WwEF: A proposal

In article <3ictvr$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes: > >My proposal was to make the cost of WwEF (currently nothing) commensurate >with the benefit (a free action). I agree restricting WwEF is a dud >solution, for exactly the reason you mention. > >My personal take on restriction is that it is a very clunky solution. If >I hand you a deck, it takes you up to 10 minutes to check for card limits, >depending on the complexity of the card limits. It should never be so >difficult to discover if someone is cheating. It is also very easy to >accidentally go over a card limit without noticing, if more than a few >card are subject to limits. Heartly agreed. Card restrictions were used because cards are unbalanced. Balancing the cards is the real, true solution. With really balanced cards, you don't need card restrictions. If you restrict everyone to 4 Wakes, I'll bet you that everyone who have 4 Wakes will put them all in. Even if you /know/ that your predator has 20 Change of Targets in his deck, you'll still definitely put those 4 Wakes in. This is evidence of an unbalanced card, the thing that made Magic into a $$$ game. Alan. -- "Live Life with Heart." Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu

In article <3iifjk$9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Alec Habig <aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu> wrote: >Doesn't WwEF say "allows a vampire to block and play reaction cards as if >untapped"? > >If you've got a card that allows you to mess with the bleed on the other side >of the table, fine, if not, tough luck. > Well, it doesn't say you must _succeed_ in blocking, or reacting, it just allows you to try. If you fail, you remain tapped and discard the card, thus getting it out of your hand. If you are unable to block an action, you fail. Thus you can discard it on any action, blockable or not. "My minion wakes up... and fails to block..." -Jeff Bergan

>Doesn't WwEF say "allows a vampire to block and play reaction cards as if >untapped"? >If you've got a card that allows you to mess with the bleed on the other side >of the table, fine, if not, tough luck. > Alec WwEF has no restriction "can only be used if you have a reaction card to play or can block". Under those circumstances, you pitch it to no effect. The goal here was to pitch unwanted Wakes, not do anything useful. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but I was thinking that it might fall under the same rule as not playing unecessary stealth/intercept cards. Alec -- Alec Habig, Indiana University High Energy Astrophysics aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu http://astrowww.astro.indiana.edu/personnel/ahabig/ Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

aha...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>>Doesn't WwEF say "allows a vampire to block and play reaction cards as if >>>untapped"? >> >>>If you've got a card that allows you to mess with the bleed on the other >>side >>>of the table, fine, if not, tough luck. >> >>> Alec >> >>WwEF has no restriction "can only be used if you have a reaction card to >>play or can block". Under those circumstances, you pitch it to no effect. >> The goal here was to pitch unwanted Wakes, not do anything useful. >Yes, but I was thinking that it might fall under the same rule as not playing >unecessary stealth/intercept cards. It doesn't give you stealth nor intercept, so I don't see how the rule would apply. You can Steal Equipemnt when your opponent has none (DTR), you can tap The Barrens when you have no cards in your hand (DTR), you can play Misdirection with zero pool to tap zero minions(DTR), and you can take a Cryptic Mission against a vampire with zero blood (gaining one yourself, if superior) (DTR). You can certainly give yourself the opportunity to play reaction cards even if you have none to play.

> Doesn't WwEF say "allows a vampire to block and play reaction cards as if > untapped"? > If you've got a card that allows you to mess with the bleed on the other side > of the table, fine, if not, tough luck. Yeah - but you can Wake even if you cannot feasibly block. For the remainder of the action, you can react as though untapped - even if you have no appropriate reaction cards to play. Wake is one of the easier cards to pitch if you have too many. But I still don't use many in my decks. Other cards are much more useful. papillo the mercenary

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: : >If you restrict everyone to 4 Wakes, I'll bet you that everyone : >who have 4 Wakes will put them all in. : I'll verify that. Around here most people play with 4 card limits (sigh) : and every deck has 4 Wakes, unless the player doesn't have them. One : player goes to a local game store regularly to collect Wakes for his 12 or <SNIP> : one would rationally want over 100 of for playing. How much evidence does : one need to indicate a card is unbalanced? There are a lot of cards like that. Not many people build decks without blood dolls, minon taps, short term investments, and asendences. New players always have a difficult time geting them. However, unlike magic, all these cards are COMMON. Realively easy to get. Have you ever tried to get moxes for a tormamet as a new player? Thoses are about as nessary to a good tourny deck as WwEF. Personally, i like the way jyhad did it, all the really good cards are common. -- Quinn the Eskimo

In article <1995Mar1.0...@cs.cornell.edu>, kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote: > In article <3ilfgu$e...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu> sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) writes: > > > >[WwEF can be played on an irrelevent action] > > >You can Steal Equipemnt when your opponent has none (DTR), > > But that uses up a strike. > > > you can tap The Barrens when you have no cards in your hand (DTR), > > But that doesn't help you recycle a card or help you in > any other way. > > > you can play Misdirection with zero pool to tap zero minions(DTR), > > But that uses up a master phase. > > > and you can take a Cryptic Mission against a vampire with > zero blood (gaining one yourself, if superior) (DTR). > > But that uses up an action of your vampire. > > > You can certainly give yourself the > >opportunity to play reaction cards even if you have none to play. > > This uses up nothing other than a card, so IMO we'd need > a seperate ruling on this. > > i think you missed his point entirely. his point is that you CAN do alot of stuff you wouldn't normally do. one of the best strategies i use ^^^(smartly of course) is to cycle through all of my cards in a game. i could care less if i use up my master phase with a misdirection if i have no other masters, and i don't want that card. if you have 6 minions out, an action here or there isn't going to hurt you unless your prey is really strong. sometimes obscure actions are the way to go. ex. call a worthless vote, everybody thinks i'm cycling through cards again and it passes. oops! cryptic rider/ sabbat threat. you all now have threat counters and i'm not giving up the edge. sometimes randomness is just part of roleplaying. Harpua

In article <D4rp9...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> bwr...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Kernel Mustard) writes: > >I'll agree that the distribution has a lot of powerful, very useful >cards at common rarity. Most of the more powerful rarer cards seem >to be balanced with (D) actions possible against them. Still, >there are a good number of uncommon cards you should have to >build a solid deck. Sports bikes are as desirable as wwef's in >any deck I build or have seen (Mr. Winthrop is just a rare version, >but equally valued). KRCG is pretty much the same. (You really >can't survive without the perminent intercept, it might >not stop S&B, but the difficulty goes up, besides messing with >his equips, torpor visits, hunting, +1 steath directed action verses >your Powerbase are invaluable). Hunting grounds are desirable in >any deck with a fair number of vampires from any one clan (heh, >free blood, suck that back up your blood doll and you're in combo >heaven... do I want the blood... or does Anvil get it). Arcane Library, >Eco Terrorist, and Art Museum pretty much automatically fit into >decks build around the respective clans (at least these are rare, >but they're still no-brainers). Yes, those cards are quite useful. However, equipment and locations usually cost pool - that's where the balance comes along. Sports bikes cost 1 pool, and an action to get it, and it is useable only by the minion who currently has it. If you manage to torporize the vampire with the sports bike as he blocks you, that's one more lost pool; even if another of his vampires takes it, it costs another action, and also another turn where the SB cannot be used (barring a WwEF). KRCG is good, but again it costs pool - this time 2 pool. And there are many ways to mess with a location: Arson, Disputed Territory, etc. If it succeeds, that's 2 pool down the drain. Also, if your predator has more pool than you, he can simply contest it and force you to yield, and that's again 2 pool down the drain. Hunting Grounds, again, cost 2 pool. The problem is with the Blood Doll, not the Hunting Ground; without convenient ways of moving blood from vampire to pool (Blod Doll, Minion Tap), a Hunting Ground is useful, but just that. Sorry that I don't know too much about the rest of the clan-specific locations you mentioned. Maybe the problem of the game is the existence of some gross combos that allow you to gain a lot of pool; if pool becomes a very real concern, and a very limited resource, players will think a bit more before banging down those Sports Bikes and locations. More sports bikes and locations would mean less vampires. Also, if your group has a 2-card limit, it might make it virtually infeasible to build a combat deck that does not rely heavily on weapons; also, the 2-card limit makes it hard to use discipline stealth/intercept. Without powerful combat decks to keep intercept in check, and while non-permanent stealth/intercept is hindered, of course permanent intercept becomes so much more important. >There are several more, but we all know the familiar cards we see again >and again (Heh, you're common list didn't meantion Army of Rats with goes >in any animalism deck). Gangrel and Nosferatsu don't have bleed modifiers. They need Army of Rats to force their prey to fight them. I may have a suggestion for Revised: without superior Animalism, AoR cost 1 vampire blood. >Also, wwef's a good card for >the sake of the game. It allows people to do more actions on >their turn that normal (even if they only bluff having one in the >hand). This makes games move faster, everybody does more actions >trying to get the opponent to misplay a wwef on something they >son't care for (part of the stategy that's key to the game >is not wasting them before your opponenent does). This is a good point. However, making WwEF cost 1 blood to play doesn't change its usefulness in this concept, IMO. As a side note, whenever someone mentions the strategy of bluffing so that opponent blocks/Wakes your unimportant actions, I'll think: "That's a useful strategy, but why not build my deck so that every action is important and deadly, so that opponent is screwed no matter what." I understand that this is somewhat hard to do with a 2-card (or even a 4-card) limit. Just my $.02 . >I don't see >fireballs and disintegrates being restricted in magic (or modified), >and they're much worse that wwef for the game. Well, it's not hard to find people here in rec. .. .jyhad who would agree with me that MtG is a much worse /game/ than Jyhad. :-) >The card that >should be removed or updated is Misdirection. It causes people >to not do actions, play conservatively, bring out hordes of minions, >and then have the game drag for a really long period or time while >the players wait to draw a Misdirection and be able to bleed out >their prey (sounds a lot like fireballs, but this is worse... >at least against a fireball player you can play all out in an >attempt to kill him first). I do agree that Misdirection is "too cheap" and should have its cost raised by 1 or 2, but if the above situation happens often in your games, there may be a problem in everyone's deck. Possibly, because of the 2-card limit, no one has a deck effective enough to do anything. If someone has an effective combat/S&B/political/ innovative-but-effective deck, we shall see constant action ... [ quoted text not captured ]

>The card that >should be removed or updated is Misdirection. It causes people >to not do actions, play conservatively, bring out hordes of minions, >and then have the game drag for a really long period or time while >the players wait to draw a Misdirection and be able to bleed out >their prey (sounds a lot like fireballs, but this is worse... >at least against a fireball player you can play all out in an >attempt to kill him first). This complaint occurs when people play with card limits. WwEF hoses Misdirection nicely (and still would, even with a blood cost). If one can only have 4, or 2 - Misdirect away! A side comment - an EFFECTIVE card hoser is another card which (a) hurts the user of the hosed card more than the hoser and (b) has uses even if the other player doesn't have the target. If one of the two attributes is REALLY good, you can do without the other. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3ivr43$q...@apollo.it.luc.edu>, Joshua E. Rowr <jr...@orion.it.luc.edu> wrote: // CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: // : kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes: // // : >If you restrict everyone to 4 Wakes, I'll bet you that everyone // : >who have 4 Wakes will put them all in. // : I'll verify that. Around here most people play with 4 card limits (sigh) // : and every deck has 4 Wakes, unless the player doesn't have them. One // : player goes to a local game store regularly to collect Wakes for his 12 or Well, around here we play 2 of any card. We consider it much more sane (I don't like the thought of being allowed 4 conditioning... even in my own deck). We also tend to not play Misdirection at all in friendly games. // There are a lot of cards like that. Not many people build decks without // blood dolls, minon taps, short term investments, and asendences. New // players always have a difficult time geting them. Minion taps and asendence, I tend not to use much. You ain't gonna get me to take a short term or a wwef out though (although I may only have a single blood doll). // However, unlike magic, all these cards are COMMON. Realively easy to get. // Have you ever tried to get moxes for a tormamet as a new player? Thoses // are about as nessary to a good tourny deck as WwEF. Personally, i like // the way jyhad did it, all the really good cards are common. I'll agree that the distribution has a lot of powerful, very useful cards at common rarity. Most of the more powerful rarer cards seem to be balanced with (D) actions possible against them. Still, there are a good number of uncommon cards you should have to build a solid deck. Sports bikes are as desirable as wwef's in any deck I build or have seen (Mr. Winthrop is just a rare version, but equally valued). KRCG is pretty much the same. (You really can't survive without the perminent intercept, it might not stop S&B, but the difficulty goes up, besides messing with his equips, torpor visits, hunting, +1 steath directed action verses your Powerbase are invaluable). Hunting grounds are desirable in any deck with a fair number of vampires from any one clan (heh, free blood, suck that back up your blood doll and you're in combo heaven... do I want the blood... or does Anvil get it). Arcane Library, Eco Terrorist, and Art Museum pretty much automatically fit into decks build around the respective clans (at least these are rare, but they're still no-brainers). There are several more, but we all know the familiar cards we see again and again (Heh, you're common list didn't meantion Army of Rats with goes in any animalism deck). Anyways, my point is that, yes, wwef is the best card in the game, but it's COMMON. That means it doesn't take a lot of work to get them (moxen and lotus were somewhat easier to get before they were discontinued but they still commanded at least the value of a good rare card). Also, wwef's a good card for the sake of the game. It allows people to do more actions on their turn that normal (even if they only bluff having one in the hand). This makes games move faster, everybody does more actions trying to get the opponent to misplay a wwef on something they son't care for (part of the stategy that's key to the game is not wasting them before your opponenent does). I don't see fireballs and disintegrates being restricted in magic (or modified), and they're much worse that wwef for the game. The card that should be removed or updated is Misdirection. It causes people to not do actions, play conservatively, bring out hordes of minions, and then have the game drag for a really long period or time while the players wait to draw a Misdirection and be able to bleed out their prey (sounds a lot like fireballs, but this is worse... at least against a fireball player you can play all out in an attempt to kill him first). -- Brent Ross GCS/M/O (v2.1) d?(-+) H+>@! s+:++ !g>+ p? !au a- w++ bwr...@uwaterloo.ca v+ C++++ US+ P++ L- 3- E---(-) N++@ K++ !W--(---) "Skuld is nicer than M-(--) !V -po+ Y+ t---@ 5+@>+ j R G+++(-)@ tv b+ Medea." -- mlvanbie D-(---@) B-- e+@(*) u*(+) h(*) f+ r*@ n----(---) y*

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] >Peace Jeff, >Only actions of your predator, prey, or directed actions (targetted at >you) from another meth. If you had Anneka in play, yes, you could play >WwEF on _any_ action. Peace James, On any action except those taken on your turn. You can play WwEF on any action, allowing you the opportunity to play Eagle's Sight, for instance (even if you don't have the card in your hand, or even if you are otherwise incapable of using it - you still gain the opp.). Burn it at any time an action is taken when it is not your turn.

In article <3jfj6b$1...@hermes.louisville.edu>, James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote: >I believe that this, that is 'wasted' Wakes, is in violation of the spirit >of the "You can't play a card just to get rid of it, there has to be a good >reason" rule. Since card replacement is automatic in Jyhad, you need to limit >players to only playing valid cards. I would liken 'wasted' Wakes to the >acting player playing additional stealth "just in case I need it." H/s/it is >wasting cards and that is against the rules. If it isn't official, it should >be: you can't play cards unless there is a valid reason. No 'wasted' Wakes! Er, there's no rule like that in the game. As a matter of fact, if there's a chance that the card can be used, it can be played. And even if there were that rule, there's no way it could apply to WWeF. All WwEF requires is that an action is being performed. If other players are forced to make judgement calls on whether or not you can play a card *even though you meet the conditions of the card*, you get into a political game outside of the actual Jyhad game. Check the 12/22/94 DTR preface. They note that card play is a lot freer in Jyhad than Magic. As it should be. | If you've got a hot lead on a new | *--Joe--* | PC game, call the announce line at | js...@vt.edu | ** csi...@discus.ise.vt.edu ** | +-------------------------------------+---------------------------------- "Carnivores, oy!" -- Timon, TLK

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : >> "My minion wakes up... and fails to block..." : >Peace Jeff, : >Only actions of your predator, prey, or directed actions (targetted at : >you) from another meth. If you had Anneka in play, yes, you could play : >WwEF on _any_ action. : I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but- : WwEF says "usable by a tapped vampire" <SNIP> : The only restrictions on the use of WwEF are that it is a reaction card, : and may not be played on your turn, and that the using vampire must be : tapped. Note that since it doesn't actually untap the vampire, one vampire : could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to : play a second after the first Okay, let me get this straight. The reason you think that WwEF are so powerfull is that you can burn them whenever you feel like it? My question is SO? You can burn them! Big woop. If your not going to use them why are they in your deck in the first place???? Wakes are not that out of hand. We play with a four card limit of everything (mostly cuz of Malk decks) and i haven't seen anything get out of hand with these cards. I think it's another case of people whining about cards they can't deal with. I feel four is reasonable, and before you say it restricts combat decks, i play a combat deck. I do fine with nofs and 2 thrown gates, 2 aid from bats, 4 undead stenghts, 4 torn signposts, 4 murders of crows, a few lucky blows, ect. if you think that you need about 14 or 15 of any card (about 1/3 of you deck, mind you) you need some lessons in creativity. -- Quinn the Eskimo

je...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jeffrey Matthew Bergan) wrote: > [ quoted text not captured ] Peace Jeff, Only actions of your predator, prey, or directed actions (targetted at you) from another meth. If you had Anneka in play, yes, you could play WwEF on _any_ action. Nil carborundum illigitimi, James R. McClure Jr. The OS/2 Apostle <insert disclaimer here>

[ quoted text not captured ] Peace Scott, I believe that this, that is 'wasted' Wakes, is in violation of the spirit of the "You can't play a card just to get rid of it, there has to be a good reason" rule. Since card replacement is automatic in Jyhad, you need to limit players to only playing valid cards. I would liken 'wasted' Wakes to the acting player playing additional stealth "just in case I need it." H/s/it is wasting cards and that is against the rules. If it isn't official, it should be: you can't play cards unless there is a valid reason. No 'wasted' Wakes! [ quoted text not captured ]

>Okay, let me get this straight. The reason you think that WwEF are so >powerfull is that you can burn them whenever you feel like it? No, the reason it's so powerful is that with a good Wake collection every vampire can act every turn and still block. Waky-waky Tremere or Toreador decks are a fearsome sight. The burn business is a side issue. Someone said that sometimes you won't want to wake (i.e., Gangrel bleeds, etc.) and the Wakes will jam up your hand. I and others pointed out in those occasional situations, you can just ditch the Wakes to get other cards in your hand. >We play with a four card limit of everything (mostly cuz of >Malk decks) and i haven't seen anything get out of hand with these cards. >I think it's another case of people whining about cards they can't deal >with. 4 card limits to stop Malk decks is an excellent case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Malk decks work fine with 4-card limits because there are 4 different Obfuscate stealth cards, 4 different Dominate bleed boosters, etc. Several anti-Malk decks,on the other hand, get shut down by 4-card limits; rush combat will toast Malks nicely, but not with only 4 Bum's Rushes. At the same time, you make Misdirection unbelieveably powerful (not enough untaps), make Brujah unable to resist Protean aggravated damage (twice as many aggro damage as Sideslips), and shut down a variety of decks - Fortitude combat (which needs Traps) anti-intercept weenies (not enough Zip Guns/ Dragonbreath rounds), etc. The viability of a deck should not depend on the number of cards of a given type included in the set. It creates very bizarre effects. I want Wakes fixed because I've seen several people quit because they couldn't get enough Wakes to play. Not everyone wants to buy a whole box to get 4. I also think it's sloppy design to make a card much better than others. Cards should be of roughly equal power - THAT will make for maximum variety in decks, not stereotyped groupings of 4 cards each (like magic). Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: >> The only restrictions on the use of WwEF are that it is a reaction card, >> and may not be played on your turn, and that the using vampire must be >> tapped. Note that since it doesn't actually untap the vampire, one vampire >Peace Curt, >Ok, I'll agree that this is legal, technically. >> could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to >> play a second after the first >I have to disagree with this though. I still believe that it violates the >spirit of the rules to throw cards away for no purpose. And it violates the letter of the card. After the first wakey and until the end of the action, this vampire plays reaction cards *as if untapped*. This excludes playing another wakey, since the vampire must be tapped to do so, and this vampire plays reaction cards as if untapped.

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >> >> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >> >Only actions of your predator, prey, or directed actions (targetted at >> >you) from another meth. If you had Anneka in play, yes, you could play >> >WwEF on _any_ action. >> >> Peace James, >> On any action except those taken on your turn. >> You can play WwEF on any action, allowing you the opportunity to play Eagle's >> Sight, for instance (even if you don't have the card in your hand, or even if >> you are otherwise incapable of using it - you still gain the opp.). >> >> Burn it at any time an action is taken when it is not your turn. >Peace Scott, >I believe that this, that is 'wasted' Wakes, is in violation of the spirit >of the "You can't play a card just to get rid of it, there has to be a good >reason" rule. Since card replacement is automatic in Jyhad, you need to limit >players to only playing valid cards. I would liken 'wasted' Wakes to the >acting player playing additional stealth "just in case I need it." H/s/it is >wasting cards and that is against the rules. If it isn't official, it should >be: you can't play cards unless there is a valid reason. No 'wasted' Wakes! Unfortunately, we're discussing the official rules here, not house rule niceties. Until errata comes down from the great ones, burn the wakes at any action.

>> "My minion wakes up... and fails to block..." >Peace Jeff, >Only actions of your predator, prey, or directed actions (targetted at >you) from another meth. If you had Anneka in play, yes, you could play >WwEF on _any_ action. I'm starting to feel like a broken record here, but- WwEF says "usable by a tapped vampire" It does NOT say "Usable by a tapped vampire which may make a legal attempt to block". It does NOT say "Usable by a tapped vampire if you have a usable reaction card to play in your hand" Note the difference with 2nd Tradition - "Usable by tapped vampire which untaps and attempts to block". That IS restricted to a vampire which may attempt to block. The only restrictions on the use of WwEF are that it is a reaction card, and may not be played on your turn, and that the using vampire must be tapped. Note that since it doesn't actually untap the vampire, one vampire could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to play a second after the first Different kinds of actions have restrictions on who can block, but reaction cards, in general, are a legal response to any action,by any player. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3jfsfk$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >The only restrictions on the use of WwEF are that it is a reaction card, >and may not be played on your turn, and that the using vampire must be >tapped. Note that since it doesn't actually untap the vampire, one vampire >could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to >play a second after the first Oops. You forgot something. A vampire can't play the same reaction card twice during the same action. Don't get carried away in the example. Now, one *player* could pitch multiple WwEF's at once, providing that he had multiple tapped vampires, but once *vampire* is stuck to once per action. [ quoted text not captured ]

curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > The only restrictions on the use of WwEF are that it is a reaction card, > and may not be played on your turn, and that the using vampire must be > tapped. Note that since it doesn't actually untap the vampire, one vampire Peace Curt, Ok, I'll agree that this is legal, technically. > could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to > play a second after the first I have to disagree with this though. I still believe that it violates the spirit of the rules to throw cards away for no purpose. Nil carborundum illigitimi, [ quoted text not captured ]

"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes: >> could pitch multiple Wakes at once - he is still tapped and eligible to >> play a second after the first >I have to disagree with this though. I still believe that it violates the >spirit of the rules to throw cards away for no purpose. I think cycling through a deck IS part of the spirit of the game. However, I was in error on the multiple Wakes business. It's a reaction card, so 1 per vampire per action. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

In article <3jhr41$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >No, the reason it's so powerful is that with a good Wake collection every >vampire can act every turn and still block. Waky-waky Tremere or Toreador >decks are a fearsome sight. The burn business is a side issue. Someone >said that sometimes you won't want to wake (i.e., Gangrel bleeds, etc.) >and the Wakes will jam up your hand. I and others pointed out in those >occasional situations, you can just ditch the Wakes to get other cards in >your hand. Well, I have two comments here. First, I will preface it by saying that I agree that WwEF is a powerful card, so don't think I'm arguing that point. Again, I'm *not* arguing that WwEF is a powerful card. However, WwEF's *will* jam up your hand during combat in any deck that cycles if you have (the number you gave me) 10 to 12 of them. Any combat deck that cycles has the problem of an occasional jam. If you're using the tactics you gave me earlier (equipment and retainers for permanent bonuses instead of combat cards), you're increasing the odds of a combat jam, and in a combat deck, *that's* exactly when you don't want to jam up. There's no way to ditch extra WwEF's in combat, nor any other card that's not a combat card. I'm not afraid of a Tremere who can't get a strike card because he's busy cycling through WwEF's. Or Master cards. Or Bleeds. Whatever. *Any* card in that amount will hold you up in combat. Second, there are quite a few strategies out there where it doesn't matter whether or not they can block you. I mean, WwEF or not, there's practically *always* gonna be at least one vampire out who can block you. The question is how you deal with that. If you haven't built a deck that deals with that, you're playing the wrong game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: : Any combat deck that cycles has the problem of an occasional jam. If : you're using the tactics you gave me earlier (equipment and retainers : for permanent bonuses instead of combat cards), you're increasing the [stuff snipped] the other problem i see with the great ability to play all these equip etc. actions then be able to wake 10 to 12 times a game is what if i know that's your plan and i take no actions and play an intercept deck and just stop all you're actions. now all your great stuff is going to the ash heap (pile, what ever) and you'll wind up with 10 to 12 less useful cards (who cares if you can wake if you have no intercept and are going to do 1 hand damage). dan edelman

CurtAdams (curt...@aol.com) wrote: : >the other problem i see with the great ability to play all these equip : >etc. actions then be able to wake 10 to 12 times a game is what if : >i know that's your plan and i take no actions and play an intercept : >deck and just stop all you're actions. : : If you know your opponent in a 2-player game, you can always build a deck : to beat any other deck. That doesn't show that the other deck isn't really : gross. Besides, in a multiplayer game, you can't count on being next to : me. Alternatively I switch to Malkavian aggro combat and I'll get my : equip actions past you. : : : Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) then i've at least partially succeded in getting you to change decks i've never thought about a malk agg deck, but i've got to belive that it is card intensive (either protan and claws (either) or guns and dragon breath rounds (which traches the gun making it less than permanent)) anyway, i'll gladly use my gangrel-toreador-tremere deck against a malk agg deck (no guaranty i'll win) with more than 5 wwef. as to a multi-player game if you're not my prey and not going to be my prey soon i figure most of your wakes will be spent by the time you would become my prey. then as long as i have a few peace treaties and some cryptic missions your weapons and retainers are likely lost dan edelman

dged...@mtu.edu (Daniel G. Edelman)writes: >Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote: >: Any combat deck that cycles has the problem of an occasional jam. If >: you're using the tactics you gave me earlier (equipment and retainers >: for permanent bonuses instead of combat cards), you're increasing the >: chance of a jam Yes, the chance of a jam goes up, but you can easily clear out a jam. Every one of your vampires takes an action on your turn. No worries about being able to block. >the other problem i see with the great ability to play all these equip >etc. actions then be able to wake 10 to 12 times a game is what if >i know that's your plan and i take no actions and play an intercept >deck and just stop all you're actions. If you know your opponent in a 2-player game, you can always build a deck [ quoted text not captured ]