Be warned: This is a slightly ranting and raving comment on the problems
of the VtES Aggro damage revision.
For those of us who have been playing this game since it first came out as
Jyhad, the change in the aggravated damage rules that accompanied the
release of VtES was perhaps the most drastic change we have seen in the
rules.
In Jyhad, a single point of aggravated damage, if unprevented, would only
send a vampire to torpor. Any additional damage would cause the vampire
to burn a blood to heal it, and if there was none to burn, the vampire
would be burned itself. This is the classic X+2 points of aggravated
damage needed to burn a vampire, where X is equal to the amount of blood
on the vamp when damage is being resolved.
Under the new VtES rules a single point of aggravated damage will vause a
vampire to go to torpor AND cause the vamp to burn a blood. This created
the new X+1 points of aggravated damage to burn a vamp. This change was
brought about (at least in part) by a desire to simplify the rule to make
it easier to understand and implement.
An unfortunate side effect of this was that cards which could never burn a
vampire in VtES (the Ivory Bow for example) could now burn a vampire.
This took a bit of getting used to. There was something just wrong about
the IB being able to burn a vampire.
So my play group stuck with the old aggravated damage rules until DS came
out. At that point it became necessary to switch over because many of the
Necromancy cards had to do with burned vampires. The cards were written
with the X+1 rule in mind, and would become less effective without using
that rule.
I can accept that. It doesn't really change the game that much. Except
in the case of Pulled Fangs.
Pulled Fangs is a big problem (in my mind at least) under the new damage
rules. In Jyhad the worst it could do was send you to torpor. Now it can
kill.
So how is this different from the Ivory Bow or other types of aggravated
damge under the new rules?
For starters all of the other methods of aggravated damage can be seen
and/or predicted. If someone has Protean, you know to watch out for some
variety of Claws. If someone has a gun, DB rounds could be coming. A
Vamp with potence could vent her Burning Wrath. All of the types of
aggravated damage can at least be forseen because they are strike
related. In most cases they can't be combined with multiple strikes (ie
if there are multiple strikes they end up being the last one or they would
send the victim to torpor sooner). So a discrete and at least potentially
forseeable amount of damage is inflicted during the strike phase.
Next, all other types of aggravated damage strikes are avoidable in a
couple ways. You can dodge that Gangrel/Flame Thrower/Zip Gun w/DB rounds
or whatever. And if you don't have that opportunity, you can actually play
damage prevention cards to prevent the aggravated portion of the damage.
This is not so with Pulled Fangs. Pulled Fangs is a card that can
essentially be played by any minion at nearly any time. You have no way
of predicting that a PF is coming. All that is required is that you do
more damage at close range than another vampire. Prevent the damage done
to you, PF. Use a Lucky Blow, PF. Multiple strike, PF.
Under the old rules, the worst that could happen is you get sent to
torpor. This is an annoyance, and could in and of itself be disasterous
for your game. But under X+1, you vamp could be burnt. Imagine the
hellish combination of a Brujah with both Superior Pot and Cel using Fist
of Death and Blur. This will result in 3 strikes for 3 points each (I
think that is right, FoD does +2 hand damage for the combat, yes?). In
the press stage, play pulled Fangs. Assuming that none of the damage was
prevented or dodged, you burn a 9 capacity vampire. And there are any
number of combination sof cards that can create this effect. It is
possible that you could burn an IC vamp in one round of combat using a
similar tactic. And there is nothing the other vamp can do about it.
And why is that? Because the damage from Pulled Fangs is unpreventable
according to the Design Team. It is damage that occurs outside of the
damage resolution stage, which is the only time you can play damage
prevention cards (except for Rutor's Hand).
The reason this irks me so is that there is no way to predict when and
where the PF could be coming from, and no way to act to prevent the
damage. This is in opposition to every other form of aggravated damge out
there. It is a fundamental cahnge in the nature of the card brought about
by the new aggro damage rules of VtES.
So what can be done about it? I don't know. House rules, a redefinition
of the card.
I just needed to vent a little (after seeing 3 vamps burned in this
fashion in a game from a card that only used to be able to torporize
before, you might need to vent as well.)
Just throwing this out as a topic for conversation and a concern.
stephen beaulieu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes:
>Be warned: This is a slightly ranting and raving comment on the problems
>of the VtES Aggro damage revision.>And why is that? Because the damage from Pulled Fangs is unpreventable>according to the Design Team. It is damage that occurs outside of the
>damage resolution stage, which is the only time you can play damage
>prevention cards (except for Rutor's Hand).
I'd just like to point out that, while it is true that you cannot play
damage prevention cards except during strike resolution (why? ask the
RT), the damage from PF can be prevented by other means, such as a Flak
Jacket, Respl. Protector, Talbot's Chainsaw, Apparition, Undead
Persistence. Why these and not cards which were obviously designed
to do the same thing or better? Because these are cards that
"Prevent 1 damage per combat" and not combat cards the "Prevent 1 damage".
Combat cards that prevent damage, as *nowhere* specified or aluded to
in the rules, can *only* be played at strike resolution. The RT came to
this conclusion because the rules describing playing such cards during
strike resolution (a natural time to expect damage during combat).
The fact that you can play them during strike resolution means, to the
rules team, that you can *only* play them at that time, rather than
anytime during combat (since they are combat cards) that you take damage
(to prevent arbitrary cycling, as easily interpretted from the rules
"You cannot prevent more damage than you take").
Sorry to detract from the Pulled Fangs rant to rant about this,
although this RT mistake is at the heart of the PF rant (assuming
that the first agg causes the loss of a blood is a reasonable rule,
which I think it is).
--
L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | NEVER say Cthulhu's name ou%^
http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | *$%t lo#^*$% @zU{-
Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | q^@*#`&NO CARRIER.
In article <4i7dip$b...@redwood.cs.sc.edu>, sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L.
Scott Johnson) wrote:
: hi...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen Beaulieu) writes:
: >Be warned: This is a slightly ranting and raving comment on the problems: >of the VtES Aggro damage revision.:
: >And why is that? Because the damage from Pulled Fangs is unpreventable: >according to the Design Team. It is damage that occurs outside of the
: >damage resolution stage, which is the only time you can play damage
: >prevention cards (except for Rutor's Hand).:
: I'd just like to point out that, while it is true that you cannot play: damage prevention cards except during strike resolution (why? ask the
: RT), the damage from PF can be prevented by other means, such as a Flak
: Jacket, Respl. Protector, Talbot's Chainsaw, Apparition, Undead
: Persistence. Why these and not cards which were obviously designed
: to do the same thing or better? Because these are cards that
: "Prevent 1 damage per combat" and not combat cards the "Prevent 1 damage".
Ah. I had not realized that you could use these cards to prevent the
damage from PF. But, no matter, it doesn't change the heart of the
problem.
: Sorry to detract from the Pulled Fangs rant to rant about this,: although this RT mistake is at the heart of the PF rant (assuming
: that the first agg causes the loss of a blood is a reasonable rule,
: which I think it is).
I agree with you that the rulings on damage prevention don't seem to make
a lot of sense to me. And that they are at the heart of at least part of
the PF problem.
I also agree that (in theory at least) the new aggravated damage rule is a
good one. It makes sense, and it is simple. My problem lies with the way
the damage rule fundamentally changed certain cards (most notably PF and
the Ivory Bow).
Here's hoping for an intelligent solution to both problems.
stephen beaulieu
hi...@mail.utexas.edu
On the pulled fangs 'problem'
Note how voting got more interesting with more votes more Praxi and a cheap
prince. Note how BLEED got hosed - V:TES.
Note how Combat got better -V:TES Agg rules.
That means that a Pot Brujah standard rush combat deck can now
rush-bash-burn
but that's all it can do
it doesn't have enough room for Presence based bleed without becoming diluted
So new agg rules make sense, allow you to do more with combat (i.e. acutally
burn a vampire) and let you threat with a non combat deck surprise
No Skill Required Combat Surprise Combo:
Lucky Blow
Pulled Fangs
Amaranth
Three card combo - burns a vamp when you're opposing vamp make a one hand
damage strike as first strike in first round of combat.
Works great against Thaum decks (stealing is not damage)
Celerity based add strike decks who don't +punch first time
Apparition based decks (trap)
Agreement/Flames welcome
Stu
--
"Death is a health-care issue." -- Hillary Rodham Clinton [9-28-93]
In article <4i9lt0$m...@acmey.gatech.edu>, dsa...@prism.gatech.edu
(Stuart J. Pieloch) wrote:
> So new agg rules make sense, allow you to do more with combat (i.e.
acutally
> burn a vampire) and let you threat with a non combat deck surprise
> No Skill Required Combat Surprise Combo:
> Lucky Blow
> Pulled Fangs
> Amaranth
Yeah weanie combat. Add Bum's rushes and there's a deck.
> Three card combo - burns a vamp when you're opposing vamp make a one
hand
> damage strike as first strike in first round of combat.
> Works great against Thaum decks (stealing is not damage)
I think the Tremere would catch on... Let's Blood Fury, etc.
instead. In addition, Tremere usually have to worry about other combat
decks. To do so, they either pull off neat tricks, or have Flak Jackets,
etc., to stop Protean and Celerity/Potence-Guns from wiping them before
second round.
> Celerity based add strike decks who don't +punch
first time
A big if in a celerity deck.
> Apparition based decks (trap)
How would this work? Not enough damage would be done for the Pulled
Fangs...
> Agreement/Flames welcome
See above. :)
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
The problem with the new aggro rules is that two cards which were already
semi-spoilers (Ivory Bow and Pulled Fangs) have been upgraded to
full-fledged spoilers. The effects of Ivory Bow is limited by uniqueness,
but even before the new rules it was one of the most expensive cards in
the game and every IB I ever saw had been pressed into service in a deck.
Jyhad has other cards that would be spoilers if not unique (Giant's Blood,
The Barrens) so this is not an intolerable situation.
Pulled Fangs, however, isn't unique. Like IB, it was semi-spoilerish even
under the old rules, as anybody who has dealt with a competent combat deck
with 6 or more can attest. It's free to use, requires no particular
discipline, has a very nasty effect, and in appropriate Celerity or
Fortitude decks works very reliably.
But things are significantly worse with the new rules. Before PF meant a
trip to torpor; now it often means a burn, which is a tremendous loss.
Its most gruesome use is with Celerity Dodge/Additional strike decks (with
Potence, guns, or 2 Hand) which can very reliably reduce opposing minions
to 0 blood. The reinterpretation that you can't prevent the damage with
cards (but you can with effects - boy, now that's a confusing ruling) and
the errata that PF can only be played at the end of the round both
aggravate the Celerity/PF problem - Fortitude can't stop it, and
superPotence decks can't beat them to the punch.
Celerity combat was already something of a problem. The only good defense
to these Celerity decks was S:CE, which is a spoiler itself. Standard
combat defenses, like Dodge, maneuver, and fight back, are generally not
effective against these decks, in marked contrast to all other combat
decks. So now we have a deck design (Celerity combat with PF) which
obliterates every deck except those based on spoilers of their own. This
is a very bad situation. Even if WotC can successfully balance the
Thoughts Betrayed and Majesty spoilers against this spoiler system (a
really difficult task), what fun is a game where the only winning decks
are built around a small set of spoiler cards?
As a side note, PF is rare. Most other spoiler cards (e.g. Majesty) are
common, so their intense desirability doesn't benefit Mr. Suitcase - you
can get 20 Majesties for a buck. PF is hard to come by, by contrast, and
gives someone with boxes of cards a big advantage over somebody without.
I agree that in and of themselves the new aggro rules are good. They are
clearer, and eliminate a thicket of bizarre situations such a Basilia
being helpless against Undead Persistence. But with pre-existing cards,
they are a problem.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
HACK
>is a very bad situation. Even if WotC can successfully balance the
>Thoughts Betrayed and Majesty spoilers against this spoiler system (a
>really difficult task), what fun is a game where the only winning decks
>are built around a small set of spoiler cards?
>
>As a side note, PF is rare. Most other spoiler cards (e.g. Majesty) are
>common, so their intense desirability doesn't benefit Mr. Suitcase - you
>can get 20 Majesties for a buck. PF is hard to come by, by contrast, and
>gives someone with boxes of cards a big advantage over somebody without.
>
>I agree that in and of themselves the new aggro rules are good. They are
>clearer, and eliminate a thicket of bizarre situations such a Basilia
>being helpless against Undead Persistence. But with pre-existing cards,
>they are a problem.
>
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
No offense Curt but is there any part of this game you can not find a
problem with;) As for suitcase players I am one and Rarity in these parts
basically has no effect because I can get any rare here for $1, because
the game has a small market here (Me basically) cards come really cheap
and with a new market (The Internet) It is not to hard to find cheap
Jyhad rares. I have 6 PF and could have traded or bought more for a
dollar but don't think the card is all that great.
Errol T.
In article <4ifhmc$d...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T
<etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>>As a side note, PF is rare. Most other spoiler cards (e.g. Majesty) are
>>common, so their intense desirability doesn't benefit Mr. Suitcase - you
>>can get 20 Majesties for a buck. PF is hard to come by, by contrast,
and
>>gives someone with boxes of cards a big advantage over somebody without.
>>
>>I agree that in and of themselves the new aggro rules are good. They
are
>>clearer, and eliminate a thicket of bizarre situations such a Basilia
>>being helpless against Undead Persistence. But with pre-existing cards,
>>they are a problem.>No offense Curt but is there any part of this game you can not find a
>problem with;)
Well, I don't find problems with perfect things. Perfection, however, is
most rare, even in Jyhad :-)
I don't cheer Jyhad all that much here because I'd be preaching to the
choir. In other groups, and in person, I'm definitely a Jyhad booster,
warts and all.
>As for suitcase players I am one and Rarity in these parts
>basically has no effect because I can get any rare here for $1, because
>the game has a small market here (Me basically) cards come really cheap
>and with a new market (The Internet) It is not to hard to find cheap
>Jyhad rares. I have 6 PF and could have traded or bought more for a
>dollar but don't think the card is all that great.
>
I've seen people ditch this game (and others) because of the $$$ problems.
You're certainly right that the low price of cards eliminates a lot of
troubles. PF is great, however - I have 2 decks (a Ventrue Bruise and
Bleed and a semi-weenie Potence rush) which improve very markedly with PF,
and many of them at that.
And that's under the old rules.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <4icu7h$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]>is a very bad situation. Even if WotC can successfully balance the
>Thoughts Betrayed and Majesty spoilers against this spoiler system (a
>really difficult task), what fun is a game where the only winning decks
>are built around a small set of spoiler cards?
>>As a side note, PF is rare. Most other spoiler cards (e.g. Majesty) are
>common, so their intense desirability doesn't benefit Mr. Suitcase - you
>can get 20 Majesties for a buck. PF is hard to come by, by contrast, and
>gives someone with boxes of cards a big advantage over somebody without.
>
>I agree that in and of themselves the new aggro rules are good. They are
>clearer, and eliminate a thicket of bizarre situations such a Basilia
>being helpless against Undead Persistence. But with pre-existing cards,
>they are a problem.
>>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Unfortunately I would have to agree with you,the new aggro damage rules make
solely combat decks worth thinking about(if by no means reliable as a
constantly winning deck),but make pulled fangs,ivory bow and sengir dagger
even more ridiculous then they were before.Even stakes now with the rules
that they do aggro damage are potentially deadly with a torn signpost/blur
combo(not using the stake until the last strke,thats 7 non-aggro and 2 aggro
to burn the vampire!)Pulled fangs as an unpreventable damage just means that
if you have the money and stack you deck with 6 or 7 of these,you are going
to burn,with a good brujah deck,6 or 7 vampires!Having said that I play with
4 card limit and our group doesn't have vast amounts of rare cards so this is
not so much of a problem.But I can see a problem with this card benifiting
those who have invested lots in the game and play no limit.
Mik