposing deck was packing plenty of Majesty + Skin of Steel. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1192058881.6...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com... > You know, since Touch of Pain has come out, I find that with my POT > combat decks that there has been less of a neccessity in rushing > backwards. Sure I've still done it, but not so much anymore. I've > also found that this then allows me to play less rush, more bleed. > Have you tried Touch of Pain against Imbued? Have you? > A ToP + Wake + > Retribution module in a Potence deck will murder an Imbued Predator > and you never have to rush them, That seems pretty counterintuitive to me. So you incapacitate an Imbued once in a while, so what? By the time Imbued are bleeding you, they should be in good shape to sustain a bit of damage. If you can stop a Darby Dance by predicting the last bleed in the chain for the turn and then turn around and pillowface the Imbued with the equipment, that could be truly helpful, I suppose. But for the most part, I wouldn't think you could do this enough to make a difference. Holding wakes and ToPs in a rush hand is bad for rushing, the central theme of the deck. And Retribution can be used only once, hence it's probably a hard argument to suggest more than one Retribution be included. And, unlike traditional S&B which rears back and begins bleeding from the first turn, Imbued will spend a bunch of the early game gearing up, during which these are basically dead cards. It's an interesting idea but I have a feeling it works a lot better on midcap Malkavian antitribu and such than it does on Imbued. Fred

> > Have you tried Touch of Pain against Imbued? > > Have you? No, but I have had it used against me when playing Imbued, and man did it suck. Whenever I've used this module I've been xtable or predator to Imbued, or they've not been on the table. But having been on the receiving end of ToP with Imbued I can tell you that it really hurts, because no combat defense can stop it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1192062159.2...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I'll grant you that. But that doesn't strike me as all the harmful, at least not for the Imbued decks I've played against. I imagine they'd just slow down their offense a bit and recover the incapacitated hunter fairly quickly, especially if Jennie Orne was ready. What was it you found so painful about it? Did your opponents manage to pillowface the victim in most cases? Did they hit just one or your minions? Two? Several? Fred

> I'll grant you that. But that doesn't strike me as all the harmful, > at least not for the Imbued decks I've played against. I imagine > they'd just slow down their offense a bit and recover the incapacitated > hunter fairly quickly, especially if Jennie Orne was ready. What was it > you found so painful about it? Did your opponents manage to pillowface > the victim in most cases? Did they hit just one or your minions? Two? > Several? Pillowfacing did occur on a couple occassions. It basically meant that I had to take a couple turns between bleeds to use Vagabond Mystic and Rejuvenate to recoup blood lost. Because even coming out of incapacitated with 1 blood and less convictions meant that I couldn't realiably attempt to bleed and survive against even a pot guy. The fact that Imbued only need to reach 0 life to go incapacitated is what can make ToP really effective against them. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1192060950....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You don't need to be getting hit by any vote. It's just as long as > the vote is successful. No, no. I know what the card does. It is just that if your predator is passing votes, they are probably killing you with them. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1192065251.8...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > Pillowfacing did occur on a couple occassions. It basically meant > that I had to take a couple turns between bleeds to use Vagabond > Mystic and Rejuvenate to recoup blood lost. Because even coming out > of incapacitated with 1 blood and less convictions meant that I > couldn't realiably attempt to bleed and survive against even a pot > guy. The fact that Imbued only need to reach 0 life to go > incapacitated is what can make ToP really effective against them. Well, of course, everything looks different when you're the victim of the bleed defense vs. being the victim of the bleeding. But I'll have to confess, from what you said above, it seems like the ToP/ Retribution thing to most of the Imbued positions I've seen played would be in, "Ouch-I-hit-a-speed-bump" territory. Not "man-did-that- suck!" And the problem with Imbued, for the most part, isn't how to stop them from ousting you. Unless you can be successful at getting them early, as Peter says, they'll oust you sooner or later. It may not be fast or pretty but they'll get you eventually. So a bleed defense that slows them down even slower than they already are doesn't really impress me. The problem is that even if you hold them off, sooner or later you will have to try to oust them. And that's the piece that's almost impossible. It's like, the best you can expect at that point is a timeout. Fred

> And the problem with Imbued, for the most part, isn't how to stop > them from ousting you. Unless you can be successful at getting > them early, as Peter says, they'll oust you sooner or later. It > may not be fast or pretty but they'll get you eventually. So a > bleed defense that slows them down even slower than they already > are doesn't really impress me. The problem is that even if you > hold them off, sooner or later you will have to try to oust them. > And that's the piece that's almost impossible. It's like, the > best you can expect at that point is a timeout. Slowing them down has advantages. 1. It can slow them down enough so that you can keep ahead of them and take your prey or 2 prey. 2. It can mean that they are forced to go more defensive to stop themselves being ousted which can be a goto 1 Does Delaying Tactics stop Arika from burning your Lambach with a PTO? Nope, just slows her down, you know she'll get him in the end. But people still play it. Because that extra round or 2 grace can make all the difference. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1192068860.9...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > Slowing (the Imbued) down has advantages. > 1. It can slow them down enough so that you can keep ahead of them and > take your prey or 2 prey. Yea, sometimes that works. If you're the prey in a 5 player game, you can get 3 VP and I've almost seen that happen once or twice. But, really, a position that can expect no less than 2 VP is REALLY strong position even if it doesn't always get the game win. Not that I'm saying they can't be beat. But it gets down to, "beat them early or don't beat them at all, early". And slowing down their bleed helps not a whit in this sense. > 2. It can mean that they are forced to go more defensive to stop > themselves being ousted which can be a goto 1 Sure. But...same answer as 1. > Does Delaying Tactics stop Arika from burning your Lambach with a > PTO? Nope, just slows her down, you know she'll get him in the end. > But people still play it. Because that extra round or 2 grace can > make all the difference. There are SO many problems with that analogy it's not worth discussing. For crying out loud, analogous situations have to have SOMETHING in common with one another besides the words "slow" and "down". :-P Hint: It's the day of your execution. What's the difference between having your death sentence delayed for 24 hours and having the COMMUTATION of your death sentence delayed for 24 hours. I mean, gee, they're both 'delays', right? They must be equivalent. Fred

> There are SO many problems with that analogy it's not worth > discussing. For crying out loud, analogous situations have to > have SOMETHING in common with one another besides the words > "slow" and "down". :-P It's a perfectly reasonable analogy. It shows the play that can be undertaken to stop something bad happening for a turn or two, (maybe getting ousted, maybe getting your main vamp burned which could very easily lead to ousting). Therefore it is the same rationale as playing ToP to slow your predator down. What is bleed reduction, but something to slow your predator down? If you rush backwards are you trying to slow your pred down or actively trying to oust backwards? If it is the latter, then you'd be faming backwards as well as rushing. > Hint: It's the day of your execution. What's the difference between > having your death sentence delayed for 24 hours and having the > COMMUTATION of your death sentence delayed for 24 hours. I mean, > gee, they're both 'delays', right? They must be equivalent. Slightly different in that the outcomes are a) still bad b) not near as bad. But you do make a point in that delays can be different. However delays in VTES that stop bad thing X from hitting you can really be similar and used in comparison. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 10, 2:43 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Round about the time Jyhad was released? Some still complain about > Rotschreck decks. (I saw a post on this newsgroup within the last 2 > days of people talking about this very issue). No offense to the person who started that thread, but s/he didn't even know what *cards* beat Rotschreck, let alone what strategies and tactics do so. IE, we're talking about a relative newb here. Remember when Ector demanded that Rotschreck be errata'd? Remember the response from people with lots of experience with aggpoke's strengths and weaknesses? > I'm not saying it was tier 1, but it did have a reasonable chance, if > built very well (around tier 2). In a recent tournament around here, a > Tzimisce weenie sneak-bleeder did very well with just agg damage pokes > and rotschrecks as it's combat defense (and funnily enough, it was > stopped dead as soon as it hit the imbued in the finals). While not an > agg combat deck, it definitely shows that agg is very useful in > combat. "Combat defense"/"useful in combat" =/= "a viable way to win a tourney." The deck you mention was a weenie bleeder, not an aggpoke rush deck. The aggpoke was incidental; the deck's success came from weenie bleed. > As for aggressive combat decks, I've seen Hektor decks still do very > well recently, and I've seen a Karsh multi-rush deck, which I'm sure > could do very well if it gets some tuning. Both of those guys have POT. I'm assuming that they were using it. That means those decks are no longer "aggpoke" by any useful definition of the term. > Pre-imbued, we had some > powerful Tzimisce & Tremere wall combat decks which used agg very > effectively. I'd still say these decks would be quite effective in a > tournament without the Imbued around, and I certainly wouldn't be > shocked to find out that one won in these conditions. Sure. But those decks do well because they're wall decks, not because they're aggpoke decks. > As I said, maybe not tier 1, cos it ain't no Ventrue Obfuscate, or > Malk 94 S&B deck, but it's still powerful enough to expect a final > table seating with it, generally (in a 15 player tournament). It's silly to expect a final seating with any deck, if you take the person playing the deck out of the equation. That being said, I've seen plenty of aggpoke walls and aggpoke rush decks fail to make the finals, even in tournaments smaller than 15 people. John Eno

On Oct 11, 11:25 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2:43 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > [snip] > Remember when Ector demanded that Rotschreck be errata'd? Remember the > response from people with lots of experience with aggpoke's strengths > and weaknesses? I didn't say Rotschreck was incredibly uber-powerful that it needed to be errated. I made the much smaller claim that it was a valid and reasonable strategy for winning a tournament, along with some other agg damage decks. [snip] > The deck you mention was a weenie bleeder, not an aggpoke rush deck. > The aggpoke was incidental; the deck's success came from weenie bleed. Which is why I mentioned other decks, but I brought up this deck to show that the agg damage combat module in other decks would be affected too; i.e. the problem is bigger than only agg damage combat decks - all decks that use an agg damage combat get that aspect completely neutered by the imbued. In this case of the weenie bleed, it's defense package for combat was completely neutralised. I'd say this is a pretty valid argument given that the deck would've very likely won, were it not for the Imbued decks on the table, and a large part of that win would be because of it's agg damage combat module - in other words the decks success would also be attributable to it's agg damage capability. > > > As for aggressive combat decks, I've seen Hektor decks still do very > > well recently, and I've seen a Karsh multi-rush deck, which I'm sure > > could do very well if it gets some tuning. > > Both of those guys have POT. I'm assuming that they were using it. > That means those decks are no longer "aggpoke" by any useful > definition of the term. The argument was not restricted to agg-poke. My statement was that aggravated combat decks were a viable way to win a tournament pre- imbued. Even so, I'd still worry if I was playing vampires and the person was capable of blurring and doing multiple agg pokes, like Nizzam (even without Khabar's) or Samantha, or Toreador's with Flamethrowers, Ivory Bows, etc. For example, Nizzam with a contract on one of your vamps who has a fame on them is pretty threatening to just about any deck, even fortitude ones, because Nizzam can just Psyche his way through all your combat ends and prevention until he lands a successful blow (in most cases anyway). > > Pre-imbued, we had some > > powerful Tzimisce & Tremere wall combat decks which used agg very > > effectively. I'd still say these decks would be quite effective in a > > tournament without the Imbued around, and I certainly wouldn't be > > shocked to find out that one won in these conditions. > > Sure. But those decks do well because they're wall decks, not because > they're aggpoke decks. Yes, they are wall decks, but they are combat wall decks that use agg poke. They are not successful if they do not have agg poke. Agg poke is a method of delivering the payload. Agg poke, in itself, is not an ousting method, it's a way of getting your ousting method to work. Before imbued, getting your actions right via threatening agg damage was a valid way of winning. With the Imbued around, I no longer bother, as the odds and risks of facing them are too great. You are arguing against me by pointing at the payload, not at the method of delivery. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying the 'agg damage' method of delivery was a valid one - and I specifically mention it in respects with combat style decks (i.e. decks that use fame/tension et al. to oust) - although I then extended it to bruise-bleed and bruise- vote decks that have consistent agg damage (such as the weenie Tzimisce example). > [snip] > It's silly to expect a final seating with any deck, if you take the > person playing the deck out of the equation. That being said, I've > seen plenty of aggpoke walls and aggpoke rush decks fail to make the > finals, even in tournaments smaller than 15 people. Depends what you mean by expect. I don't mean it in the sense you seem to be taking it, which is the very extreme sense of absolutely being shocked if it isn't in the final table. I mean 'expect' in the sense that I'd have given them better than even odds of getting into the final table, given a completely randomised set of decks. I believe that to be a more sensible understanding of expect without going to extremes. Of course there are always other factors that come into play. I'd be idiotic not to consider them, however, we are looking purely at deck strength, and in the hands of a skilled player, aggravated damage combat decks were a valid way of winning a tournament - a better than even chance if built right (hence the skilled player part) and in a tournament with a spread of different decks of varied strengths and capabilities.

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1192071946.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> There are SO many problems with that analogy it's not worth >> discussing. For crying out loud, analogous situations have to >> have SOMETHING in common with one another besides the words >> "slow" and "down". :-P > > It's a perfectly reasonable analogy. It shows the play that can be > undertaken to stop something bad happening for a turn or two, (maybe > getting ousted, maybe getting your main vamp burned which could very > easily lead to ousting). It shows that - but that's not what happens against an Imbued opponent. So it doesn't matter. Cripes! Some people think if two situations demonstrate one conceptual similarity, they can therefore make a valid analagous comparisons never-mind-that-in-reality-the-comparison-is- TOTALLY-RIDICULOUS!!! If you could do something against the Imbued in the one turn of respite you got from slowing them down, you might begin to have a point. But the whole problem with Imbued is exactly what Peter said it was: if you don't get them early, they breed like cockroaches. So one turn of respite against them is totally pointless - absolutely unlike your analogy, where an intercept god can change the whole game merely by untapping. Bleh. 'nuff said... Fred