Broken Cards & Fix Suggestions

Greetings all. In response to recent debate about broken cards, I am posting a list of cards I think are broken, or overpowered in some way, along with some suggested fixes. Card Suggested Fix ----------------------------- Day Operation Allies may still block Zip Gun Cannot use ammo Tomb of Rameses III You may not transfer off the vampire with ToR Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp Majesty (etc.) S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press Return to Innocence Requires vamp at capacity ----------------------------- Please suggest other cards to add, or alternate fixes. I'm not sure Mind Rape and Kiss of Ra are busted, and need some more convincing. I suspect that RTI is the main reason Mind Rape is so powerful. Otherwise, it is hard to burn one's own vampires. In suggesting fixes, I have attempted to follow the following rules. 1) -- Fixes should be brief, using few words. If the fix is significantly longer and harder to remember than "This card is banned", then I feel that banning the card would be a better solution. 2) -- Fixes should not severely hamper the card's power. Some suggested fixes tend to turn a card into wallpaper, in which case one it would be simpler to say "This card is banned". There are other reasons for preferring mild fixes. One is that the problem with fixes is getting a consensus. A mild fix is more likely to gain the acquiescence of players who just mailed away $30.00 for two copies of RTI. Another advantage of mild fixes is that one can play them as house rules without too severely altering the metagame. One is still forced to find a way to deal with these powerful cards, and are not completely helpless when you encounter them in tournament play. A final reason for mild fixes is that they are more likely to gain the acquiescence of WOTC as far as making them official. Like it or not, the overpowered nature of these cards has created a demand for them, from which WOTC may have reaped some profit. Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

Lupus Australius wrote: "Day Operation Allies may still block" This is good. Would make allies more useful. Day Opps isn't all _that_ bad, however, unless it is used for RTI... "Zip Gun Cannot use ammo" Excellent. "Tomb of Rameses III You may not transfer off the vampire with ToR" Won't fix it that much, as you still can get out 2 IC members in 3 turns for 14 pool (and then Minion Tap them...). Our local group uses a very protracted fix involving spending transfers to use the Tomb, but I am for simply banning it, m'self. "Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood" I prefer to give it the template used by Disarm (the obviosly fixed version of PF included in Sabbat). Instead of doing aggro damage, PF should just say "Go directly to torpor, do not pass go", just like Disarm. PF could not ever burn a vamp in the original set, and it shouldn't be able to now. "Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp" Handy, but I still find the whole concept of the card offensive (i.e. not being able to play the game). Our group uses it as "Opposing minion may not make any strikes this round". "Majesty (etc.)S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press" No need to fix. S:CE is an important defense, and there are enough perfectly viable ways to screw with it as it is (Immortal Grapple, Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Dawn Opps+DotB, the ever sketchy Dog Pack, the dispicable TB). If you are building a deck that cares if its opponent plays S:CE, you can easily prevent it (well, unless you are the Gangrel...). If your deck doesn't care if they play S:CE, it just jams up their hand. "Return to Innocence Requires vamp at capacity" Completely unfixable. Requiring the vamp to be at full capacity is a bit of a help, but that still means that the vamp who plays it will oust you in one action. On any given turn I minion tap my IC member for 10, have someone else play 5th Tradition on them, send them on RTI, play Dawn Opps, and kill you unless you have a deflection in your hand, still. I think that RTI was a misguided attempt to make it worth playing with big vampires, but all it managed to do was screw up the play enviornment pretty severely. Some cards we don't like around here are: Banishment: Only useable on a younger vampire. Mind Rape: Just wrong. We banned the sucker. In the original game design, it was incredibly difficult to steal away someone elses vampire. You had a few pool extensive master cards that were very iffy and required a bidding to occur, Grave Robbing, which required the victim to be in torpor (and it wasn't that easy for a deck with heavy DOM to put someone in torpor at that time), and Malk Dementia, which is _highly_ situational. Mind Rape, however, is completely free of conditionality and just too damn easy. It will be used to steal a vamp and either RTI him or deablerize someone (or Golconda him or give him up for the Antedeluvian Awakenings..). It was a mistake in the making. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "They come at night. Mostly." -Newt

Card Suggested Fix ----------------------------- Day Operation Allies may still block I like this one! I mean I am hapy with the card the way it is, since Gangrel is my clan of choice, but this would ,make it more fair. Zip Gun Cannot use ammo Than this card sucks. What is the point? I manuver to long range, we each take one. Useless! Tomb of RamesesIII You may not transfer off the vampire with ToR I don't see it as neccessary, but OK, doesn't change the spirit of the card. Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood No, that slows down combat decks too much. Maybe limit them to one per Vampire. after all they only have one set of fangs. Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp Combat decks have enugh problems. They can tear into people, but never enough to win a game. People often get too attached to theirvampires, and lok for ways to save them. This card is extremely powerful, but only by decks that can not otherwise win. Majesty (etc.) S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press What about Earthmeld, more powerful than Majesty, but always over-looked. Any serious combat deck can whoop a S:CE deck. My gangrel deck relies on S:CE to kill vampires. That's also why they made Thoughts Betrayed. i do like the idea of S:Round ends though. Maybe in a future expansion, if that ever happens. Return to Innocence Requires vamp at capacity I don't think this is neccesary at all, (see other post for reasoning), but instead try bleed at pluse x where x is amount of blood on vampire. Similar idea to yours, but not as limiting. Just my two cents. Well maybe I put in three, Jason

On 7 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > Lupus Australius wrote: > "Day Operation Allies may still block" > This is good. Would make allies more useful. Day Opps isn't all _that_ > bad, however, unless it is used for RTI... I don't like "unblockability" in general. Too absolute. I would prefer that blockability normally be expressed in terms of stealth and intercept. An example might be: Daylight Operations -- 1 blood -- fortitude - action modifier Usable as the action is announced. Vampires without fortitude have -6 intercept when attempting to block this action. The acting vampire, and any vampire that attempts to block, will enter torpor when the action resolves. (S) As above, but vampires with inferior Fortitude have -3 intercept. That's how I might have done it. It is, however, a new card design, and not a fix. > "Tomb of Rameses III You may not transfer off the vampire with ToR" > Won't fix it that much, as you still can get out 2 IC members in 3 turns > for 14 pool (and then Minion Tap them...). Our local group uses a very > protracted fix involving spending transfers to use the Tomb, but I am > for simply banning it, m'self. You may be right. A fix I previously recommended was as follows: Counters are placed on the Tomb, not the vampire. Each counts towards the blood needed to enter play. [Needless to say, the counters are burned with the Tomb, and the vampire comes out at less than full capacity.] This may be too wordy, and perhaps violates my rule #1. Lets see if I can express it in one line Tomb of Rameses III Counters go on Tomb--each gives vamp -1 capacity > "Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood" > I prefer to give it the template used by Disarm (the obviosly fixed > version of PF included in Sabbat). Are you advocating we ban it and use Disarm instead? Or that we use PF as a proxy for Disarm? > Instead of doing aggro damage, PF > should just say "Go directly to torpor, do not pass go", just like > Disarm. PF could not ever burn a vamp in the original set, and it > shouldn't be able to now. My fix causes it to work the same as in the original set, with the difference that one loses a blood if one has it for the ag damage. Under original ag rules, it took two ag to burn a vamp with 0 blood. My fix will cause it to work exactly that way as far as burning is concerned. It will also fix other agro cards like DBR, Sengir Dagger, Ivory Bow, Wolf Claws, etc., making vampires far more difficult to burn and restoring diablerie and the bloodhunt to their proper place in the game. We need not return to the original ag rules, since they were judged too confusing. Just rule that you need 2 more ag than a vampire has blood to burn him. I'm not sure if PF *could* burn a vampire under the original rules. If I wolf claw and empty vamp for 1 damage, and then play PF as the round ends, would this burn him? If I played 2 PF on an empty vamp would this burn him? LSJ? I guess it depends on how you time the resolution of the various ag damage cards, but it should work the same with my fix. > "Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp" > Handy, but I still find the whole concept of the card offensive (i.e. > not being able to play the game). Our group uses it as "Opposing minion > may not make any strikes this round". Again, I would have designed a different card. Something like: "Name any card--opposing minion may not play that card in the resulting combat. (S) As above, but name any two cards." Idea is to punish opponent for predictability. But that is of course, a totally different card design, and not a fix. I would suggest that, yours, while short and simple, is not a fix either. The concept is completely different. The official TB allows strikes, but forbids cards. Yours does the reverse (allows cards, but forbids strikes). It's not so much a fix as it is a different card. You might as well ban it if you're going to mess with it that much... or design your own card and use "Concealed Weapon" as a proxy. > "Majesty (etc.)S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press" > No need to fix. S:CE is an important defense, and there are enough > perfectly viable ways to screw with it as it is (Immortal Grapple, > Psyche, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, Dawn Opps+DotB, the ever sketchy > Dog Pack, the dispicable TB). If you are building a deck that cares if > its opponent plays S:CE, you can easily prevent it (well, unless you are > the Gangrel...). If your deck doesn't care if they play S:CE, it just > jams up their hand. I expected an argument on this one. S:CE is now such an accepted part of the game that it's extremely profound effects on the game environment are now accepted as natural. One of these effects was to turn (almost) all press cards into wallpaper. Another was to make combat unfeasable for those without multiple copies of a handful of uncommons and rares. Even if S:CE only ended the round, it would still a far superior to other combat defenses like Dodge. Dodge only prevents damage from one strike, whereas S:CE also prevents additional strikes, retainer damage, and almost all damage that can be inflicted on a vampire in combat. The only advantage to a Dodge is that the dodger has the option of playing additional strikes if he wishes, or still damaging opponent with own retainers and environmental effects, etc. The two cards should not have been so enormously different in power. Both require discipines and usually cost 0 blood to play. There is, I admit, a disciplineless version of "dodge", but it has a built-in disadvantage (do not replace after combat) to make up for the lack of a discipline. > "Return to Innocence Requires vamp at capacity" > Completely unfixable. Requiring the vamp to be at full capacity is a > bit of a help, but that still means that the vamp who plays it will oust > you in one action. On any given turn I minion tap my IC member for 10, > have someone else play 5th Tradition on them, send them on RTI, play > Dawn Opps, and kill you unless you have a deflection in your hand, > still. I think that RTI was a misguided attempt to make it worth > playing with big vampires, but all it managed to do was screw up the > play enviornment pretty severely. I tend to agree that the card is wack. It is broken in combination with so many other cards, such as Day Op, Temptation, Mind Rape, etc. I certainly would not miss it if it were banned. Still this fix does cause the person playing it a little more trouble. If your opponent keeps doing mean things to you, even something as simple as Cryptic Mission, it can be hard to play RTI. Doing RTI with Tempted, Mind-Raped, or Malk-Demented vampires becomes more problematic when one must make sure they are at full capacity first. I should mention, though, that I once stealth-bled for 10 without RTI. Queen Anne was the culprit. If I'd had Command of the Beast, I could have done 11. > Some cards we don't like around here are: > > Banishment: Only useable on a younger vampire. Has it actually been a problem in your playgroup, or is it just the concept you don't like. > Mind Rape: Just wrong. We banned the sucker. In the original game > design, it was incredibly difficult to steal away someone elses vampire. > You had a few pool extensive master cards that were very iffy and > required a bidding to occur, Grave Robbing, which required the victim to > be in torpor (and it wasn't that easy for a deck with heavy DOM to put > someone in torpor at that time), and Malk Dementia, which is _highly_ > situational. Mind Rape, however, is completely free of conditionality > and just too damn easy. It will be used to steal a vamp and either RTI > him or deablerize someone (or Golconda him or give him up for the > Antedeluvian Awakenings..). It was a mistake in the making. Hmmm. I do see the vampire-burning combo's as problematic, but otherwise the card does would seem so overpowered to me. Let me make a few points. - You only get to take one or possibly two actions with this vamp, and only one master phase to do things to him. - If the vamp is tapped when you take control of him, then you can take only one action before returning him. If he is untapped, then he can block you, and your action is not at stealth. - You cannot use Dominate-based stealth, like bonding, because this is not a bleed. - I agree that Mind Rape has advantages over Grave Robbing. But Grave Robbing effects older vampires, costs 0 blood, and gets you the vampire permanently -- and the vampire you are trying to steal cannot block you. Compare also to Far Mastery. It only costs 1 blood, is at +1 stealth, and has the potential to get you a valuable minion -- permanently. - The Golconda combo is problematic. To Mind Rape a vamp with capacity 8, you need a vampire with capacity 9 or more -- and how will you know that your opponent will be playing 8 capacity vampires? Then you have to make sure the Golconda is in your hand next master phase. - For the RTI combo, blame RTI, not Mind Rape. Either ban RTI or use my fix, which should make playing it with stolen vampires slightly more problematic. You might have to play Gird Minions on him first, or restore him with 5th tradition. I hadn't thought of the Antidiluvian Awakening combo. I agree that something needs to be done about this. The intent of the card -- allowing one to use another Methuselah's vampire temporarily -- should remain while its potential for abuse by destroying vampires permanently should be minimized or eliminated. The easiest way to destroy a stolen vampire, or indeed, any vampire, should be self-torporizing followed by diablerie, risking the bloodhunt vote as usual. Cards that burn vampires, even one's own vampires, are problematic. I would rather see cards that burn vampires banned or modified than Malk Dem, Temptation, or Mind Rape, since I feel the former add rather less to the game atmosphere. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Mar 1998, SirTemple wrote: > Zip Gun Cannot use ammo > > Than this card sucks. What is the point? I manuver to long range, we each > take one. Useless! Not if you're trying to avoid someone with potence and an IG in his hand. I use this card for combat defence all the time, and I have never used an ammo card on it. It costs very little to put in your deck, since you can get it out of your hand in any combat, and don't have to use it if you don't want to. Works good with Hell Hounds too. :) The damage to yourself can be prevented (flak jacket, sideslip, or whatever), and applies only once per combat. If you have more maneuvers in your hand you can press and continue to use it. You can also play additional strikes. Admittedly, its not an awesome card, but should it be? It does not even cost an an action to bring out. Why would anyone waste an action and a pool bringing out a Saturday Night Special, with this card in the game. > Tomb of RamesesIII You may not transfer off the vampire with ToR > > I don't see it as neccessary, but OK, doesn't change the spirit of the > card. Actually, I tend to agree more with those who feel I haven't gone far enough. > Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood > > No, that slows down combat decks too much. Maybe limit them to one per > Vampire. after all they only have one set of fangs. What really slows down combat decks is all the effort they have to put into dealing with S:CE. I tried to address that below. Diablerie and the risk of the bloodhunt vote were intended to be important parts of the game. Burning a vamp without this risk was unlikely or very costly. "Vulnerability" cost a master phase action and 2 pool. With the new Agro damage rules, cards like Amaranth have become wallpaper. Why would anyone take the risk, when potence and pulled fangs, or ZipGun/DBR, will do the trick with such ease? > Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp > > Combat decks have enugh problems. They can tear into people, but never enough > to win a game. People often get too attached to theirvampires, and lok for > ways to save them. This card is extremely powerful, but only by decks that > can not otherwise win. > Majesty (etc.) S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press > > What about Earthmeld, more powerful than Majesty, Note the "etc.". What do you think it refers to? I had in mind a revision of the concept of S:CE that would effect all S:CE cards. In the resulting card environment, presses would cease to be wallpaper. In a heavy press environment, weapons would cease to be wallpaper, as their benefits could be applied multiple times per combat. Cards only usable in the second round would cease to be wallpaper. Ranged damage decks might become feasible, through not having to rely on IG. Tremere would not need disgusting cards like TB to have a chance in combat. > but always over-looked. Any serious combat deck can whoop a S:CE deck. I thought you just complained that combat was underpowered, in protest of my suggested revision to agro damage rules. > My gangrel deck relies on S:CE to kill vampires. That's also why they > made Thoughts Betrayed. i do like the idea of S:Round ends though. > Maybe in a future expansion, if that ever happens. Perhaps, but that won't fix the excessive effect on the game environment that S:CE already has. > Return to Innocence Requires vamp at capacity > > I don't think this is neccesary at all, (see other post for reasoning), > but instead try bleed at pluse x where x is amount of blood on vampire. > Similar idea to yours, but not as limiting. This does not interfere at all with broken RTI combos such as MindRape/RTI, Temptation/RTI, or MalkDementia/RTI. Even mine may not intefere with it enough, but it at least requires you go to the trouble of making sure your temporarily stolen vampires are at full capacity. I would rather place the blame on RTI than the latter cards, which I feel add more to the game atmosphere. I am more of Peter's opinion that it might be better to ban the card. It is involved in too many broken combos (DayOp/RTI). I should note that a full capacity requirement would only applies when you play the card. You could still add Conditioning and Horrific Countenance /Day Operation, and the action would still resolve normally. Perhaps I should change it to "Cost x, where x is vampires capacity." That way, the card would fizzle if you played any modifiers that cost blood. [ quoted text not captured ]

Greetings all. Here'a a revised list of broken cards, with some suggested fixes. See below for some commentary. Card Suggested Fix ----------------------------- Day Operation Allies may still block Zip Gun Cannot use ammo Tomb of Rameses III Counters go on Tomb but count as influence Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp Majesty,Earthmeld,etc. S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press Return to Innocence Blood cost = Capacity of acting Vamp Antidiluvian Awakening Read 2nd sentence as "Any other Methuselah..." ----------------------------- Please suggest other cards to add, or alternate fixes. Peter suggested "Banishment". I need some more convincing on this one. It can be outvoted, and has minimal effect on vampires at full capacity, who will just come out at next influence phase. Meanwhile they are completely safe from attack. Is it really more effective than KRCG? I do see it as being more effective against big vampires, but then again, big vampires have votes, don't they? I'm not sure Mind Rape is busted on it's own. Antidiluvian Awakening is there because of the MindRape/Antidiluvian combo, which Peter pointed out to me (though he puts the blame on Mind Rape). I think the RTI/Mind Rape combo is suitably handled by the RTI fix. Note that the current fix for RTI causes it to fizzle if any action modifiers are played that cost blood. This prevents Conditioning, Day Op, Horrific Countenance, etc. My RTI fix is extremely limitting, and probably violates my rule #2 below. I think it is necessary because of the potential for Mind Rape combos however. Perhaps t'would be better to ban it. Perhaps I should eliminate the "S:CE" fix as too controversial to gain a consensus, since it has been part of the game for so long. I really feel though, that this is how it should have been. In suggesting fixes, I have attempted to follow the following rules. 1) -- Fixes should be brief, using few words. If the fix is significantly longer and harder to remember than "This card is banned", then I feel that banning the card would be a better solution. 2) -- Fixes should not severely hamper the card's power. Some suggested fixes tend to turn a card into wallpaper, in which case one it would be simpler to say "This card is banned". There are other reasons for preferring mild fixes. One is that the problem with fixes is getting a consensus. A mild fix is more likely to gain the acquiescence of players who just mailed away $30.00 for two copies of RTI. Another advantage of mild fixes is that one can play them as house rules without too severely altering the metagame. One is still forced to find a way to deal with these powerful cards, and are not completely helpless when you encounter them in tournament play. A final reason for mild fixes is that they are more likely to gain the acquiescence of WOTC as far as making them official. Like it or not, the overpowered nature of these cards has created a demand for them, from which WOTC may have reaped some profit. Lupus Australis [ quoted text not captured ]

(this is part one of an immense response) Lupus Australius wrote: (Dawn Opps) "I don't like "unblockability" in general. Too absolute. I would prefer that blockability normally be expressed in terms of stealth and intercept." A fine point that I pretty much agree with. The card design you proposed is a good one, if a bit wordy. (Tomb) "You may be right. A fix I previously recommended was as follows: Counters are placed on the Tomb, not the vampire. Each counts towards the blood needed to enter play. [Needless to say, the counters are burned with the Tomb, and the vampire comes out at less than full capacity.] This may be too wordy, and perhaps violates my rule #1." The biggest problem I see with the Tomb as a card is that it is insanely powerful, yet has _zero_ risk or disadvantage in its use. You play it and immediately get back the 3 pool you spent on it, plus a profit of one pool, and 4 free transfers. If it survives another turn, you get even more. I always was an advocate of some sort of mechanic that made it not work the turn it comes out (maybe needing it to be tapped?), so there is a turn where it could be blown up or stolen before it pays for itself. As it is, unless someone Sudden Reversals it (and then you aren't required to pay for it anyway), it always pays for itself and gives a definite bonus, even if it is killed on your preys turn (the one pool and the 4 transfers). (Pulled Fangs) "Are you advocating we ban it and use Disarm instead? Or that we use PF as a proxy for Disarm?" No, I am advocating that the line on PF that says "Pulled Fangs inflicts 1 aggrivated damage," be replaced with the line "Put this card on the opposing vampire and send that vampire into torpor.", just like on Disarm. The two cards have different effects, and PF is disciplineless, so anyone can use it. I just think it should not do aggrivated damage, just like Disarm. "My fix causes it to work the same as in the original set, with the difference that one loses a blood if one has it for the ag damage." But then you are screwing with the rules of the game rather than the wording on a single card. A bit stickier. For whatever reason, the designers thought that the original aggro rules were too difficult to understand, so they changed them. Sadly, PF became broken as a result. Just changing the wording on PF to reflect the wording on Disarm fixes the problem. "It will also fix other agro cards like DBR, Sengir Dagger, Ivory Bow, Wolf Claws, etc., making vampires far more difficult to burn and restoring diablerie and the bloodhunt to their proper place in the game." The aggro rules aren't that bad in general (IMO), as it is real difficult to land a burning aggro strke on someone with hand strikes and weapons. PF, on the other hand, is incredibly potent (ahem...) when used by a Potence deck that IGs you, hits you for 5 sending you to torpor anyway, and then plays PF, burning you. "We need not return to the original ag rules, since they were judged too confusing. Just rule that you need 2 more ag than a vampire has blood to burn him." That is just as confusing (or not confusing as the case may be) as the original rules were. "I'm not sure if PF *could* burn a vampire under the original rules." Nope. In each application of Aggro damage, the first point did no actual damage, it just sent you to torpor. (Thoughts Betrayed) "I would suggest that, yours, while short and simple, is not a fix either." Completely true. I don't think there really is a good way to fix the card and leave it useful, while keeping it from being broken. The very concept--not being able to play _any_ cards, the basic resource of the game--is faulty. They could have designed any number of cards that had a combat effect similar to TB but using a different mechanic, but they didn't. Your redesign (the pick a card version) is a good one. [ quoted text not captured ]

(Part two of immense post) Lupus Australius wrote: (Return to Innocence) "I tend to agree that the card is wack. It is broken in combination with so many other cards, such as Day Op, Temptation, Mind Rape, etc. I certainly would not miss it if it were banned. Still this fix does cause the person playing it a little more trouble." Completely true, but just like TB, I don't think there is a way to change RTI to keep it useful, but prevent it from being broken. If you increase the cost too much, it becomes useless. If you reduce the benefit, it becomes useless. I say just ban the sucker. "I should mention, though, that I once stealth-bled for 10 without RTI. Queen Anne was the culprit. If I'd had Command of the Beast, I could have done 11." Yah, but it took you lots of cards to do and your prey knew it was coming (her having DOM and all). I can be playing a totally straight rush combat deck with zero bleed or stealth at all, and suddenly have Lucretia go on a RTI at Day, just cause I have the two cards thrown in my deck, and bleed you for 11, completely out of nowhere. [ quoted text not captured ]

(part 3 of an immense post) Lupus Australius wrote: (Banishment) "Has it actually been a problem in your playgroup, or is it just the concept you don't like." Nah. The concept is wrong. It is a single action that is too easy to succeed in that effectively removes a vampire from the game. We don't like those. (Mind Rape) "- You only get to take one or possibly two actions with this vamp, and only one master phase to do things to him." He will always be burned by the end of the time limit. If you are using Mind Rape, you are will be burning the vampire, be it with RTI, Golconda, Antedeluvians, or Diablere. "- If the vamp is tapped when you take control of him, then you can take only one action before returning him. If he is untapped, then he can block you, and your action is not at stealth." If you are the Malkavians, you ooze stealth. If you are the Ventrue, Seduction works just fine. "- I agree that Mind Rape has advantages over Grave Robbing. But Grave Robbing effects older vampires, costs 0 blood, and gets you the vampire permanently -- and the vampire you are trying to steal cannot block you" But Grave Robbing has an extreme conditionality clause--the target needs to be in torpor. The Ventrue and the Malkavians are not well known for their combat ability, so a great deal of the time, GR will either sit in your hand or allow you to steal KoKo. Mind Rape works when _you_ want it to, not when your opponents give you an opportunity. Granted, you can build effective Rush/GR decks (like Philips posted recently, or the Marti Lechtansi based Rush deck I was playing for a while), but those are difficult to build and sketchy in implimentation. "- The Golconda combo is problematic. To Mind Rape a vamp with capacity 8, you need a vampire with capacity 9 or more -- and how will you know that your opponent will be playing 8 capacity vampires? Then you have to make sure the Golconda is in your hand next master phase." You wait till you have both in your hand, pick an 8 on the table (ther is likely to be at least 1) and go to town. Mind Rape is as powerful as it is not mostly because of what it does, but because of its lack of conditonality. It works when you want it to. "I hadn't thought of the Antidiluvian Awakening combo. I agree that something needs to be done about this. The intent of the card -- allowing one to use another Methuselah's vampire temporarily -- should remain while its potential for abuse by destroying vampires permanently should be minimized or eliminated." It is just too easy to burn/remove your own vampire if you build your deck to do so. If nothing else, diablere will work. A Cabbal of Malkavians with Cloak will send the MR'ed vamp to his own firey doom. Add in cards like AA, Golconda, Banishment (Minion Tap the stolen vamp and then Banish him), Sacrificial Lamb, and you can build quite the Mind Rape/Vampire destruction mill. "Cards that burn vampires, even one's own vampires, are problematic. I would rather see cards that burn vampires banned or modified than Malk Dem, Temptation, or Mind Rape, since I feel the former add rather less to the game atmosphere." I couldn't agree more. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australius wrote: (Banishment) "Is it really more effective than KRCG? I do see it as being more effective against big vampires, but then again, big vampires have votes, don't they?" I would say that it is, as it is far more versitle and has a far more profund effect. KRC makes you lose 3 pool. Banishment, for the exact same cost as KRC (a card and having to pass the vote) causes the potential loss of more than 3 pool, the loss of actions from your banished vampire, and the loss of transfers (and time) bringing them back out. "I'm not sure Mind Rape is busted on it's own." You may be correct (although it's lack of conditionality is a real heavy tilt twards the "broken" side in my book), but as the game exists, again, it is just too easy to burn off/lose the Mind Raped vampire before time runs out. To make MR acceptable, you would have to remove RTI, Golconda, Banishment, Antedeluvian Awakening, Millicent Smith, Society of Leopold, Fear of Mekhet, and any other number of cards that are real easy to burn your own vampires with if you want to, not to mention changing the Blood Hunt rules (by saying that a Methuseala may not call a blood hunt on on of his own minions and saying that a vampire may not vote in favor of a blood hunt on himself). If those things were changed, ok, Mind Rape would be fine. Otherwise, it is just too easy to use and too easy to abuse. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: > > (Part two of immense post) > Lupus Australius wrote: > > (Return to Innocence) > "I tend to agree that the card is wack. It is broken in combination with so > many other cards, such as Day Op, Temptation, Mind Rape, etc. I certainly > would not miss it if it were banned. Still this fix does cause the person > playing it a little more trouble." > > Completely true, but just like TB, I don't think there is a way to change RTI > to keep it useful, but prevent it from being broken. If you increase the cost > too much, it becomes useless. If you reduce the benefit, it becomes useless. > I say just ban the sucker. How about making TB "unmodifiable" to help balance it somewhat. Then you can't easily get stealth, make it unblockable, or even boost the bleed further. -Robert rrgo...@earthlink.net

> (Banishment) > "Has it actually been a problem in your playgroup, or is it just the > concept you don't like." > > Nah. The concept is wrong. It is a single action that is too easy to > succeed in that effectively removes a vampire from the game. We don't like > those. > Well, it's powerful, true, but I still disagree that it is that much worse than KRC (or CA in a JOL-sized game). Banishment is much more conditional, requiring large vamps that are low on blood to be a very effective pool drain. And you can't oust a methuselah with Banishment. > (Mind Rape) > "- You only get to take one or possibly two actions with this vamp, and only > one master phase to do things to him." > > He will always be burned by the end of the time limit. If you are using > Mind Rape, you are will be burning the vampire, be it with RTI, Golconda, > Antedeluvians, or Diablere. > I think that Mind Rape is a little over-maligned. If Dominate wasn't such a powerful discipline (bleed, bleed bounce, anti-vote, combat avoidance, minor stealth on bleeds, vampire stealing, etc., etc., etc...), I wouldn't have anything against it. As it is, it just adds another nasty power to an already nasty discipline. > "- If the vamp is tapped when you take control of him, then you can take > only one action before returning him. If he is untapped, then he can block > you, and your action is not at stealth." > > If you are the Malkavians, you ooze stealth. If you are the Ventrue, > Seduction works just fine. > Well, each of those cuts down on the number of ways you have to burn vamps. And if you're not using RtI, you also need bleed so that you can actually oust people. Killing vampires is all fine and good, but it's not going to win the game by itself. Any combo that takes too many actions and too many cards may not be worth the price. Unfortunately, I don't think the Mind Rape/RtI combo is too hard to pull off. But other Mind Rape combos generally are difficult. > "- I agree that Mind Rape has advantages over Grave Robbing. But Grave > Robbing effects older vampires, costs 0 blood, and gets you the vampire > permanently -- and the vampire you are trying to steal cannot block you" > > But Grave Robbing has an extreme conditionality clause--the target needs to > be in torpor. The Ventrue and the Malkavians are not well known for their > combat ability, so a great deal of the time, GR will either sit in your > hand or allow you to steal KoKo. Mind Rape works when _you_ want it to, > not when your opponents give you an opportunity. Granted, you can build > effective Rush/GR decks (like Philips posted recently, or the Marti > Lechtansi based Rush deck I was playing for a while), but those are > difficult to build and sketchy in implimentation. > Well, personally, I'd rather steal a vamp and keep it to use than burn it. As such, I think Graverobbing is a far underrated card. The Ventrue don't have much problem with getting a vamp into torpor, what with the good old Skin of Steel/Pulled Fangs combo. Tremere also aren't known for their problems with putting vamps in torpor. Even Malks can pull out a Disguised Ivory Bow or some such. Of course, the Ventrue are best at this, and they also can Freak Drive for extra actions, Dawn Op or Kiss of Ra to discourage blockers, or Day Op to make the Graverobbing unblockable. And since Skin of Steel/Pulled Fangs are both played after your opponent declares their strike, you're even fairly covered against S:CE. Enough small Ventrue/Anti-Ventrue could get an entire table under their control. > "- The Golconda combo is problematic. To Mind Rape a vamp with capacity 8, > you need a vampire with capacity 9 or more -- and how will you know that > your opponent will be playing 8 capacity vampires? Then you have to make > sure the Golconda is in your hand next master phase." > > You wait till you have both in your hand, pick an 8 on the table (ther is > likely to be at least 1) and go to town. Mind Rape is as powerful as it is > not mostly because of what it does, but because of its lack of > conditonality. It works when you want it to. > This is true. Mind Rape *is* strong, but I still don't think it's quite broken. In most situations, I'd still rather Graverob if I can push it through. > "I hadn't thought of the Antidiluvian Awakening combo. I agree > that something needs to be done about this. The intent of the card -- > allowing one to use another Methuselah's vampire temporarily -- should > remain while its potential for abuse by destroying vampires permanently > should be minimized or eliminated." > > It is just too easy to burn/remove your own vampire if you build your deck > to do so. If nothing else, diablere will work. A Cabbal of Malkavians > with Cloak will send the MR'ed vamp to his own firey doom. Add in cards > like AA, Golconda, Banishment (Minion Tap the stolen vamp and then Banish > him), Sacrificial Lamb, and you can build quite the Mind Rape/Vampire > destruction mill. > > "Cards that burn vampires, even one's own vampires, are problematic. I would > rather see cards that burn vampires banned or modified than Malk Dem, > Temptation, or Mind Rape, since I feel the former add rather less to the > game atmosphere." > > I couldn't agree more. > Sure, burning someone's vampires is nasty, but not as nasty as bleeding them for 12. You can't oust someone by burning their last vampire. I agree that cards that let you burn your own vampires, coupled with Mind Rape/Malk Demetia/Temptation are painful, but I don't see a screaming need for attention. -Chris -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

John Whelan (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : Greetings all. : Here'a a revised list of broken cards, with some suggested fixes. See : below for some commentary. : Card Suggested Fix : ----------------------------- : Day Operation Allies may still block : Zip Gun Cannot use ammo : Tomb of Rameses III Counters go on Tomb but count as influence : Pulled Fangs (etc.) Rule that it takes 2 ag to burn a vamp at 0 blood : Thoughts Betrayed Not usable against older vamp : Majesty,Earthmeld,etc. S:CE now means "S:Round Ends"- one may still press : Return to Innocence Blood cost = Capacity of acting Vamp : Antidiluvian Awakening Read 2nd sentence as "Any other Methuselah..." : ----------------------------- : Please suggest other cards to add, or alternate fixes. I like the changing Strike: Combat Ends to Strike: Round Ends idea, personally. Although it seems to violate your rule 2 - it depowers S:CE rather considerably (which is the point of course, but even so). I could go with all of these, although like Peter I don't think the TB fix goes far enough, since its effect is Just So Wrong. And I also think that changing the agg-damage rule back to the old way is only asking for too much confusion. Josh the rain may become heavy at times

PDB6 (pd...@aol.com) wrote: : (part 3 of an immense post) : Lupus Australius wrote: : (Banishment) : "Has it actually been a problem in your playgroup, or is it just the : concept you don't like." : Nah. The concept is wrong. It is a single action that is too easy to succeed : in that effectively removes a vampire from the game. We don't like those. Actually, it was somewhat a problem in our group. There was a deck one person was playing for a while which was basically weenie presence vote, with lots of Banishments, Kine Resources Contested, etc. The Banishment, while it doesn't directly oust your prey, is pretty heinous. If the vampire is low on blood (even if it's only, say, a 6-cap), you may be effectively prevented from ever getting it out again, due to not being able to afford the pool. Even if the vamp is full, you're denied its use for an entire turn, in which the weenie deck has an easier time doing more things to you, as you have fewer vamps with which to prevent them. It also slows down the Banisher's prey from implementing whatever strategy they're trying to use to win, making it less likely that they'll get another six pool to keep them ahead of the Banisher. In regards to someone else's point about burning (or otherwise removing from the game) someone's vampires not directly ousting them - that's true as far as it goes. But if you actually burn someone's last vamp in play, they are usually pretty much as good as ousted. They won't be able to do *anything* until they influence out another vampire (they can play some master cards, but without vampires those will generally not go far toward saving you). Given that that is likely to take at least a couple turns (one to get the vamp into the uncontrolled region, one to influence it out), the person without vamps is pretty well screwed. Josh always ready to argue : (Mind Rape) : "- You only get to take one or possibly two actions with this vamp, and only : one master phase to do things to him." : He will always be burned by the end of the time limit. If you are using Mind : Rape, you are will be burning the vampire, be it with RTI, Golconda, : Antedeluvians, or Diablere. : "- If the vamp is tapped when you take control of him, then you can take only : one action before returning him. If he is untapped, then he can block you, and : your action is not at stealth." : If you are the Malkavians, you ooze stealth. If you are the Ventrue, Seduction : works just fine. : "- I agree that Mind Rape has advantages over Grave Robbing. But Grave Robbing : effects older vampires, costs 0 blood, and gets you the vampire permanently -- : and the vampire you are trying to steal cannot block you" : But Grave Robbing has an extreme conditionality clause--the target needs to be : in torpor. The Ventrue and the Malkavians are not well known for their combat : ability, so a great deal of the time, GR will either sit in your hand or allow : you to steal KoKo. Mind Rape works when _you_ want it to, not when your : opponents give you an opportunity. Granted, you can build effective Rush/GR : decks (like Philips posted recently, or the Marti Lechtansi based Rush deck I : was playing for a while), but those are difficult to build and sketchy in : implimentation. : "- The Golconda combo is problematic. To Mind Rape a vamp with capacity 8, you : need a vampire with capacity 9 or more -- and how will you know that your : opponent will be playing 8 capacity vampires? Then you have to make sure the : Golconda is in your hand next master phase." : You wait till you have both in your hand, pick an 8 on the table (ther is : likely to be at least 1) and go to town. Mind Rape is as powerful as it is not : mostly because of what it does, but because of its lack of conditonality. It : works when you want it to. : "I hadn't thought of the Antidiluvian Awakening combo. I agree : that something needs to be done about this. The intent of the card -- allowing : one to use another Methuselah's vampire temporarily -- should remain while its : potential for abuse by destroying vampires permanently should be minimized or : eliminated." : It is just too easy to burn/remove your own vampire if you build your deck to : do so. If nothing else, diablere will work. A Cabbal of Malkavians with Cloak : will send the MR'ed vamp to his own firey doom. Add in cards like AA, : Golconda, Banishment (Minion Tap the stolen vamp and then Banish him), : Sacrificial Lamb, and you can build quite the Mind Rape/Vampire destruction : mill. : "Cards that burn vampires, even one's own vampires, are problematic. I would : rather see cards that burn vampires banned or modified than Malk Dem, : Temptation, or Mind Rape, since I feel the former add rather less to the game : atmosphere." : I couldn't agree more. : Peter D Bakija [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <19980307231...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, PDB6 <pd...@aol.com> wrote: >"I hadn't thought of the Antidiluvian Awakening combo. I agree >that something needs to be done about this. The intent of the card -- >allowing >one to use another Methuselah's vampire temporarily -- should remain while its >potential for abuse by destroying vampires permanently should be minimized or >eliminated." > >It is just too easy to burn/remove your own vampire if you build your deck to >do so. If nothing else, diablere will work. A Cabbal of Malkavians with >Cloak >will send the MR'ed vamp to his own firey doom. Add in cards like AA, >Golconda, Banishment (Minion Tap the stolen vamp and then Banish him), >Sacrificial Lamb, and you can build quite the Mind Rape/Vampire destruction >mill. IMHO the only way you can really make this idea work is if when you temporarily take control of the vampire you are either limited to certain actions, or if you pay some sort of penalty if something bad happens to the vampire (Lose pool equal to it's capacity say). -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

Chris Berger wrote: "Well, it's powerful, true, but I still disagree that it is that much worse than KRC (or CA in a JOL-sized game). Banishment is much more conditional, requiring large vamps that are low on blood to be a very effective pool drain. And you can't oust a methuselah with Banishment." True. I don't think Banishment is _that_ out of control, and I think that playing with it only useable on youner vampires makes it pretty much acceptable. (Re: Mind Rape) "Killing vampires is all fine and good, but it's not going to win the game by itself. Any combo that takes too many actions and too many cards may not be worth the price. Unfortunately, I don't think the Mind Rape/RtI combo is too hard to pull off. But other Mind Rape combos generally are difficult." The combos aren't that difficult, and Mind Rape manages to also be a bleed bonus at inferior (+2 I think). Once your prey has no more vampires, you blled him with the Mind Rapes (or the RTI on their own vamp...). "Well, personally, I'd rather steal a vamp and keep it to use than burn it. As such, I think Graverobbing is a far underrated card. The Ventrue don't have much problem with getting a vamp into torpor, what with the good old Skin of Steel/Pulled Fangs combo." It is doable, but again, it is very conditional. The Ventrue would either have to be blocked, or be a Rush deck. As a Rush deck, the Ventrue will suck (unless they use TB) as they can't deal with S:CE or Dodge or anything, and no one will necessarily block them if they aren't a Rush deck. The Tremere might be a good Intercept/Combat/Grave Robbing deck, but again, the combat has to work (and around here, for instance, the Tremere just suck due to way too many IG decks). Grave Robbing is viable, but not broken. Mind Rape, IMO, is. "Sure, burning someone's vampires is nasty, but not as nasty as bleeding them for 12. You can't oust someone by burning their last vampire. I agree that cards that let you burn your own vampires, coupled with Mind Rape/Malk Demetia/Temptation are painful, but I don't see a screaming need for attention." So you Mind Rape them and then use them to RTI. That way you bleed them for 12 and burn their vampire. If your opponent has no vampires, how do they stop you from ousting them? How do they do anything? If you prey has no vampires, they will be ousted _very_ quickly. [ quoted text not captured ]

> "Well, personally, I'd rather steal a vamp and keep it to use than burn it. > As such, I think Graverobbing is a far underrated card. The Ventrue don't > have much problem with getting a vamp into torpor, what with the good old > Skin of Steel/Pulled Fangs combo." > > It is doable, but again, it is very conditional. The Ventrue would either > have to be blocked, or be a Rush deck. As a Rush deck, the Ventrue will > suck (unless they use TB) as they can't deal with S:CE or Dodge or > anything, and no one will necessarily block them if they aren't a Rush > deck. The Tremere might be a good Intercept/Combat/Grave Robbing deck, but > again, the combat has to work (and around here, for instance, the Tremere > just suck due to way too many IG decks). Grave Robbing is viable, but not > broken. Mind Rape, IMO, is. > You miss my whole point. My point is that the Ventrue do *not* suck as a Rush deck. They have a small problem versus dodge and S:CE. But dodge is rarely played as true combat defense, and Skin of Steel will protect you from dodge with an additional strike. True, they have no real *defense* against S:CE, but since the Skin of Steel and Pulled Fangs aren't wasted after a S:CE, you simply save them. Playing with multiple small Ventrue and Anti- Ventrue, as well as any other small vamps you can find (are there any?) with dom/for, coupled with Haven Uncovered will assure a torporization. After that, rely on them blocking your Graverobbings to get more vamps into torpor. If they *don't* block the Graverobbing, even better. There's always the problem of putting Haven on a vampire you intend to steal, but anyone foolish enough to Rush you will get their Fangs Pulled. The only really scary things here are Assamites and Tremere, with unpreventable damage and all. > "Sure, burning someone's vampires is nasty, but not as nasty as bleeding > them for 12. You can't oust someone by burning their last vampire. I > agree that cards that let you burn your own vampires, coupled with Mind > Rape/Malk Demetia/Temptation are painful, but I don't see a screaming need > for attention." > > So you Mind Rape them and then use them to RTI. That way you bleed them > for 12 and burn their vampire. > I think that's more a problem with RtI than with Mind Rape. > If your opponent has no vampires, how do they stop you from ousting them? > How do they do anything? If you prey has no vampires, they will be ousted > _very_ quickly. > I don't dispute that burning vampires is good. I play almost exclusively combat decks, and the whole point of combat decks is to burn vampires. But personally, I'd rather someone Mind Rape Yuri and then sacrifice him to an Antediluvian Awakening rather than have someone bleed me with Basilia for 11 with RtI/Day Op (or more with dom/for vamps). Like I said, burning vampires is nasty, but it won't oust people. At least after burning vampires, you still have to take further actions to oust them. RtI is, IMO, much worse than Mind Rape. [ quoted text not captured ]

>But then you are screwing with the rules of the game rather than the wording on >a single card. A bit stickier. For whatever reason, the designers thought >that the original aggro rules were too difficult to understand, so they changed >them. Sadly, PF became broken as a result. Just changing the wording on PF to >reflect the wording on Disarm fixes the problem. I personally think that the old aggro rules made a lot more sense. You just need to look at what's actually considered to be happening, rather than the numbers involved. Here's my take on it, and how the original aggro rules make sense: Each point of damage is powerful enough to send any vampire to torpor. Each point of blood is enough to heal any vampire to full health. But, you can't use blood to heal aggro damage, unless you're already in torpor (if the RPG was followed more closely you couldn't use it even when in torpor, but aggro is powerful enough already). So if you take one point of damage, you need one blood to fix yourself again so you don't go to torpor. If you take one point of damage that you can't heal, you go to torpor. One way that happens is if you're out of blood. The other way is if it's aggro. If you have blood and take one aggro, you can't heal it so you go to torpor anyway. no blood spent because you didn't fix anything. Essentially what the new rules do is turn the first point of aggro you deal into 2 points of aggro. one to send you to torpor and another to damage you in torpor and make you spend a blood. When explained properly I think the old rules make a lot more sense than the new ones, and I think they're better for game balance as well. Too bad a lot of people apparently couldn't get it. Incidentally, though, if you follow this logic, PF could still be used to burn a vampire. If it's used against a torporized vampire with zero blood, the aggro can destroy the vampire and the vamp doesn't have enough to heal it. It could not, however, be used to burn a vamp with zero blood that was not in torpor. -Dave Gausebeck

On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, David Gausebeck wrote: > When explained properly I think the old rules make a lot more sense > than the new ones, and I think they're better for game balance as > well. Too bad a lot of people apparently couldn't get it. I couldn't agree more. I prefer the old rules. In fact I think I'll just change my Pulled Fangs fix to "Use old agro rules." Less confusing. > Incidentally, though, if you follow this logic, PF could still be used > to burn a vampire. If it's used against a torporized vampire with > zero blood, the aggro can destroy the vampire and the vamp doesn't > have enough to heal it. It could not, however, be used to burn a vamp > with zero blood that was not in torpor. Not sure this is possible, since I am unsure about the timing of resolution of damage from Pulled Fangs. It may work as follows (old rules). You have 0 blood. 1 - I strike you with wolf claws for 1 agro. Damage resolves. You go into torpor with 0 blood. 2 - At the end of the round, as you go into torpor, I play pulled fangs. Previous damage has already been resolved, so no longer counts -- you are once again treated merely as a vampire with 0 blood. The one agro resolves and you are again (redundantly) sent into torpor. 3 - I play a second Pulled Fangs, after the first one resolves. You are (redundantly) sent into Torpor a 3rd time. Agro damage can only destroy you if more than one point is resolved simultaneously (old rules). Otherwise each new application reduntantly puts you in torpor with 0 blood. LSJ, did I get it right? [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Mar 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > I like the changing Strike: Combat Ends to Strike: Round Ends idea, > personally. Although it seems to violate your rule 2 - it depowers > S:CE rather considerably (which is the point of course, but even so). It remains the most powerful combat defense in the game, so I do not feel I have interfered with it excessively. If an opponent presses, you can still Majesty again, though it might still be useful to have a press to end combat in case a Trap is played. > I could go with all of these, although like Peter I don't think the > TB fix goes far enough, since its effect is Just So Wrong. One of the weaknesses of TB is that it is too expensive to be an ideal weapon against weenies. If it is also useless against older vampires, then I think it has been adequately checked. TB is expensive, and should remain an awesome power, so that vampires with DOM are actually feared. I have no problem with the idea that the Ventrue, Lasombra and Giovanni should invoke some awe and fear. My fix allows TB to be awesome enough that it remains a serious factor in the game environment. It's presence will encourage greater reliance on permanent effects like weapons and retainers, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. With my fix, it will also encourage greater reliance on large vampires, even for combat decks, and this is not necessarily a bad thing either. > And I also > think that changing the agg-damage rule back to the old way is only > asking for too much confusion. I wasn't actually advocating a return to the old Agro rules. Merely a ruling that burning requires 2 points of agro in excess of current blood. I'd actually prefer a return to the old agro rules, but I'm not sure which is the less confusing. One of the things I liked better about the old rules is that they left more blood on the torporized vampire, creating a greater temptation to diablerie. Diablerie was also encouraged by the fact that it was so hard to burn vampires otherwise. With the new rules, diablerie, and its consequences, have ceased to be an important part of the game. Bloodhunts were the consequence for those who intentionally destroyed there fellow vampires. Under the new rules, vampires intentionally destroy each other all the time, but no blood hunt is ever called because of the technicality that it is not "diablerie". Nowadays, the vampiric equivalent of "murder" is never punished, cause everyone always says they did it "accidentally" in a fight. It has become a little too easy to casually burn supposedly immortal vampires in the course of combat. I'm not so much arguing that it unbalances the game as that it interferes with the atmosphere and the theme. Those who wish to make sure they burn their enemies in combat should put Amaranth in their decks, and be prepared to risk the bloodhunt. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Mar 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > : (Banishment) > : Nah. The concept is wrong. It is a single action that is too easy to succeed > : in that effectively removes a vampire from the game. We don't like those. > > Actually, it was somewhat a problem in our group. There was a deck > one person was playing for a while which was basically weenie presence > vote, with lots of Banishments, Kine Resources Contested, etc. > > The Banishment, while it doesn't directly oust your prey, is pretty > heinous. If the vampire is low on blood (even if it's only, say, a > 6-cap), you may be effectively prevented from ever getting it out > again, due to not being able to afford the pool. If your that strapped for pool, a KRC may be just as damaging. Still, while I am not sure it is broken, I do think it is a little overpowered, and ought to have been more situational (or something). If it is broken, then it seems that most people haven't caught on yet, judging on the basis of the law of supply and demand. I see singles sold on the net at $1.50, as opposed to other DS rares at up to $4.00, and particularly compared to the AH broken cards such as Tomb and RTI at $15.00. Comparitively, $1.50 seems remarkably low for a broken rare that is useful in multiples. As for potential fixes.... Peter's fix (only usable on younger vampire) does not quite seem right. After all, the Banishment is effected by Vampire society as a whole, as determined by general consensus of a referrendum. Why should they care how old the vampire is who called the vote? How about... target gains votes equal to his current blood. or target may burn x blood for x votes or target must be same sect as acting vampire or only vampires of same sect as target may vote in favor Lupus Australis

On 7 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > (Tomb) "You may be right. A fix I previously recommended was as > follows: Counters are placed on the Tomb, not the vampire. Each counts > towards the blood needed to enter play. [Needless to say, the counters > are burned with the Tomb, and the vampire comes out at less than full > capacity.] This may be too wordy, and perhaps violates my rule #1." > > The biggest problem I see with the Tomb as a card is that it is insanely > powerful, yet has _zero_ risk or disadvantage in its use. You play it > and immediately get back the 3 pool you spent on it, plus a profit of > one pool, and 4 free transfers. If it survives another turn, you get > even more. I always was an advocate of some sort of mechanic that made > it not work the turn it comes out (maybe needing it to be tapped?), so > there is a turn where it could be blown up or stolen before it pays for > itself. As it is, unless someone Sudden Reversals it (and then you > aren't required to pay for it anyway), it always pays for itself and > gives a definite bonus, even if it is killed on your preys turn (the one > pool and the 4 transfers). My (second) suggested fix, described above, completely solves this problem. Tomb then becomes a card that gets out big vampires faster for the price of 3 pool. There is no net profit, because the vampire that comes out does not get to keep the Tomb Counters as blood -- they are burned with the Tomb. The big vamps come out faster, but at a cost of 3 pool that you don't get back. You can get out 2 ICs for the price of one, but one of them will be empty. > (Pulled Fangs) "Are you advocating we ban it and use Disarm instead? > Or that we use PF as a proxy for Disarm?" > No, I am advocating that the line on PF that says "Pulled Fangs inflicts > 1 aggrivated damage," be replaced with the line "Put this card on the > opposing vampire and send that vampire into torpor.", just like on > Disarm. The two cards have different effects, and PF is disciplineless, > so anyone can use it. I just think it should not do aggrivated damage, > just like Disarm. I would like to point out that this fix has disadvantages, in that the torpor cannot be avoided or prevented. A Ventrue hand slaps me for 1. Since I have nothing against him, I hand slap him back for one. He prevents with skin of steel. I choose to take the damage, since I want to save my damage prevention for more dangerous opponents. Then he says "Surprise -- Pulled Fangs". With the original version, I can play skin of night, sideslip, Merrill's special ability, Rotschreck, or any damage prevention card to avoid this. Your "fix" leaves me completely stuck. > "My fix causes it to work the same as in the original set, with the > difference that one loses a blood if one has it for the ag damage." > But then you are screwing with the rules of the game rather than the > wording on a single card. A bit stickier. For whatever reason, the > designers thought that the original aggro rules were too difficult to > understand, so they changed them. Sadly, PF became broken as a result. > Just changing the wording on PF to reflect the wording on Disarm fixes > the problem. And causes others. > "We need not return to the original ag rules, since they were judged too > confusing. Just rule that you need 2 more ag than a vampire has blood > to burn him." > That is just as confusing (or not confusing as the case may be) as the > original rules were. I don't think so. I think the original confusion came from players stubbornly and persistently equating blood burned with amount of damage. The above solution allows them to continue to do that. > "I'm not sure if PF *could* burn a vampire under the original rules." > > Nope. In each application of Aggro damage, the first point did no actual > damage, it just sent you to torpor. It *did* do "actual damage". You just didn't burn a blood for it. I guess that's what you meant. Anyway, it would work the same with my fix, which would require that each application of Agro would merely send a vamp to torpor unless ag damage exceeded blood supply by 2. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > If you are the Malkavians, you ooze stealth. If you are the Ventrue, > Seduction works just fine. Seduction has serious drawbacks. It can only effect one vampire, and there may be more than one potential blocker. As for the Malks...well, we all know what to do about those guys when they get out of control. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > (Return to Innocence) > "I tend to agree that the card is wack. It is > broken in combination with so many other cards, such as Day Op, > Temptation, Mind Rape, etc. I certainly would not miss it if it were > banned. Still this fix does cause the person playing it a little more > trouble." > > Completely true, but just like TB, I don't think there is a way to > change RTI to keep it useful, but prevent it from being broken. If you > increase the cost too much, it becomes useless. If you reduce the > benefit, it becomes useless. I say just ban the sucker. My latest version -- "Blood cost equals vampires capacity" is even more restrictive. You cannot play costly modifiers (conditioning, Day Op, or Horrific Countenance) without causing the action to fizzle for want of the needed blood. I'm not sure this makes it complete wallpaper or not, as you can still stealth it on a vamp with the Soul Gem. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > "I'm not sure Mind Rape is busted on it's own." > You may be correct (although it's lack of conditionality is a real heavy > tilt twards the "broken" side in my book), but as the game exists, > again, it is just too easy to burn off/lose the Mind Raped vampire > before time runs out. To make MR acceptable, you would have to remove > RTI, Golconda, Banishment, Antedeluvian Awakening, Millicent Smith, > Society of Leopold, Fear of Mekhet, and any other number of cards that > are real easy to burn your own vampires with if you want to, not to > mention changing the Blood Hunt rules (by saying that a Methuseala may > not call a blood hunt on on of his own minions and saying that a vampire > may not vote in favor of a blood hunt on himself). How about: RTI Ban it, or "Cost = capacity" Society of Leopold Use Jyhad text, interpreted literally. Golconda Not usable on own vampires Antidiluvian Awakening 2nd sentence should read "Any other Methuselah..." Millicent Smith is not a problem, because burning requires cooperation of another player. If Fear of Mekhet is a problem, it is not because of Mind Rape. It is hard to use Mind Rape to steal Justicars and IC memebers, and how are you to know there are any to steal? Fear of Mekhet is far more likely to be a hoser of your Mind Rape deck than a hoser in it. I think Banishment is a different issue. I should say, though, that if you banish a Mind Raped vampire, it is not entirely clear whose uncontrolled region he goes to. All cards on the banished vampire leave play and are no longer in effect. You control the banished vampire only as long as the Mind Rape is active. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 8 Mar 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > IMHO the only way you can really make this idea work is if when you > temporarily take control of the vampire you are either limited to > certain actions, or if you pay some sort of penalty if something > bad happens to the vampire (Lose pool equal to it's capacity say). I thought of that, but decided it was way too severe. Anyone using Temptations of Mind Rapes would be putting a big target sign on himself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6e01in$q3v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu writes >Playing with multiple small Ventrue and Anti- >Ventrue, as well as any other small vamps you can find (are there any?) with >dom/for Dom & For doesn't kick in until 4 capacity. (Courtland and Ingrid). -- James Coupe (change "nospam" to "obeah" to reply by e-mail) You were my strength when I was weak. You were my voice when I couldn't speak. You were my eyes when I couldn't see. You saw the best there was in me. Lifted me up when I couldn't reach. You gave me faith because you believed. I'm everything I am because you loved me.

Lupus Australius wrote: "I would like to point out that this fix has disadvantages, in that the torpor cannot be avoided or prevented. A Ventrue hand slaps me for 1. Since I have nothing against him, I hand slap him back for one. He prevents with skin of steel. I choose to take the damage, since I want to save my damage prevention for more dangerous opponents. Then he says "Surprise -- Pulled Fangs". With the original version, I can play skin of night, sideslip, Merrill's special ability, Rotschreck, or any damage prevention card to avoid this. Your "fix" leaves me completely stuck." Actually, I am fairly certain that you cannot play _any_ damage prevention cards to prevent Pulled Fangs (LSJ?), and as such only Skin of Night and Merril will work in this case. Regardless, Disarm already works in the same way-you can't prevent it. You just go to torpor. In light of the current Aggro Damage rules, I suspect that a Disarmified version of PF would be better than the "I burn you" version that currently exists. I don't think changing the rules (again) just to fix PF is a good idea (or a viable idea). "I don't think so. I think the original confusion came from players stubbornly and persistently equating blood burned with amount of damage. The above solution allows them to continue to do that." Which is a farily common assumption. I don't think in terms of "Blood used to heal damage". I think in terms of "I take damage, I lose blood.", and I understand the rules. "It *did* do "actual damage". You just didn't burn a blood for it. I guess that's what you meant." Yes, that is what I meant. 1 point of aggro damage, under the old rules, never caused the loss of blood, and consequently, could not burn you. Basilia could continue to beat you for 1 aggro hand damage forever, and never send you to torpor/burn you/end combat if you played Trap and Undead Persistance (which was kind of silly, when you think about it). [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australius wrote: "How about: RTI Ban it, or "Cost = capacity" Society of Leopold Use Jyhad text, interpreted literally. Golconda Not usable on own vampires Antidiluvian Awakening 2nd sentence should read "Any other Methuselah..."" You are advocating modifying multiple perfectly acceptable cards (Leopold, Golconda, Antedeluvian) just to make Mind Rape balanced? Seems like a whole lot of effort just to make one broken card less broken. It seems like a much better idea just to whack the Mind Rape. With Mind Rape, Golconda, AA, Leopold, and who knows what else become potent vampire destruction cards. Without Mind Rape, they are just plain goofy cards. The decision seems pretty clear to me. "I think Banishment is a different issue. I should say, though, that if you banish a Mind Raped vampire, it is not entirely clear whose uncontrolled region he goes to. All cards on the banished vampire leave play and are no longer in effect. You control the banished vampire only as long as the Mind Rape is active." Hmmm. Sticky. Regardless of who's uncontrolled riegon he goes to (and I'm not even sure what happens. Maybe he goes to yours but then loses Mind Rape and immediately returns to his owners?), he is out of the game until he is recontrolled, and as all of his blood was Minion Tapped or Hidelburger off, he is out of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australius wrote: "Peter's fix (only usable on younger vampire) does not quite seem right. After all, the Banishment is effected by Vampire society as a whole, as determined by general consensus of a referrendum. Why should they care how old the vampire is who called the vote?" I am always far more a fan of game balance than story, and the "Only Younger" version of Banishment is clean, simple, and pretty much balances the card. "How about... target gains votes equal to his current blood." Makes the vampires most vulnerable to Banish the easiest to Banish. "target must be same sect as acting vampire" Interesting, but doesn't prevent a weenie vote pushing Caitif deck from Banishing the Nosferatu Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Incidentally, though, if you follow this logic, PF could still be used >> to burn a vampire. If it's used against a torporized vampire with >> zero blood, the aggro can destroy the vampire and the vamp doesn't >> have enough to heal it. It could not, however, be used to burn a vamp >> with zero blood that was not in torpor. > >Not sure this is possible, since I am unsure about the timing of >resolution of damage from Pulled Fangs. > >It may work as follows (old rules). You have 0 blood. > >1 - I strike you with wolf claws for 1 agro. Damage resolves. You go > into torpor with 0 blood. >2 - At the end of the round, as you go into torpor, I play pulled fangs. > Previous damage has already been resolved, so no longer counts -- > you are once again treated merely as a vampire with 0 blood. The > one agro resolves and you are again (redundantly) sent into > torpor. >3 - I play a second Pulled Fangs, after the first one resolves. You are > (redundantly) sent into Torpor a 3rd time. The way the original rulebook presents it, it's pretty ambiguous. It says that the first point of aggro sends a vampire into torpor, but it doesn't mention the case where the vampire is already in torpor. It makes sense to me that aggro dealt to a vamp already in torpor would be like excess aggro--it causes you to spend blood for healing immediately or be burned if you can't. I believe that it was ruled the other way, that it just sends you to torpor redundantly. I'm just saying that my reasoning would give different results. Lemme see if I can restate my idea on how I think damage makes the most sense: Each vampire has 3 states: ready, torpor, burned. 1 point of regular damage: if unhealed, sends a vampire from ready->torpor. Does nothing to a vamp in torpor 1 point of aggro damage: if unhealed, sends a vampire from ready->torpor OR torpor->burned ready vampire: can spend 1 blood to heal 1 point of normal damage vamp in torpor: can spend 1 blood to heal 1 point of aggro damage you must spend blood to heal wounds if you can. During strike resolution, deal with each point of unprevented damage sequentially, normal first and then aggro. If they had just put that in the original rulebook, along with a few examples, I think there wouldn't have been any problems. Of course it still lets you burn people with PF :P -Dave Gausebeck

In article <19980310040...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Actually, I am fairly certain that you cannot play _any_ damage prevention > cards to prevent Pulled Fangs (LSJ?), and as such only Skin of Night and > Merril will work in this case. Damage prevention cards cannot be played during the Press phase which is when Pulled Fangs is played. However, a Flak Jacket would do the trick. Robert Goudie, Chairman robert...@studio.disney.com Vampire: Elder Kindred Network madnessnetwork.hexagon.net ________________________________________________________________ The Official Vampire: the Eternal Struggle Players' Organization [ quoted text not captured ]

> Incidentally, though, if you follow this logic, PF could still be used > to burn a vampire. If it's used against a torporized vampire with > zero blood, the aggro can destroy the vampire and the vamp doesn't > have enough to heal it. It could not, however, be used to burn a vamp > with zero blood that was not in torpor. > > -Dave Gausebeck Too bad combats cannot occur in torper at all. PF couldn't be used to burn vamps as it is a combat card and there is no way to use it on a vamp in Torper. Karl

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: [re: strike: combat ends -> strike: round ends] : It remains the most powerful combat defense in the game, so I do not feel : I have interfered with it excessively. If an opponent presses, you can : still Majesty again, though it might still be useful to have a press to : end combat in case a Trap is played. Yes, I agree with you that it's not an unwarranted change. As you've said, we've kinda gotten used to what S:CE's prevalence does to the game, but it could still be worthwhile to change that. : TB is expensive, and should remain an awesome power, so that vampires with : DOM are actually feared. I have no problem with the idea that the : Ventrue, Lasombra and Giovanni should invoke some awe and fear. My fix : allows TB to be awesome enough that it remains a serious factor in the : game environment. It's presence will encourage greater reliance on : permanent effects like weapons and retainers, and this is not necessarily : a bad thing. With my fix, it will also encourage greater reliance on : large vampires, even for combat decks, and this is not necessarily a bad : thing either. I wouldn't have that much problem, in practice, with TB being changed to only working on younger vampires. It's just the theoretical effect of the card that's So Wrong. ;-) : One of the things I liked better about the old rules is that they left : more blood on the torporized vampire, creating a greater temptation to : diablerie. Diablerie was also encouraged by the fact that it was so hard : to burn vampires otherwise. With the new rules, diablerie, and its : consequences, have ceased to be an important part of the game. : Bloodhunts were the consequence for those who intentionally destroyed : there fellow vampires. Under the new rules, vampires intentionally : destroy each other all the time, but no blood hunt is ever called because : of the technicality that it is not "diablerie". Nowadays, the vampiric : equivalent of "murder" is never punished, cause everyone always says they : did it "accidentally" in a fight. It has become a little too easy to : casually burn supposedly immortal vampires in the course of combat. I'm : not so much arguing that it unbalances the game as that it interferes with : the atmosphere and the theme. Those who wish to make sure they burn their : enemies in combat should put Amaranth in their decks, and be prepared to : risk the bloodhunt. I agree with all this as well. Burning vampires has definitely gotten much easier, and I don't think that's entirely a good thing. (Large bleeds have also gotten easier. Offensive voting may also have become more effective, but examples of that aren't coming to mind immediately.) On the whole, I think the escalation of the game via powered-up cards in the expansions was a Bad Idea. But that's probably not a very surprising opinion. ;-) Josh ...ah, for the not-as-bad old days...

On 10 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > RTI Ban it, or "Cost = capacity" > Society of Leopold Use Jyhad text, interpreted literally. > Golconda Not usable on own vampires > Antidiluvian Awakening 2nd sentence should read "Any other Methuselah..."" > > You are advocating modifying multiple perfectly acceptable cards (Leopold, > Golconda, Antedeluvian) just to make Mind Rape balanced? Seems like a whole > lot of effort just to make one broken card less broken. It seems like a much > better idea just to whack the Mind Rape. With Mind Rape, Golconda, AA, > Leopold, and who knows what else become potent vampire destruction cards. > Without Mind Rape, they are just plain goofy cards. The decision seems pretty > clear to me. Actually, it's not one card versus many, but 3 cards (Mind Rape, Temptation, and Malkavian Dementia), all of which can become abusive with Golconda, AA, and Leopold. Golconda actually poses minimal difficulties, and I take back any suggestion that a correction is even remotely necessary. Anyone who can successfully steal temporarily an 8 capacity vampire and then Golconda him deserves all the blood and benefit they can get out of it. Think about it! It's just way too tough to pull off. Even with Mind Rape it's tricky as hell. As for AA and Leopold, the corrections I have suggested do not interfere with their being played as intended. I'm not sure these are necessary either. Besides, when a vampire is burned, it only makes sense to put the blame on the card that burns the vampire. All Mind Rape does is kidnap them for a short time, and that, in and of itself, is not overpowered or abusive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Temptation does not keep the vampire through the master phase, so you have to be more creative than Golconda or Society of Leopold. If you use AA you will never get to use the tempted vampire, a waste in my opinion.

While I am encouraged to see all of the recent activity, I think y'all are getting carried away. With the possible exception of the Tomb, I don't think that any of this cards are that broken. If a card is broken, then everone would play with it, using as amny copies as you can get. Most of these cards require decks built around them. Now because someone builds a good deck we should ban the card that makes it effective, I don't think so. I already atempted to defend RTi, but I can't give defenses to each, only this broad defense of all cards. a good deck designer and good player can use good cards to build a great deck. A poor deck builder with great cards can not build a good deck. Simple fact. People were creative and found uses for these cards. Some cards like TB imediately fil your head with ideas, but still require work to make usable. others like RTI, in my opinion, look great on the surface, but contain an extremely high cost, while still others look like crap, but turn out pretty useful, like Mind Rape. Take all of this as my opinion, but I think we should look more at why we aren't using all of the other cards as effectively as these, rather than why these are effective. Jason

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980310174536.20539A-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On 10 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > >> RTI Ban it, or "Cost = capacity" >> Society of Leopold Use Jyhad text, interpreted literally. >> Golconda Not usable on own vampires >> Antidiluvian Awakening 2nd sentence should read "Any other Methuselah..."" >> >> You are advocating modifying multiple perfectly acceptable cards (Leopold, >> Golconda, Antedeluvian) just to make Mind Rape balanced? Seems like a whole >> lot of effort just to make one broken card less broken. It seems like a much >> better idea just to whack the Mind Rape. With Mind Rape, Golconda, AA, >> Leopold, and who knows what else become potent vampire destruction cards. >> Without Mind Rape, they are just plain goofy cards.The decision seems pretty >> clear to me. > >Actually, it's not one card versus many, but 3 cards (Mind Rape, >Temptation, and Malkavian Dementia), all of which can become abusive with >Golconda, AA, and Leopold. I disagree. Temptation is way too slow, and Malkavian Dementia only hoses Malkavians. There is absolutely no comparison with Mind Rape. Makes far more sense to fix Mind Rape, since the other cards were fine before it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sir Temple wrote: "I'm really not getting this discussion at all. In my experience, when somebody starts consistently winning [because of a smart card combo [=abusive behaviour, if you prefer], or general superiority] everyone else in the group gangs up on them, and they die." This is an unacceptable way to balance the game. Theoretically, Jyhad is a game playable in a vaccum. You can show up at a table with a bunch of people you don't know, will never see again, and play a cool game. That is one of the main selling points of CCGs as a whole. In such a situation, you cannot rely on a group effort or peer pressure to balance out broken cards. In freindly play, while some people may enjoy screwing up the standard game dynamic to deal with decks that rely on broken cards (like all 4 players in a game ganging up on the 5th), others do not. When this is required to balance out problems in the game, it is not an option. With broken cards removed from the game (or fixed), and problems with the rules fixed up (like the DCI tourney rules, for instance), this is no longer needed as a balance factor (but if you still wanna do it, you can go to town...). "It then becomes in THEIR interest to lose for a bit, eg by toning down/changing their deck. This is what I understand by the Meta-game - doesn't this happen anywhere else?" It is never in anyones intrest to start losing. If someone feels they need to stop winning so often because they are being constantly ganged up on by everyone in the game, it seems likely that there is something wrong with the play environment. The "Meta-Game" is not about conspiring to beat up the guy who wins all the time. The "Meta-Game" is about evolving deck strategies in a particular game environment. For instance, around here, combat decks were all the rage for a while. Any deck that wasn't able to deal with very brutal combat was just destroyed, until people started showing up with decks that packed multiple Skin of Steel and Obediance. These decks started winning alot, so the combat decks fell out of favor. As a result, all the anti-combat cards that were so useful before just started to clog up hands, and thus were removed from decks, because no one was playing combat decks anymore, until someone realized that no one was playing combat defense anymore, and so on. That is what makes the "Meta-Game" good--evolving concepts and ideas. When the "Meta-Game" revolves around everyone beating up the guy who is abusing a loophole or broken card, the game becomes lame. "Magic, where only two people ever play seriously, is different - there I completely understand why cards have to be banned or their numbers limited. But for heaven's sake let's not import Magic ways into our game!" I fail to see the difference. In Magic, Lightning Bolt (or Hymn or Mind Twist or the Moxen...) was determined to be broken--too good for what it cost. Having 4 of them in your deck didn't automaticaly make you win, but the card did have a greater effect on the game enviornment than was warranted. Thus, the card was removed from the set. Why should the same thing not be done for Jyhad, where certain cards have a far greater effect on the enviornemnt than they should? The Tomb and RTI have a very profound effect on the game, because they are just wrong. Cards like TB, Mind Rape, and Banishment have a far less profound effect on the game, but still have an effect that is outweighed by their cost, and consequently should be fixed in some way. [ quoted text not captured ]

PDB6 wrote: >I am always far more a fan of game balance than story, and the "Only >Younger" version of Banishment is clean, simple, and pretty much >balances the card. I guess it does. I will have to concede that I have not thought of anything better yet. [ quoted text not captured ]

robert...@studio.disney.com wrote: > pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > >> Actually, I am fairly certain that you cannot play _any_ damage prevention >> cards to prevent Pulled Fangs (LSJ?), and as such only Skin of Night and >> Merril will work in this case. > >Damage prevention cards cannot be played during the Press phase which is when >Pulled Fangs is played. However, a Flak Jacket would do the trick. Dang it, but you're right. "Damage prevention cards can only be played during the damage resolution phase of combat....[RTR]" I had assumed that each damage effect created it's own damage resolution phase. Still, Skin of Night, Guardian Angel, Flak Jacket, Talbot's Chainsaw, Blood Tears of Kephram, etc, should all still be able to prevent it. I wonder if this would also work for a Satyr with Skin of Rock. If the above is true, then it would seem to me that Pulled Fangs *does* in fact create it's own damage prevention phase. I can see little sense in a prohibition that applies only to the playing of cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

To: sirt...@aol.com Subject: Re: Broken Cards & Fixes (Revised) In-Reply-To: <19980311000...@ladder02.news.aol.com> In article <19980311000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, you wrote: >While I am encouraged to see all of the recent activity, I think y'all are >getting carried away. With the possible exception of the Tomb, I don't think >that any of this cards are that broken. If a card is broken, then everone >would play with it, using as amny copies as you can get. Ummm. I'm not sure that's a fair criterion for a broken card. Just cause a deck with 80 RTI's in it will not work.... >Most of these cards >require decks built around them. Now because someone builds a good deck we >should ban the card that makes it effective, I don't think so. I already >atempted to defend RTi, but I can't give defenses to each, only this broad >defense of all cards. a good deck designer and good player can use good cards >to build a great deck. A poor deck builder with great cards can not build a >good deck. Simple fact. People were creative and found uses for these cards. >Some cards like TB imediately fil your head with ideas, but still require work >to make usable. Yeah. Like put a Dominate Skill card on Samson, hunt, then Rush, Thoughts Betrayed, ZipGun, DBR, Taste of Vitae. You also have, or course, a few little Caitiff out for the diableries. I really want to do this deck just to show how broken it can be. >others like RTI, in my opinion, look great on the surface, but >contain an extremely high cost, while still others look like crap, but turn out >pretty useful, like Mind Rape. Mind Rape is not, IMO, anywhere near as bad as TB, RTI, or Tomb (though it is almost as expensive right now). [ quoted text not captured ]

> Too bad combats cannot occur in torper at all. PF couldn't be used to burn vamps >as it is a combat card and there is no way to use it on a vamp in Torper. yeah i know combat can't occur in torpor... I'm not completely clear on the timing with PF, though. If you pound someone well into torpor during the first round of a combat, is there even a press phase in which you can play PF? That's what I was thinking of for hitting a vampire in torpor with PF. If there isn't an opportunity to play it there, then you're right. Also, that would mean that even now you can't use it to burn someone unless you take them to exactly zero blood through damage. This scenario seems kinda silly to me: Vamp A has 6 blood and is the acting vampire Vamp B has 3 blood and is blocking. Vamp A declares a strike for 3, holding a PF in his hand. Vamp B, suspecting the PF, plays some strike requiring a blood (channeling the beast, sacrament of carnage, blood fury, etc.) During strike resolution, Vamp B goes to torpor and is saved from being burned by the PF. By essentially taking more damage, the vampire has come out of the combat torporized rather than burned. Seems kinda silly to me.

In article <6e4oam$dj7$1...@news.NERO.NET>, Jasper Phillips wrote: >>Actually, it's not one card versus many, but 3 cards (Mind Rape, >>Temptation, and Malkavian Dementia), all of which can become abusive with >>Golconda, AA, and Leopold. > >I disagree. Temptation is way too slow, and Malkavian Dementia only hoses >Malkavians. There is absolutely no comparison with Mind Rape. >Makes far more sense to fix Mind Rape, since the other cards were fine >before it. I think you are underestimating Temptation. It has several advantages over Mind Rape. What prevents it from being competitive is primarily that there are too few Settites and vamps with Serpentis. I think it's one of the coolest cards in the AH set. -- It only costs 1, not 2, blood (0 blood with Path of Typhon out). -- Usable against older vampires, by weenies -- Usable at inferior of the discipline -- Cares about blood, not capacity. -- Repeatedly usable, and you can have multiple copies on a single vampire If a vampire is reduced to 1 blood, you can steal him every round for the rest of the game, until and unless someone manages to put more blood on him. Put another on him and you can still steal him every round even if he gets up to 2 blood, etc. Of course, every action you take with this vampire is going to cost at least one blood. You might even play Serpentis on him and have him keep playing Temptations for you. As a single action, it does not need to be as awesome as Mind Rape, because when you play with weenies, actions are much cheaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3505EAC4...@lmco.com>, Quicksilver wrote: > > <Temptation does not keep the vampire through the master phase, so you >have to be more creative than Golconda or Society of Leopold. If you use >AA you will never get to use the tempted vampire, a waste in my opinion. True. And the option for repeated use does make for less of an incentive to burn it. Tempting a vampire is also less hostile, since the stolen vampire is always returned to its methuselah during it's own minion phase. Cross-table cooperation is quite possible. Makes it a far more interesting card in my opinion, with lots of intriguing possibilities. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35062b14...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, David Gausebeck wrote: >> Too bad combats cannot occur in torper at all. PF couldn't be used to burn vamps >>as it is a combat card and there is no way to use it on a vamp in Torper. > >yeah i know combat can't occur in torpor... >I'm not completely clear on the timing with PF, though. >If you pound someone well into torpor during the first round of a >combat, is there even a press phase in which you can play PF? PF is not necessarily played during the press phase. It is played at the end of the round. Normally this is at the end of the press phase, but the round ends prematurely if a vampire goes into torpor. Therefore, unless I am very much mistaken, PF can be played on a vampire as it goes into torpor. Lupus Australis

In article <19980311000...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, sirt...@aol.com (SirTemple) wrote: > While I am encouraged to see all of the recent activity, I think y'all* are > getting carried away. With the possible exception of the Tomb, I don't think > that any of this cards are that broken. If a card is broken, then everone > would play with it, using as amny copies as you can get. Most of these cards > require decks built around them. Now because someone builds a good deck we > should ban the card that makes it effective, I don't think so. I already > atempted to defend RTi, but I can't give defenses to each, only this broad > defense of all cards. a good deck designer and good player can use good cards > to build a great deck. A poor deck builder with great cards can not build a > good deck. Simple fact. People were creative and found uses for these cards. > Some cards like TB imediately fil your head with ideas, but still require work > to make usable. others like RTI, in my opinion, look great on the surface, but > contain an extremely high cost, while still others look like crap, but turn out > pretty useful, like Mind Rape. Take all of this as my opinion, but I think we > should look more at why we aren't using all of the other cards as effectively > as these, rather than why these are effective. > > Jason *Hey!!! Not me, respected and artistic Prey!!!! I'm COMPLETELY in agreement with you!!!! Legbiter, Onlie Begetter of the Talbot's Chainsaw/Ambrosius combo.

In article <19980311013...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Sir Temple wrote: No He didn't!! There are two of us Heretics out here, arguing against the ban 'em and burn 'em consensus!!! Spookily enough, we are Predator and Prey in story3 at the same moment .. doo-dee-doo-dee-doo-dee-doo-dee .... It was I, Legbiter, wot penned the following little gem: > "I'm really not getting this discussion at all. In my experience, when somebody > starts consistently winning [because of a smart card combo [=abusive behaviour, > if you prefer], or general superiority] everyone else in the group gangs up on > them, and they die." > > This is an unacceptable way to balance the game. Oops, sorry. I do it all the time. Theoretically, Jyhad is a > game playable in a vaccum. You can show up at a table with a bunch of people > you don't know, will never see again, and play a cool game. That is one of the > main selling points of CCGs as a whole. In such a situation, you cannot rely > on a group effort or peer pressure to balance out broken cards. Extrmely true, good buddy, and one of the reasons I don't specially like playing other card games, and why I'd hate only ever to play in tournaments. But jyhad is different cos it is DIFFICULT - REAL difficult - and that means the game world is small. So if i sit down at a meat-space table and my grand-predator introduces himself as Peter Bajika, guess what my strategy is going to be: (a) Hit my prey and block my predator, as usual: (b) Launch massive crosstable bleeds and votes to get you out of the way before you kill us all. (c) Make a deal with you to oust all the others and then battle it out mano e mano. Hint: it's not (a). > In freindly play, while some people may enjoy screwing up the standard game > dynamic to deal with decks that rely on broken cards (like all 4 players in a > game ganging up on the 5th), others do not. When this is required to balance > out problems in the game, it is not an option. With broken cards removed from > the game (or fixed), and problems with the rules fixed up (like the DCI tourney > rules, for instance), this is no longer needed as a balance factor (but if you > still wanna do it, you can go to town...). > > "It then becomes in THEIR interest to lose for a bit, eg by toning > down/changing their deck. This is what I understand by the Meta-game - doesn't > this happen anywhere else?" > > It is never in anyones intrest to start losing. If someone feels they need to > stop winning so often because they are being constantly ganged up on by > everyone in the game, it seems likely that there is something wrong with the > play environment. Sorry, don't agree with this. If you want to win more often than you lose in a playgroup, you gotta exploit the group dynamics, negotiate, politick, etc. Sometimes this will involve you throwing a game to help someone else win, in exchange for future favours. > The "Meta-Game" is not about conspiring to beat up the guy who wins all the > time. The "Meta-Game" is about evolving deck strategies in a particular game > environment. For instance, around here, combat decks were all the rage for a > while. Any deck that wasn't able to deal with very brutal combat was just > destroyed, until people started showing up with decks that packed multiple Skin > of Steel and Obediance. These decks started winning alot, so the combat decks > fell out of favor. As a result, all the anti-combat cards that were so useful > before just started to clog up hands, and thus were removed from decks, because > no one was playing combat decks anymore, until someone realized that no one was > playing combat defense anymore, and so on. That is what makes the "Meta-Game" > good--evolving concepts and ideas. When the "Meta-Game" revolves around > everyone beating up the guy who is abusing a loophole or broken card, the game > becomes lame. Again, sorry, but it seems to me we're actually in complete agreement here. > "Magic, where only two people ever play seriously, is different - there I > completely understand why cards have to be banned or their numbers limited. But > for heaven's sake let's not import Magic ways into our game!" > > I fail to see the difference. In Magic, Lightning Bolt (or Hymn or Mind Twist > or the Moxen...) was determined to be broken--too good for what it cost. > Having 4 of them in your deck didn't automaticaly make you win, but the card > did have a greater effect on the game enviornment than was warranted. Thus, the > card was removed from the set. Why should the same thing not be done for > Jyhad, where certain cards have a far greater effect on the enviornemnt than > they should? The Tomb and RTI have a very profound effect on the game, because > they are just wrong. Cards like TB, Mind Rape, and Banishment have a far less > profound effect on the game, but still have an effect that is outweighed by > their cost, and consequently should be fixed in some way. > Well, as Lupus points out in another post, the big difference is that Jyhad already has powerful mechanisms for preventing strategies congealing - the fact it's a multi-player game, the redraw-when-you-play rules, and contesting of unique cards. I think these mechanisms together work to make the game alright, and that they obviate the need for radical fixes.

I'm not going to argue the "meta-game concept". What I am saying is this strategy works and works well. Everyone still has a good time and the matter is taken care of without banning cards, toning down anything or any extra rules.The game does not revolve around suppressing one person but within the general game dynamic no one at the board wants one person to become an overwhelming power (this would not be in their own best interest). Jyhad, in particular where making deals and discussing options openly with other players is encouraged and adds to the game. Lets us consider a simple example. A player is using a malkavian bleed deck and wants to bleed his prey for say, 5. His prey has a deflection. The prey in this case asks another person at the table who is playing a brujah deck, "If I deflect this to you will you beat up his vampire that keeps bleeding me?" the brujah player asks "What will I get out of this?" the prey responds with something like "Ill vote in your favor for the next 2 votes you call (assuming a brujah would really want to do that)" the deal is struck, the prey is saved from a bad bleed, a malkavian goes to torpor and the brujah gains some much wanted voting power. This is the way of the game. This is not beating up on one player for the sake of doing so but in a desire to "survive" in the game, and hopefully ultimatley win. Whats the issue? If a guy across the table from me is drawing in 4 or 5 blood a turn form various things I certainly wish to stop this event. I dont want him becoming so powerful that I cannot eventually kill him myself. This concept can and has worked for myself and several other players "in a vacuum" (with no hard feelings on any side). Compensate with strategy, making deals with others players or changing your play style. No card is inherently broken. I don't know a Tomb that can stand up to a Sudden reversal yet. Its not just what cards you play but how and when you play them. Contests can occur for anything unique, locations can be burned to the ground and vampires can be killed. BTW magic was screwed up from the get go (any game that can be won before the other player has a chance to play any cards was simply poorly designed). Jyhad can be won by a player with good strategy and a couple of starter decks. PDB6 wrote: > Sir Temple wrote: > "I'm really not getting this discussion at all. In my experience, when somebody > starts consistently winning [because of a smart card combo [=abusive behaviour, > if you prefer], or general superiority] everyone else in the group gangs up on > them, and they die." > > This is an unacceptable way to balance the game. Theoretically, Jyhad is a > game playable in a vaccum. You can show up at a table with a bunch of people > you don't know, will never see again, and play a cool game. That is one of the > main selling points of CCGs as a whole. In such a situation, you cannot rely > on a group effort or peer pressure to balance out broken cards. > > In freindly play, while some people may enjoy screwing up the standard game > dynamic to deal with decks that rely on broken cards (like all 4 players in a > game ganging up on the 5th), others do not. When this is required to balance > out problems in the game, it is not an option. With broken cards removed from > the game (or fixed), and problems with the rules fixed up (like the DCI tourney > rules, for instance), this is no longer needed as a balance factor (but if you > still wanna do it, you can go to town...). > > "It then becomes in THEIR interest to lose for a bit, eg by toning > down/changing their deck. This is what I understand by the Meta-game - doesn't > this happen anywhere else?" > > It is never in anyones intrest to start losing. If someone feels they need to > stop winning so often because they are being constantly ganged up on by > everyone in the game, it seems likely that there is something wrong with the > play environment. > > The "Meta-Game" is not about conspiring to beat up the guy who wins all the > time. The "Meta-Game" is about evolving deck strategies in a particular game > environment. For instance, around here, combat decks were all the rage for a > while. Any deck that wasn't able to deal with very brutal combat was just > destroyed, until people started showing up with decks that packed multiple Skin > of Steel and Obediance. These decks started winning alot, so the combat decks > fell out of favor. As a result, all the anti-combat cards that were so useful > before just started to clog up hands, and thus were removed from decks, because > no one was playing combat decks anymore, until someone realized that no one was > playing combat defense anymore, and so on. That is what makes the "Meta-Game" > good--evolving concepts and ideas. When the "Meta-Game" revolves around > everyone beating up the guy who is abusing a loophole or broken card, the game > becomes lame. > > "Magic, where only two people ever play seriously, is different - there I > completely understand why cards have to be banned or their numbers limited. But > for heaven's sake let's not import Magic ways into our game!" > > I fail to see the difference. In Magic, Lightning Bolt (or Hymn or Mind Twist > or the Moxen...) was determined to be broken--too good for what it cost. > Having 4 of them in your deck didn't automaticaly make you win, but the card > did have a greater effect on the game enviornment than was warranted. Thus, the > card was removed from the set. Why should the same thing not be done for > Jyhad, where certain cards have a far greater effect on the enviornemnt than > they should? The Tomb and RTI have a very profound effect on the game, because > they are just wrong. Cards like TB, Mind Rape, and Banishment have a far less > profound effect on the game, but still have an effect that is outweighed by > their cost, and consequently should be fixed in some way. > [ quoted text not captured ]

>Sir Temple wrote: >"I'm really not getting this discussion at all. In my experience, when >somebody >starts consistently winning [because of a smart card combo [=abusive >behaviour, >if you prefer], or general superiority] everyone else in the group gangs up >on >them, and they die." > > Peter, I never wrote this!

Lupus Australis wrote: > I couldn't agree more. I prefer the old rules. In fact I think I'll just > change my Pulled Fangs fix to "Use old agro rules." Less confusing. > > > Incidentally, though, if you follow this logic, PF could still be used > > to burn a vampire. If it's used against a torporized vampire with > > zero blood, the aggro can destroy the vampire and the vamp doesn't > > have enough to heal it. It could not, however, be used to burn a vamp > > with zero blood that was not in torpor. > > Not sure this is possible, since I am unsure about the timing of > resolution of damage from Pulled Fangs. > > It may work as follows (old rules). You have 0 blood. > > 1 - I strike you with wolf claws for 1 agro. Damage resolves. You go > into torpor with 0 blood. > 2 - At the end of the round, as you go into torpor, I play pulled fangs. > Previous damage has already been resolved, so no longer counts -- > you are once again treated merely as a vampire with 0 blood. The > one agro resolves and you are again (redundantly) sent into > torpor. > 3 - I play a second Pulled Fangs, after the first one resolves. You are > (redundantly) sent into Torpor a 3rd time. > > Agro damage can only destroy you if more than one point is resolved > simultaneously (old rules). Otherwise each new application reduntantly > puts you in torpor with 0 blood. > > LSJ, did I get it right? *** Warning!! *** What follows is no longer correct. This is a description of the out-dated, overturned Jyhad rules on aggravated damage. *** Warning!! *** Yes, but the "timing" doesn't matter. The old (jyhad) agg rules are concerned with "apckets" of damage. Each PF delivers a separate packet of damage, which are all separate from the hand strike's packet. (More to the point - if two simultaneous effects deal agg damage - like Claws and an Ivory Bow-wielding Ghoul, the effects deal separate packets of damage, which are handled individually (albeit simultaneously). Clear?) -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team

Christopher Chew wrote: "Compensate with strategy, making deals with others players or changing your play style. No card is inherently broken. I don't know a Tomb that can stand up to a Sudden reversal yet. Its not just what cards you play but how and when you play them. Contests can occur for anything unique, locations can be burned to the ground and vampires can be killed." But yes, cards _can_ be inherrently broken. How about: You Lose! Master Cost: 2 pool. Your prey is immediately ousted. It's not broken! You can Sudden Reversal it! It won't work if you only have 1 pool! or Irridium 236 Explosive Space Modulator Unique Equipment Cost: 2 Pool Minion in posesion of this equipment can take a +1 stealth action, that if successful, will burn all minions under control of a single Methusela. It's not broken! You can intercept the action! You can play Direct Intervention! You can beat up the guy who gets it out before he uses it! While these are extreme examples, they illustrate the point. Just because you can deal with a particularly broken card in some way does not mean their existance is justified. RTI, for example, is awfully close in effect to the above mentioned You Lose! card. The effect on the game environment is immense. Before RTI existed, getting bled for 6 pool in one action took a great deal of effort, cards in hand, and you could see it coming from a mile away (because it required disciplines...). When RTI was introduced into the game, it suddenly became very easy to bleed someone for 10+ pool in one action, with no warning or preparation, and no disciplines. This has a very profound effect on the game, because now, out of nowhere, you can be ousted by a single vampire with no warning when you are at 15 pool. RTI has a cost, sure, but it is simply not enough to balance it out. As a result, _all_ decks need to either play Bleed Bounce, Archon Investigation, or Direct Intervention, otherwise Unblockable RTI decks would become far and away the most dominanant decks in the game. Before RTI, no deck was required to use any particular card. Now, if you are not able to deal with unblockable RTI, you will be killed. This is bad. [ quoted text not captured ]

Legbiter wrote: "No He didn't!! There are two of us Heretics out here, arguing against the ban 'em and burn 'em consensus!!!" Oops. Sorry about that. My appologies to all involved. "Oops, sorry. I do it all the time." Again, this is not an acceptable way to balance the game. I'm not saying that you are bad for beating up the guy across the table cause he is winning, I am saying it is bad for game designers to say "Well, ok, this card is busted, but it's ok, cause other players can always gang up on someone using it". That is my point, not that people who gang up on the winner are bad people. The possibility of table/group dynamic as a balancing factor does not justify broken cards. To say that it does is madness. "Extrmely true, good buddy, and one of the reasons I don't specially like playing other card games, and why I'd hate only ever to play in tournaments. But jyhad is different cos it is DIFFICULT - REAL difficult -and that means the game world is small. So if i sit down at a meat-space table and my grand-predator introduces himself as Peter Bajika" Oh, the irony. Didn't you just alert me to the fact that I used a name that was not your's to refer to you? My name is not Peter Bajika... "(a) Hit my prey and block my predator, as usual: (b) Launch massive crosstable bleeds and votes to get you out of the way before you kill us all. (c) Make a deal with you to oust all the others and then battle it out mano e mano. Hint: it's not (a)." Why would you not play as usual just because someone with a very similar name to mine sat across the tabe from you? The structure of Jyhad is to kill your prey. If you are not killing your prey, you are getting yourself nowhere. Occasionally, it is necessary to screw up the table dynamic to secure your position, but to do so for no reason other than spite/grins/revenge is really wack, and gets you killed just as badly as it gets me killed. "Sorry, don't agree with this. If you want to win more often than you lose in a playgroup, you gotta exploit the group dynamics, negotiate, politick, etc. Sometimes this will involve you throwing a game to help someone else win, in exchange for future favours." This is completely true, but not the point that I was responding to. You stated that it was in a players best intrest to start to lose when he was doing really well, just to avoid getting serially savaged by his play group. I was saying that was a silly notion. "Again, sorry, but it seems to me we're actually in complete agreement here." I think I'm missing that picture. You were saying that broken cards were ok, cause if someone started winning too much, their play group would conspire to kill them. I was saying that this, again, was silly, and did not justify the existance of broken cards. "Well, as Lupus points out in another post, the big difference is that Jyhad already has powerful mechanisms for preventing strategies congealing- the fact it's a multi-player game, the redraw-when-you-play rules, and contesting of unique cards. I think these mechanisms together work to make the game alright, and that they obviate the need for radical fixes." But they do not justify broken cards. Jyhad works just fine as it is, yes, but would work even better without the few busted/horribly abuseable cards that there are in the mix. No one is arguing for radical fixes. What people want is for a small handful of poorly designed cards (RTI?, Tomb?, MR?, TB?) to be fixed to make the game a better place. I could reitterate the "Red Hot Arms of Death" analogy, but there realy isn't any need to. Just because there are possibilities for dealing with busted cards (be it Dodge or Sudden Reversal or Direct Intervention or table dynamic), it does not mean that they should exist. [ quoted text not captured ]

>PF is not necessarily played during the press phase. It is played at the >end of the round. Normally this is at the end of the press phase, but the >round ends prematurely if a vampire goes into torpor. Therefore, unless I >am very much mistaken, PF can be played on a vampire as it goes into >torpor. ok.. sigh. I'm just so not with it recently. I guess that comes of not having actually _played_ Jyhad in a while. I had been thinking that there was a ruling saying it was played in the press phase, but there isn't. Just checked. So yeah, that's what I meant before. Really I did. I swear.

In article <slrn6gc0jn....@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >I had assumed that each damage effect created it's own damage resolution >phase. Still, Skin of Night, Guardian Angel, Flak Jacket, Talbot's >Chainsaw, Blood Tears of Kephram, etc, should all still be able to prevent >it. I wonder if this would also work for a Satyr with Skin of Rock. I think last time I asked LSJ you couldn't play Skin of Night with the prevent damage part (superior) until you got there because it isn't a case of "Prevent 1 damage later this round". Maybe one for the Rules Team to look at because otherwise it seems a bit odd. I doubt that a Satyr could do it with Skin of Rock because it's not an inplay effect (like a Flak Jacket). He plays it as though it came from your hand - which wouldn't be allowed outside of the damage resolution bit. -- James Coupe (change "nospam" to "obeah" to reply by e-mail) You were my strength when I was weak. You were my voice when I couldn't speak. You were my eyes when I couldn't see. You saw the best there was in me. Lifted me up when I couldn't reach. You gave me faith because you believed. I'm everything I am because you loved me.

In article <19980311224...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, sirt...@aol.com (SirTemple) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] No he never did!!! It was me, Legbiter, wot penned it. Shoulder to shoulder Sir Temple and I stand against the advancing tide of card banners, ready to spill our last drop of Vitae for the BAAAABES on RtI and Thoughts Betrayed. Just as well you guys don't play chess, otherwise we'd soon have to play with nothing but pawns ... hehehe .....

> Just as well you guys don't play chess, otherwise we'd >soon have to play with nothing but pawns ... hehehe ..... ROFL Oh my GOD, that was great! It is so true, and f*ckin' funny. Jason

I suppose this reply is like several others that I have written but here goes...... I have never had a problem with any of these cards, they seems to work just fine as written and if a slight discrepancy arises upon there usage rely upon common sense, the rulebook and take into account what the cards was intended for then discus it with all concerned. If you're players have a grasp of the rules and desire a fair resulolution to the issue talk it out and go with the flow. This is not brain surgery fellas. Most of these questions can be answered by reading and UNDERSTANDING the concepts and reasoning behind them. If this is diffucult, look at it from the perspective of the V:TES game (ie. antedeluvain awakening "What would happen if an antedeluvain arose from the grave?") it helps to put things in perspective. And finally Tomb of Ramses is not that harsh of a card (for the 15th time). Lupus Australis wrote: > On 10 Mar 1998, PDB6 wrote: > > > RTI Ban it, or "Cost = capacity" > > Society of Leopold Use Jyhad text, interpreted literally. > > Golconda Not usable on own vampires > > Antidiluvian Awakening 2nd sentence should read "Any other Methuselah..."" > > > > You are advocating modifying multiple perfectly acceptable cards (Leopold, > > Golconda, Antedeluvian) just to make Mind Rape balanced? Seems like a whole > > lot of effort just to make one broken card less broken. It seems like a much > > better idea just to whack the Mind Rape. With Mind Rape, Golconda, AA, > > Leopold, and who knows what else become potent vampire destruction cards. > > Without Mind Rape, they are just plain goofy cards. The decision seems pretty > > clear to me. > > Actually, it's not one card versus many, but 3 cards (Mind Rape, > Temptation, and Malkavian Dementia), all of which can become abusive with > Golconda, AA, and Leopold. > > Golconda actually poses minimal difficulties, and I take back any > suggestion that a correction is even remotely necessary. Anyone who can > successfully steal temporarily an 8 capacity vampire and then Golconda him > deserves all the blood and benefit they can get out of it. Think about > it! It's just way too tough to pull off. Even with Mind Rape it's tricky > as hell. > > As for AA and Leopold, the corrections I have suggested do not interfere > with their being played as intended. I'm not sure these are necessary > either. Besides, when a vampire is burned, it only makes sense to put the > blame on the card that burns the vampire. All Mind Rape does is kidnap > them for a short time, and that, in and of itself, is not overpowered or > abusive. > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3512C27C...@id4.telecom.fedex.com>, Christopher Chew <c...@id4.telecom.fedex.com> wrote: > I suppose this reply is like several others that I have written but here goes...... > > I have never had a problem with any of these cards, they seems to work just fine as > written and if a slight discrepancy arises upon there usage rely upon common sense, > the rulebook and take into account what the cards was intended for then discus it > with all concerned. If you're players have a grasp of the rules and desire a fair > resulolution to the issue talk it out and go with the flow. This is not brain > surgery fellas. Most of these questions can be answered by reading and UNDERSTANDING > the concepts and reasoning behind them. If this is diffucult, look at it from the > perspective of the V:TES game (ie. antedeluvain awakening "What would happen if an > antedeluvain arose from the grave?") it helps to put things in perspective. > > And finally Tomb of Ramses is not that harsh of a card (for the 15th time). > Agree completely. Listen guys 'n' gals except Jason, Chris and maybe one or two others, if you want a perfect game just from the point of card play, check out Netrunner or Battletech. They are BEAUTIFULLY balanced - all the annoying [to you] or lovable [to us] little quirks of Magic and Jyhad have gone and they play like smooth well-oiled machines. Coincidentally or not, one of them is actually about Smooth Well-oiled Machines Beating Lumps Out of Each Other in Space. And they're about as interesting as watching a smooth well-oiled machine run ... you'll be back to Jyhad in less time than it takes to say "Genevieve does an RtI modified with day operation to bleed you for 10".

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: >Agree completely. Listen guys 'n' gals except Jason, Chris and maybe one >or two others, if you want a perfect game just from the point of card >play, check out Netrunner or Battletech. They are BEAUTIFULLY balanced - >all the annoying [to you] or lovable [to us] little quirks of Magic and >Jyhad have gone and they play like smooth well-oiled machines. >Coincidentally or not, one of them is actually about Smooth Well-oiled Not true. A friend of mine who's 9th in the world in Netrunner points out that the runner has a huge, almost unstoppable advantage, and that there are plenty of cards that are simply better. Battletech too I believe has it's share of officially banned cards, and others that people don't like. >Machines Beating Lumps Out of Each Other in Space. And they're about as >interesting as watching a smooth well-oiled machine run ... you'll be back >to Jyhad in less time than it takes to say "Genevieve does an RtI modified >with day operation to bleed you for 10". Also, as you point out, you seem to be in the minority. Perhaps it's you who should go try another game. If you don't want a balanced game, why not go play something like Spellfire, where that's the last thing you'll get, Blood Wars, or even Rage. You'll quickly be back to the (fairly balanced) game of Jyhad. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, > Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: > in less time than it takes to say "Genevieve does an RtI modified > with day operation to bleed you for 10". Not to nitpick, (oh, well, yeah to nitpick) When Genevieve Return's to Innocence with (or without) a day operation, she bleeds for 11 (not 10). -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: [snip] >Agree completely. Listen guys 'n' gals except Jason, Chris and maybe one >or two others, if you want a perfect game just from the point of card >play, check out Netrunner or Battletech. They are BEAUTIFULLY balanced - >all the annoying [to you] or lovable [to us] little quirks of Magic and >Jyhad have gone and they play like smooth well-oiled machines. >Coincidentally or not, one of them is actually about Smooth Well-oiled >Machines Beating Lumps Out of Each Other in Space. And they're about as >interesting as watching a smooth well-oiled machine run ... you'll be back >to Jyhad in less time than it takes to say "Genevieve does an RtI modified >with day operation to bleed you for 10". Um, I'm afraid I must take issue with your assessment of the two above- mentioned games. Six months ago, f'r example, one of the Firemoth variants had to be *banned* because of its abusive interaction with one of the Expert Pilot cards -- waaay too cheap, and dominating tourney play in an unconscionable fashion. And as for Netrunner, well, around here, shortly before we stopped playing it, we just flipped a coin to see who got to play the Corporation, and thereby (pretty much automatically) win. gomi -- kono sora wo daite kagayaku, shounen yo shinwa ni nare.

In article <6f233n$5t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lasombra <bi...@scn.org> wrote: >Not to nitpick, (oh, well, yeah to nitpick) >When Genevieve Return's to Innocence with (or without) >a day operation, she bleeds for 11 (not 10). Well, to continue in the nitpicking spirit, the bleed is 14 (base 1, +2 standard Inner Circle bonus, +11 for RtI). This is, of course, barring equipment or discipline use. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f2cpq$7dk$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, go...@shell3.ba.best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: Lasombra said:Not to nitpick, (oh, well, yeah to nitpick) L:When Genevieve Return's to Innocence with (or without) L:a day operation, she bleeds for 11 (not 10). > Well, to continue in the nitpicking spirit, the bleed is 14 (base 1, > +2 standard Inner Circle bonus, +11 for RtI). > > This is, of course, barring equipment or discipline use. Lasombra says: Genevieve is not an Inner Circle member. Genevieve is a Priscus member, a 10 capacity Sabbat vampire. Return to Innocence=bleed at +capacity 1 + 10 =11 Carpe Noctem. Lasombra. 1jbt...@unixstew.tstc.edu http://unixstew.tstc.edu/~1jbt2197/vtes.htm [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f3bh2$e93$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lasombra <bi...@scn.org> wrote: >Lasombra says: Genevieve is not an Inner Circle member. >Genevieve is a Priscus member, a 10 capacity Sabbat vampire. arrg. je suis chowderhead. gwendolyn != genevieve. gomi duuuuh [ quoted text not captured ]

Christopher Chew wrote: "And finally Tomb of Ramses is not that harsh of a card (for the 15th time)." While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, you are much better off supporting your arguments with articulated points rather than simple statements that support nothing. The Tomb (for instance) has been disected in this forum for literally years now, and there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the fact that it is overpowered and all around a bad idea. If you disagree with this, by all means present evidence to dispute all the points to the contrary. Even if I am not convinced by them, I would still like someone to post points in favor of the Tomb, other than "It just isn't that bad." [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f0unn$j78$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, > Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: > >Agree completely. Listen guys 'n' gals except Jason, Chris and maybe one > >or two others, if you want a perfect game just from the point of card > >play, check out Netrunner or Battletech. They are BEAUTIFULLY balanced - > >all the annoying [to you] or lovable [to us] little quirks of Magic and > >Jyhad have gone and they play like smooth well-oiled machines. > >Coincidentally or not, one of them is actually about Smooth Well-oiled > > Not true. A friend of mine who's 9th in the world in Netrunner points > out that the runner has a huge, almost unstoppable advantage, and > that there are plenty of cards that are simply better. Sure, but in a match you alwys play the runner once and then the corp. So a match is balanced. > > Battletech too I believe has it's share of officially banned cards, > and others that people don't like. > > >Machines Beating Lumps Out of Each Other in Space. And they're about as > >interesting as watching a smooth well-oiled machine run ... you'll be back > >to Jyhad in less time than it takes to say "Genevieve does an RtI modified > >with day operation to bleed you for 10". > > > Also, as you point out, you seem to be in the minority. Perhaps it's > you who should go try another game. If you don't want a balanced game, > why not go play something like Spellfire, where that's the last thing > you'll get, Blood Wars, or even Rage. You'll quickly be back to the (fairly > balanced) game of Jyhad. > Actually I do play other games .... including Rage, Battletech and Magic but not [spit!] Spellfire. And I'm not arguing that Jyhad is unbalanced, I am arguing EXACTLY the opposite .. that of all the games I know it has the best combination of being interesting and being playable/balanced. The only bad things about Jyhad, in my view, are some of the past fixes. Now, since we all agree about Jyhad being the most balanced game, and we all agree that we should proceed with EXTREME caution in fixing cards, this discussion is actually generating a lot of light, doncha think?

In article <6f2cpq$7dk$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, go...@shell3.ba.best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: > In article <6f233n$5t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Lasombra <bi...@scn.org> wrote: > > >Not to nitpick, (oh, well, yeah to nitpick) > > >When Genevieve Return's to Innocence with (or without) > >a day operation, she bleeds for 11 (not 10). > > Well, to continue in the nitpicking spirit, the bleed is 14 (base 1, > +2 standard Inner Circle bonus, +11 for RtI). > > This is, of course, barring equipment or discipline use. > > gomi > Ee, I do love a good nitpick. Sorry guys, you are both wrong .... Genevieve is the Gangrel anti Priscus, capacity 10. You are thinking of Stanislava, the Gangrel Inner Circle Member.

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, not.av...@your.security.clearance (Legbiter) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Oops, let me rephrase that .... Lasombra is right, and gomi and I are BOTH wrong [RtI is bleed at +x bleed, where x is capacity]. But of course, I was thinking of Genevieve after she'd been hit by a capacity-reducing card .. hehehe ....

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: >In article <6f0unn$j78$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper >Phillips) wrote: >> >> Not true. A friend of mine who's 9th in the world in Netrunner points >> out that the runner has a huge, almost unstoppable advantage, and >> that there are plenty of cards that are simply better. > >Sure, but in a match you alwys play the runner once and then the corp. So >a match is balanced. Talk about an empty argument! _Any_ game, no matter how screwed up, in which you switch sides will be "balanced" -- if the only thing you worry about is neither player having an advantage. Jyhad in this sense would always be balanced, since both players could play with the same deck. This sort of trivial "balance" is meaningless [snip] >Now, since we all agree about Jyhad being the most balanced game, and we >all agree that we should proceed with EXTREME caution in fixing cards, >this discussion is actually generating a lot of light, doncha think? No, I hardly agree Jyhad is the most balanced game -- Shadowfist for example is much better. Even if I did agree, that wouldn't neccesarily mean it couldn't be improved. And actually, I find this discussion, or at least your random meanderings about such things as "feeling violated", pointless. Someone aught to introduce you to Dennis Heffernan; or do you also play shadowfist? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6f5s3c$jbp$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, > Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: > >In article <6f0unn$j78$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper > >Phillips) wrote: > >> > >> Not true. A friend of mine who's 9th in the world in Netrunner points > >> out that the runner has a huge, almost unstoppable advantage, and > >> that there are plenty of cards that are simply better. > > > >Sure, but in a match you alwys play the runner once and then the corp. So > >a match is balanced. > > Talk about an empty argument! _Any_ game, no matter how screwed up, > in which you switch sides will be "balanced" -- if the only thing > you worry about is neither player having an advantage. Jyhad > in this sense would always be balanced, since both players could > play with the same deck. This sort of trivial "balance" is meaningless > Ahah, another interesting concept ..... if there is trivial balance then there must also be deep balance, and presumably this is meaningful. Perhaps we could move the discussion on with an exploration of the difference between meaningless, trivial balance and meaningful, deep balance? > >Now, since we all agree about Jyhad being the most balanced game, and we > >all agree that we should proceed with EXTREME caution in fixing cards, > >this discussion is actually generating a lot of light, doncha think? > > No, I hardly agree Jyhad is the most balanced game -- Shadowfist for > example is much better. Hang on, isn't Shadowfist the one where you steal the other guy's Feng Shui sites until he can't play anything? Terrific game, I agree, but I've missed the balance bit ..... Even if I did agree, that wouldn't neccesarily mean > it couldn't be improved. No indeed. I personally do not deny the POSSIBILITY that changing Jyhad might improve it. I merely assert, for the n+1th time, that past fixes have almost invariably NOT improved it. I merely infer, for the n+1th time, that the possibility exists that future fixes also may not improve it. The difference between us [if i've understood your previous posts correctly] is actually that last sentence; you believe that past failures have no bearing on the merits of future enterprises, whereas i believe that they do ... you're an optimist and I'm a pessimist, I suppose .... > > And actually, I find this discussion, or at least your random meanderings > about such things as "feeling violated", pointless. Sorry to hear that matey, I at least am understanding significantly more about your position, or thought I was! Looks like i violated something or other with that remark, anyway .... > Someone aught to introduce you to Dennis Heffernan; or do you also > play shadowfist? > Not familiar with this person, or card ..... care to elaborate?

In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: >In article <6f5s3c$jbp$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper >Phillips) wrote: >> >Sure, but in a match you alwys play the runner once and then the corp. So >> >a match is balanced. >> >> Talk about an empty argument! _Any_ game, no matter how screwed up, >> in which you switch sides will be "balanced" -- if the only thing >> you worry about is neither player having an advantage. Jyhad >> in this sense would always be balanced, since both players could >> play with the same deck. This sort of trivial "balance" is meaningless >> >Ahah, another interesting concept ..... if there is trivial balance then >there must also be deep balance, and presumably this is meaningful. >Perhaps we could move the discussion on with an exploration of the >difference between meaningless, trivial balance and meaningful, deep >balance? Trivial balance is easy to acheive, for example by switching sides, or playing the same deck. Not very helpfull, or interesting. Meaningfull balance leads to a game where many equally viable strategies exist, and isn't nearly as easy to acheive. Netrunner as you mention it is hardly what I would call balanced, in any sort of meaningfull way -- since _anything_ is balanceable in that manner. Anyway, I've had enough of the sophistry, and won't belabor it more. >> No, I hardly agree Jyhad is the most balanced game -- Shadowfist for >> example is much better. > >Hang on, isn't Shadowfist the one where you steal the other guy's Feng >Shui sites until he can't play anything? Terrific game, I agree, but I've >missed the balance bit ..... No. Doesn't play like that at all, although that's the common trap that newbies fall into for 2 player games. >No indeed. I personally do not deny the POSSIBILITY that changing Jyhad >might improve it. I merely assert, for the n+1th time, that past fixes >have almost invariably NOT improved it. I merely infer, for the n+1th >time, that the possibility exists that future fixes also may not improve >it. The difference between us [if i've understood your previous posts >correctly] is actually that last sentence; you believe that past failures >have no bearing on the merits of future enterprises, whereas i believe >that they do ... you're an optimist and I'm a pessimist, I suppose .... This is why people present arguments about why they think it would improve, and why they think their solution would be a good one. The changes in the past have occasionally just been poorly made, without really going through this process I believe -- and hence have no bearing on well thought out changes. >> And actually, I find this discussion, or at least your random meanderings >> about such things as "feeling violated", pointless. > >Sorry to hear that matey, I at least am understanding significantly more >about your position, or thought I was! Looks like i violated something or >other with that remark, anyway .... It doesn't bother me, it just isn't going anywhere. You seem to be dead set against any sort of change what so ever, regardless of how broken the cards are, and are entirely happy with solely using the semi balancing effect of multiplayer games and narrow hosers to solve things -- At one point you even said that you thought the imbalance made the game _better_, since you're supposed to feel "violated". [ quoted text not captured ]

Legbiter wrote: > > In article <6f5s3c$jbp$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper > Phillips) wrote: > > > In article <not.available-2...@sm1-132.hs.port.ac.uk>, > > Legbiter <not.av...@your.security.clearance> wrote: > > >In article <6f0unn$j78$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@nd.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper > > >Phillips) wrote: > > >> > > >> Not true. A friend of mine who's 9th in the world in Netrunner points > > >> out that the runner has a huge, almost unstoppable advantage, and > > >> that there are plenty of cards that are simply better. > > > > > >Sure, but in a match you alwys play the runner once and then the corp. So > > >a match is balanced. > > > > Talk about an empty argument! _Any_ game, no matter how screwed up, > > in which you switch sides will be "balanced" -- if the only thing > > you worry about is neither player having an advantage. Jyhad > > in this sense would always be balanced, since both players could > > play with the same deck. This sort of trivial "balance" is meaningless > > > Ahah, another interesting concept ..... if there is trivial balance then > there must also be deep balance, and presumably this is meaningful. > Perhaps we could move the discussion on with an exploration of the > difference between meaningless, trivial balance and meaningful, deep > balance? > > > >Now, since we all agree about Jyhad being the most balanced game, and we > > >all agree that we should proceed with EXTREME caution in fixing cards, > > >this discussion is actually generating a lot of light, doncha think? > > > > No, I hardly agree Jyhad is the most balanced game -- Shadowfist for > > example is much better. > > Hang on, isn't Shadowfist the one where you steal the other guy's Feng > Shui sites until he can't play anything? Terrific game, I agree, but I've > missed the balance bit ..... > > Even if I did agree, that wouldn't neccesarily mean > > it couldn't be improved. > > No indeed. I personally do not deny the POSSIBILITY that changing Jyhad > might improve it. I merely assert, for the n+1th time, that past fixes > have almost invariably NOT improved it. I merely infer, for the n+1th > time, that the possibility exists that future fixes also may not improve > it. The difference between us [if i've understood your previous posts > correctly] is actually that last sentence; you believe that past failures > have no bearing on the merits of future enterprises, whereas i believe > that they do ... you're an optimist and I'm a pessimist, I suppose .... I'm curious which past fixes have NOT improved the game. I'm sure we could argue at length about specific card errata, but in my mind - the only really large fixes have been the golden tenets of no-repeat actions and no vote push. Two good fixes that are fun to work around. As for changing the worst cards in the set, I think it can get out of control. TombofRIII doesn't bother me so much as RTI and TB. And that I would have to put down to the fun factor. While the Tomb upsets my sense of fairplay and raises my moral indignation it doesn't remove me from play. It might eventually cause my ousting or be a difficult obstacle in the game but it's existence doesn't stop me from playing Ravnos. RTI and TB on the other hand have a very real effect of removing me from the game, TB removes me as an active participant from combat-I better damn well hope I have a gun. RTI can have the effect of removing me from the game (so can bonding, but the magnitude is at issue) and although I can misdirect it or any of those good things, I'm screwed if I'm playing Ravnos. Or at least... more screwed than normal. If we are seriously planning on making new V:EKN approved cards, can we try to include cards that deal with problem cards like ToRIII?

Daniel Frey wrote: "If we are seriously planning on making new V:EKN approved cards, can we try to include cards that deal with problem cards like ToRIII?" There already are: Sudden Reversal, Rampage, Arson, etc. The fact that they do, howver do not make ToRIII any less broke, and introducing new cards that beat up old cards is a very sketchy way to fix things. Repairing the cards, however (even if this means banning them from competetive play) fixes the problem while "cards that beat cards" turn the game into far more of a crap shoot than it needs to be. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, Sudden Reversal is the only card that really deals with the problem of ToRIII, i.e. that it pays for itself in its first turn. But can we accept that Dog Pack and other cards have been reactively included to deal with the problem of S:CE. Atonement was included to deal with the problem of Weenie Bleed/Vote Push. Archon Investigation was included to deal with Massive Dominate Bleed. Have these cards made the game a crap shoot? We have three options (assuming we can make new sanctioned cards) 1. Do nothing, which has been the solution yet so far. 2. Rewrite or Ban the card, thus neutering it and pissing people off (it hasn't been done yet, and I don't see it happening at all). 3. Make new cards that are a response to problems in the game. If we have the option, I vote for the #3.

Daniel Freey wrote: "But can we accept that Dog Pack and other cards have been reactively included to deal with the problem of S:CE. Atonement was included to deal with the problem of Weenie Bleed/Vote Push. Archon Investigation was included to deal with Massive Dominate Bleed. Have these cards made the game a crap shoot?" Yup. Adding a specific single card to a set to combat an entire strategy simply does not work real well. Yes, Dog Pack, Atonement, and AI were added as after the fact "patch" fixes to perceived game problems, but while they are something of a fix on a small scale tactical level, in the strategic sense of the game, there really aren't all that effective. Dog Pack was added because the Gangrel are completley screwed by S:CE, and helps a bit. However, retainers are not that effective on the whole due to their lack of speed and fragility, Dog Pack is very expensive (2 Pool), and the fact that it was rare certainly didn't help. In the log run, occasionally a Gangrel deck will benefit from a Dog Pack but The Gangrel are still screwed on the whole by S:CE, cause it is perfectly viable and acceptable to build a deck with 10 Majesties in it, but a deck with 10 Dog Packs will suck a great deal of the time. Atonement is probably the most sucessful of the "patch" fixers, but still is sketchy. A Weenie Horde Bleed deck will always work, but Atonement will only work if it is next to a weenie horde bleed deck, otherwise it will mostly be wasted cardage. I can build a WHB deck with 15 Social Charms, they will always be useful. If I build an intercept deck with even half as many Atonements, most of the time they will be little more than wasted cards. Archon Investigation is very faulty in it's supposed original mission--stopping S+B decks--as a competent S+B deck can easily kill you by consistently bleeding you for 3 points an action leaving all your AIs completely wasted. As AI is a master, you can really only have a few in your deck, making it highly unlikely that you will actually have them when you need them (Having even 4 or 5 AIs in your deck is bound to cause severe hand jam in the face of a non heavy bleed deck, and having less of them means you can't rely on them as viable defense). As a result, more often than not, AI is a lucky "Screw You" (or crap shooty) card, but not a strategic defense. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "They mostly come at night. Mostly." -Newt

In article <199803270002...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, pd...@aol.com (PDB6) wrote: > Atonement is probably the most sucessful of the "patch" fixers, but still is sketchy. A Weenie Horde Bleed deck will always work, but Atonement will only work if it is next to a weenie horde bleed deck, otherwise it will mostly be wasted cardage. I can build a WHB deck with 15 Social Charms, they will always be useful. If I build an intercept deck with even half as many Atonements, most of the time they will be little more than wasted cards. So you have not seen Thetmes Mask someone else Atonement. Nothing like a 10 cap vampire with agro hand damage being able to block just about everyone without having to tap. Thats scary. Last game I was in took two players the whole game rescuing each other vampires, with three Hgs and we both still were taken out by the Infamous Thetmes, blocking everything. The Atonement easily can be made too powerful, with only a little effort. Raille [ quoted text not captured ]

>So you have not seen Thetmes Mask someone else Atonement. Is that legal? Jason

SirTemple wrote: > > >So you have not seen Thetmes Mask someone else Atonement. > > Is that legal? Mask of 1000 Faces - Action Modifier (obf) * Ignore any skill or "type of minion" requirement of attempting the action. [RTR 970630] -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) Official VtES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. (*) - Subject to review by Rules Team