sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:
>Mike Bohlmann (mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:>[bobbitt]>: After looking through the rules and errata, etc, I have not found a
>: definite answer to my question:>: Can you bleed anyone other than your prey?>According to the original rules that come in a starter box - no.>There has, however, been official errata to the rules that any card which
>allows a (D) bleed action (e.g. Computer Hacking) may be directed at any
>Meth, not just your prey. This is the only (AFAIK) way to bleed someone
>other than your prey.
There are at least two others. Govern the Unaligned allows you to do a
(D) +1 Bleed, and there is another card which says basically:
(D) Bleed
(D) Bleed any Methuselah
Just saw the card tonight, so I don't remember it's name.
tjs
--
Ultimately, we know all things because we want to believe we know. FH
Argue for your limitations -- and sure enough -- they're yours. RB
main(){write(0,"Tim Shelling, CmpE, Sr.\n" "gt2...@prism.gatech.edu\n",50);}
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> Then, WotC issued badly-thought-out errata that said the (D) symbol on a
> card was not simply a reminder, but an override - allowing you to point
> the action at any Methuselah. This action broke a few cards: Cat Burglary
> and Rampage off the top of my head, while making other cards more powerful
> (all of the (D) bleeders).
Peace Scott,
I have to disagree about not being able to bleed other Meths. Yes, you are
supposed to bleed your prey (pretty much exclusively), but having the option
to bleed other Meths is a very necessary and balancing effect, IMO.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
Recently, we've gotten into a debate over bleeding (mainly the non-card
kind). When our little group first started playing, we thought the Edge
was given to anyone for successfully bleeding. Later, someone noticed in
the non-bleed part of the rulebook that only a predator bleeding his prey
gets the Edge.
Well, last night, someone asked for me to find this reference to make sure
it was true. While I was reading the bleed section (action sub-section)
of the rulebook, it implied that you can only bleed your prey in this way.
At the end of this section, it states that a Methuselah making a
successful bleed gains the Edge. Now, the way we had been playing, this
was contradictory. So, I am now arguing that the only correct way to bleed
is to bleed your prey: the rulebook does not allow you to bleed anyone
else (by bleed, I mean the non-card variety). Later that night, I read up
on the thread concerning direct actions and bleeding, etc. They seemed
to back me up (only bleed your prey).
After looking through the rules and errata, etc, I have not found a
definite answer to my question:
Can you bleed anyone other than your prey?
If you cannot, I would be very happy. A certain member of our group likes
to bleed his predator to weaken him so he cannot bleed him back. He has
defeated me in many games doing this, because I have to defend against two
people...very difficult. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
German and Commerical Studies Mike Bohlmann University of Illinois-U/C
mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
Es ist moeglich, und es ist Wirklichkeit geworden.
Mike Bohlmann (mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
[bobbitt]
: After looking through the rules and errata, etc, I have not found a: definite answer to my question:: Can you bleed anyone other than your prey?
According to the original rules that come in a starter box - no.
There has, however, been official errata to the rules that any card which
allows a (D) bleed action (e.g. Computer Hacking) may be directed at any
Meth, not just your prey. This is the only (AFAIK) way to bleed someone
other than your prey.
Note - this means that if you have a Laptop Computer and declare a bleed,
it must still be directed at your prey, since all this card does is add
to your bleed, not change the original bleeding rules at all.
If _any_ bleed you do is successful, you gain possession of the edge.
Shane Travis | There are two kinds of men who never amount to
sht...@duke.usask.ca | very much: those who cannot do what they are told,
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | and those who can do nothing else.
| -- Cyrus H.K. Curtis
Tim Shelling (gt2...@prism.gatech.edu) wrote:
: sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) writes:: >There has, however, been official errata to the rules that any card which: >allows a (D) bleed action (e.g. Computer Hacking) may be directed at any
: >Meth, not just your prey. This is the only (AFAIK) way to bleed someone
: >other than your prey.: There are at least two others. Govern the Unaligned allows you to do a
: (D) +1 Bleed, and there is another card which says basically:
Sorry - not very clear in my wording there.
AFAIK: using a bleed action card with a (D) symbol on it is the only way
to bleed anyone other than your prey. I know there are more cards than
Computer Hacking that will do the job - was just using it as an example.
Apologies for confusion...
[ quoted text not captured ]
mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) writes:
>Recently, we've gotten into a debate over bleeding (mainly the non-card
>kind). When our little group first started playing, we thought the Edge
>was given to anyone for successfully bleeding. Later, someone noticed in
>the non-bleed part of the rulebook that only a predator bleeding his prey
>gets the Edge.>Well, last night, someone asked for me to find this reference to make sure
>it was true. While I was reading the bleed section (action sub-section)
>of the rulebook, it implied that you can only bleed your prey in this way.
>At the end of this section, it states that a Methuselah making a
>successful bleed gains the Edge. Now, the way we had been playing, this
>was contradictory. So, I am now arguing that the only correct way to bleed
>is to bleed your prey: the rulebook does not allow you to bleed anyone
>else (by bleed, I mean the non-card variety). Later that night, I read up
>on the thread concerning direct actions and bleeding, etc. They seemed
>to back me up (only bleed your prey).>After looking through the rules and errata, etc, I have not found a
>definite answer to my question:> Can you bleed anyone other than your prey?>If you cannot, I would be very happy. A certain member of our group likes
>to bleed his predator to weaken him so he cannot bleed him back. He has
>defeated me in many games doing this, because I have to defend against two
>people...very difficult. Thanks in advance for any replies.
Way back when the game was being designed, the intent was to allow you to
bleed your prey only, as a (D) action. That's why the text on Cat Burglary
reads the way it does. The only way you could ever bleed someone else
was to use superior Cat Burglary (or get your bleed bounced by your Prey
playing Deflection or sup. Telepathic Misdirection).
Either way, successfully bleeding anybody gets you the edge, even though
you can only bleed your prey unless a card specifically says otherwise.
And life was good.
Then, WotC issued badly-thought-out errata that said the (D) symbol on a
card was not simply a reminder, but an override - allowing you to point
the action at any Methuselah. This action broke a few cards: Cat Burglary
and Rampage off the top of my head, while making other cards more powerful
(all of the (D) bleeders).
If this was the original intention, why weren't there any cards that
simply allowed a (D) bleed, without the bonus to bleed? Because that card
would've been worthless - it does nothing except note that the bleed is
(D), which is true of all bleeds, even the non-card ones.
And life was complicated and logic-free.
[ quoted text not captured ]>Peace Scott,[ quoted text not captured ]> Nil carborundum illigitimi,[ quoted text not captured ]><insert disclaimer here>
I think it has the reverse effect. I was the original poster of this thread.
If you think about it, the game could end up with 2 friends just teaming up
to win the game between the two of them. Defending against more than 1
person trying to bleed you is very hard (and frustrating). I think that if
you allow the Bleed Action cards to be used against anyone, that is your
balance. If people want to do it, they can put those cards in their deck.
I, for one, never see the need to bleed my predator until he becomes my prey.
Sure, maybe if he has only a couple blood left and all his guys are tapped (not
likely) I may put him out of the game. But that, in my view, is just not the
idea of the game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jdk7t$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Mike Bohlmann <mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Recently, we've gotten into a debate over bleeding (mainly the non-card
>kind). When our little group first started playing, we thought the Edge
>> Can you bleed anyone other than your prey?
Without a card, you can only bleed your prey. To bleed someone
other than your prey, you need a card allowing a (D) bleed.
| 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
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>>> Then, WotC issued badly-thought-out errata that said the (D) symbol on a
>> card was not simply a reminder, but an override - allowing you to point
>> the action at any Methuselah. This action broke a few cards: Cat Burglary
>> and Rampage off the top of my head, while making other cards more powerful
>> (all of the (D) bleeders).>Peace Scott,>I have to disagree about not being able to bleed other Meths. Yes, you are
>supposed to bleed your prey (pretty much exclusively), but having the option
>to bleed other Meths is a very necessary and balancing effect, IMO.
I'm not talking about making the game interesting. I'm talking about
rending the rules and grossly changing them (sledge hammer for computer
repair) in such a way that you break other pieces.
If the (D) merely describes the action, as it should IMO, then cards like
Cat Burglary and Rampage work as written.
This is how the original rules are written, and how the game came together, IMO.
Now, the errata pounded this (D) symbol thing until it looked like the (D)
is a modifier that allows you to direct the action anywhere.
Now Cat Burglary needs fixing.
Now Rampage is unblockable when used against yourself.
Now players (friends) in tournaments can gang up on somebody and guarantee a
loser much more easily.
Now Computer Hacking has a different flavor than a Laptop Computer, when they
both should obviously accomplish the same thing.
In article <3jfqfr$e...@redwood.cs.scarolina.edu>,
L. Scott Johnson <sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu> wrote:
>Now, the errata pounded this (D) symbol thing until it looked like the (D)
>is a modifier that allows you to direct the action anywhere.
>Now Cat Burglary needs fixing.
Cat Burglary needed fixing the moment it came out. It was
patently obvious that it was a screwed up card. The erratum in Duelist
#3 makes the wording on CB consistent with all of the other bleed cards
in the game.
>Now Rampage is unblockable when used against yourself.
Personally, I think that there's a note somewhere in WotC saying
that the wording should be changed on that card. When I was at GenCon
last year (where Jyhad was released for the first time), I saw several
of the WotC employees passing around a very long list of things that
needed to be fixed with Jyhad. It was a *lot* longer than all of the
errata I've seen. My guess is that Rampage is on there somewhere. It
should probably read "this is a non-directed action at +1 stealth...".
>Now players (friends) in tournaments can gang up on somebody and guarantee a
> loser much more easily.
That's a *very* subjective thing to say. We've been playing the
'official' (for lack of a better term) way the whole time, and so far we
have yet to see such a thing. But if we change the rules to play the
other way, I could just as easily say "This bites! Now when someone
makes an ass of themselves in the game, we can't do a thing to stop him
unless we've got vote cards! This makes these (D) bleed cards useless!"
>Now Computer Hacking has a different flavor than a Laptop Computer, when they
> both should obviously accomplish the same thing.
It's not obvious to me that they should both accomplish the same
thing. One is an action, and the other is Equipment. The action only
increases your bleed once, against anyone, and the equipment increses it
permanently against your prey (mainly, but it can also be used against
others with a card). Under *any* interpretation of the rules, the
Laptop is different by virtue of it being a permanent thing while the
hacking is temporary. Might as well say Tasha Morgan and J.S. Simmons
are also the same things as a Laptop and Comp. Hacking (which is also
inaccurate, as equipment is optional while retainers aren't).
I think that the design team has had one idea of what (D) means
the whole time, but has been doing a collossally bad job of explaining
it through the rules and rulings. A good treatise on (D) by the
designers would do this game wonders.
[ quoted text not captured ]
WARNING: this article contains heavily personal opinion
which contradicts/ignores the DTR. Anything in this
article that is stated as official DTR is official
(hopefully); anything stated as personal opinion
is not.
In article <3jdk7t$m...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) writes:
>Recently, we've gotten into a debate over bleeding (mainly the non-card
>kind). When our little group first started playing, we thought the Edge
>was given to anyone for successfully bleeding. Later, someone noticed in
>the non-bleed part of the rulebook that only a predator bleeding his prey
>gets the Edge.
>
>Well, last night, someone asked for me to find this reference to make sure
>it was true. While I was reading the bleed section (action sub-section)
>of the rulebook, it implied that you can only bleed your prey in this way.
>At the end of this section, it states that a Methuselah making a
>successful bleed gains the Edge. Now, the way we had been playing, this
>was contradictory. So, I am now arguing that the only correct way to bleed
>is to bleed your prey: the rulebook does not allow you to bleed anyone
>else (by bleed, I mean the non-card variety). Later that night, I read up
>on the thread concerning direct actions and bleeding, etc. They seemed
>to back me up (only bleed your prey).
The official DTR: you can bleed only your prey without a card.
You can (D) bleed anyone with a card that says (D) bleed;
you get the Edge when you bleed successfully, whoever
you bleed. Cat Burglary needed an errata (and got one)
because of this ruling.
My personal oponion: you can bleed only your prey, with or
without a card. Only a few cards (Cat Burglary is one)
that specifically state on the card that you can
bleed somebody else are exceptions from this rule.
The original card text on Cat Burglary is correct;
the official errata is superfluous and misleading.
Those few cards that allow you to bleed somebody
other than your prey always restrict you to
bleed for 1 only; hence, their main function
is more for getting you the edge than for
really bleeding anybody you like for real harm.
Therefore, you do gain the edge whenever you
bleed successfully, whoever you bleed.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
In article <3jflcc$b...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> mboh...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Bohlmann) writes:
>"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
>>>I have to disagree about not being able to bleed other Meths. Yes, you are
>>supposed to bleed your prey (pretty much exclusively), but having the option
>>to bleed other Meths is a very necessary and balancing effect, IMO.>
>>I think it has the reverse effect. I was the original poster of this thread.
>If you think about it, the game could end up with 2 friends just teaming up
>to win the game between the two of them. Defending against more than 1
>person trying to bleed you is very hard (and frustrating). I think that if
>you allow the Bleed Action cards to be used against anyone, that is your
>balance. If people want to do it, they can put those cards in their deck.
>I, for one, never see the need to bleed my predator until he becomes my prey.
>Sure, maybe if he has only a couple blood left and all his guys are tapped (not
>likely) I may put him out of the game. But that, in my view, is just not the
>idea of the game.
Let's compare the (according to the DTR) two main kinds
of cards that allow you to directly attack anybody:
(D) bleeds and Bum's Rush.
If you do a (D) bleed at +1, that player has to block you,
or he'll lose at least 2 pool. If players gang
up on somebody, he won't have enough (untapped)
minions to defend. There's no way he can defend against
this, except with a degenerate Telepathic Counter/
Telepathic Misdirection/WwEF deck.
If you Bum's Rush somebody, he does NOT have to tap to
block you. If his vampires have sufficient combat
ability, he can just meet the challenger. His
minions do not become tapped by your Bum's Rush,
unless you managed to parylyze him during the
combat. If several players gang up on somebody,
for sure he will have a lot of combats to fight,
but if he can come out of the combats without
taking too much damage, he can survive for
quite a while. He has a defense against the
gang-up Bum's Rush'ing strategy: he
can be good at combat.
If you (D) bleed him, he's tapped if he blocks,
and can't block subsequent bleeds (barring Wakes).
If you Bum's Rush him, he doesn't tap, can
still defend himself against subsequent Bum's
Rush'es, and even eventually blocking a bleed
from his predator.
Therefore, IMO, in the original design of the game,
(D) bleeds (on cards or otherwise) can only be
directed at your prey, while Bum's Rush can
be directed at anybody.
[ quoted text not captured ]
sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >> Then, WotC issued badly-thought-out errata that said the (D) symbol on a
> >> card was not simply a reminder, but an override - allowing you to point
> >> the action at any Methuselah. This action broke a few cards: Cat Burglary
> >> and Rampage off the top of my head, while making other cards more powerful
> >> (all of the (D) bleeders).
>
> >Peace Scott,
>
> >I have to disagree about not being able to bleed other Meths. Yes, you are
> >supposed to bleed your prey (pretty much exclusively), but having the option
> >to bleed other Meths is a very necessary and balancing effect, IMO.
>
> I'm not talking about making the game interesting. I'm talking about
> rending the rules and grossly changing them (sledge hammer for computer
> repair) in such a way that you break other pieces.
Peace Scott,
I _am_ talking about making the game interesting & balanced, elsewise, why would
you play.
> If the (D) merely describes the action, as it should IMO, then cards like
> Cat Burglary and Rampage work as written.
> This is how the original rules are written, and how the game came together, IMO.
That is your opinion, and I'll not try to change it, but we (the group I play with
haven't encountered any problems with (D) cards.
> Now, the errata pounded this (D) symbol thing until it looked like the (D)
> is a modifier that allows you to direct the action anywhere.
> Now Cat Burglary needs fixing.
Clarifing, perhaps.
> Now Rampage is unblockable when used against yourself.
Ok, so you can destroy your own locations.
> Now players (friends) in tournaments can gang up on somebody and guarantee a
> loser much more easily.
If a group of disreputable players gets together and decides to throw a game
in favor of one of their members I don't think the lack of 'super' (D) cards
would stop them. Look at all the silly things people do with Fame and Monacle
of Clarity.
> Now Computer Hacking has a different flavor than a Laptop Computer, when they
> both should obviously accomplish the same thing.
They do, when both are directed at your prey.
I still believe that having the option to interact with players outside your
immediate neighbors is important. If you were only supposed to hurt/damage your
prey, vote cards like Conservative Agatation (sp) and Kine Resources Contested
would require you to do at least some of their damage to your prey. Please,
note these are just my opinions. I believe the game is better with the options
than without.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Mar8.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Frankly speaking, if you enjoy the kind of rich inter-player action
>generated by those (D) bleeds directed at anybody, you really
>should check out Diplomacy. That game has /very rich/
>inter-player dynamics: you really can't win without
>making alliances. Diplomacy the board game is no more
>complex than Jyhad, but it costs /much less/ $$$ investment
>to play. There's even a sequel, Colonial Diplomacy,
>for your enjoyment.
So you think that Jyhad *shoudn't* have rich interplayer action?
It should just be a beat-your-prey-and-don't-care-about-the-guy-across-
the-table game? Why then are there political actions? Why was the game
touted as a "multiplayer" game? There is (and should be) a theme for
multiplayer interaction running through all aspects of the game.
Political actions, directed bleeds, funky master cards, even reactions,
it's all there and all multiplayer. By restricting bleeds, you remove
part of that, and in my opinion that hurts the game.
>Recommended for Jyhad players who like to direct
>their (D) bleeds at the predator, or the current
>game leader.
How about those of us who are perfectly happy bleeding our prey
but want to be able to back up a threat should we have occassion to make
one?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jkfq0$a...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>>> Let's compare the (according to the DTR) two main kinds
>> of cards that allow you to directly attack anybody:
>> (D) bleeds and Bum's Rush.>>Peace Alan,
>
>Ok, let's.>>> If you do a (D) bleed at +1, that player has to block you,
>> or he'll lose at least 2 pool. If players gang
>> up on somebody, he won't have enough (untapped)
>> minions to defend. There's no way he can defend against
>> this, except with a degenerate Telepathic Counter/
>> Telepathic Misdirection/WwEF deck.>>Negative. Extending your idea (if many minions bleed a player, he is
>hopelessly toasted), does that mean that you believe that weenie decks are
>only defeatable by degenerate decks? I have to disagree with that.
Of course, because it's not a valid extension of an idea.
When many players gang up on one with (D) bleeds,
the vampires doing the (D) bleeds do not have to be
smaller.
My argument: if many /quality/ minions bleed a player, he is
hopelessly toasted. This argument does not "extend" to
weenie decks, because the weenies will be toasted before they
can do enough damage to oust the player.
>Yes, if two players gang up on one, that player doesn't have
>a bright outlook, but that is true for every multiplayer game I have ever
>played.
And what I see as part of the design of Jyhad is to make
this less true for this game. Otherwise, why even
the requirement for a card to (D) bleed anybody?
>> If you Bum's Rush somebody, he does NOT have to tap to
>> block you. If his vampires have sufficient combat
>> ability, he can just meet the challenger. His
>> minions do not become tapped by your Bum's Rush,>> unless you managed to paralyze him during the>> combat. If several players gang up on somebody,
>> for sure he will have a lot of combats to fight,
>> but if he can come out of the combats without
>> taking too much damage, he can survive for
>> quite a while. He has a defense against the
>> gang-up Bum's Rush'ing strategy: he
>> can be good at combat.>>I don't think so, Alan. Being Bum's Rushed by Brujah & Gangrel can be
>worse than being (D) bled.
This is true, but where's the relevence as a counter-argument?
(Read the last sentence in my paragraph.)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jht2u$6...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
>Peace Scott,
>
>I _am_ talking about making the game interesting & balanced, elsewise, why would
>you play.
>
Peace James,
Frankly speaking, if you enjoy the kind of rich inter-player action
generated by those (D) bleeds directed at anybody, you really
should check out Diplomacy. That game has /very rich/
inter-player dynamics: you really can't win without
making alliances. Diplomacy the board game is no more
complex than Jyhad, but it costs /much less/ $$$ investment
to play. There's even a sequel, Colonial Diplomacy,
for your enjoyment.
Recommended for Jyhad players who like to direct
their (D) bleeds at the predator, or the current
game leader.
--
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> Peace James,
>
> Frankly speaking, if you enjoy the kind of rich inter-player action
> generated by those (D) bleeds directed at anybody, you really
> should check out Diplomacy. That game has /very rich/
> inter-player dynamics: you really can't win without
> making alliances. Diplomacy the board game is no more
> complex than Jyhad, but it costs /much less/ $$$ investment
> to play. There's even a sequel, Colonial Diplomacy,
> for your enjoyment.
Peace Alan,
I've been playing Diplomacy for many years and completely agree with you.
Diplomacy is significantly simpler than Jyhad; it is all a game of knowing/
manipulating your opponent(s). Have you ever played any PBM Dip?
> Recommended for Jyhad players who like to direct
> their (D) bleeds at the predator, or the current
> game leader.
I still say that (D) cards are in there for balance purposes. Yes, they
can be abused, but what balancing card can't? Sometimes you need to help
out another player to prevent someone from walking away with the game.
That's what votes like Political Flux are for, unfortunately, many decks
are weak in votes and need an alternate method to reign in distant players.
That's where the (D) cards come in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> Let's compare the (according to the DTR) two main kinds
> of cards that allow you to directly attack anybody:
> (D) bleeds and Bum's Rush.
Peace Alan,
Ok, let's.
> If you do a (D) bleed at +1, that player has to block you,> or he'll lose at least 2 pool. If players gang
> up on somebody, he won't have enough (untapped)
> minions to defend. There's no way he can defend against
> this, except with a degenerate Telepathic Counter/
> Telepathic Misdirection/WwEF deck.
Negative. Extending your idea (if many minions bleed a player, he is
hopelessly toasted), does that mean that you believe that weenie decks are
only defeatable by degenerate decks? I have to disagree with that. In a
game where everyone plays to win (this, by MY definition, includes inter-
fering with distant players when necessary), weenie decks don't tend to
do well, IME. Get a Renegade Garou, Mudld Vamp Huntr, Flame Thrower, etc.
out and the weenie player becomes less enthusiastic about attack. Throw
in a few Defections/Tpath Counter/Tpath Misdir/Wakes/Majesties and the
weenie may not bleed you for several turns (I've seen it happen on more
than one occasion). I do think having a few defensive cards in your deck
is necessary. Yes, if two players gang up on one, that player doesn't have
a bright outlook, but that is true for every multiplayer game I have ever
played. I've seen tag-team Magic players (especially for ante). I don't
think that the fact that two is greater than one is important IF everyone
plays to win.
> If you Bum's Rush somebody, he does NOT have to tap to
> block you. If his vampires have sufficient combat
> ability, he can just meet the challenger. His
> minions do not become tapped by your Bum's Rush,
> unless you managed to parylyze him during the
> combat. If several players gang up on somebody,
> for sure he will have a lot of combats to fight,
> but if he can come out of the combats without
> taking too much damage, he can survive for
> quite a while. He has a defense against the
> gang-up Bum's Rush'ing strategy: he
> can be good at combat.
I don't think so, Alan. Being Bum's Rushed by Brujah & Gangrel can be
worse than being (D) bled. Several of your vampires go to torpor and your
mortal minions get burned with little chance to respond. Sure, you weren't
tapped, but what good does that do you if you are in torpor? If you aren't
good at combat and the Bum's Rusher is (why else would s/h/it put Bum's Rush
in his/her/it's deck?), then you are worse off than being bled, since
next time, s/h/it can bleed you and you'll have little or no defense at all.
> If you (D) bleed him, he's tapped if he blocks,
> and can't block subsequent bleeds (barring Wakes).
> If you Bum's Rush him, he doesn't tap, can
> still defend himself against subsequent Bum's
> Rush'es, and even eventually blocking a bleed
> from his predator.
Or you could use, Deflection (superior), Majesty (superior), Telepathic
Counter [all allow you to 'block' twice], or you could play Brujah/Gangrel
and hose the (D) bleeding vampires [torpored vampires rarely bleed you on
their next turn]. Bring out a Garou or MVH, the "fear factor" alone can
be enough to discourage (D) attacks. Put Flamethrower or Submachine Gun or
Ivory Bow or Sengir Dagger on some of your minions. Take the smaller bleeds
(1 or 2 blood) and crush the more important minions that try to follow,
the ones with Laptop Computers and superior Dominate. I am, again, not
disagreeing with the idea that two vs. one leaves two, just with the idea
that (D) bleeds unbalance the game vice other (D) cards.
> Therefore, IMO, in the original design of the game,
> (D) bleeds (on cards or otherwise) can only be
> directed at your prey, while Bum's Rush can
> be directed at anybody.
We definitely disagree, Alan. Why should Brujah/Gangrel be allowed to
interfere with Meth across the table when Malk can't (who puts Bum's
Rush in a Malk deck?). (D) bleeds are good, I don't think they should
change it.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>I still say that (D) [bleed] cards are in there for balance purposes.
Yes, >they can be abused, but what balancing card can't? Sometimes you
need >to help
Every bleed action card has (D) on it. There is no way that EVERY bleed
action was intended to be targetable at anyone since bleeds are normally
targeted at your prey.
It was a design goal of Jyhad that you were forced to whale on your prey
and your prey only. Garfield believes "attack anybody" games lead too
easily to stalemates.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
[ quoted text not captured ]
As another way of looking at it, allowing inter-player action
too freely would allow the leader's positional advantage
(getting ahead in the game) to be easily neutralized.
This would in turn make it pointless to try to achieve
the advantage in the first place. Then, there is really
no point in doing anything in the game.
Jyhad, with its (somewhat) complicated game system, is
designed to be unlike Diplomacy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jn4b3$d...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>>
>> Of course, because it's not a valid extension of an idea.>> [...]>
>
>Yes, it is a valid extention of your idea. If all things are equal (yeah,
>that's real likely), all players have X minions. You are saying that, all
>things being equal, 2X minions beats X minions and I agree that tends to
>be true. Weenie decks can be quite nasty, often you have to help the
>weenie's prey.
You're getting me lost here, James. Last time you say that I was wrong
for saying that "more minions is better" by pointing out
that weenies decks often lose, now you're saying that weenie
decks are powerful. Please make sure which argument you're using.
I don't mind if you changed your mind about a previous
mis-evaluation, but please make sure you have a consistent
argument.
>It appeared to me that you were trying to say that Bum's Rush was less
>devastating than (D) bleeds, because there was a defense, playing Brujah/
>Gangrel (that is, being good at combat).
No. DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. What I tried to mean may be
clearer looking at the following example:
It doesn't take much more to defend against 9 Bum's Rush'es,
from 3 different players, 3 BR's each, coming at you in one turn,
than to defend against 9 Bum's Rush'es, from one player,
coming at you in 3 consecutive turns, 3 BR's each turn.
However, it /does/ take much more (a degenerate deck) to defend
against 9 (D) Bleeds from 3 different players, 3 Bleeds each
player, in one turn, than to defend against 9 (D) Bleeds
from your predator, 3 each turn, in 3 consecutive turns.
Hope that this example will make my argument clear.
We're comparing gang-up vs. normal predator-prey interaction,
not comparing the effectiveness of Bleed actions vs.
Bum's Rush'es. The latter comparision is irrelevent
to the current discussion.
My original argument was that Bum's Rush'es effects are more or
less "linear", if you know what I'm talking about. Bleeds
are not linear: you block the first X, then the rest get
through and drains your pool.
>I was saying that your argument
>is false for two reasons: 1) you have argued against the "defense against
>card A is having card B" argument before (defense to Fame is Sudden Rever-
>sal [sp]) and saying "the defense vs Bum's Rush is being good at combat
>[read "play Brujah/Gangrel"] is the same argument;
This is obviously not the same argument. This argument is much
the same as something like "the defense against Minion Taps is
a Blood Doll", which is not far from valid. The "Sudden
Reversal" strategy is passively countering a card with a
card, and you don't get ahead just because your "defense"
worked (do your group really keep track of players who
played o-o-t Masters?); the case here is active competition;
if your defense works, enemy is dead.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3jn4b3$d...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course, because it's not a valid extension of an idea.
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> >Yes, it is a valid extention of your idea. If all things are equal (yeah,
> >that's real likely), all players have X minions. You are saying that, all
> >things being equal, 2X minions beats X minions and I agree that tends to
> >be true. Weenie decks can be quite nasty, often you have to help the
> >weenie's prey.
>
> You're getting me lost here, James. Last time you say that I was wrong
> for saying that "more minions is better" by pointing out
> that weenies decks often lose, now you're saying that weenie
> decks are powerful. Please make sure which argument you're using.
> I don't mind if you changed your mind about a previous
> mis-evaluation, but please make sure you have a consistent
> argument.
Peace Alan,
I didn't say "weenie decks often lose" or "weenie decks are powerful." I said,
". . . all things being equal, 2X minions beats X minions and I agree that TENDS
to be true." Didn't say it was a trueism, just tends to be true. All things are
never equal, so I can only approximate results as the limit if equality approaches
infinity. 8^) I have not changed my mind. If you are playing a weenie deck, you
will tend to have more minions in play than me. If I have as many minions in play
as you, things are not equal, I probably have higher quality miniions (your's are
weenies). I've said before that weenie waves are nasty, especially IF 1) prey not
properly prepared, and/or 2) other players don't pay attention to what is going on.
I have seen weenies win and I have seen them lose (about 50/50). Ther are several
cards that are especially effective vs. weenies: MVH, Ren Garou, Autarkis Persecution
(I think), Domain Chalenge (sp). I am being consistant, but sometimes I am
being Devil's Advocate, as it is necessary.
Also, I was referening you 'two players attack me, then I lose.' Two 'normal'
crypts worth of vampires attacking you can be just like a weenie wave (more
effective, probably).
> >It appeared to me that you were trying to say that Bum's Rush was less
> >devastating than (D) bleeds, because there was a defense, playing Brujah/
> >Gangrel (that is, being good at combat).
>
> No. DON'T PUT WORDS INTO MY MOUTH. What I tried to mean may be
> clearer looking at the following example:
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
> It doesn't take much more to defend against 9 Bum's Rush'es,
> from 3 different players, 3 BR's each, coming at you in one turn,
> than to defend against 9 Bum's Rush'es, from one player,
> coming at you in 3 consecutive turns, 3 BR's each turn.
> However, it /does/ take much more (a degenerate deck) to defend
> against 9 (D) Bleeds from 3 different players, 3 Bleeds each
> player, in one turn, than to defend against 9 (D) Bleeds
> from your predator, 3 each turn, in 3 consecutive turns.
See previous post about three players attacking same player. Again, why
are three other players attacking you? I am sure they have a good reason.
> Hope that this example will make my argument clear.
> We're comparing gang-up vs. normal predator-prey interaction,
> not comparing the effectiveness of Bleed actions vs.
> Bum's Rush'es. The latter comparision is irrelevent
> to the current discussion.
Ok, I can accept that. Yes, ganging-up is 'bad' (for the target), but
doesn't seem to happen unless there is a very good reason. [if this is
collusion, well, I can't do anything about dishonest players]
> My original argument was that Bum's Rush'es effects are more or
> less "linear", if you know what I'm talking about. Bleeds
> are not linear: you block the first X, then the rest get
> through and drains your pool.
Ok, but after s/h/it Bum's Rushes your vamps into torpor (they can probably
beat the snot out of you, otherwise they wouldn't be BRing you), then you
can do _nothing_ to stop them in the future; all your vampires are sitting
in torpor with zero blood.
> >I was saying that your argument
> >is false for two reasons: 1) you have argued against the "defense against
> >card A is having card B" argument before (defense to Fame is Sudden Rever-
> >sal [sp]) and saying "the defense vs Bum's Rush is being good at combat
> >[read "play Brujah/Gangrel"] is the same argument;
>
> This is obviously not the same argument. This argument is much
Sorry, misunderstood you. Thought you were saying that there is a defense
against multiple players BRing you (playing Brujah/Gangrel) vs. multiple
(D) bleeds. My mistake.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) wrote:
[yet another consice and correct post from the mind of Joseph Cochran
deleted to save space]
Yeah, Joe! I agree again.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jor0c$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you bleed significantly, you do it with cards. You need a card to do a
>significant bleed against anybody.
But many adds to bleed are modifiers, which you keep on your
prey. And in order to win, you still need to kill your prey. And the
easiest bleed is against your prey. It's still not an attack everyone
game.
>Political actions are far less important to the game than bleeding. Only
>a few of them are attacks, anyway. Some are defenses, some change the
>rules, and many have universal effects
Really? You'll have to play against my political deck sometime.
There are enough 'important' political actions to win me the game unless
everyone else gangs up on me at the beginning (this from experience).
>>A challenge to all who don't like this idea: play it this way a
>>few times. See what happens.>
>I have. S&B decks get considerably grosser. Their fearsome offense is
>now a fearsome defense as well. (Attack me and I'll bleed you for 6!)
And if the S&B guy makes a butthead of himself, people will gang
up on him, too. He can't bleed everyone, and his only hope will then be
to kill off his prey before the gang kills him, so he can get the extra
blood. And we're back to the same strategy a S&B always uses.
Besides, who cares if he has a powerful defense? If he uses it
against his predator, he's just gonna be facing his predator's predator,
who will have gotten 6 more blood out of the deal. If he uses it across
the circle without reason, people will gang up (unless he's really
charismatic, but that's part of the game, now isn't it) on him. His
best target is still his prey in normal gameplay.
>Intercept combat (the extreme do-nothing form) does well too.
Only against things directed against it, unless it has Eagle's
Sight. But that also works with your interpretation of the rules, too,
so I don't see that much of a difference.
>Do we need to make the predominant deck strategies stronger?
Do we need to kill potential strategies and limit the game? It
goes both ways...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3jptl0$c...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
>Again, why
>are three other players attacking you? I am sure they have a good reason.
For some players (especially Diplomacy players), me being ahead
with more pool and/or more minions is a good enough reason.
>> Hope that this example will make my argument clear.
>> We're comparing gang-up vs. normal predator-prey interaction,
>> not comparing the effectiveness of Bleed actions vs.
>> Bum's Rush'es. The latter comparision is irrelevent
>> to the current discussion.>
>Ok, I can accept that. Yes, ganging-up is 'bad' (for the target), but
>doesn't seem to happen unless there is a very good reason. [if this is
>collusion, well, I can't do anything about dishonest players]
I strongly believe that the designer intentionally removed
the normal advantage of balant collusion that you can find
in other multi-player games: in games such as Diplomacy,
in most cases an alliance can override any positional,
on-the-board advantage the leader may have. As I said
before, this may make it pointless to try to achieve any
positional advantage in the first place, and hence
leading the game into a stalemate. A very simple
reason for ganging up is that the players who gang up
can make the leader lose easily, and thus naturally
increasing their own chance of winning. Many players
think this is in itself a good enough reason to gang up.
You mentioned Kine Resource Contested; actually, one of the
reasons that the damage has to be split is to make
it slightly harder to use this card for gang-up purposes.
If players gang up against the leader and keep playing
Kine Resource Contested against him, somebody among the
alliance is bound to complain :-) If n-2 players
keep nailing 2 players with Kine Resource Contested,
in another scenario, this would naturally force the
2 victims to join forces to defend, and they have a
better chance.
The way Kine Resource Contested works now is the most natural
way in the designer's opinion in which the card should be
used. You put some damage to your prey, and then put
some damage to the prey of that Justicar across the table ...
>> My original argument was that Bum's Rush'es effects are more or
>> less "linear", if you know what I'm talking about. Bleeds
>> are not linear: you block the first X, then the rest get
>> through and drains your pool.>
>Ok, but after s/h/it Bum's Rushes your vamps into torpor (they can probably
>beat the snot out of you, otherwise they wouldn't be BRing you), then you
>can do _nothing_ to stop them in the future; all your vampires are sitting
>in torpor with zero blood.
But Bum's Rushes effect accumulate in a more or less linear
way, regardless of whether the Bum's Rushes all come in
one turn or come over a period of several turns.
I repeat my first argument in the thread again: bleeds,
on the other hand, do not accumulate in the same way
whether they all come in one turn or come over a period
of several turns. If three simple, non-stealthed bleeds
come each turn, you can try to block them all trivially;
if multiples of threes of bleeds come in the same turn,
the same defense that worked in the former case does not
work here.
Your point was very true, but is again irrelevent to the
discussion in question.
>
>... Thought you were saying that there is a defense>against multiple players BRing you (playing Brujah/Gangrel) vs. multiple>(D) bleeds. ...
Just to make it clear again, what I was really saying was, if you have
a defense that can fend off 9 Bum's Rush'es in 3 turns, the same
defense would likely work similarly against 9 Bum's Rush'es in
1 turn. However, the most common form of defense (i.e. blocking)
that can hold off 9 bleeds in three turns cannot be trivially
applied to hold off 9 bleeds in one turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> >I still say that (D) [bleed] cards are in there for balance purposes.
> Yes, >they can be abused, but what balancing card can't? Sometimes you
> need >to help
>
> Every bleed action card has (D) on it. There is no way that EVERY bleed
> action was intended to be targetable at anyone since bleeds are normally
> targeted at your prey.
Peace Curt,
Why is it that there is no way that every bleed action card can't be
targetable? Yes, bleeds without cards do go against your prey, but that
doesn't mean that people can't have the option to attack other players
(see many previous posts about why lots of people ganging up on you only
happens for a good reason, therefore is NOT unbalanced).
> It was a design goal of Jyhad that you were forced to whale on your prey
> and your prey only. Garfield believes "attack anybody" games lead too
> easily to stalemates.
Yes, you are supposed to attack your prey, but if you are supposed to "whale
on your prey and your prey only" why do vote cards affect several players at
once and do not affect my prey 100%? According to you, shouldn't Kine
Resources Contested and Conservative Aggatation (sp) affect your prey only?
Jyhad has other methods of preventing stalemate, like: only can bleed prey,
unless you have a card; if everyone does nothing the player holding the Edge
will eventually win, etc.
Directed bleeds are balanced, trust me. Look at the "big picture."
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Mar11.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <3jptl0$c...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:>>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>>
>>Again, why
>>are three other players attacking you? I am sure they have a good reason.>
>For some players (especially Diplomacy players), me being ahead
>with more pool and/or more minions is a good enough reason.
Not to Diplomacy players. There are three reasons you gang up
on someone. 1) They are being a butthead. 2) They are significantly
ahead, and will win if something isn't done about it (and believe me, if
I'm across the table from you I won't care about a little more blood or
a few more minions. I'll be hoping that you use them to take out some
of those annoying decks upstream. No diplomacy player in their right
mind would gang up on you for such a small advantage). 3) Someone in
the game has managed to convince everyone else that one of the above
conditions are met. The ability to bleed elsewhere is counterproductive
to winning the game, and is only really useful when given multiplayer
interaction. The game was designed this way. And the bonus for killing
your prey almost always overrides anything else. Period. I have always
played with (D) bleed anywhere, and have never seen the game be a free
for all. You are *always* fighting your prey.
>I strongly believe that the designer intentionally removed
>the normal advantage of balant collusion that you can find
>in other multi-player games: in games such as Diplomacy,
>in most cases an alliance can override any positional,
>on-the-board advantage the leader may have. As I said
>before, this may make it pointless to try to achieve any
>positional advantage in the first place, and hence
>leading the game into a stalemate. A very simple
>reason for ganging up is that the players who gang up
>can make the leader lose easily, and thus naturally
>increasing their own chance of winning. Many players
>think this is in itself a good enough reason to gang up.
And people who believe this way in Jyhad quickly find that it is
a fallacy. The game is still aimed in the circle.
I also believe that the designer removed the normal advantage of
blatant collusion, but not by eliminating interplayer interaction. I
believe that he did it by providing incentive to the circle and by
providing interaction mechanisms only in the cards, not in the basic
actions. In my experience, it has proven true that the incentive to
'normal' bleeds vastly overrides any alliances (especially given the
inherent weakness of an alliance which cannot last) made, and that
ganging up is only the result of one of the aforementioned conditions.
>You mentioned Kine Resource Contested; actually, one of the
>reasons that the damage has to be split is to make
>it slightly harder to use this card for gang-up purposes.
Or, one of the reasons to split KRC is to keep it from all going
to your prey, so that multiplayer interaction is enforced.
>If players gang up against the leader and keep playing
>Kine Resource Contested against him, somebody among the
>alliance is bound to complain :-) If n-2 players
>keep nailing 2 players with Kine Resource Contested,
>in another scenario, this would naturally force the
>2 victims to join forces to defend, and they have a
>better chance.
But this arguement has no bearing on (D) bleeds. We all seem to
agree that political actions use interplayer action. The point we're
really looking to argue is whether political actions are an 'add on'
that make the game multiplayer, or whether they're an elegant,
integrated part of a full, rich multiplayer game. I guess we know what
I think... :-)
>The way Kine Resource Contested works now is the most natural
>way in the designer's opinion in which the card should be
>used. You put some damage to your prey, and then put
>some damage to the prey of that Justicar across the table ...
There you go, dropping into Dr. Garfield's head again... None
of us can *know* what his intent on anything specific was, we can just
make our best guesses given the evidence we have at hand. Please
remember that.
>But Bum's Rushes effect accumulate in a more or less linear
>way, regardless of whether the Bum's Rushes all come in
>one turn or come over a period of several turns.
It's impossible to tell how BR's will accumulate. Assume for a
moment a 'perfect' combat deck. Every time you get into combat, the
opposing vampire ends up in torpor or burned. Then multiple BR's
accumulate *faster* than multiple bleeds, because you are using up the
vampires not just for the turn, but for quite probably the entire game!
I haven't seen a perfect combat deck, but I have seen very good
ones. Against decks of varying combat skills, multiple BR's will have
varying effects. You cannot accurately predict how bad the effect will
be.
>Just to make it clear again, what I was really saying was, if you have
>a defense that can fend off 9 Bum's Rush'es in 3 turns, the same
>defense would likely work similarly against 9 Bum's Rush'es in
>1 turn. However, the most common form of defense (i.e. blocking)
>that can hold off 9 bleeds in three turns cannot be trivially
>applied to hold off 9 bleeds in one turn.
I don't think that this is true. BR's are way too variable to
make any blamket statement like that. Give me an example, and I'll give
you a counterexample, just as likely, that will make the BR's harder to
hold off.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Irrelevent. I never compared Bum's Rush'es with Bleeds in my
argument. Read it carefully.
I don't bother to give an example, because the "general" truth
of my statement is obvious. Since my statement is "universially
quantified", any good counter-example will defeat it. Just give
me one. Show me a defense that can hold off 9 Bum's Rushes
in 3 turns that doesn't work against 9 Bum's Rushes in 1 turn.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Mar12.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>I don't bother to give an example, because the "general" truth
>of my statement is obvious. Since my statement is "universially
>quantified", any good counter-example will defeat it. Just give
>me one. Show me a defense that can hold off 9 Bum's Rushes
>in 3 turns that doesn't work against 9 Bum's Rushes in 1 turn.
I have out Sir Walter Nash with a Sport Bike. I also have out
ye random hunting ground. Sir Nash jumps in the way of every Bum's Rush
so that he can Majesty to end combat and untap in one turn of this, he
will run out of blood before all 9 BR's go through (he's only a 7). But
over the course of 3 turns, he will get three extra blood from the
hunting ground to fuel his Majesties (speaking of which, three turns
will give him more of a chance to get enough of them to do the trick via
cycling than one turn will).
The only unlikely point in this scenario is 9 Majesties. But
from decks posted here and from personal experience, I'd say that it's
not impossible to load your deck up with them so much that you could
reasonably expect 9 of them over three turns (especially if you've been
saving them in your hand).
Hunting grounds are just one example. Others are the Rack,
Blood Doll, Restoration (with Freak Drive), Gird Minions, Sabine
Lafitte, or anything else that gets you blood over time.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your argument. I'll go back and
look again.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>If you bleed significantly, you do it with cards. You need a card to do
a
>>significant bleed against anybody.>But many adds to bleed are modifiers, which you keep on your prey.
I can only think of 3 bleed modifiers (Threats, Conditioning, and
Bonding). For (D) Bleeds, off the top of my head, there's Govern the
Unalign, Kine Dominance, Computer Hacking, Social Charm, Legal
Manipulations, Enchant Kindred, Entrancement, Night Moves, and Cat
Burglary. That's 9, although poor put-upon Cat Burglary has now been
demoted to be blockable by your predator at normal since it had the
temerity to claim "Bleed any Methuseleh" at superior.
>>Political actions are far less important to the game than bleeding.
Only
>>a few of them are attacks, anyway. Some are defenses, some change the
>>rules, and many have universal effects> Really? You'll have to play against my political deck sometime.
>There are enough 'important' political actions to win me the game unless
>everyone else gangs up on me at the beginning (this from experience).
Political decks can be very strong, but bleeding is more fundamental (not
necessarily more likely to win). Virtually every deck bleeds. Only a
minority do politics.
>>>A challenge to all who don't like this idea: play it this way a
>>>few times. See what happens.>>>I have. S&B decks get considerably grosser. Their fearsome offense is
>>now a fearsome defense as well. (Attack me and I'll bleed you for 6!)> And if the S&B guy makes a butthead of himself, people will gang
>up on him, too. He can't bleed everyone, and his only hope will then be
>to kill off his prey before the gang kills him, so he can get the extra
>blood. And we're back to the same strategy a S&B always uses.
> Besides, who cares if he has a powerful defense? If he uses it
>against his predator, he's just gonna be facing his predator's predator,
>who will have gotten 6 more blood out of the deal. If he uses it across
>the circle without reason, people will gang up (unless he's really
>charismatic, but that's part of the game, now isn't it) on him.
Normally it's not used against the predator. But, if the Malk deck is
downstream of a combat deck, it's a very effective threat after the combat
deck has trashed its predator's vampires (normally the first order of
business for any combat deck).
In any case, the primary defense is against cross-table actions. Normally
voters and rush decks across the table will try to put the skids on a
surging Malk deck. It has an amazing damping effect if the Malk deck ousts
anybody who socks him across the table.
>>Do we need to make the predominant deck strategies stronger?> Do we need to kill potential strategies and limit the game? It
>goes both ways...
What strategies does "bleed only your prey stop"? S&B and intercept
combat still work fine...
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3jvi6r$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <1995Mar12.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:>>I don't bother to give an example, because the "general" truth
>>of my statement is obvious. Since my statement is "universially
>>quantified", any good counter-example will defeat it. Just give
>>me one. Show me a defense that can hold off 9 Bum's Rushes
>>in 3 turns that doesn't work against 9 Bum's Rushes in 1 turn.>
> I have out Sir Walter Nash with a Sport Bike. I also have out
>ye random hunting ground. Sir Nash jumps in the way of every Bum's Rush
>so that he can Majesty to end combat and untap in one turn of this, he
>will run out of blood before all 9 BR's go through (he's only a 7). But
>over the course of 3 turns, he will get three extra blood from the
>hunting ground to fuel his Majesties (speaking of which, three turns
>will give him more of a chance to get enough of them to do the trick via
>cycling than one turn will).
This is indeed a good example. But, one point worth noticing
here is the specificality of the example. You need a vampire
with exactly 7-8 blood with a Majesty deck. And then this
works only as an example for 3x3, not 3x2, 3x5, or other
numbers. Unlike the trivially general example for a
defense against 3xn bleeds: almost any deck with 3 vampires.
You don't even need a gain minion blood card for that.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3jptl0$c...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> >
> >Again, why
> >are three other players attacking you? I am sure they have a good reason.
>
> For some players (especially Diplomacy players), me being ahead
> with more pool and/or more minions is a good enough reason.
Peace Alan,
Don't be a target! What can I say? I agree with "them." If you are
obviously ahead, the other players /should/ work to bring the game back
into balance. I personally would do something to help your prey.
> >> Hope that this example will make my argument clear.
> >> We're comparing gang-up vs. normal predator-prey interaction,
> >> not comparing the effectiveness of Bleed actions vs.
> >> Bum's Rush'es. The latter comparision is irrelevent
> >> to the current discussion.
> >
> >Ok, I can accept that. Yes, ganging-up is 'bad' (for the target), but
> >doesn't seem to happen unless there is a very good reason. [if this is
> >collusion, well, I can't do anything about dishonest players]
>
> I strongly believe that the designer intentionally removed
> the normal advantage of balant collusion that you can find
> in other multi-player games: in games such as Diplomacy,
> in most cases an alliance can override any positional,
> on-the-board advantage the leader may have. As I said
> before, this may make it pointless to try to achieve any
> positional advantage in the first place, and hence
> leading the game into a stalemate. A very simple
> reason for ganging up is that the players who gang up
> can make the leader lose easily, and thus naturally
> increasing their own chance of winning. Many players
> think this is in itself a good enough reason to gang up.
You are right, he did. The Edge means that it is not pointless to achieve
an advantage and the game will _not_ stalemate. The point of several
players 'attacking' you would not be to destroy you (that would just help
your predator), but to reestablish the "balance of power," that Nirvana-
like state where all players feel they have an equal chance to win.
> You mentioned Kine Resource Contested; actually, one of the
> reasons that the damage has to be split is to make
> it slightly harder to use this card for gang-up purposes.
> If players gang up against the leader and keep playing
> Kine Resource Contested against him, somebody among the
> alliance is bound to complain :-) If n-2 players
> keep nailing 2 players with Kine Resource Contested,
> in another scenario, this would naturally force the
> 2 victims to join forces to defend, and they have a
> better chance.
I mentioned KRC as a counter-argument to your "kill your prey and ignore
the rest of the universe" argument you have toward bleeds. If I am
supposed to kill my prey to the exclusion of all else, KRC & Conservative
Agitation (sp) should only affect my prey.
> >> My original argument was that Bum's Rush'es effects are more or
> >> less "linear", if you know what I'm talking about. Bleeds
> >> are not linear: you block the first X, then the rest get
> >> through and drains your pool.
> >
> >Ok, but after s/h/it Bum's Rushes your vamps into torpor (they can probably
> >beat the snot out of you, otherwise they wouldn't be BRing you), then you
> >can do _nothing_ to stop them in the future; all your vampires are sitting
> >in torpor with zero blood.
>
> But Bum's Rushes effect accumulate in a more or less linear
> way, regardless of whether the Bum's Rushes all come in
> one turn or come over a period of several turns.
> I repeat my first argument in the thread again: bleeds,
> on the other hand, do not accumulate in the same way
> whether they all come in one turn or come over a period
> of several turns. If three simple, non-stealthed bleeds
> come each turn, you can try to block them all trivially;
> if multiples of threes of bleeds come in the same turn,
> the same defense that worked in the former case does not
> work here.
Bum's Rushes are linear in the sense that one BR = one torpored minion.
When someone BRs around here, they have the cards to send the target to
torpor 90+% of the time (sometimes the defender has some great defensive
card(s)). Like I said before, if several people BR you in succession,
you'll be sitting behind a stack of torpored minions and will be unable
to do anything in the near future.
> Your point was very true, but is again irrelevent to the
> discussion in question.
Yes, bleeds don't accumulate in the same fashion as BR, you don't have to
tap to accept the BR, but I don't have to tap to defend against a bleed,
either or I could untap afterwards or in response to another bleed.
My argument is only irrelevant if {damage from all bleeds you cannot block
when you are gang-banged} >= {your current blood pool}. Then you are
ousted and it is irrelevant. BUT when {ycbp} > {dfabycbwyag}, then having
all your minions BRed into torpor is worse.
> >... Thought you were saying that there is a defense
> >against multiple players BRing you (playing Brujah/Gangrel) vs. multiple
> >(D) bleeds. ...
>
> Just to make it clear again, what I was really saying was, if you have
> a defense that can fend off 9 Bum's Rush'es in 3 turns, the same
> defense would likely work similarly against 9 Bum's Rush'es in
> 1 turn. However, the most common form of defense (i.e. blocking)
> that can hold off 9 bleeds in three turns cannot be trivially
> applied to hold off 9 bleeds in one turn.
One of the few ways that I can see to stop 9 BRs (excluding being a combat
clan to begin with), whether 3x3 or 1x9, is a deck loaded with Majesty/Earth
Meld, in which case you are equally effective against either attack (BRs or
bleeds). The most common defense vs BR is sticking <insert available Caitiff
here> in the way. 8^) Seriously, when someone BRs they have every intention,
IME, of sending the target vamp to torpor. If this happens several times,
you will be totally defenseless. If you are not a combat clan or are not
playing a combat avoidance deck, you are toast. Better to be ousted by
nine consecutive bleeds, at least you don't suffer as long. 8^)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Mar13.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>> I have out Sir Walter Nash with a Sport Bike. I also have out
>>ye random hunting ground. Sir Nash jumps in the way of every Bum's Rush
>>so that he can Majesty to end combat and untap in one turn of this, he
>>will run out of blood before all 9 BR's go through (he's only a 7). But
>>over the course of 3 turns, he will get three extra blood from the
>>hunting ground to fuel his Majesties (speaking of which, three turns
>>will give him more of a chance to get enough of them to do the trick via
>>cycling than one turn will).>
>This is indeed a good example. But, one point worth noticing
>here is the specificality of the example. You need a vampire
>with exactly 7-8 blood with a Majesty deck. And then this
>works only as an example for 3x3, not 3x2, 3x5, or other
>numbers. Unlike the trivially general example for a
>defense against 3xn bleeds: almost any deck with 3 vampires.
>You don't even need a gain minion blood card for that.
Well, that was the first thing that popped into my head. I
wanted to remove the variability from the example, and Majesty was the
best way to do it. I could instead use a Gangrel with Flesh of Marbles
and Cat's Guidances, but that's more esoteric. And 7-8 has *many* good
vampires that could use some combo of disciplines to do the same sort of
thing. With the Rack, I could use a weaker vampire. With a HG and a
Blood Doll, same thing. It's one of many like examples.
The problem is that Bum's Rush is way too variable. Say, for
instance, those 9 Rushes do a total of 18 damage. Anything that will
give you blood over time will help against them, no matter how many
defenders you have. If they do 35 points of damage, there may be
nothing you can do. But you won't know in advance what level of damage
you'll be getting, so anything that gains blood will help.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k05l1$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>I can only think of 3 bleed modifiers (Threats, Conditioning, and
>Bonding). For (D) Bleeds, off the top of my head, there's Govern the
>Unalign, Kine Dominance, Computer Hacking, Social Charm, Legal
>Manipulations, Enchant Kindred, Entrancement, Night Moves, and Cat
>Burglary. That's 9, although poor put-upon Cat Burglary has now been
>demoted to be blockable by your predator at normal since it had the
>temerity to claim "Bleed any Methuseleh" at superior.
Point taken. However, using them against anyone but your prey
is not productive. You have to stop trying to win the game in order to
use them.
>>>Political actions are far less important to the game than bleeding.>Only>>>a few of them are attacks, anyway. Some are defenses, some change the
>>>rules, and many have universal effects>>> Really? You'll have to play against my political deck sometime.
>>There are enough 'important' political actions to win me the game unless
>>everyone else gangs up on me at the beginning (this from experience).>
>Political decks can be very strong, but bleeding is more fundamental (not
>necessarily more likely to win). Virtually every deck bleeds. Only a
>minority do politics.
Let's back up a second here. Your claim was that political
actions are not as important as bleeding. I think that perhaps a better
wording is that they are not a fundamental as bleeding. Sound good?
Next, you state that only a few do politics. More or less, this
is true in that few decks try to concentrate on politics.
My point stems from this idea. If politics are not very
fundamental to the game, then why should Garfield claim that it is a
true multiplayer game? Just because he tacked political actions and a
couple of combat cards in? I think that instead they are part of the
full game, and that (D) bleeds against anyone are part of that. Remove
(D) bleeds against anyone, and you force every deck to have certain
strategies if they want to do interaction. Keep them, and *anyone* can
have a reason to interact.
>> Besides, who cares if he has a powerful defense? If he uses it
>>against his predator, he's just gonna be facing his predator's predator,
>>who will have gotten 6 more blood out of the deal. If he uses it across
>>the circle without reason, people will gang up (unless he's really
>>charismatic, but that's part of the game, now isn't it) on him.>
>Normally it's not used against the predator. But, if the Malk deck is
>downstream of a combat deck, it's a very effective threat after the combat
>deck has trashed its predator's vampires (normally the first order of
>business for any combat deck).
To whom? To the combat deck? The Malk's predator will be
leaving soon, and the combat deck will gain 6 pool, or the Malk will
beat up the combat deck combat's predator gets to eat the poor guy who
got beaten up, leaving the Malk with a new predator who's flush with 12
extra pool. Meanwhile, the Malk's prey has been taking care of
business, perhaps ousting someone or BR'ing the Malk, and poor Malkie is
left with no bonus blood, and no VP's, stuck between an anchored
predator and an anchored prey. Bad news. If I'm sitting as Malk's
prey, I'll be *very* happy if he's dumb enough to go chasing decks
upstream. If I'm the one he's threatening, I'll remind him of what will
happen should he actually go through with it, and hope he gets the clue.
It's an empty threat to anyone who can think ahead a few steps.
It's also one that the Malk probably shouldn't follow up on if he wants
to win. If he doesn't want to win, that's his choice, but he shouldn't
expect to play much.
>voters and rush decks across the table will try to put the skids on a
>surging Malk deck. It has an amazing damping effect if the Malk deck ousts
>anybody who socks him across the table.
Yeah, the next guy gets that much stronger and the Malk loses
that many more cards that he could have used to oust his prey and get
the 6 blood. Personally, I leave a Malk alone until it gets close. In
my experience, a pure S&B deck can only go through one or two people
before its predator kills it unless he goes *fast*. Speed is a
necessity to him. Taking time out to jump across the table is bad
strategy unless he has a really good reason.
>>>Do we need to make the predominant deck strategies stronger?>>> Do we need to kill potential strategies and limit the game? It
>>goes both ways...>
>What strategies does "bleed only your prey stop"? S&B and intercept
>combat still work fine...
Any strategy that does not include princes or justicars, or
Eagle's Sight in the deck will be severely hampered in the player
interaction if you can't do the (D) bleed. Say, Gangrel combat,
Presence/Celerity, and weenie madness just to name a few.
I don't want to *have* to include titled vampires or Eagle's
Sight in *every* deck I build. That puts artificial limits into the
game by limiting my strategy.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
(Re a tactic for stopping many, many bleeds with Majesty)
> Well, that was the first thing that popped into my head. I
>wanted to remove the variability from the example, and Majesty was the
>best way to do it. I could instead use a Gangrel with Flesh of Marbles
>and Cat's Guidances, but that's more esoteric.
This brings up another point. Your defense depends on the Majesty card,
which is grossly under cost. Combat ends for nothing is obscene (compare
with dodge) and untap for 1 is too cheap (you can easily construct crock
decks based on untap strategies which can only be stopped by other decks
based on crocked untap strategies).
If Majesty isn't fixed by recosting (my preference) it will have to be
restricted (ick..). 26 Majesties make for just too good a strategy.
I was just designing a Toreador vote-and-run-away deck. It was a lot of
fun, but there's a problem. Majesty is unbelievably better than the
Celeritous dodges (which, given Celerity, should be a really good way to
get out of combat). If Majesty had an appropriate cost, my deck would
have an interesting balance between the awesome (pun intended) but
expensive Majesty and the cheaper but less effective Sideslip/Vampiric
Speed. As it is, I'll just put in as many Majesties as permitted by card
limits, or, in this case, by my desire to avoid breaking the game. Global
card limits, of course, would also limit the entirely innocent Vampiric
Speed in order to catch the obscenely good Majesty.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k2a1c$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>If Majesty isn't fixed by recosting (my preference) it will have to be
>restricted (ick..). 26 Majesties make for just too good a strategy.
>
>I was just designing a Toreador vote-and-run-away deck. It was a lot of
>fun, but there's a problem. Majesty is unbelievably better than the
>Celeritous dodges (which, given Celerity, should be a really good way to
Well, a deck of 26 majesties is going to clog your hand, and in
a LOT worse way than WwEF's will. The only way to get rid of them is
via combat or discard, both pretty slow.
If you've got Celerity, you also have the ability to strike
back on those combats, something Majesty doesn't allow. That's a pretty
big point to give up. You might want to hit the opponent to make him
think twice about hitting you. *You* might know that you're just going
to run away, but *he* doesn't know it! The psychological game could be
worth a lot more than the Majesty...
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>If Majesty isn't fixed by recosting (my preference) it will have to be
>>restricted (ick..). 26 Majesties make for just too good a strategy.
>>
>>I was just designing a Toreador vote-and-run-away deck. It was a lot of
>>fun, but there's a problem. Majesty is unbelievably better than the
>>Celeritous dodges (which, given Celerity, should be a really good way to
end >>combat)
>Well, a deck of 26 majesties is going to clog your hand, and in
>a LOT worse way than WwEF's will. The only way to get rid of them is
>via combat or discard, both pretty slow.
> If you've got Celerity, you also have the ability to strike
>back on those combats, something Majesty doesn't allow. That's a pretty
>big point to give up. You might want to hit the opponent to make him
>think twice about hitting you. *You* might know that you're just going
>to run away, but *he* doesn't know it! The psychological game could be
>worth a lot more than the Majesty...
Well, in the Majesty decks you do vicious attacks that almost have to be
blocked - Helena Casimir with a Laptop and such. Although it may well be
your best defense, it's hard to ignore a Legal Manipulations which will be
Conditioned if you don't block.
Dodging with a combat deck is a specialized requirement - you obviously
only need it against another combat deck, and often not even then.
After two or three combats, he'll know I've a run away deck. He will
suspect much earlier. Toreadors can't do much harm, Celerity or no,
without good (and visible) equipment.
P.S. You're right in that THIS deck wouldn't quite want 26 Majesties. 15
is more like it.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> Let's back up a second here. Your claim was that political
>actions are not as important as bleeding. I think that perhaps a better
>wording is that they are not a fundamental as bleeding. Sound good?
Yes. We're quibling over terminology. I think we agree pretty much on
the frequency, and success rate, of voting.
> My point stems from this idea. If politics are not very
>fundamental to the game, then why should Garfield claim that it is a
>true multiplayer game? Just because he tacked political actions and a
>couple of combat cards in? I think that instead they are part of the
>full game, and that (D) bleeds against anyone are part of that. Remove
>(D) bleeds against anyone, and you force every deck to have certain
>strategies if they want to do interaction. Keep them, and *anyone* can
>have a reason to interact.
Agreed. Politics is also fundamental to the game. I'll stick to the idea
that bleeding is more so, however. Jyhad without politics is a restricted
Jyhad (we've all played games with none). Jyhad without bleeds is
something else.
Actually combat cards make up the most common type by far. With votes,
combat, choice of intercept direction (predator or prey), and ousting,
there is lots of multiplayer interaction, even if bleeds only affect prey.
I would point out that Garfield suggests multiplayer magic be structured
into grand melee, in which your creatures can only attack to the left but
your spells can go up to two players in either direction. This is
remarkably similar to a Jyhad game in which bleeds only go on the prey
while votes and combat go more or less anywhere. Even the direction is
the same.
(Garfield does have other suggestions for multiplayer magic. All,
however, are highly structured.)
>>>Re non-prey bleeds:>>Normally it's not used against the predator. But, if the Malk deck is
>>downstream of a combat deck, it's a very effective threat after the
combat
>>deck has trashed its predator's vampires (normally the first order of
>>business for any combat deck).> To whom? To the combat deck? The Malk's predator will be
>leaving soon, and the combat deck will gain 6 pool, or the Malk will
>beat up the combat deck combat's predator gets to eat the poor guy who
>got beaten up, leaving the Malk with a new predator who's flush with 12
>extra pool.
Hmmm. Maybe I didn't say that right. The combat deck (which is doing
well) is the Malk's predator, so the Malk's predator isn't leaving soon
(unless the Malk intervenes). Typically combat decks leave their
predators with lots of pool and just pick off the offensive vampires, so
the arrival of the Malk's great-grand predator is hardly imminent (if it
is, the combat deck is NOT doing well).
If the Malk ousts his predator in these circumstances, he has a greatly
weakened grandpredator get the 6 pool. This is not usually enough to make
him a monster. Indeed, if the great-grandpredator IS on a roll, offing
the rush predator will slow him by giving the 6 pool to the
great-grandpredator's prey rather than the great-grandpredator (the real
threat). Under these circumstances (actually fairly common, given the
setup) ousting or near-ousting his predator will leave the Malk
essentially predatorless for several turns, a much better situation than
having a serious combat deck whaling on your minions.
>>voters and rush decks across the table will try to put the skids on a
>>surging Malk deck. It has an amazing damping effect if the Malk deck
ousts
>>anybody who socks him across the table.> Yeah, the next guy gets that much stronger and the Malk loses
>that many more cards that he could have used to oust his prey and get
>the 6 blood. Personally, I leave a Malk alone until it gets close.
Well, if you already leave the Malks alone, who's getting the cross-table
bleeds?
>In my experience, a pure S&B deck can only go through one or two people
>before its predator kills it unless he goes *fast*.
Course, that's what they do.
This is only true if the predator plays a heavy bleed or a vote deck.
>Taking time out to jump across the table is bad
>strategy unless he has a really good reason.
Stopping someone on a roll is often a good reason. But in any case it
remains a potent retaliatory threat "If you gang up on me, I'll oust YOU.
Just keep whaling on your prey and you'll do as well as possible."
Remember if the Malk becomes the target of a gangbang he'll almost
certainly oust no further, so he has little to lose to stop it.
>>What strategies does "bleed only your prey stop"? S&B and intercept
>>combat still work fine...> Any strategy that does not include princes or justicars, or
>Eagle's Sight in the deck will be severely hampered in the player
>interaction if you can't do the (D) bleed. Say, Gangrel combat,
>Presence/Celerity, and weenie madness just to name a few.
> I don't want to *have* to include titled vampires or Eagle's
>Sight in *every* deck I build. That puts artificial limits into the
>game by limiting my strategy.
Gangrel (or any rush) combat can still rush across the table. But you
don't have to reach across the table to win anyway. Weenies do fine. So
do straight Malks and Tremere, even without Eagle's sight.
I find I usually include a few titled vampires (at least Primogens) in any
deck even if I have no interest in votes. Even 1 vote makes a difference.
How does Presence/Celerity work? I'm curious, as it sounds like my
experimental (but not very functional) Toreador vote deck.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k2vuc$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>big point to give up. You might want to hit the opponent to make him
>>think twice about hitting you. *You* might know that you're just going
>>to run away, but *he* doesn't know it! The psychological game could be
>>worth a lot more than the Majesty...>>Dodging with a combat deck is a specialized requirement - you obviously
>only need it against another combat deck, and often not even then.
>
>After two or three combats, he'll know I've a run away deck. He will
>suspect much earlier. Toreadors can't do much harm, Celerity or no,
>without good (and visible) equipment.
Be tricky. Add a couple of cards that *can* bite back (not
many, just enough to get one or two). And play the mind games for all
they're worth. If you start with a bite, he'll be forced to conclude
that you *can* fight. If you don't, hurt him when he's most vulnerable.
He won't do it again lightly!
With Majesty, if you're using the untap, you're losing blood.
All I'm suggesting is instead of losing blood to drop out of a fight,
lose it and do some damage to your opponent. Then at least he'll have
less incentive to block everything without a second thought (and it's
the second thoughts that can really give you the edge in this game (pun
intended)).
(BTW, this is all opinion, as in this thread at least we're out
of the argument phase. Call this a strategy discussion :-))
>P.S. You're right in that THIS deck wouldn't quite want 26 Majesties. 15
>is more like it.
I'd only use 8 or 9 and throw in cards with bite. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k38jg$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually combat cards make up the most common type by far. With votes,
>combat, choice of intercept direction (predator or prey), and ousting,
>there is lots of multiplayer interaction, even if bleeds only affect prey.
That still smacks of a small game to me (i.e. you and a
neighbor, which doesn't feel right).
>I would point out that Garfield suggests multiplayer magic be structured
>into grand melee, in which your creatures can only attack to the left but
>your spells can go up to two players in either direction. This is
>remarkably similar to a Jyhad game in which bleeds only go on the prey
>while votes and combat go more or less anywhere. Even the direction is
>the same.
You know, you are the first person to ever bring this up to me.
I am usually the one who brings this up to others! Here's how I see it:
Grand Melee (GM) was a precursor to Jyhad. But the problem with GM was
twofold: there wasn't enough incentive to stick to your prey (1 VP,
woohoo!), and you had to limit range to keep the game managable. At
most, GM is for all interaction purposes a 5 player game.
What follows now is sheer supposition and opinion. I have no
way at the current time to know if it's true, but it's my best guess.
It started simply enough. Attack left from GM became bleed left
in Jyhad. Then he looked at the other parts of the game, including the
two problems from the GM.
To correct the first problem, he raised the incentive. But the
second problem was a lot trickier. To increase interaction, he dropped
the multiple turns going at once, and added political actions and
uniqueness. But they didn't add enough, so he added cards that could
affect any Methuselah to the game. Some of these were bleed cards (but
not all). Cool, the game worked fairly well this way.
Late in the playtesting process, while people were coming up
with symbols, and card layout had been partially done, it was decided
that those cards that could affect everyone would be called directed
actions, and would use the (D) symbol. As such, the concept wasn't
playtested as well as the rest (thus the big loophole about (D)'s
against yourself), and card layouts had to be changed quickly. The
result is that all bleed cards got the (D), and every card that affected
other players got the (D). Where possible the text was changed, but
some was missed (resulting in Cat Burglary and other cards that have
both the (D) and the text about "any Methuselah").
Thus we end up with what we have today. From this train of
thought, you can see why I believe that you *should* be able to bleed
across the table. Although I do think that perhaps not *every* bleed
card should be (D).
This seems like a good place to suggest an exmperiment: If you
don't play with (D) bleeds, try upping the blood prize for an ousting to
7 or 8 and allowing (D) bleeds. I'm curious to see if that will cure
the 'rampant bleeding' syndrome.
>Well, if you already leave the Malks alone, who's getting the cross-table
>bleeds?
As I said before, I probably play the same way you do except for
the fact that I can make threats and back them up if necessary. There
*aren't* cross-table bleeds running rampant. They're just there if you
need them as an interaction tool.
>Gangrel (or any rush) combat can still rush across the table. But you
>don't have to reach across the table to win anyway. Weenies do fine. So
>do straight Malks and Tremere, even without Eagle's sight.
Right. But I want to be able to reach across if necessary (for
interation purposes) with *any* deck I build. I don't want to have to
artifically fill my X deck out with a subset of {titles | Bum's Rush |
Eagle's Sight} if the subset of {titles|Bum's Rush|Eagle's Sight|Bleeds}
exists (which I feel does exist. See above).
>I find I usually include a few titled vampires (at least Primogens) in any
>deck even if I have no interest in votes. Even 1 vote makes a difference.
Not against a political deck. It just doesn't.
>How does Presence/Celerity work? I'm curious, as it sounds like my
>experimental (but not very functional) Toreador vote deck.
Bleeds up front, with the celerity for combat. You add a little
bite to it to your taste (Potence, Protean, or guns works well, but not
all 3), and throw in a few votes that match (never be without a Parity
Shift). The downside is that there's no subtlety to your actions (with
presence, it's call it first, vote or big bleed), but the upside is that
they'll probably be worse off than you after combat depending on your
bite. Celerity combat is second to none (although Brujah celerity
combat will still hurt...).
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:> >>>Re non-prey bleeds:
>
> >>Normally it's not used against the predator. But, if the Malk deck is
> >>downstream of a combat deck, it's a very effective threat after the
> combat
> >>deck has trashed its predator's vampires (normally the first order of
> >>business for any combat deck).
Peace Curt,
I looked over this again. Are you saying that fighting/attacking "upstream"
(where downstream is the direction of play/prey) is common in your group?
No wonder you see these 'weird' circumstances that I don't. The combat deck
should be crushing the Malk (his prey), not his predator.
> > To whom? To the combat deck? The Malk's predator will be
> >leaving soon, and the combat deck will gain 6 pool, or the Malk will
> >beat up the combat deck combat's predator gets to eat the poor guy who
> >got beaten up, leaving the Malk with a new predator who's flush with 12
> >extra pool.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe I didn't say that right. The combat deck (which is doing
> well) is the Malk's predator, so the Malk's predator isn't leaving soon
> (unless the Malk intervenes). Typically combat decks leave their
> predators with lots of pool and just pick off the offensive vampires, so
> the arrival of the Malk's great-grand predator is hardly imminent (if it
> is, the combat deck is NOT doing well).
I guess this is "typical combat decks" for your group, but around here, I
would rather be the predator of a combat deck than it's prey.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k4jso$9...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>
>Here's how I see it:
>Grand Melee (GM) was a precursor to Jyhad. But the problem with GM was
>twofold: there wasn't enough incentive to stick to your prey (1 VP,
>woohoo!), and you had to limit range to keep the game managable. At
>most, GM is for all interaction purposes a 5 player game.
Magic is an `interactive' 2 player game. The richness of the
interaction is (my opinion) superior to many other games
(of whatever form) on the market. This is one of the
reasons of the success of Magic.
You think that Garfield wanted Diplomacy-type `interaction'
in his games, but that's just your opinion. In fact,
I believe in the exact opposite. The reason that
Garfield suggested GM, instead of free-for-all,
should be a good enough evidence.
Jyhad is obviously `interactive' enough, if you don't
restrict the definition of `interaction' to yours,
i.e. multi-player ( > 2 ), Diplomacy-style `interaction'.
Even without (D) bleeds, I'm busy enough `interacting'
with my predator and prey.
> What follows now is sheer supposition and opinion. I have no
>way at the current time to know if it's true, but it's my best guess.
>
> It started simply enough. Attack left from GM became bleed left
>in Jyhad. Then he looked at the other parts of the game, including the
>two problems from the GM.
The first part, about bleed left, is probably right. The second
part is your `sheer speculation'. I don't even agree that
Garfield thought the lack of `interaction' in GM was a
problem.
> [...] he added cards that could>affect any Methuselah to the game. Some of these were bleed cards (but
>not all). Cool, the game worked fairly well this way.
Yes, Cat Burglary and Night Moves. See below.
> Late in the playtesting process, while people were coming up
>with symbols, and card layout had been partially done, it was decided
>that those cards that could affect everyone would be called directed
>actions, and would use the (D) symbol.
Check your small book (not the `corrected' rules). Nowhere in
that book is it said that (D) actions are directable at
everybody. It seems that (D) = freely-directable was not
an idea of the symbology used in the game until /after/
the game came out.
>As such, the concept wasn't
>playtested as well as the rest (thus the big loophole about (D)'s
>against yourself), and card layouts had to be changed quickly. The
>result is that all bleed cards got the (D), and every card that affected
>other players got the (D). Where possible the text was changed, but
>some was missed (resulting in Cat Burglary and other cards that have
>both the (D) and the text about "any Methuselah").
Or, simply, (D) bleed never meant freely-directable unless
specifically stated on card, and they took the `directioning'
issues of other (D) actions for granted without
explicitly mentioning it. Therefore, none of the (D)
bleed cards (including Cat Burglary) is in error.
>Thus we end up with what we have today
The same result is more easily explained as a mis-ruling.
There are lots of them in Jyhad already; why not one more.
> From this train of
>thought, you can see why I believe that you *should* be able to bleed
>across the table. Although I do think that perhaps not *every* bleed
>card should be (D).
A much more believable idea, IMO, is that the small book
(without the contradictory freely-directable (D) clause)
is right, and they simply screwed up when re-writing the
rules. Looking at the enormous amounts of uncorrected
errors in the `corrected' rules, this is very likely.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>I looked over this again. Are you saying that fighting/attacking
"upstream"
>(where downstream is the direction of play/prey) is common in your group?
>No wonder you see these 'weird' circumstances that I don't. The combat
deck
>should be crushing the Malk (his prey), not his predator.
A combat deck obviously has put more of his cards into combat than a
non-combat deck (Hmm. That should be hard to argue with :-) As a result
it will do other stuff (vote/bleed) worse than the non-combat deck.
Rush combat can't usually do much to stop actions, except 0 stealth
actions, which people in my group usually avoid. (Bleeds get stealthed,
other stuff is usually automatically at stealth.) So if a rush combat
deck whales on his prey, while his predator whales on him, he'll usually
lose. Hence the first order of business is for the combat deck is to beat
up his predator's minions until his predator is less of a threat than he
is. Then he turns downstream.
Intercept combat is a slightly different story. He must leave enough
minions untapped to stop his predator. Depending on the decks involved,
that may leave the intercept with a lot, a little, or none to send
downstream.
Of course, if the predator is not much of a threat, or is a combat deck
itself, then one may as well immediately start whaling on the prey.
Sorry, I can't remember if you play with card limits. With card limits,
rush is not really viable and combat decks must be combat intercept or
bruise-and-bleed. Those decks do not off the predator before proceeding
downstream; they work as you expect and head for the prey.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >I looked over this again. Are you saying that fighting/attacking
> "upstream"
> >(where downstream is the direction of play/prey) is common in your group?
> >No wonder you see these 'weird' circumstances that I don't. The combat
> deck
> >should be crushing the Malk (his prey), not his predator.
>
> A combat deck obviously has put more of his cards into combat than a
> non-combat deck (Hmm. That should be hard to argue with :-) As a result
> it will do other stuff (vote/bleed) worse than the non-combat deck.
Peace Curt,
I'll have to disagree with you about the number of combat cards in a non-
combat deck. Just kidding! 8^)
> Rush combat can't usually do much to stop actions, except 0 stealth
> actions, which people in my group usually avoid. (Bleeds get stealthed,
> other stuff is usually automatically at stealth.) So if a rush combat
> deck whales on his prey, while his predator whales on him, he'll usually
> lose. Hence the first order of business is for the combat deck is to beat
> up his predator's minions until his predator is less of a threat than he
> is. Then he turns downstream.
The highest you can resonably expect to get an non-Obfuscated bleed to is
+1 stealth. A sport Bike, Raven Spy, Radio Station, or Cat's Guidance can
all stop this. Vs. a stealth heavy S&B predator, the BR deck is hard pressed.
This may be the only time that I could see attacking "upstream."
IME, the amount of time lost neutralizing your predator puts you way behind
the curve when it come to ousting your prey. That's why I say that the
combat deck should concentrate on his prey sooner. S/H/It can't expect to
bleed their prey very fast (lots of combat cards, after all), so they need
to get those early one-point bleeds.
> Intercept combat is a slightly different story. He must leave enough
> minions untapped to stop his predator. Depending on the decks involved,
> that may leave the intercept with a lot, a little, or none to send
> downstream.
IME, you always have to leave a credible defense, unless your deck is loaded
with Wakes. If you tap out, or mostly tap out, you're inviting your predator
to come over with most of his minions. This may be what you want, but
since most combat decks bleed poorly, getting into a "everybody bleeds
all out everyturn" sort of contest will probably not benifit the archi-
tipical (sp) combat deck.
> Sorry, I can't remember if you play with card limits. With card limits,
> rush is not really viable and combat decks must be combat intercept or
> bruise-and-bleed. Those decks do not off the predator before proceeding
> downstream; they work as you expect and head for the prey.
Nope, no card limits here, Curt.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3k4jso$9...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> > Late in the playtesting process, while people were coming up
> >with symbols, and card layout had been partially done, it was decided
> >that those cards that could affect everyone would be called directed
> >actions, and would use the (D) symbol.
>
> Check your small book (not the `corrected' rules). Nowhere in
> that book is it said that (D) actions are directable at
> everybody. It seems that (D) = freely-directable was not
> an idea of the symbology used in the game until /after/
> the game came out.
Peace Alan,
Yes, but does that mean that it wasn't just a printing error or an oversight?
> >As such, the concept wasn't
> >playtested as well as the rest (thus the big loophole about (D)'s
> >against yourself), and card layouts had to be changed quickly. The
> >result is that all bleed cards got the (D), and every card that affected
> >other players got the (D). Where possible the text was changed, but
> >some was missed (resulting in Cat Burglary and other cards that have
> >both the (D) and the text about "any Methuselah").
>
> Or, simply, (D) bleed never meant freely-directable unless
> specifically stated on card, and they took the `directioning'
> issues of other (D) actions for granted without
> explicitly mentioning it. Therefore, none of the (D)
> bleed cards (including Cat Burglary) is in error.
Now who has ventured into the region of supposition? When Richard Garfield
himself posts that (D) bleed were NEVER ment to be freely-directable,
then I will believe that your guesswork is factual. Since the revised
rules, which corrected several other errors/omisions says (D) means "direct
at anyone" that is what it means. Do you think that RG would let the DTR
completely mess his game up, as you seem to think?
[ quoted text not captured ]
James R. McClure Jr. (jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu) wrote:
: IME, the amount of time lost neutralizing your predator puts you way behind: the curve when it come to ousting your prey. That's why I say that the
: combat deck should concentrate on his prey sooner. S/H/It can't expect to
: bleed their prey very fast (lots of combat cards, after all), so they need
: to get those early one-point bleeds.: Nil carborundum illigitimi,: James R. McClure Jr.
: The OS/2 Apostle: <insert disclaimer here>
--
I have found a viable strategy with a combat deck is to use (D)
bleeds as mini-bum's rushes. What I mean is that methuselahs are more
likely to enter combat with you if you are going to bleed them for 2 or 3
blood. This only works well if (D) bleeds can go anywhere on the table,
which I heartedly endorse...it makes little sense if a methuselah is only
allowed to worry about his prey, and not all the others striving for
domination. Just a tiny bit of thought so that I may enter the discussion.
######################################################################
# Michael J. Reiffer |"To knock a thing down, especially if #
# e-mail: mrei...@calvin.edu | it is cocked at an arrogant angle is #
# March Madness Kingpin | a deep delight to the blood." #
# | -George Santayana #
######################################################################
In article <1995Mar15.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <3k4jso$9...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>Magic is an `interactive' 2 player game. The richness of the
>interaction is (my opinion) superior to many other games
>(of whatever form) on the market. This is one of the
>reasons of the success of Magic.
Magic is just that, a 2 player game. There is no game related
interaction outside "I fireball you" "I counter that". Other than that
it is no more or less social than bridge.
>You think that Garfield wanted Diplomacy-type `interaction'
>in his games, but that's just your opinion. In fact,
NO I DO NOT! I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT I WANT DIPLOMACY STYLE
INTERACTION IN JYHAD AND I MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT THAT!!!
Okay? I want the interaction that I think RG put into Jyhad to
be there. DO NOT THINK THAT I WANT DIPLOMACY STYLE INTERACTION IN
JYHAD. I DO NOT. I wasn't even the one who brought Diplomacy into this
thread. Do not presume to know what I think, and I'll return
the courtesy.
>I believe in the exact opposite. The reason that
>Garfield suggested GM, instead of free-for-all,
>should be a good enough evidence.
>
>Jyhad is obviously `interactive' enough, if you don't
>restrict the definition of `interaction' to yours,
>i.e. multi-player ( > 2 ), Diplomacy-style `interaction'.
>Even without (D) bleeds, I'm busy enough `interacting'
>with my predator and prey.
My definition of interaction is NOT based on Diplomacy. As a
matter of fact, I do not like that game. I have never stated otherwise.
I like for players to interact with each other outside the cards. We
all agree that political actions do that. I am stating (as I have
stated before and I'm sure will state again) that I believe that
political actions are one of the (not the exclusive) mechanisms in the
game that allow this interaction, and that (D) bleeds are another.
Jyhad does force interaction outside the cards. I'm just
saying that it does it in more than one way.
>The first part, about bleed left, is probably right. The second
>part is your `sheer speculation'. I don't even agree that
>Garfield thought the lack of `interaction' in GM was a
>problem.
Which is why I prefaced it by saying it was speculation.
Neither of us can know until we speak to the man himself.
>>Thus we end up with what we have today>
>The same result is more easily explained as a mis-ruling.
>There are lots of them in Jyhad already; why not one more.
Because I have to believe that the design team is closer to the
source of the original intent than we are (i.e. they can talk to RG, we
can't), and that while they may not always be able to get his opinion,
their rulings are more often in line with the rules as they were
intended than not.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k6571$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Rush combat can't usually do much to stop actions, except 0 stealth
>actions, which people in my group usually avoid. (Bleeds get stealthed,
>other stuff is usually automatically at stealth.) So if a rush combat
>deck whales on his prey, while his predator whales on him, he'll usually
>lose. Hence the first order of business is for the combat deck is to beat
>up his predator's minions until his predator is less of a threat than he
>is. Then he turns downstream.
Here you're generalizing. And you're basing a lot on what your
play group does. It's obvious to me that our play groups are all
different. Also, it depends on what else is in the rush deck (even a
pure rush deck has something besides rushes) as to what areas he will be
weak in.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>Vs. a stealth heavy S&B predator, the BR deck is hard pressed.
>This may be the only time that I could see attacking "upstream."
Unblockable (by stealth usually although there are others) heavy bleeds
vs. rush decks are precisely the concern I have with cross-table bleeds.
They do happen around here, fairly often. Otherwise cross-table bleeds
don't create big balance problems.
Two questions:
a) do you see that kind of situation as a problem?
b) what percentage of decks in your group are unblockable bleeders and
what are rush combat?
>I say that the
>combat deck should concentrate on his prey sooner. S/H/It can't expect
to
>bleed their prey very fast (lots of combat cards, after all), so they
need
>to get those early one-point bleeds.
Certainly they want to, but you've got to bleed your prey faster than your
predator bleeds you. A few early one-point bleeds don't help much.
Weenie bruise & bleed might be fast enough, but I've never seen anybody
try it.
>IME, you always have to leave a credible defense, unless your deck is
loaded
>with Wakes. If you tap out, or mostly tap out, you're inviting your
predator
>to come over with most of his minions. This may be what you want, but
>since most combat decks bleed poorly, getting into a "everybody bleeds>all out every turn" sort of contest will probably not benifit the archi-
>tipical (sp) combat deck.
Indeed, it's just very difficult for a rush combat deck to stop an
unblockable bleed even if minions are untapped. One or two will stop him
from sending EVERYBODY downstream, but generally one can sneak by each
turn. Additional untapped minions are irrelevant.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
mrei...@news.calvin.edu (Michael Reiffer) writes:
> I have found a viable strategy with a combat deck is to use (D)
>bleeds as mini-bum's rushes. What I mean is that methuselahs are more
>likely to enter combat with you if you are going to bleed them for 2 or 3>blood. This only works well if (D) bleeds can go anywhere on the table,
>which I heartedly endorse...it makes little sense if a methuselah is only>allowed to worry about his prey, and not all the others striving for
>domination. Just a tiny bit of thought so that I may enter the
discussion.
If you have a good combat deck, the Methuseleh will not block you until
faced with ousting. A torporized minion usually hurts much more than a 2
or 3 bleed. Hence it's not a substitute for the Rush. Bleed bounce will
also give you big headaches.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>>Hence the first order of business is for the combat deck is to beat
>>up his predator's minions until his predator is less of a threat than he
>>is. Then he turns downstream.> Here you're generalizing. And you're basing a lot on what your
>play group does. It's obvious to me that our play groups are all
>different. Also, it depends on what else is in the rush deck (even a
>pure rush deck has something besides rushes) as to what areas he will be
>weak in.
Okay, then:
What percentage of decks played in your groups are S&B and Rush?
What percentage of winners?
Do you have any rush decks that are not weak against stealthed or endless
bleeds? I'd like to see some.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>Since the revised
>rules, which corrected several other errors/omisions says (D) means
>"direct
>at anyone" that is what it means. Do you think that RG would let the DTR
>completely mess his game up, as you seem to think?
Actually the DTR has made a number of outrageous rulings, Rotschreck
foremost among them. This Gangrel player I know calls them up with
decidedly weird ideas and their rulings are often even stranger than his
ideas.
The corrected rules still say bleeds go against your prey, so by the rules
"(D) bleed" is a contradiction. The way they are written "bleed" (as an
action without a (D)) would be a contradiction too.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> I am stating (as I have
>stated before and I'm sure will state again) that I believe that
>political actions are one of the (not the exclusive) mechanisms in the
>game that allow this interaction, and that (D) bleeds are another.
Everything in Jyhad (combat, vote, contest, intercept) is interactive
except the (D) bleeds.
Do you believe every significant bleed is intended to be interactive too?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k7792$7...@uncle.calvin.edu> mrei...@news.calvin.edu (Michael Reiffer) writes:
> I have found a viable strategy with a combat deck is to use (D)
>bleeds as mini-bum's rushes. What I mean is that methuselahs are more
>likely to enter combat with you if you are going to bleed them for 2 or 3
>blood. This only works well if (D) bleeds can go anywhere on the table,
>which I heartedly endorse...it makes little sense if a methuselah is only
>allowed to worry about his prey, and not all the others striving for
>domination. Just a tiny bit of thought so that I may enter the discussion.
This is a lame excuse for (D) bleeding across the table.
Bum's Rush'es are $.10 a piece. Buy some and use them
for real Bum's Rush'es.
I do agree with the use of (D) bleed cards (Presence bleeds)
in a combat deck - on your prey. They become more
useful than Bum's Rush'es when all his vampires
has been Torporized :-) But there is no excuse for
using (D) bleeds "as mini-bum's rushes" on other Meths
than your prey; if you want to knock out the grand-predator's
Malks or the annoying voting Prince, put more Bum's Rush'es
in your deck.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I write:
>Okay, then:
>What percentage of decks played in your groups are S&B and Rush?
>What percentage of winners?>Do you have any rush decks that are not weak against stealthed or endless
>bleeds? I'd like to see some.
It looks a little snippy. Sorry, that wasn't intended. My questions are
serious.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> >Since the revised
> >rules, which corrected several other errors/omisions says (D) means
> >"direct
> >at anyone" that is what it means. Do you think that RG would let the DTR
> >completely mess his game up, as you seem to think?
Peace Curt,
> Actually the DTR has made a number of outrageous rulings, Rotschreck
> foremost among them. This Gangrel player I know calls them up with
> decidedly weird ideas and their rulings are often even stranger than his
> ideas.
In defense of the DTR, when I _first_ read the Roetschreck card, I thought
it was supposed to hose the dealing vampire. At least it is fixed now.
> The corrected rules still say bleeds go against your prey, so by the rules
> "(D) bleed" is a contradiction. The way they are written "bleed" (as an
> action without a (D)) would be a contradiction too.
Fearing the beginning a new monster thread, James pressed on. The rules
say cardless bleeds are directed actions against your prey. No card, no
need for a (D) symbol. Directed actions are defined as directable at any
Methuseleh, so (D) bleeds are not a contradiction, just a combining of two
rules. If there was a bleed action that just said 'bleed' [no (D)], I
would assume that it was supposed to be against your prey only, since it
doesn't say that it can be directed at any Meth [again, no (D)].
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> >Vs. a stealth heavy S&B predator, the BR deck is hard pressed.
> >This may be the only time that I could see attacking "upstream."
>
> Unblockable (by stealth usually although there are others) heavy bleeds
> vs. rush decks are precisely the concern I have with cross-table bleeds.
> They do happen around here, fairly often. Otherwise cross-table bleeds
> don't create big balance problems.
Peace Curt,
> Two questions:
> a) do you see that kind of situation as a problem?
No, I don't. The players that I play with don't arbitrarily strike out
at Meths across the table.
> b) what percentage of decks in your group are unblockable bleeders and
> what are rush combat?
The only "unblockable" bleed is Day Op, so I have /a/ Ventrue deck with
two Day Ops, that would be one deck in about thirty-six or >3%. Stealth
is not unblockable, but if you are asking S&B decks, probably 25-30%.
The Brujah & Gangrel decks around here aren't 'full' of BRs, more like
what you would qualify as "intercept combat," but combat decks do make up
20-25% of the decks around here.
> >IME, you always have to leave a credible defense, unless your deck is
> loaded
> >with Wakes. If you tap out, or mostly tap out, you're inviting your
> predator
> >to come over with most of his minions. This may be what you want, but
> >since most combat decks bleed poorly, getting into a "everybody bleeds
> >all out every turn" sort of contest will probably not benifit the archi-
> >tipical (sp) combat deck.
>
> Indeed, it's just very difficult for a rush combat deck to stop an
> unblockable bleed even if minions are untapped. One or two will stop him
> from sending EVERYBODY downstream, but generally one can sneak by each
> turn. Additional untapped minions are irrelevant.
If you have only one untapped minion and I am your predator, I'm going to
start bleeding you with everything I have. If you don't have several Wakes
or Deflections or Majesties or Telep Conters, I'm going to bleed you with
several of my minions (I will leave a credible defense unless I believe that
I can oust you). IME, you have to have a credible defense and one blocker
isn't credible.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Peace Alan,
Michael is getting double duty out of his cards. He can (D) bleed as a
psuedo-BR _and_ he can (D) bleed to oust his prey. He has /more/ options
with (D) bleed Presence cards in his hand than if he had BRs. That's
what I've been saying all along. It is about taking someone's options
away.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>If there was a bleed action that just said 'bleed' [no (D)], I
>would assume that it was supposed to be against your prey only, since it
>doesn't say that it can be directed at any Meth [again, no (D)].
Yep, that would not be contested. The problem is that the rules say
bleeds are directed, but cards without (D) are not directed. Now the
contradiction is whether the predator can block.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k9l4h$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
I tend to think that you apply the definition of "bleed" to the
card, so that the card allows you (undirectedly) to take a directed
action against your prey. In other words, treat it as if the card said
that the bleed was the basic action to undermine your prey... that is
listed in the rulebook. Then, indirectly, the (D) is in there...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k87g1$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Everything in Jyhad (combat, vote, contest, intercept) is interactive
>except the (D) bleeds.
>Do you believe every significant bleed is intended to be interactive too?
Everything in Jyhad *can* be interactive. In most cases,
combat, vote and intercept are directed against your prey or predator,
and are not interaction of players so much as interaction of cards
(which is gameplay, *not* what I call interaction). Contest is about
50-50 between local and table, but because of its nature it's always
player to player interaction outside of the actual cards.
Bleeding is no different than most of the other actions. Like
combat, vote and intercept, bleed is directed against your prey in most
cases, but can also be used elsewhere if you have the appropriate card.
Of course every significant bleed is not intended to be
interactive. But I don't believe that every bleed must *not* be
interactive.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k86m9$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>If you have a good combat deck, the Methuseleh will not block you until
>faced with ousting. A torporized minion usually hurts much more than a 2
>or 3 bleed. Hence it's not a substitute for the Rush. Bleed bounce will
>also give you big headaches.
Hence, it's not *always* a substitute for the BR. But it will
work as a pseudo-rush given the right circumstances (which is sometimes
all that you need).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <1995Mar16.0...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>This is a lame excuse for (D) bleeding across the table.
>Bum's Rush'es are $.10 a piece. Buy some and use them
>for real Bum's Rush'es.
That's a lame excuse to buy extra cards when you've got the
option to use cards you already have. Besides, why should you be
required to buy 20 BR's to make a deck that uses that strategy if in
some cases, a Computer Hacking (which you've got extras of) will do the
same thing?
>has been Torporized :-) But there is no excuse for
>using (D) bleeds "as mini-bum's rushes" on other Meths
>than your prey; if you want to knock out the grand-predator's
>Malks or the annoying voting Prince, put more Bum's Rush'es
>in your deck.
And limit your deck strategies accordingly. This is my point,
exactly!
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k86bq$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Unblockable (by stealth usually although there are others) heavy bleeds
>vs. rush decks are precisely the concern I have with cross-table bleeds.
>They do happen around here, fairly often. Otherwise cross-table bleeds
>don't create big balance problems.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here. I'm going to tell you how I
interpret what you're saying, and you can tell me if I'm right.
You're saying that you often see a prey and predator being rush
vs. heavy bleed respectively. And when this happens, the game becomes
unbalanced. So you figure that if cross table bleeds were allowed and
there were both a bleeder and a rush deck in the circle, the game would
be unbalanced. Otherwise, you don't see a problem?
I'm going to refrain from commenting until I understand your
point, as I would probably address something totally irrelevant.
As to your question about rush decks, I've never seen a deck so
totally dedicated to rushes as you seem to see. In a way, we kinda feel
it's about as degenerate as a pure S&B, I suppose. And I'm probably the
only one with enough cards to actually have enough rushes to pull it
off.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k86tc$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Okay, then:
>What percentage of decks played in your groups are S&B and Rush?
I think that James and I are both coming from a place where rush
isn't so pervasive as where you are. By what you seem to think of as
rush, I have no decks. I have 2 decks that have BR's in them, but one
is intercept combat, and the other is vote-combat (a weird combo, I must
say). Of my play group, one person regularly plays a S&B, and another
plays occassionally. I have been asked not to play my S&B much, so I
don't.
>What percentage of winners?
Beg pardon? Strictly taken, the answer is a little less than
100% (someone in the group has won every game except for the one where I
voted us all out of the game at the same time). I'm not sure what
you're *really* asking. How much do S&B's win? To be honest, I usually
win (yeah, that sounds egotistical, but I can't think of a better way to
say it). My S&B deck is just Malkavian enough to tip the balances when
I play it (I have very bad card draw luck, but I'm a Malk at heart, and
can do fairly well at the Game and the Prank), and the other guy's S&B
takes out 1 to 2 people reliably before his predator gets him (unless
the predator's a wimp, in which case it's down to him and me at the
end). How much do rushes win? I don't think we play them in the way
that you do.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> I tend to think that you apply the definition of "bleed" to the
>card, so that the card allows you (undirectedly) to take a directed
>action against your prey. In other words, treat it as if the card said
>that the bleed was the basic action to undermine your prey... that is
>listed in the rulebook. Then, indirectly, the (D) is in there...
Ther rules say card actions without a (D) are not directed. No such
restriction on book actions.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>> Yep, that would not be contested. The problem is that the rules say
>> bleeds are directed, but cards without (D) are not directed. Now the
>> contradiction is whether the predator can block.>S/H/It couldn't, its a bleed, therefore it is directed.
It's an action without a (D), therefore it is not directed. We have a
contradiction.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>Everything in Jyhad (combat, vote, contest, intercept) is interactive
>>except the (D) bleeds.
>>Do you believe every significant bleed is intended to be interactive
too?
> Everything in Jyhad *can* be interactive. In most cases,
>combat, vote and intercept are directed against your prey or predator,
>and are not interaction of players so much as interaction of cards
>(which is gameplay, *not* what I call interaction). Contest is about
>50-50 between local and table, but because of its nature it's always
>player to player interaction outside of the actual cards.
> Bleeding is no different than most of the other actions. Like
>combat, vote and intercept, bleed is directed against your prey in most
>cases, but can also be used elsewhere if you have the appropriate card.
> Of course every significant bleed is not intended to be
>interactive. But I don't believe that every bleed must *not* be
>interactive.
I don't either. Certain cards specifically allow nonprey bleeds.
What I meant was that if (D) bleed could go on anybody at least some of
the (D) bleeds would have the "only your prey" restrictions. Every card
to allow a bleed action shouldn't remove a basic restriction of bleeding.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>> a) do you see that kind of situation as a problem?>No, I don't. The players that I play with don't arbitrarily strike out
>at Meths across the table.
I don't think they would strike arbitrarily either, just that there
frequently are circumstances where they would do so rationally.
Under what circumstances do your heavy bleeders strike other than at prey?
>> b) what percentage of decks in your group are unblockable bleeders and
>> what are rush combat?>The only "unblockable" bleed is Day Op, so I have /a/ Ventrue deck with
>two Day Ops, that would be one deck in about thirty-six or >3%.
By unblockable bleed I mean decks that tap all blockers and exhaust all
defensive untap cards, without harm to themselves, using Consanguinous
Condemnation and multiple bleeds by vampires that can end combat, untap,
and bleed again.
A big pile of Camarilla Exemplaries could do the job too, actually, but
probably isn't worth it.
>The Brujah & Gangrel decks around here aren't 'full' of BRs, more like
>what you would qualify as "intercept combat," but combat decks do make
>up 20-25% of the decks around here.
For a definition, let's say decks with 10% or more cards to allow enter
combat actions. How many would fit that definition?
>IME, you have to have a credible defense and one blocker
>isn't credible.
One combat blocker is quite credible vs. blockable actions. Torpor hurts.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k72qm$l...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>>>> In article <3k4jso$9...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>> > Late in the playtesting process, while people were coming up
>> >with symbols, and card layout had been partially done, it was decided
>> >that those cards that could affect everyone would be called directed
>> >actions, and would use the (D) symbol.
>>
>> Check your small book (not the `corrected' rules). Nowhere in
>> that book is it said that (D) actions are directable at
>> everybody. It seems that (D) = freely-directable was not
>> an idea of the symbology used in the game until /after/
>> the game came out.>
>Yes, but does that mean that it wasn't just a printing error or an oversight?
It's more likely that the `corrected' rule was simply a badly-worded
attempt in clarifying the definition of `most' directed actions.
Maybe somebody asked, "Can I Bum's Rush anybody, or just my prey
and predator?" This kind of badly-worded `attempts to clarify'
are common in the book (and not corrected in the `corrected'
rules): the `do not get 6 pool for ousting until end of turn' wording,
for example.
It seems highly unlikely to me that they intended all (D) actions,
including (D) bleeds, to be freely directable, yet `forget' to
mention that in the original small book.
In article 4177 in this group, Frank Kusumoto wrote:
> ... I see three different uses of the term 'Directed Actions'. To wit,
> (1) A directed action is an action taken against another Methuselah, as
> opposed to an undirected action which is not taken against another
> Methuselah (e.g., equiping a minion).
> (2) A directed action is an action taken against any Methuselah of your
> choice.
> (3) A directed action is an action which may only be blocked by
> the Methuselah who is receiving the action.
What I consider to be the most likely situation is, they basically
define a directed action on (1), and the purpose of the distinction
is (3) ([2] is not in the small rulebook). They assumed that
who may be the target of the directed action should be obvious
from rule (1) and the cards. (2) was never intended to be
the purpose of calling an action directed. Does the (D) in the
card text on Army of Rats allow me to direct the action at myself
(unblockable) while trying to burn it? From the `corrected' rules:
13.3.1 "Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in
the card text and allow you to direct the action against any Methuselah."
implying that IT DOES. The "Burn Army of Rats" action has
a (D) in the card text on the action card, so I can direct
it against myself.
The `corrected' rules are nuts.
>> >As such, the concept wasn't
>> >playtested as well as the rest (thus the big loophole about (D)'s
>> >against yourself), and card layouts had to be changed quickly. The
>> >result is that all bleed cards got the (D), and every card that affected
>> >other players got the (D). Where possible the text was changed, but
>> >some was missed (resulting in Cat Burglary and other cards that have
>> >both the (D) and the text about "any Methuselah").
>>
>> Or, simply, (D) bleed never meant freely-directable unless
>> specifically stated on card, and they took the `directioning'
>> issues of other (D) actions for granted without
>> explicitly mentioning it. Therefore, none of the (D)
>> bleed cards (including Cat Burglary) is in error.>
>Now who has ventured into the region of supposition? When Richard Garfield
>himself posts that (D) bleed were NEVER ment to be freely-directable,
>then I will believe that your guesswork is factual.
I was making "supposition[s]" no more than Joseph. Richard
Garfield never posted that (D) bleed WERE meant to be
freely-directable. Looking at the rulings on Rotscheck,
the DRT seems to be basing their rulings on guesswork
no less than we are.
>Since the revised
>rules, which corrected several other errors/omisions says (D) means "direct
>at anyone" that is what it means. Do you think that RG would let the DTR
>completely mess his game up, as you seem to think?
Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The revised rules
failed to correct /most/ mistakes in the small book, and
this (D) freely-directed thingie, as already pointed out
during previous discussions in this group, is a logical
contradiction.
One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wrote:
>>
>>The same result is more easily explained as a mis-ruling.
>>There are lots of them in Jyhad already; why not one more.
In article <3k7ac2$n...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
> Because I have to believe that the design team is closer to the
>source of the original intent than we are (i.e. they can talk to RG, we
>can't), and that while they may not always be able to get his opinion,
>their rulings are more often in line with the rules as they were
>intended than not.
From what we see on other stuff (Rotscheck, Blood Rage,
Hidden Lurker), I do not think that this is the
case. If "they can talk to RG", they haven't exercised
that `ability' for a long while. The freely-directed
(D) thingie /added/ in the `corrected' rules has
already been pointed out, in previous discussions of
this group, to be a hopeless logical contradiction.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>If you have a good combat deck, the Methuseleh will not block you until
>>faced with ousting. A torporized minion usually hurts much more than a
2
>>or 3 bleed. Hence it's not a substitute for the Rush. Bleed bounce
will
>>also give you big headaches.> Hence, it's not *always* a substitute for the BR. But it will
>work as a pseudo-rush given the right circumstances (which is >sometimes
all that you need).
Quite rarely. Only when the loss of a vampire is more than 2 or 3 pool.
As it takes 2 blood and a vampire action to rescue, plus the loss of blood
on the blocking vampire, it's almost never worth stopping (bar another
combat deck).
Remember the targeted Methuseleh chooses whether to block. He'll only do
so if it's in his best interest.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>Besides, why should you be
>required to buy 20 BR's to make a deck that uses that strategy if in
>some cases, a Computer Hacking (which you've got extras of) will do the
>same thing?
Anybody, not playing combat or combat ends, dim enough to block a skilled
Brujah who is Computer Hacking him deserves to be ousted.
>>if you want to knock out the grand-predator's
>>Malks or the annoying voting Prince, put more Bum's Rush'es
>>in your deck.> And limit your deck strategies accordingly. This is my point,
>exactly!
Every card always involves (well, should involve) choices. If you're
better at one thing you should be worse at another. That's the only way
to have a balanced game.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3k9gm2$r...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> Curt Adams wrote:
>>> The corrected rules still say bleeds go against your prey, so by the rules
>> "(D) bleed" is a contradiction. The way they are written "bleed" (as an
>> action without a (D)) would be a contradiction too.>
>Fearing the beginning a new monster thread, James pressed on. The rules
>say cardless bleeds are directed actions against your prey. No card, no
>need for a (D) symbol. Directed actions are defined as directable at any
>Methuseleh, so (D) bleeds are not a contradiction, just a combining of two
>rules.
Hey, let's take a look at the rules. The rules say cardless bleeds are
directed actions against your prey, and cause the target to lose
one pool. If you have any bleed modifiers, the extra blood
is taken form your PREY, not necesesarily the target of the
bleed:
12.3.1, Bleed:
"You may attempt to bleed the player who is your prey by
declaring a bleed action. If unblocked, this action
removes one blood from the blood pool of the bled player
to the blood bank. If your vampire has a modifier to its
bleed, it may remove extra blood from your PREY to the
blood bank." [emphasis added]
I didn't realise until now that bleed bounce defense doesn't
work AT ALL. :-)
if your interpretation of (D) bleed is right, it would
never be impossible to put up a bleed defense in this
game:
Me: "Okay, I (D) bleed /him/ with Computer Hacking
and Superior Conditioning for 5."
He: "Oh, I let you through."
Me: "Great, thanks. You take one and my prey takes 4."
You (my prey): weep, weep.
Are you saying that everybody who wants to defend against
bleeds /must/ use Eagle Sight?
(Now I can see why original Cat Burglary and Night
Moves /have to/ restrict your bleed to one ...)
As an alternative, as I already pointed out earlier,
you can interprete the definition of bleed in that
section to apply to cardless bleeds only. In this
case, since there is no other defintion of a bleed
action in the rules, a (D) bleed action on a card
is undefined, and should have no effect.
>If there was a bleed action that just said 'bleed' [no (D)], I
>would assume that it was supposed to be against your prey only, since it
>doesn't say that it can be directed at any Meth [again, no (D)].
The `errata' for Cat Burglary says this. Since the
description in the rules for the bleed action doesn't
apply to (D) bleeds on a card, there is no good reason
to assume that it apply to (no (D)) bleed on a
card. The rules say:
13.3.1 "... on action cards ... If the (D) does not
appear, it is not a directed action."
Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
and has no effect.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3k9hjb$r...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
>Michael is getting double duty out of his cards. He can (D) bleed as a
>psuedo-BR _and_ he can (D) bleed to oust his prey. He has /more/ options
>with (D) bleed Presence cards in his hand than if he had BRs. That's
>what I've been saying all along. It is about taking someone's options
>away.
Oh, yeah. Jyhad is a very restrictive game. It is no good.
I just came up with the following variant for your enjoyment:
----------------------
MEGA-JYHAD
1. All the rules are not changed from Jyhad, EXCEPT that
/all/ vampires are assumed to have the superior
version of /all/ disciplines.
----------------------
Try this. You will find that you have /much more options/
than you did in Jyhad. Why prevent a vampire from using
the Superior `option' of a card when he only has normal?
The option is printed on card, why take it away.
Why prevent an unskilled vampire from using the
card at all? When /any/ vampire can play /any/ card,
you have more options. That should be good.
Think of the `options' that ensues. A Malk combat deck.
Brujah S&B, with 2 hand damage on many vampires.
Opens an entire new horizon to the game.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> Looking at the rulings on Rotscheck,
>the DRT seems to be basing their rulings on guesswork
>no less than we are.
More. Much more.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3k72qm$l...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
Peace Alan,
> >> Check your small book (not the `corrected' rules). Nowhere in
> >> that book is it said that (D) actions are directable at
> >> everybody. It seems that (D) = freely-directable was not
> >> an idea of the symbology used in the game until /after/
> >> the game came out.
> >
> >Yes, but does that mean that it wasn't just a printing error or an oversight?
>
> It's more likely that the `corrected' rule was simply a badly-worded
> attempt in clarifying the definition of `most' directed actions.
> Maybe somebody asked, "Can I Bum's Rush anybody, or just my prey
> and predator?" This kind of badly-worded `attempts to clarify'
> are common in the book (and not corrected in the `corrected'
> rules): the `do not get 6 pool for ousting until end of turn' wording,
> for example.
That's really bad wording, Alan, considering the majority of (D) cards
are bleeds.
> It seems highly unlikely to me that they intended all (D) actions,
> including (D) bleeds, to be freely directable, yet `forget' to
> mention that in the original small book.
It is only one line in the revised rule book. They could have easily left
out one line.
> In article 4177 in this group, Frank Kusumoto wrote:
>
> > ... I see three different uses of the term 'Directed Actions'. To wit,
> > (1) A directed action is an action taken against another Methuselah, as
> > opposed to an undirected action which is not taken against another
> > Methuselah (e.g., equiping a minion).
> > (2) A directed action is an action taken against any Methuselah of your
> > choice.
> > (3) A directed action is an action which may only be blocked by
> > the Methuselah who is receiving the action.
I don't see that these three 'views' of directed action are mutually exclusive.
We play that all three are true and have no problems.
> What I consider to be the most likely situation is, they basically
> define a directed action on (1), and the purpose of the distinction
> is (3) ([2] is not in the small rulebook). They assumed that
> who may be the target of the directed action should be obvious
> from rule (1) and the cards. (2) was never intended to be
> the purpose of calling an action directed. Does the (D) in the
> card text on Army of Rats allow me to direct the action at myself
> (unblockable) while trying to burn it? From the `corrected' rules:
Your really degenerating, Alan.
> 13.3.1 "Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in
> the card text and allow you to direct the action against any Methuselah."
>
> implying that IT DOES. The "Burn Army of Rats" action has
> a (D) in the card text on the action card, so I can direct
> it against myself.
No, that's not what the card says, and you know it. It is clearly intended
to mean: "any minion may take a (D) action, directed at the Meth currently
controlling the Army of Rats, to destroy the Army of Rats." So, yes, I
guess you could destroy your OWN Army of Rats and it would be unblockable,
but why would you want to do that?
> The `corrected' rules are nuts.
No, you are grasping at straws.
> >> >As such, the concept wasn't
> >> >playtested as well as the rest (thus the big loophole about (D)'s
> >> >against yourself), and card layouts had to be changed quickly. The
> >> >result is that all bleed cards got the (D), and every card that affected
> >> >other players got the (D). Where possible the text was changed, but
> >> >some was missed (resulting in Cat Burglary and other cards that have
> >> >both the (D) and the text about "any Methuselah").
> >>
> >> Or, simply, (D) bleed never meant freely-directable unless
> >> specifically stated on card, and they took the `directioning'
> >> issues of other (D) actions for granted without
> >> explicitly mentioning it. Therefore, none of the (D)
> >> bleed cards (including Cat Burglary) is in error.
> >
> >Now who has ventured into the region of supposition? When Richard Garfield
> >himself posts that (D) bleed were NEVER ment to be freely-directable,
> >then I will believe that your guesswork is factual.
>
> I was making "supposition[s]" no more than Joseph. Richard
> Garfield never posted that (D) bleed WERE meant to be
> freely-directable. Looking at the rulings on Rotscheck,
> the DRT seems to be basing their rulings on guesswork
> no less than we are.
Actually, for all intents and purposes, RG HAS 'posted' that (D) bleeds are
fully directable. I am sure that he read over the revised rulebook and
he gave it his OK.
> >Since the revised
> >rules, which corrected several other errors/omisions says (D) means "direct
> >at anyone" that is what it means. Do you think that RG would let the DTR
> >completely mess his game up, as you seem to think?
>
> Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. The revised rules
> failed to correct /most/ mistakes in the small book, and
> this (D) freely-directed thingie, as already pointed out
> during previous discussions in this group, is a logical
> contradiction.
Please, list the many mistakes that occured in the small book and
how they weren't corrected in the revised rules.
> One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
> who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
> Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
> I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.
We both agree on this and hopefully it will be corrected in VtES.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> From what we see on other stuff (Rotscheck, Blood Rage,
> Hidden Lurker), I do not think that this is the
> case. If "they can talk to RG", they haven't exercised
> that `ability' for a long while. The freely-directed
> (D) thingie /added/ in the `corrected' rules has
> already been pointed out, in previous discussions of
> this group, to be a hopeless logical contradiction.
Peace Alan,
I guess that I'm hopelessly illogical, then, Alan, as I don't see
a contradiction.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> >> a) do you see that kind of situation as a problem?
>
> >No, I don't. The players that I play with don't arbitrarily strike out
> >at Meths across the table.
>
> I don't think they would strike arbitrarily either, just that there
> frequently are circumstances where they would do so rationally.
>
> Under what circumstances do your heavy bleeders strike other than at prey?
Peace Curt,
Unfortunately, I can't read other people's minds, so I don't know. AtTBs
don't happen very often around here (nearly never), so the circumstances
must be pretty stringent.
> >> b) what percentage of decks in your group are unblockable bleeders and
> >> what are rush combat?
>
> >The only "unblockable" bleed is Day Op, so I have /a/ Ventrue deck with
> >two Day Ops, that would be one deck in about thirty-six or >3%.
>
> By unblockable bleed I mean decks that tap all blockers and exhaust all
> defensive untap cards, without harm to themselves, using Consanguinous
> Condemnation and multiple bleeds by vampires that can end combat, untap,
> and bleed again.
I don't think we have any decks quite like that. I have decks that have
a Cons Cond or two and/or a Misdirection or two, but that isn't the only
strategy that those decks are built around. Maybe we just build broader
decks? I don't know.
> A big pile of Camarilla Exemplaries could do the job too, actually, but
> probably isn't worth it.
I was going to do this in my Toreador deck (along with several Aching Beauties).
> >The Brujah & Gangrel decks around here aren't 'full' of BRs, more like
> >what you would qualify as "intercept combat," but combat decks do make
> >up 20-25% of the decks around here.
>
> For a definition, let's say decks with 10% or more cards to allow enter
> combat actions. How many would fit that definition?
Eight BRs in eighty cards! I don't know if anyone around here qualifies, by
that definition. My Gangrel deck (46 cards) I consider a combat deck and
the action that I take to cause combat is bleeding my prey or finding a
Raven Spy/Murder of Crows. The Brujah deck that I posted I would test
this weekend will fit your definition . . . stay tuned.
> >IME, you have to have a credible defense and one blocker
> >isn't credible.
>
> One combat blocker is quite credible vs. blockable actions. Torpor hurts.
I'll trade one minion in torpor for ousting my prey. One blocker is
not a credible defense around here.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3k9hjb$r...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >
> >Michael is getting double duty out of his cards. He can (D) bleed as a
> >psuedo-BR _and_ he can (D) bleed to oust his prey. He has /more/ options
> >with (D) bleed Presence cards in his hand than if he had BRs. That's
> >what I've been saying all along. It is about taking someone's options
> >away.
[Alan's drool mopped up]
Peace Alan,
Blah, blah, blah, yackety, smackety. Non-sequitur argument.
Please, insert twenty-five cents to play again. 8^)
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Only when 1+1=0. (for sufficiently small ones)
> Me: "Okay, I (D) bleed /him/ with Computer Hacking
> and Superior Conditioning for 5."
> He: "Oh, I let you through."
> Me: "Great, thanks. You take one and my prey takes 4."
> You (my prey): weep, weep.
>
> Are you saying that everybody who wants to defend against
> bleeds /must/ use Eagle Sight?
No, you are. 1+1=2.
> As an alternative, as I already pointed out earlier,
> you can interprete the definition of bleed in that
> section to apply to cardless bleeds only. In this
> case, since there is no other defintion of a bleed
> action in the rules, a (D) bleed action on a card
> is undefined, and should have no effect.
Peace Alan,
Did they teach you that 1+1=0 in NY? See the Golden Rule of Cards.
A (D) bleed card 'overrides' part of the rules for cardless bleeds.
> >If there was a bleed action that just said 'bleed' [no (D)], I
> >would assume that it was supposed to be against your prey only, since it
> >doesn't say that it can be directed at any Meth [again, no (D)].
>
> The `errata' for Cat Burglary says this. Since the
> description in the rules for the bleed action doesn't
> apply to (D) bleeds on a card, there is no good reason
> to assume that it apply to (no (D)) bleed on a
> card. The rules say:
Except common sense.
> 13.3.1 "... on action cards ... If the (D) does not
> appear, it is not a directed action."
>
> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
> and has no effect.
Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kcbdv$6...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>>
>> I was making "supposition[s]" no more than Joseph. Richard
>> Garfield never posted that (D) bleed WERE meant to be
>> freely-directable. Looking at the rulings on Rotscheck,
>> the DRT seems to be basing their rulings on guesswork
>> no less than we are.>
>Actually, for all intents and purposes, RG HAS 'posted' that (D) bleeds are
>fully directable. I am sure that he read over the revised rulebook and
>he gave it his OK.
Which article number? Where?
The revised rulebook didn't /explicitly/ say that (D) bleeds are
freely directable. As you said, it's just one line in there.
RG may hav read it, thinking about general (D) actions such
as Arson and Bum's Rush, `overlooking' the implications on
(D) bleeds (he might even not have dreamt that anyone would
ever interpret it that way), and let it pass.
Do you know what kind of "OK" RG gave to Jyhad? From The
Eternal Struggle, p. 17:
"... The number of mistakes on the cards and in the rules,
while being more than I find acceptable, ..."
>> ... The revised rules>> failed to correct /most/ mistakes in the small book, and
>> this (D) freely-directed thingie, as already pointed out
>> during previous discussions in this group, is a logical
>> contradiction.>
>Please, list the many mistakes that occured in the small book and
>how they weren't corrected in the revised rules.
5. The Edge counter: the text seems to imply that you
don't get the edge on a bounced bleed.
12.4, Infulence Phase: the term "multi-player game" is
confusing (ask anybody in rec.games.board)
13.2 contradicts with 7.2.2. Can you play a Telepathic
Counter with each of two minions against a single bleed?
15.3, Dodge logically contradicts 12.3.1, Employ Retainer.
As 15.3 says, Dodge does not "prevent damage"; it negates
the effects of a strike. Also, it failed to state that
Dodge takes precedence over First Strike (one could
argue that the Dodge is not yet resolved)
17.1, Voting, contradicts DTR. Can the acting Meth. push
votes with Political action cards?
17.2 Contested Titles: ambiguous wording. Is the
/vampire/ with a contested title out of play?
18.1 we all know that. `Do not get 6 pool for ousting
until end of turn'.
And, the worst:
13.3.1, `revised' rules allowing freely directed (D) actions,
including those directed at oneself, contradicting the definition
of directed actions in the very same section.
Not to say the errata, which is deserved but not there,
for important individual cards: Hidden Lurker, Blood Rage,
and possibly `wallpaper' such as Chainsaw, Enchant
Kindred, and Concealed Weapon. I was /so/ disappointed
when I saw the `cards errata' of the Revised rules.
>> One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
>> who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
>> Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
>> I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.>
>We both agree on this and hopefully it will be corrected in VtES.
But the Design Team, whom you seem to put so much
faith and trust in, has not yet done anything up to
THIS date. Are you a man of blind faith?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kcgig$7...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
>Did they teach you that 1+1=0 in NY? See the Golden Rule of Cards.
>A (D) bleed card 'overrides' part of the rules for cardless bleeds.
If that is the case, then the lack of the (D) symbol
on errata Cat Burglary normal should mean that the
action is undirected. The lack of a (D) symbol,
dictating undirected action, "`overrides' part of the rules
for cardless bleeds".
>> The `errata' for Cat Burglary says this. Since the
>> description in the rules for the bleed action doesn't
>> apply to (D) bleeds on a card, there is no good reason
>> to assume that it apply to (no (D)) bleed on a>> card. ...>
>Except common sense.
My point is exactly that the Revised rules, the DTR and
the arguments on your side of the camp does not make sense.
The undirected Cat Burglary normal is a logical consequence
of interpretating (D) bleeds as freely-directable.
If this is nonsense, then the freely-directed (D) bleed rule
is nonsense. Anybody who has taken a logic course in
college and did well in that course can tell you this.
>>> 13.3.1 "... on action cards ... If the (D) does not
>> appear, it is not a directed action."
>>
>> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
>> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
>> and has no effect.>
>Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.
Where do you find the text `action is directed only at your
prey' on the card (errata)? Where do you find the text
`action cannot be blocked by your predator' on the card?
All we can find on the card is the indication that
Cat Burglary normal is an undirected action (by the lack of
the (D) symbol).
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
> AtTB don't happen very often around here.
You're putting a lot of effort into defending them, if they're that rare.
Do you think they are essential to game balance?
> By unblockable bleed I mean decks that tap all blockers and exhaust all
> defensive untap cards, without harm to themselves, using Consanguinous
> Condemnation and multiple bleeds by vampires that can end combat, untap,
> and bleed again.>I don't think we have any decks quite like that.
Then your only heavy bleeders must be Malkavians. Like I said, endless
bleed strategies seem uncommon (nobody's tried it around here), although
they do well in tournaments.
>> For a [Rush] definition, let's say decks with 10% or more cards to
allow
>> enter combat actions. How many would fit that definition?>Eight BRs in eighty cards! I don't know if anyone around here qualifies,
by
>that definition. My Gangrel deck (46 cards) I consider a combat deck and
>the action that I take to cause combat is bleeding my prey or finding a
>Raven Spy/Murder of Crows. The Brujah deck that I posted I would test
>this weekend will fit your definition . . . stay tuned.
Yes, eight. More if your target has prepared for you with Majesty and
Obedience and such. You have to be able to torporize most of your
predator's vampire AND most of your prey's (at least), accounting for some
occaisional torpor rescues.
I'm tuned. Make sure there are some Malk decks when you play, since
that's the crux of our disagreement.
> >IME, you have to have a credible defense and one blocker
> >isn't credible.
>>> One combat blocker is quite credible vs. blockable actions. Torpor
hurts.
>I'll trade one minion in torpor for ousting my prey. One blocker is
>not a credible defense around here.
That obviously depends on the nature of the predator. Around here, the
stealth bleeders always have ways to avoid lone blockers or five blockers,
and accordingly they're not really set up to do more than about two
serious bleeds per turn (the other cards in their hand serve to get past
blockers). So if they can oust you with one blockers, they can do it with
5 too. Do you folks use bruise and bleed?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>Actually, for all intents and purposes, RG HAS 'posted' that (D) bleeds
are
>fully directable. I am sure that he read over the revised rulebook and
>he gave it his OK.
With the obvious, uncorrected, misprints on Concealed Weapon and Blood
Rage, SOMEBODY important involved with the design of the game hasn't
looked at it since it went to press. Even those involved have apparently
not take the simple step of counting cards by discipline.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>Did they teach you that 1+1=0 in NY? See the Golden Rule of Cards.
>A (D) bleed card 'overrides' part of the rules for cardless bleeds.
Which part? Even if (D) overrode the prey-only business, it can't override
everything. The point is that the writers/proofers are making serious
booboos in the rules.
I can write rules for your interpretation easily, but they would differ
from the published rules (i.e., it should say that the modifiers add
damage to the target Methuseleh).
>Except common sense.
We all know what should happen if a bleed bounces. The rules are written
wrong.
>> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
>> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
>> and has no effect.>Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.
The "fixed" (as in NEUTERED :-) Cat Burglary does not say "this action is
not blockable by your predator". Hence it doesn't legally override the
rulebook, which says actions without a (D) can be blocked by your predator
or prey.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <1995Mar17.2...@cs.cornell.edu> kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>In article <3kcgig$7...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
[Much seemingly futile argument deleted.]
>My point is exactly that the Revised rules, the DTR and
>the arguments on your side of the camp does not make sense.
>The undirected Cat Burglary normal is a logical consequence
>of interpretating (D) bleeds as freely-directable.
>If this is nonsense, then the freely-directed (D) bleed rule
>is nonsense. Anybody who has taken a logic course in
>college and did well in that course can tell you this.
What you're doing right there is called a false dichotomy in
college logic classes. There are more than two kinds of actions.
There are three categories of actions:
1. Undirected actions
2. Bleeds, which are directed and restricted to prey, and
3. Actions which have the (D) symbol, and can be directed at anyone.
The directed bleed cards (with the (D) move actions which are normally
category 2 into category 3. (From 'directed at prey' to 'directed
at anyone'.)
As long as you all argue from the premise that there are only two
kinds of actions, you're going to go around and around and around.
I think most of the readers of this thread are ready to get off
this merry-go-round.
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
> who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
> Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
> I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.
In article <3kd1oh$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
> With the obvious, uncorrected, misprints on Concealed Weapon and Blood
> Rage, SOMEBODY important involved with the design of the game hasn't
> looked at it since it went to press. Even those involved have apparently
> not take the simple step of counting cards by discipline.
In addition, in the RPG ``Wake with Evening's Freshness'' is also clearly a
thaumaturgy ability, and may explain why it is so cheap to cast. About two
weeks ago someone else suggested that it should be thaumaturgy without saying
why he thought so, everyone who replied thought it would be an unfair
advantage, and it may have been changed for playability reasons.
It's obvious that there was some reasons/stories behind the changes to these
cards (WwEF, Concealed Weapon, Blood Rage). I wish someone connected with WotC
would track down why these cards are this way. I suspect that the latter two
are mistakes, and if so we could fix the mistakes ourselves, but if they were
done intentionally, to fix some problem, I'd like to know.
Until WotC responds (and the reasons may already be lost in time) we can
only try to secondguess them, and argue fruitlessly among ourselves. DTRs are
important, but I wish the REASONS behind some of these things would sometimes
be given.
Neil
n...@cs.columbia.edu (Neil F. Reynolds) writes:
(re some particularly egregious WotC Jyhad errors that remain uncorrected)
> Until WotC responds (and the reasons may already be lost in time) we
>can only try to secondguess them, and argue fruitlessly among ourselves.
>DTRs are important, but I wish the REASONS behind some of these things
>would sometimes be given.
Our arguments are not fruitless. If our arguments show, and I think they
have, that several people on this newsgroup, and certainly the newsgroup
as an entirety, have better judgement than the rules team, then we will
realize that they're not doing it right, they're probably not going to do
it right, and we have to do it [rules questions and judgements] ourselves.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3kcbdv$6...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
> >>
> >> I was making "supposition[s]" no more than Joseph. Richard
> >> Garfield never posted that (D) bleed WERE meant to be
> >> freely-directable. Looking at the rulings on Rotscheck,
> >> the DRT seems to be basing their rulings on guesswork
> >> no less than we are.
> >
> >Actually, for all intents and purposes, RG HAS 'posted' that (D) bleeds are
> >fully directable. I am sure that he read over the revised rulebook and
> >he gave it his OK.
>
> Which article number? Where?
Peace Alan,
13.3.1.
> The revised rulebook didn't /explicitly/ say that (D) bleeds are
> freely directable. As you said, it's just one line in there.
> RG may hav read it, thinking about general (D) actions such
> as Arson and Bum's Rush, `overlooking' the implications on
> (D) bleeds (he might even not have dreamt that anyone would
> ever interpret it that way), and let it pass.
Yes, it does, and you are speculating. Wouldn't interpret it this way?!?
How else are you supposed to interpret 13.3.1?
> Do you know what kind of "OK" RG gave to Jyhad? From The
> Eternal Struggle, p. 17:
>
> "... The number of mistakes on the cards and in the rules,
> while being more than I find acceptable, ..."
I'll have to look this up. I don't remember this quote.
> >> ... The revised rules
> >> failed to correct /most/ mistakes in the small book, and
> >> this (D) freely-directed thingie, as already pointed out
> >> during previous discussions in this group, is a logical
> >> contradiction.
> >
> >Please, list the many mistakes that occured in the small book and
> >how they weren't corrected in the revised rules.
>
> 5. The Edge counter: the text seems to imply that you
> don't get the edge on a bounced bleed.
Under bleed action it explicitly states you do get the Edge when you bleed.
> 12.4, Infulence Phase: the term "multi-player game" is
> confusing (ask anybody in rec.games.board)
I'll agree with that.
> 13.2 contradicts with 7.2.2. Can you play a Telepathic
> Counter with each of two minions against a single bleed?
Never thought about it. I don't have the rules or the cards with me,
so I can't answer that.
> 15.3, Dodge logically contradicts 12.3.1, Employ Retainer.
> As 15.3 says, Dodge does not "prevent damage"; it negates
> the effects of a strike. Also, it failed to state that
> Dodge takes precedence over First Strike (one could
> argue that the Dodge is not yet resolved)
Seems pretty clear to me.
> 17.1, Voting, contradicts DTR. Can the acting Meth. push
> votes with Political action cards?
This definitely needs to be resolved.
> 17.2 Contested Titles: ambiguous wording. Is the
> /vampire/ with a contested title out of play?
No, it is not. That was obvious to me the first time I read it.
> 18.1 we all know that. `Do not get 6 pool for ousting
> until end of turn'.
Also made sense to me.
> And, the worst:
> 13.3.1, `revised' rules allowing freely directed (D) actions,
> including those directed at oneself, contradicting the definition
> of directed actions in the very same section.
I just reread this section this weekend, since we have been discussing
it so frequently, and do not the the contradiction you speak of.
> Not to say the errata, which is deserved but not there,
> for important individual cards: Hidden Lurker, Blood Rage,
> and possibly `wallpaper' such as Chainsaw, Enchant
> Kindred, and Concealed Weapon. I was /so/ disappointed
> when I saw the `cards errata' of the Revised rules.
I agree with you on all but one of the cards. Tom did post that HL was
supposed to be an action modifier and that the DTR was aware of it.
> >> One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
> >> who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
> >> Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
> >> I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.
> >
> >We both agree on this and hopefully it will be corrected in VtES.
>
> But the Design Team, whom you seem to put so much
> faith and trust in, has not yet done anything up to
> THIS date. Are you a man of blind faith?
I'm a member of the Catholic Church of Rome. Does that count? 8^)
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:
>
> In article <3kcgig$7...@hermes.louisville.edu> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> >
> >Did they teach you that 1+1=0 in NY? See the Golden Rule of Cards.
> >A (D) bleed card 'overrides' part of the rules for cardless bleeds.
>
> If that is the case, then the lack of the (D) symbol
> on errata Cat Burglary normal should mean that the
> action is undirected. The lack of a (D) symbol,
> dictating undirected action, "`overrides' part of the rules
> for cardless bleeds".
Peace Alan,
I don't have a Cat Burglary, so I can't read the card, _but_ I understand
what the card was intended to do and would play it as such.
> >> The `errata' for Cat Burglary says this. Since the
> >> description in the rules for the bleed action doesn't
> >> apply to (D) bleeds on a card, there is no good reason
> >> to assume that it apply to (no (D)) bleed on a
> >> card. ...
> >
> >Except common sense.
>
> My point is exactly that the Revised rules, the DTR and
> the arguments on your side of the camp does not make sense.
> The undirected Cat Burglary normal is a logical consequence
> of interpretating (D) bleeds as freely-directable.
> If this is nonsense, then the freely-directed (D) bleed rule
> is nonsense. Anybody who has taken a logic course in
> college and did well in that course can tell you this.
I guess that you're wrong again, Alan, as I took college logic and Aced
it and I didn't tell myself that my logic was nonsense.
> >
> >> 13.3.1 "... on action cards ... If the (D) does not
> >> appear, it is not a directed action."
> >>
> >> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
> >> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
> >> and has no effect.
> >
> >Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.
>
> Where do you find the text `action is directed only at your
> prey' on the card (errata)? Where do you find the text
> `action cannot be blocked by your predator' on the card?
> All we can find on the card is the indication that
> Cat Burglary normal is an undirected action (by the lack of
> the (D) symbol).
Like I said, I don't have a copy, so I can't read it, but I know what
the WotC intended for the card to do and would play it as such. Why is
this so difficult a concept?
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> >Did they teach you that 1+1=0 in NY? See the Golden Rule of Cards.
> >A (D) bleed card 'overrides' part of the rules for cardless bleeds.
>
> Which part? Even if (D) overrode the prey-only business, it can't override
> everything. The point is that the writers/proofers are making serious
> booboos in the rules.
Peace Curt,
Why can't it? Why have the Golden Rule of Cards if it isn't (a golden rule
of cards, that is)?
> I can write rules for your interpretation easily, but they would differ
> from the published rules (i.e., it should say that the modifiers add
> damage to the target Methuseleh).
>
> >Except common sense.
>
> We all know what should happen if a bleed bounces. The rules are written
> wrong.
If we all know what happens, why are we arguing about it?
> >> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
> >> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
> >> and has no effect.
>
> >Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.
>
> The "fixed" (as in NEUTERED :-) Cat Burglary does not say "this action is
> not blockable by your predator". Hence it doesn't legally override the
> rulebook, which says actions without a (D) can be blocked by your predator
> or prey.
I believe most us know what the CB card is intended to do and it should be
played as such (it is a bleed against your prey [which by definition _is_
directed] in the inferior version). Assuming that we agree on that point,
I'm happy to kill this thread.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
>
> > AtTB don't happen very often around here.
>
> You're putting a lot of effort into defending them, if they're that rare.
> Do you think they are essential to game balance?
Peace Curt,
Yes, I do. (I could have sworn that I posted that at the beginning of this
thread) 8^)
> > By unblockable bleed I mean decks that tap all blockers and exhaust all
> > defensive untap cards, without harm to themselves, using Consanguinous
> > Condemnation and multiple bleeds by vampires that can end combat, untap,
> > and bleed again.
>
> >I don't think we have any decks quite like that.
>
> Then your only heavy bleeders must be Malkavians. Like I said, endless
> bleed strategies seem uncommon (nobody's tried it around here), although
> they do well in tournaments.
Not exactly, Tremere and Ventrue can do some pretty serious bleeding too.
Brian did build a deck that has 10% Misdirections and lots of Dominate bleed
mods, but it hasn't faired too well.
> >> For a [Rush] definition, let's say decks with 10% or more cards to
> allow
> >> enter combat actions. How many would fit that definition?
>
> >Eight BRs in eighty cards! I don't know if anyone around here qualifies,
> by
> >that definition. My Gangrel deck (46 cards) I consider a combat deck and
> >the action that I take to cause combat is bleeding my prey or finding a
> >Raven Spy/Murder of Crows. The Brujah deck that I posted I would test
> >this weekend will fit your definition . . . stay tuned.
>
> Yes, eight. More if your target has prepared for you with Majesty and
> Obedience and such. You have to be able to torporize most of your
> predator's vampire AND most of your prey's (at least), accounting for some
> occaisional torpor rescues.
>
> I'm tuned. Make sure there are some Malk decks when you play, since
> that's the crux of our disagreement.
Sorry, Curt, I wasn't able to bring that information in today, I'll have to
post it tomorrow. There was a Malk deck in the second game.
> > >IME, you have to have a credible defense and one blocker
> > >isn't credible.
> >
> >> One combat blocker is quite credible vs. blockable actions. Torpor
> hurts.
>
> >I'll trade one minion in torpor for ousting my prey. One blocker is
> >not a credible defense around here.
>
> That obviously depends on the nature of the predator. Around here, the
> stealth bleeders always have ways to avoid lone blockers or five blockers,
> and accordingly they're not really set up to do more than about two
> serious bleeds per turn (the other cards in their hand serve to get past
> blockers). So if they can oust you with one blockers, they can do it with
> 5 too. Do you folks use bruise and bleed?
I don't think that our heavy bleeders (Dominate and maybe some Presence) are
as stealth happy as you are familiar with, so they tend to have more Dominate
so when some get through it hurts. I am not familiar with the term "bruise
and bleed", so I can't answer your question.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:>> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>>>> AtTB don't happen very often around here.>>> You're putting a lot of effort into defending them, if they're that
rare.
>> Do you think they are essential to game balance?>Yes, I do. (I could have sworn that I posted that at the beginning of
this
>thread) 8^)
Well, you might have, it's been a while. I recall your posts claimed you
wanted to be able to interact across the table with any deck. What
balance problem concerns you if you can't (easily) bleed across the table?
I think I know, because I remeber some of your complaints, but I'd like
to see it again in your words.
>> > By unblockable bleed I mean decks that tap all blockers and exhaust
all
>> > defensive untap cards, without harm to themselves, using
Consanguinous
>> > Condemnation and multiple bleeds by vampires that can end combat,
untap,
>> > and bleed again.>
> >>I don't think we have any decks quite like that.
>>> Then your only heavy bleeders must be Malkavians. Like I said, endless
>> bleed strategies seem uncommon (nobody's tried it around here),
although
>> they do well in tournaments.>Not exactly, Tremere and Ventrue can do some pretty serious bleeding too.
Tremere normally run what I call "Bruise and Bleed", Ventrue "Endless
Bleed" See below.
>Brian did build a deck that has 10% Misdirections and lots of Dominate
bleed
>mods, but it hasn't faired too well.
That fits into my concept of "Endless Bleed", although that's a bad name
for this kind of deck. Maybe I should change the name to "Tap and Bleed".
>I don't think that our heavy bleeders (Dominate and maybe some Presence)
are
>as stealth happy as you are familiar with, so they tend to have more
Dominate
>so when some get through it hurts. I am not familiar with the term
"bruise
>and bleed", so I can't answer your question.
The trick with a bleed deck is always to get the bleed through. Under
normal circumstances your prey simply blocks all the juicy ones and often
more as well. For definition, I have three tactics:
S&B: Put on more stealth than he has intercept.
Endless Bleed: Perform more bleeds than he can possibly block. You can do
this with lots of bleeders (Weenie Bleed), with cards that untap from a
blocking combat (Majestic Bleed) or by tapping the blockers first
(Consanguinous condemnation/Misdirection)
Bruise and Bleed: Bleed with a combat capable minion he doesn't dare
block.
The locals have found B&B not very effective, and consider the most
effective Endless bleed strategy (Majestic Bleed) too much of an abuse.
So, yes, S&B dominates the bleeders.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3kffnm$p...@reuter.cse.ogi.edu>,
Thomas Doehne <doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu> wrote:
>[Much seemingly futile argument deleted.]
>>What you're doing right there is called a false dichotomy in
>college logic classes. There are more than two kinds of actions.
>>The directed bleed cards (with the (D) move actions which are normally
>category 2 into category 3. (From 'directed at prey' to 'directed
>at anyone'.)
Very nice! Thanks for the good point!
| 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
In article <1995Mar16.2...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>One example for how much the game has been messed up: anyone
>who has played the RPG can tell you that "Blood Rage" is
>Thamatuargy, yet to THIS date no errata has been issued.
>I have no recognition of the competence of the DRT.
The design team does not issue errata of card texts unless it
seriously breaks the game as is. Fame's text (for example) has never
been changed, nor has Rotschrek's. The discipline symbol is part of the
text, and while it may be slightly odd for Blood Rage to be Fortitude
and Concealed Weapon to be Obfuscate, it does not cause serious problems
for them to be so. I do not expect an erratum on Blood Rage. I expect
V:tES to have Blood Rage in the correct discipline, much like the
casting cost of Orcish Oriflamme was changed without comment from Alpha
to Beta Magic cards with no other mention while Cyclopean Tomb got card
errata.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kaham$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>if you want to knock out the grand-predator's
>>>Malks or the annoying voting Prince, put more Bum's Rush'es
>>>in your deck.>>> And limit your deck strategies accordingly. This is my point,
>>exactly!>
>Every card always involves (well, should involve) choices. If you're
>better at one thing you should be worse at another. That's the only way
>to have a balanced game.
We're almost there. I agree with your statement above. Now, if
there are to be mechanisms which allow interaction in all facets of the
game (which I contend, and is being hashed in another thread), even
though you are better at some things and worse at others, you should
always be able to participate in all facets of the game. All deck
strategies should be able to have something that allows that. The way I
interpret the rules, they do.
That's how I'm thinking when I interpret what RG must have meant
for (D) bleeds. This isn't meant as a discussion starter, it's meant to
tell you where I'm coming from. If you disagree about interaction, just
hash over in the other thread...
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kd2lf$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>Do you think they are essential to game balance?
I think AtTB's are essential because they preserve the
interaction that I believe RG put into the game. We can discuss the
interaction over in the correct thread for that.
So, in my interpretation, yes, they are essential to game
balance. Again, the point I'm basing this on is being discussed in the
other thread...
>5 too. Do you folks use bruise and bleed?
Bruise and bleed is one of my favorites. "Okay, depending on
the cards in my hand, when I bleed you, you will either get bled for
lots or lose a minion. Which do you choose? <big toothy grin>"
Obviously I use Dominate for the bleed part.
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
>
> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>
> >curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
> >> "James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu>
> >>> AtTB don't happen very often around here.
> >
> >> You're putting a lot of effort into defending them, if they're that
> rare.
> >> Do you think they are essential to game balance?
>
> >Yes, I do. (I could have sworn that I posted that at the beginning of
> this
> >thread) 8^)
>
> Well, you might have, it's been a while. I recall your posts claimed you
> wanted to be able to interact across the table with any deck. What
> balance problem concerns you if you can't (easily) bleed across the table?
> I think I know, because I remeber some of your complaints, but I'd like
> to see it again in your words.
Peace Curt,
I've just seen situations where one player either was on a roll or about
to go on a roll and neither his prey nor predator could do much of anything
to stop him/her/it. I'm not big on combat rush decks. I like voting, but that
doesn't fit in all decks. This leaves (D) bleeds as the only other viable
across-table interaction/interferance. I just believe in leaving the options
open. If you aren't capable of interacting with "distant" Meths directly,
then I believe a greater amount of luck is introduced into the game.
> >I don't think that our heavy bleeders (Dominate and maybe some Presence)
> are
> >as stealth happy as you are familiar with, so they tend to have more
> Dominate
> >so when some get through it hurts. I am not familiar with the term
> "bruise
> >and bleed", so I can't answer your question.
>
> The trick with a bleed deck is always to get the bleed through. Under
> normal circumstances your prey simply blocks all the juicy ones and often
> more as well. For definition, I have three tactics:
I guess that I am a "bruise & bleed"er then. I like Tremere. I don't load
up on combat cards, but I bring enough that I do well against non-combat
decks. I tend to bleed with several minions (sup Dom & Thau). Those that
get through play Dom bleed mods. Those that don't try to do well in combat.
> The locals have found B&B not very effective, and consider the most
> effective Endless bleed strategy (Majestic Bleed) too much of an abuse.
> So, yes, S&B dominates the bleeders.
I've had good luck with it. YMMV.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>All deck strategies should be able to have something that allows that.
>[interacting with any player]
The only built-in interactions are: bleed your prey and: block your prey
or predator. Other interactions require cards to permit them. Most decks
have pretty logical interaction cards, but they must be included
deliberately.
>The way I interpret the rules, they do.
No. Even if (D) bleeds cross the table, there are playable weenie bleed
decks, without Computer Hacking, unable to interact save with predator and
prey.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>Do you think they are essential to game balance?> I think AtTB's are essential because they preserve the
>interaction that I believe RG put into the game. We can discuss the
>interaction over in the correct thread for that.
> So, in my interpretation, yes, they are essential to game
>balance. Again, the point I'm basing this on is being discussed in the
>other thread...
So, what gains unfairly less cross-table (D) bleeds?
> Bruise and bleed is one of my favorites. "Okay, depending on
>the cards in my hand, when I bleed you, you will either get bled for
>lots or lose a minion. Which do you choose? <big toothy grin>"
>Obviously I use Dominate for the bleed part.
The problem we have seen with B&B is that one's prey never blocks (unless
playing a superior combat deck, in which case the B&B has other problems).
One gets some bleeds through, but then runs out of + bleed cards, filling
up with cards for a combat one can't start. This is very similar to the
"if you can't stop them, don't try" anti-Malkavian strategy (jam their
hand with stealth), but with two advantages:
a) You can block an ousting bleed, if need be.
b) Combat cards generally require a larger proportion of the deck than
stealth (ephemeral cards as opposed to transients). Hence the jam happens
sooner and is more severe.
As a result, B&B is pretty rare in my group. If you have ways to deal
with this, I'm all ears, because I think it's a neat strategy. I assume
you play Tremere B&B?
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
> I write:>>What balance problem concerns you if you can't (easily) bleed across the>>table?>I've just seen situations where one player either was on a roll or about>to go on a roll and neither his prey nor predator could do much of
anything
>to stop him/her/it. I'm not big on combat rush decks. I like voting,
but that
>doesn't fit in all decks. This leaves (D) bleeds as the only other
viable
>across-table interaction/interferance. I just believe in leaving the
options
>open. If you aren't capable of interacting with "distant" Meths
directly,
>then I believe a greater amount of luck is introduced into the game.
Well, now this gives us the crux of the disagreement. I agree that less
cross-table interaction increases the luck factor. I, however, am much
more concerned with balance between strategies, clans, and disciplines. A
favored draw may settle a game but a favored strategy will settle ALL
games.
(actually, in this case, it's more of "an UNfavored strategy makes games
predictable" but that sounds less zingy.)
On a side note, I'm happy with a game with (somewhat) limited cross-table
interaction. Every other multiplayer game I've got or play has
essentially unrestricted player-player interaction. I enjoy one with some
significant limits. That, I freely admit, is a preference, although I
argue it's one that Garfield shares.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> 17.2 Contested Titles: ambiguous wording. Is the
>> /vampire/ with a contested title out of play?>No, it is not. That was obvious to me the first time I read it.
But not to a lot of other people.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) wrote:>> >> Therefore, Normal Cat Burglary should be an undirected
>> >> action, blockable by your predator, and is undefined
>> >> and has no effect.> >>> >Unless the card says otherwise, which it does.>>> Where do you find the text `action is directed only at your
>> prey' on the card (errata)? Where do you find the text
>> `action cannot be blocked by your predator' on the card?
>> All we can find on the card is the indication that
>> Cat Burglary normal is an undirected action (by the lack of
>> the (D) symbol).>Like I said, I don't have a copy, so I can't read it
Cat Burglary. Celerity Action.
Normal:
Directed Action: Bleed, but if more than 1 pool is bled with this action,
ignore the excess.
Superior:
Directed Action: Bleed any Methuselah, but if more than 1 pool is bled
with this action, ignore the excess.
If they're going to downgrade plain Cat Burglary, they need to downgrade
every bleed action lacking "Bleed any Methuseleh"
What the DTR has proposed is to strip the (D) from the normal level. Even
granting the desirability of downgrading plain Cat Burglary, that's the
wrong way to do it. The rules state that if an action has no (D) it ain't
directed, and since the action's on the card without a (D), it would
override the normal bleed business. Hence their proposal makes Cat
Burglary into a undirected action.
The CORRECT way to downgrade Cat Burglary, if one is to say (D) bleeds hit
any Methuseleh, is:
(D) Bleed your prey.
which the design team does not realize.
I speculate they'd be embarrassed that their (D) bleed ruling makes it
impossible for a bleed action card to function as a normal bleed without
special wording.
As I've said before, their blindness to side effect of their changes makes
me very concerned about their suitability to arbitrate rules disputes.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>> Which part? Even if (D) overrode the prey-only business, it can't
override
>> everything. The point is that the writers/proofers are making serious
>> booboos in the rules.>Why can't it? Why have the Golden Rule of Cards if it isn't (a golden
rule
>of cards, that is)?
You can't overide the entire definition.
>> We all know what should happen if a bleed bounces. The rules are
written
>> wrong.>If we all know what happens, why are we arguing about it?
The argument is metamorphing into one about the competence of the rules
team.
(Well, my end. Can't speak for Alan)
Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements with
them, and I find that very telling.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
> Well, now this gives us the crux of the disagreement. I agree that less
> cross-table interaction increases the luck factor. I, however, am much
> more concerned with balance between strategies, clans, and disciplines. A
> favored draw may settle a game but a favored strategy will settle ALL
> games.
Peace Curt,
Ok, we agree that less CTI increase the "luck factor." I don't believe that
AtTBs give any clan the huge advantage you seem to think exists. Yes, Malk
can be nasty, but only has access to one (D) bleed (by discipline) - GtU.
I normally use GtU to bring my uncontrolled vamps into play faster, rather
than bleed non-prey players, but I don't see why I shouldn't have the option.
> (actually, in this case, it's more of "an UNfavored strategy makes games
> predictable" but that sounds less zingy.)
>
> On a side note, I'm happy with a game with (somewhat) limited cross-table
> interaction. Every other multiplayer game I've got or play has
> essentially unrestricted player-player interaction. I enjoy one with some
> significant limits. That, I freely admit, is a preference, although I
> argue it's one that Garfield shares.
The CTI is somewhat limited, there are only a handful of non-political cards
that allow CTI. Bum's Rush & Haven Uncovered for combat; Computer Hacking,
GtU, Kine Dominance (both more useful in their superior, non-bleed version),
and three (or four?) of the Presence (D) bleed cards. Which either means
you must have Presence/Dominate or load your deck with Comp Hack. Either
way, that limits CTI. Jyhad has significant CTI limits (90%+ of your actions
will only involve your prey/predator).
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3klcrj$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>What the DTR has proposed is to strip the (D) from the normal level. Even
>granting the desirability of downgrading plain Cat Burglary, that's the
>wrong way to do it. The rules state that if an action has no (D) it ain't
>directed, and since the action's on the card without a (D), it would
>override the normal bleed business. Hence their proposal makes Cat
>Burglary into a undirected action.
I agree that the downgrade was done poorly, however (and you
knew I was going to say this), it's the superior version that was
treated incorrectly. Any card that says (D) bleed any meth. is
redundant. Cards that say 'bleed' are correct. I've forgotten his
name, (Tom something) but he posted a great article noting that bleeds
are fundamentally different from all other actions in the game, and
cannot be subject to the same rules that you apply to (D) vs. no (D).
A bleed is defined as directed against your prey, therefore
whenever it is mentioned, that is what you perform, *even if there is no
(D) on the card*. The following arguement is my reasoning for this
statement:
We all agree (I think, if not I'm sure I'll be corrected ;-))
that (D) came about after bleeds (since bleeds are probably the
translation of attack left Magic). Bleed is a fundamental part of the
game that cannot be altered without changing the basic chemistry of the
game. From discussion here, it is obvious to me that (D)'s are not as
fundamental as bleeds, and I have put forth the supposition that they
were in fact changed to symbols instead of explicit text on cards late
in the design process.
Therefore, it seems to me that there are two sections of the
rules which conflict on this issue, the definition of bleed and the fact
that 'if (D) doesn't appear it isn't directed' is stated. Since bleed
is more fundamental to the game and was probably written early on, I
tend to put more stock in that section of the rules than in what I
suppose was a relatively hastily written section of the rules, so I put
my credence in the bleed statement.
Therefore I believe that "bleed" on a card means that you take a
normal, directed bleed against your prey.
As a sidebar, I will also state that I believe that *someone* in
the layout process believed differently, and thus stuck a (D) symbol on
all cards that had bleed, not understanding the differences between
normal actions and bleed actions. But this is based far less on
established arguements than the above conclusion.
>I speculate they'd be embarrassed that their (D) bleed ruling makes it
>impossible for a bleed action card to function as a normal bleed without
>special wording.
I think, rather, that they did not predict that people would
read the removal of the (D) symbol as the removal of the directedness
(directed nature?) of a bleed, since the concept was so foreign to their
conception of how the game worked.
>As I've said before, their blindness to side effect of their changes makes
>me very concerned about their suitability to arbitrate rules disputes.
Nobody has a problem with better than 90% of their rulings. It's
the ones that are subtle that shake people.
However, please note that there *are* those of us who agree with
the (D) bleed ruling, meaning that no matter how strongly you believe
one way, you must acknowledge that their ruling is a valid possible
interpretation.
| 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
In article <3klctc$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>The argument is metamorphing into one about the competence of the rules
>team.
>
>(Well, my end. Can't speak for Alan)
>
>Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements with
>them, and I find that very telling.
I have yet to have a significant dispute with any ruling they've
made. There are minor things here and there that make me go "hmm", but
nothing that I would consider significant.
However, I do believe that they could do with a little more
involvement in the game. Some of the things that they say lead me to
think that they make their rulings without actually having play
experience (it's not a specific thing so much as a gut feeling), and
sometimes without doing research into how a given typo, error,
misconception or whatever came into being.
For example, assuming (for the moment, don't worry, I'm not
trying to argue the right or wrong of it) the (D) bleed ruling is
correct, they need to fix more than just Cat Burglary. Several cards
were affected by this. The fact that there are other cards that are
broken means that they (perhaps) asked RG and/or one or two of the
original designers or playtesters about this one card and then didn't
look to see if this had further ramifications elsewhere in the game.
Or, to take a less controversial ruling, when Army of Rats seemed to be
a problem, they asked about that one card, and didn't look at other
cards (thus causing lots of confusion and flipflopping on Fame).
It feels to me like WotC just doesn't support Jyhad as well as
they support Magic. I suppose in a way I can understand, since Magic is
the big one, the original, and the one that makes all the money, but it
is disappointing to see the most well-designed TCG out there from a
balance and elegance of rules standpoint get less support than the
moneymaker. Even Tom Wylie has mentioned that when it gets down to it,
he does Magic stuff first and Jyhad stuff second.
Perhaps when the great renaming is done, they will start selling
enough Vampire: the Eternal Struggle to put more effort into support,
but until then, it really feels to me like we're on our own...
[ quoted text not captured ]
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:
> Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements with
> them, and I find that very telling.
Peace Curt,
Maybe WotC should hire you, Alan, Joe, Scott, and myself to rewrite the
rules/cards for the revised edition. I'd do it for free, what about you
(all)?
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kl1im$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>>All deck strategies should be able to have something that allows that.
>>[interacting with any player]>
>The only built-in interactions are: bleed your prey and: block your prey
>or predator. Other interactions require cards to permit them. Most decks
>have pretty logical interaction cards, but they must be included
>deliberately.
Right. And *any* strategy can include Computer Hacking if they
want to have the option to interact. Not every strategy can use BR,
Eagle's Sight, or votes.
>>The way I interpret the rules, they do.>
>No. Even if (D) bleeds cross the table, there are playable weenie bleed
>decks, without Computer Hacking, unable to interact save with predator and
>prey.
Oh, come on. You know I have always said that you don't *have*
to include it. It's an option. If a weenie player chooses not to put
cards in her deck for interaction, that doesn't erase the fact that she
had the option.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kl23j$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>So, what gains unfairly less cross-table (D) bleeds?
I wouldn't mind there being less cross-table bleeds. I could
see the (D) being removed (or if you prefer the phrase 'your prey' being
added :-)) from all but Computer Hacking, Night Moves, and Cat Burglary
(although Cat Burglary is from my POV fixed already). No problem with
that at all. That would make Hacking more analgous to Bum's Rush, and
balance things nicely.
>> Bruise and bleed is one of my favorites. "Okay, depending on>>The problem we have seen with B&B is that one's prey never blocks (unless
>playing a superior combat deck, in which case the B&B has other problems).
> One gets some bleeds through, but then runs out of + bleed cards, filling
>up with cards for a combat one can't start. This is very similar to the
Actually, I find that unless my predator is S&B, I can usually
get into combat with him (and sometimes even S&B can't get by, because
the third Tremere discipline is Auspex), which keeps things cycling
fairly well. I have had occasion to use my discard phase to get rid of
an extra Theft of Vitae, but it hasn't been a serious problem.
>"if you can't stop them, don't try" anti-Malkavian strategy (jam their
>hand with stealth), but with two advantages:
>
>a) You can block an ousting bleed, if need be.
The thing is, you have to guess whether or not this will *be* an
ousting bleed. You also can't let through every 3 or 4 bleed, or you'll
find yourself too low to do anything (once we get to about 10 blood
around here we stop pulling new vampires out, especially if someone's
got Dominate).
My best moment was when I successfully convinced a guy to throw
one of his Gangrel in my way when someone with sup. Dom. bled. I burned
the Gangrel. Later I admitted that had the bleed gone through, he would
have been bled for one. The reverse has happened (takes the bleed when
I would have had to do a punch-punch combat), but it wasn't as
satisfying :-).
>As a result, B&B is pretty rare in my group. If you have ways to deal
>with this, I'm all ears, because I think it's a neat strategy. I assume
>you play Tremere B&B?
Oh yes. The crypt is one of each Tremere + Smudge. It makes it
a bit of a theme deck, but it's fun. There are so many helpful cards
for that clan that I can get on a roll very well. It also has 3 Outcast
Mages and 1 Thaddius Zho. My friends have noted my preference to oust
them with a mage if possible. They've also noticed that for some
obscure twist of fate, the deck doesn't pick up until a mage hits the
street. Then I stomp them.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kn23d$i...@hermes.louisville.edu>,
James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:
>Maybe WotC should hire [Curt], Alan, Joe, Scott, and myself to rewrite the>rules/cards for the revised edition. I'd do it for free, what about you
>(all)?
Well, if we didn't actually kill each other first, we might
actually be able to iron a few bugs out of the game.....
[ quoted text not captured ]
> A bleed is defined as directed against your prey, therefore
>whenever it is mentioned, that is what you perform, *even if there is no
>(D) on the card*.
The business about no (D) = non-directed is in the same section as the
business about (D) = directed at anybody. If that section does not
override the normal status of bleeds (a (D) only at prey) then (D) bleeds
= bleed (no (D)) = standard definition = (D) targetable only at prey,
because that's the only place that would indicate (D) changes the action.
This claim, that the directed action business fails to overide the
definition of bleed, has been Alan's claim all along, and leads to his
conclusion, that (D) bleed only goes to prey.
My claim, slightly different, is that the two sections conflict without
any clear resolution and hence "bleed" (no (D)) is a contradiction, by the
new rules.
(D) bleeds at prey only is they only interpretation consistent with the
writing on Cat Burglary, which is the only decisive piece of information
on this whole business.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
> As a sidebar, I will also state that I believe that *someone* in
>the layout process believed differently, and thus stuck a (D) symbol on
>all cards that had bleed, not understanding the differences between
>normal actions and bleed actions. But this is based far less on
>established arguements than the above conclusion.
I think they are there for clarity. As I've said before, whoever wrote
the Cat Burglary card obviously thought (D) bleeds only go to prey.
> However, please note that there *are* those of us who agree with
>the (D) bleed ruling, meaning that no matter how strongly you believe
>one way, you must acknowledge that their ruling is a valid possible
>interpretation.
It IS a valid interpretation of the rules, but not of the cards. An
analogy would be Wolf Companion, which does not explicitly state it only
works at short range. By comparison with Murder of Crows (only) it is
clear that WC only works at short.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
"James R. McClure Jr." <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> writes:
>curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote:>> Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements
with
>> them, and I find that very telling.>Maybe WotC should hire you, Alan, Joe, Scott, and myself to rewrite the>rules/cards for the revised edition. I'd do it for free, what about you
>(all)?
I think that we'd get a much better set than what we'll probably get stuck
with. But how would we ever resolve this (D) bleed business? :-)
(D) bleed or no, I'd rather have you write the rules than them.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3klcrj$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
[discussion of cat burglary omitted]
[description of cat burglary omitted]
>
>If they're going to downgrade plain Cat Burglary, they need to downgrade
>every bleed action lacking "Bleed any Methuseleh"
>
>What the DTR has proposed is to strip the (D) from the normal level. Even
>granting the desirability of downgrading plain Cat Burglary, that's the
>wrong way to do it. The rules state that if an action has no (D) it ain't
>directed, and since the action's on the card without a (D), it would
>override the normal bleed business. Hence their proposal makes Cat
>Burglary into a undirected action.
As I pointed out before, there are *three* kinds of actions in
Jyhad, not two. If the (D) is removed, it becomes an ordinary
bleed. It doesn't become an undirected action, because bleeds
are not undirected actions. Your problem is that you're
positing only two different kinds of actions. When that's
true (only actions A and B), not A implies B. However,
there are three kinds of actions (A, B, and C). Let's call
A directed actions with the (D) symbol, B regular bleeds
(w/o the (D) symbol, only directable at prey) and C
ordinary non-directed actions that can only be blocked
by prey.
So if an action is not Directed (Not A) that implies (B or C),
that it is either an ordinary bleed (B) or is a non-directed
action (C).
>As I've said before, their blindness to side effect of their changes makes
>me very concerned about their suitability to arbitrate rules disputes.
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Although I doubt the wisdom of the design team about some things,
(Rotschreck) it's pretty clear (to me at least) that they're
correct here. I think the inability of some discussants to think of
more than two alternatives is blinding them to what seems obvious to the
rest of us.
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
In article <3klctc$m...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>The argument is metamorphing into one about the competence of the rules
>team.>Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements with>them, and I find that very telling.
I started disagreeing with the rules team back when they were shoehorning
Magic into their vision for revised (the BEB/Sleight of Mind issue,
for one), and Rotschreck is just the latest idiocy. When you abandon
common sense for a literal reading of the card (or in the case of
Rotschreck, someone's pet vision of what it should do), you've lost
me!
--
Tom Doehne
doe...@cse.ogi.edu
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>The argument is metamorphing into one about the competence of the
>>rules team.>>>(Well, my end. Can't speak for Alan)>>>Everybody active on this list seems to have significant disagreements
>>with them, and I find that very telling.> I have yet to have a significant dispute with any ruling they've
>made. There are minor things here and there that make me go "hmm", but
>nothing that I would consider significant.
Rotschrek? Combat Ends? Taste of Vitae? Fame? 5th Tradition? You're OK
with all this? These kinds of (Mis)rulings create significant changes in
the game. I'm shortly going to face a 5th Trad deck from somebody in my
group opposed to dropping card limits. (I predict)
> For example, assuming (for the moment, don't worry, I'm not
>trying to argue the right or wrong of it) the (D) bleed ruling is
>correct, they need to fix more than just Cat Burglary. Several cards
>were affected by this.
I agree. While it's obviously irrelevent how bleed action cards should be
written for bleed anybody vs. bleed only prey, when you change the
definition *without changing any text* you change every (D) bleed in the
game (basically all of them). This has consequences requiring playtesting
and such, which could not have been addressed, based on time and the
absence of closure changes (precise rules writing, card phrasing, and ANY
cards that work like a normal bleed).
>Or, to take a less controversial ruling, when Army of Rats seemed to be
>a problem, they asked about that one card, and didn't look at other
>cards (thus causing lots of confusion and flipflopping on Fame).
AOR was really controversial at the time. Many Nosferatu fans asked
"well, what ELSE can they do?", a question which remains unanswered.
Nossie decks are not popular, and Nossies show up only when they sneak
into other decks or if somebody's very enamoured of a theme. I don't
recall anybody saying "thank god they fixed that horrible card." I saw
several posts saying "I can't play Jyhad if they're going to make
arbitrary decisions like this." Many of these posters post no more to
this list.
Certainly AOR would be far less of a problem than Fame.
> Perhaps when the great renaming is done, they will start selling
>enough Vampire: the Eternal Struggle to put more effort into support,
>but until then, it really feels to me like we're on our own...
Me too.
Since it's up to us, about that (D) bleed business ... :-)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>So, what gains unfairly less cross-table (D) bleeds?> I wouldn't mind there being less cross-table bleeds. I could
>see the (D) being removed (or if you prefer the phrase 'your prey' being
>added :-)) from all but Computer Hacking, Night Moves, and Cat Burglary
>(although Cat Burglary is from my POV fixed already). No problem with
>that at all. That would make Hacking more analgous to Bum's Rush, and
>balance things nicely.
I wouldn't mind that either, providing you couldn't Dominate Boost
Computer Hacking.
>>> Bruise and bleed is one of my favorites. "Okay, depending on>>>The problem we have seen with B&B is that one's prey never blocks
(unless
>>playing a superior combat deck, in which case the B&B has other
problems).
>> One gets some bleeds through, but then runs out of + bleed cards,
filling
>>up with cards for a combat one can't start. This is very similar to the> Actually, I find that unless my predator is S&B, I can usually
>get into combat with him (and sometimes even S&B can't get by, because
>the third Tremere discipline is Auspex), which keeps things cycling
>fairly well. I have had occasion to use my discard phase to get rid of
>an extra Theft of Vitae, but it hasn't been a serious problem.
That sounds functional. However, when I run decks using multiple set of
transients (in this case, one for bleed, one for combat, one for
intercept) I get stuck with mismatches. (Great, I can intercept Bianca
and whale on her with Bonding and Threats.) Tremere combat is very
demanding of cards combinations from the necessity to press. I assume
you're heavy on the combat? Do you use lots of permanent bleed enhancers
(Laptop and Pulses?)
>>"if you can't stop them, don't try" anti-Malkavian strategy (jam their
>>hand with stealth), but with two advantages:>>>a) You can block an ousting bleed, if need be.> The thing is, you have to guess whether or not this will *be* an
>ousting bleed.
The rule for creating hand jams in deck relying on multiple sets of
transient/ephemeral cards is to always use up one or the other. Hence the
strategy here would be "block nothing, until forced by blood shortage".
If you can get into combat with somebody else, naturally the strategy
wouldn't work; he'd better fight you instead.
> They've also noticed that for some
>obscure twist of fate, the deck doesn't pick up until a mage hits the
>street. Then I stomp them.
Interesting. Due to card limits, small guns are common around here and
Mages tend to get their heads blown off. I faced certain doom recently
from a predator with two Mages, Thad, and three vampires VERY early on but
by great good fortune drew my Kindred Segregation just when I needed it
(distracting the interceptors with KRC and and a Consang Boon).
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:>>Maybe WotC should hire [Curt], Alan, Joe, Scott, and myself to rewrite
>>the rules/cards for the revised edition. I'd do it for free, what about
>>you (all)?> Well, if we didn't actually kill each other first, we might
>actually be able to iron a few bugs out of the game.....
But that's a great thing about the net! It makes violence very difficult
(except for logic bombs) :-)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu (Thomas Doehne)
>> The rules state that if an action has no (D) it ain't
>>directed, and since the action's on the card without a (D), it would
>>override the normal bleed business. Hence their proposal makes Cat
>>Burglary into a undirected action.>As I pointed out before, there are *three* kinds of actions in
>Jyhad, not two.
13.3.1 "If the (D) does not appear, it is not a directed action."
Apparently you're thinking "If the (D) does not appear, it is the kind of
action it would be without a card." But that's not what the rules say.
Regardless of the number of action types in Jyhad, that puts a (D)-less
bleed action card in a very specific place.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3kndb8$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>> A bleed is defined as directed against your prey, therefore
>>whenever it is mentioned, that is what you perform, *even if there is no
>>(D) on the card*.>
>The business about no (D) = non-directed is in the same section as the
>business about (D) = directed at anybody. If that section does not
>override the normal status of bleeds (a (D) only at prey) then (D) bleeds
>= bleed (no (D)) = standard definition = (D) targetable only at prey,
>because that's the only place that would indicate (D) changes the action.
Well, actually we're down to deciding which portion of the rules
we trust and which ones we don't.
>This claim, that the directed action business fails to overide the
>definition of bleed, has been Alan's claim all along, and leads to his
>conclusion, that (D) bleed only goes to prey.
Except that the DTR on Computer Hacking agrees with that section
of the rules, and the DTR on Cat Burglary agrees with the bleed section
of the rules. Alan's claim is no stronger or weaker than mine, because
the resources are inconclusive. I think the compromise I brought up
elsewhere may be the best melding of rules, and the best fix to
balance.
>My claim, slightly different, is that the two sections conflict without
>any clear resolution and hence "bleed" (no (D)) is a contradiction, by the
>new rules.
I think I agree with you on the fact that a strict reading of
the rules is inconclusive, but I feel that a meaning is clear when you
include other evidence, including the DTR, and various misprints on
cards, and try to reconstruct the writing of the rules.
>(D) bleeds at prey only is they only interpretation consistent with the
>writing on Cat Burglary, which is the only decisive piece of information
>on this whole business.
No, CB isn't decisive at all. The DTR issued the Computer
Hacking ruling, which implies that the 'any Methuselah' on CB is
redundant, not declarative.
The DT felt CB was broken enough to fix, and that is a serious
step. That fix alone still leaves the card inconclusive. However, the
CH ruling narrows it down. However, the card is still broken (in that
two different interpretations of the rules are possible).
At any rate, my feeling is that the intent of the card was to
bleed your prey at normal and bleed anyone at superior. Not funky
undirected bleeds, but normal, everyday bleeds. The benefit of the card
is that it's a Celerity card with Stealth (which is rare). By the way I
interpret the rules, it works that way. How do you interpret the intent
of Cat Burglary?
[ quoted text not captured ]
Thomas Doehne (doe...@church.cse.ogi.edu) wrote:
[bobbitt - discussion on how removing the (D) from Cat Burglary makes it
into the only undirected bleed in the game]
: As I pointed out before, there are *three* kinds of actions in: Jyhad, not two. If the (D) is removed, it becomes an ordinary
: bleed.
[...]
: Your problem is that you're positing only two different kinds of: actions. When that's true (only actions A and B), not A implies B.
According to 13.3.1 in my rulebook (which, granted, is the little one that
comes with the starter deck) there are only two types of actions -
Directed and Undirected actions.
"Directed actions are noted on action cards with a (D) in the card text.
If the (D) does not appear, it is not a directed action."
Here is a perfect example of an either/or statement: either it has the
(D) and is therefore a directed action, or it does not, and is not. A
implies B. Removing the (D) from Cat Burglary thus makes it undirected -
you can't get any more straightforward than that, right?
But Wait! There's More!
In the very next paragraph, the Rules-Writers in all their infinite
wisdom go on to state:
"Non-Directed actions are actions that are not directed against a Methuselah."
So now, with a strict interpretation of the rules, we have an undirected
bleed (blockable by predator and prey) but which cannot be directed
against another Methuselah. In addition to all this fun, the DT has
rules that I can't bleed myself in order to get the edge.
Tom - seeing a problem here yet?
As for the Golden Rule of Cards, let's see how that affects things when
we bring that into play.
Rules say Bleed is Directed. Rules also say that all non-(D) actions are
not directed. Hmmm... card provided no clue as to whitch of these two
rules we are supposed to follow and which to ignore.
Rules say Bleed is aimed at Prey. Rules say non-(D) cannot be aimed at
another Methuselah. Again - card says both 'bleed' and is non-directed,
so no help here either.
Am I convincing anyone yet that Cat Burglary was fine to begin with, but
that the whole '(D) Bleed = Bleed any Meth' was a poorly thought-out
addendum to the rules which
- was instituted because people wanted to be able to bleed someone other
than their prey?
- was put in _after_ the rules were written because they were afraid that
Jyhad wasn't 'multiplayer' enough attract the hordes of players they
wanted to?
- broke more than it fixed?
Sorry Tom - I've gotta stand with Curt on this one. They 'fixed' a rule
that wasn't broken in the first place.
Shane Travis | A fanatic is someone who can't change his
sht...@duke.usask.ca | mind and won't change the subject.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Winston Churchill
In article <3kndg8$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>> As a sidebar, I will also state that I believe that *someone* in
>>the layout process believed differently, and thus stuck a (D) symbol on
>>all cards that had bleed, not understanding the differences between>>I think they are there for clarity. As I've said before, whoever wrote
>the Cat Burglary card obviously thought (D) bleeds only go to prey.
Now, the question is, is the person who did the text editing and
layout for Cat Burglary the same person who conceptualized the card? Or
could someone else have done it, someone not so familiar with the game?
>> However, please note that there *are* those of us who agree with
>>the (D) bleed ruling, meaning that no matter how strongly you believe>>It IS a valid interpretation of the rules, but not of the cards. An
>analogy would be Wolf Companion, which does not explicitly state it only
>works at short range. By comparison with Murder of Crows (only) it is
>clear that WC only works at short.
Eh? Wolf Companion uses the rules of damage just like any other
card (damage vs. ranged damage) in combat. It is covered in the rules.
And the cards WC and MC agree with that.
The (D) bleed thing is a completely different case, in that
there are cards that are ambiguous under any interpretation of the
rules.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3knfqo$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>see the (D) being removed (or if you prefer the phrase 'your prey' being
>>added :-)) from all but Computer Hacking, Night Moves, and Cat Burglary>>I wouldn't mind that either, providing you couldn't Dominate Boost
>Computer Hacking.
But that's like saying that you couldn't torporize a vampire
with Bum's Rush. You have to allow for the card to be used to its
potential if it's gonna have an ability on it. I suppose this is a deal
breaker... :-(
>That sounds functional. However, when I run decks using multiple set of
>transients (in this case, one for bleed, one for combat, one for
>intercept) I get stuck with mismatches. (Great, I can intercept Bianca
>and whale on her with Bonding and Threats.) Tremere combat is very
>demanding of cards combinations from the necessity to press. I assume
>you're heavy on the combat? Do you use lots of permanent bleed enhancers
>(Laptop and Pulses?)
I use a lot of first round combat stuff (read Theft of Vitae
mainly, but I wish for Blood Rage. Blood Fury is too painful). The
second round stuff is in there, but I get presses from Hawgs, Mob
Connections, and Traps. Magic of the Smith comes in very handy for
getting the Hawgs (or IR Goggles of Flak Jackets (only 1 or 2 of those)
if I'm facing Gangrels). And who doesn't love the chantry?
I actually use very few permanent bleed enhancers. A prey is
much more likely to block a 2 or 3 up front bleed, and I want them to be
indecisive. That's just personal choice.
>> They've also noticed that for some
>>obscure twist of fate, the deck doesn't pick up until a mage hits the
>>street. Then I stomp them.>
>Interesting. Due to card limits, small guns are common around here and
>Mages tend to get their heads blown off. I faced certain doom recently
>from a predator with two Mages, Thad, and three vampires VERY early on but
>by great good fortune drew my Kindred Segregation just when I needed it
>(distracting the interceptors with KRC and and a Consang Boon).
Well, the mages (except for Thaddius) rarely *do* much except
block and cover my butt when a Letter from Vienna is played. I have a
Monocle (and we all play to the intent of the card around here, so
nobody is screaming to ban it), and I'll only bleed with the mages if
I'm sure that they won't be blocked. Thaddius actually gets to pick on
people. Charnas does, too. :-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kpii6$p...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>Rules say Bleed is Directed. Rules also say that all non-(D) actions are
>not directed. Hmmm... card provided no clue as to whitch of these two
>rules we are supposed to follow and which to ignore.
You're ignoring the commonly held belief that the bleed portion
of the rules is the stronger claim. I'm not disputing that the rules
are inconclusive, but I think you can guess which rule I think we should
follow. When they conflict, bleed over directed (and I do not see (D)
bleed as a conflict, although I do see undirected bleed as a conflict).
>Am I convincing anyone yet that Cat Burglary was fine to begin with, but
>that the whole '(D) Bleed = Bleed any Meth' was a poorly thought-out
>addendum to the rules which
>- was instituted because people wanted to be able to bleed someone other
> than their prey?
>- was put in _after_ the rules were written because they were afraid that
> Jyhad wasn't 'multiplayer' enough attract the hordes of players they
> wanted to?
>- broke more than it fixed?
No, but that's standard operation for the net. There is
rock-solid proof that Cat Burglary was wrong. The question is how
wrong.
I agree that the (D) symbol as a concept was added late in the
design process (somewhere in one of these threads you'll find my article
on my guess at the creation of Jyhad). However, I believe that the
concept of bleeding someone other than your prey existed before the (D)
symbol, and that the (D) symbol was put into places where it shouldn't
have gone.
And I also believe that the CB ruling pointed out more of the
problems than the original version did, but that it didn't actually
cause any more problems than it fixed. I would have argued the same way
today whether the CB was fixed or not, I just wouldn't have as strong a
case. In case you didn't know, I accurately predicted the fix to Cat
Burglary both locally and here on the net months before the DTR came
out.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3knerl$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>> I have yet to have a significant dispute with any ruling they've
>>made. There are minor things here and there that make me go "hmm", but
>>nothing that I would consider significant.>
>Rotschrek? Combat Ends? Taste of Vitae? Fame? 5th Tradition? You're OK
>with all this? These kinds of (Mis)rulings create significant changes in
>the game. I'm shortly going to face a 5th Trad deck from somebody in my
>group opposed to dropping card limits. (I predict)
I only have a significant problem with something that breaks the
game. If they ruled against (D) bleeds, I *still* wouldn't have a
significant problem. We're arguing extremes in our discussions, not
basic tenants of the game. I've said several times that I suppose that
we all play the same way by and large. A significant rule change would
be one that drastically alters the way we play.
Rotschrek: It can be used either way. At this point I don't
care wich way they rule it, I just wish they'd stick to it.
Combat Ends: They have made a stupid decision about removing
the opportunity to let the opponent choose a strike card, but 9 times
out of 10 the opponent wouldn't have played one anyway. All it really
does is rob the opponent of the opportunity to use Majesty to untap.
It's a wrong ruling, but it's minor.
Taste of Vitae: Another stupid ruling, but again one that only
makes a difference in extreme cases. If I find it abused, we'll make a
local house rule. Until then, we'll play the same way we have been, and
it won't make a difference.
Fame: This is the only one that comes close to a significant
problem. But since the whole card is broken, the DT can't take all of
the blame.
5th Trad: Not as bad as a Theft of Vitae/Bum's Rush deck in
that you're getting the blood from the bank, not the opponent, plus it
takes a very specific subset of minions. Throw a few choice Praxis
Seizures in for good measure, as well. But it's another that doesn't
make a difference in the good majority of cases.
>>Or, to take a less controversial ruling, when Army of Rats seemed to be
>>a problem, they asked about that one card, and didn't look at other
>>cards (thus causing lots of confusion and flipflopping on Fame).>
>AOR was really controversial at the time. Many Nosferatu fans asked
>"well, what ELSE can they do?", a question which remains unanswered.
Gangrel share Animalism, though, so that's not just a Nos.
thing. The real problem is that they had to stick to the disciplines as
doled out by WW. I mean, in roleplaying, Animalism, Potence and
Obfuscate are a great variety, but in the card game, they're too varied
to help as much.
Although, I wonder how a Nos. combat deck would do... Hmm.
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes
> Except that the DTR on Computer Hacking agrees with that section
>of the rules, and the DTR on Cat Burglary agrees with the bleed section
>of the rules. Alan's claim is no stronger or weaker than mine, because
>the resources are inconclusive. I think the compromise I brought up
>elsewhere may be the best melding of rules, and the best fix to
>balance.
At this point I do not believe Joe and I have any significant
disagreements on this except speculative and esthetic issues. Believe it
or not, we do seem to have managed consensus.
We agree that the rules have serious problems and that not ALL bleed
actions should allow "bleed any Methuseleh". In all honesty, I agreed
with the rules team until I saw the consequences, so I shouldn't have
expected argumentation to make a big difference.
I've made my points about probable original intent and Joe's made his and
nobody's changed their mind. Truthfully, only the original designers
know, and maybe they didn't really think about it.
I now await my AOL bill with trepidation :-)
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>>see the (D) being removed (or if you prefer the phrase 'your prey'
being
>>>added :-)) from all but Computer Hacking, Night Moves, and Cat Burglary>>>I wouldn't mind that either, providing you couldn't Dominate Boost
>>Computer Hacking.> But that's like saying that you couldn't torporize a vampire
>with Bum's Rush. You have to allow for the card to be used to its
>potential if it's gonna have an ability on it. I suppose this is a deal
>breaker... :-(
The crux of my game balance objections to CTB is that big unblockable
bleeds are by far the best way to oust somebody. Assuming 5 to 10 pool,
pretty common at that state, for a rusher to oust me across the table will
take generally 6 or more actions (one rush for each of 4 minions, plus 2
or more bleed to actually do the job). For a voter, it will take 2 or 3
actions, plus everybody else on the table can piddle in what he's doing.
An unblockable bleeder can oust in 1 or 2 actions, and nobody can
generally interfere. Unrestricted CTB, or even just heavy CTB, gives S&B
and (sometimes) Tap and Bleed the trump card in cross-table interaction.
They hardly need it.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3kpu2k$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>I've made my points about probable original intent and Joe's made his and
>nobody's changed their mind. Truthfully, only the original designers
>know, and maybe they didn't really think about it.
Just as a general note to all: This is the way it usually
works on the net. Nobody ever changes their mind. Frequently, they
don't even agree to disagree. As far as 'discussions' on the net go,
this one was downright friendly!
>I now await my AOL bill with trepidation :-)
Ah, the joys of working for an academic institution!
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3kpusb$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>The crux of my game balance objections to CTB is that big unblockable
>bleeds are by far the best way to oust somebody. Assuming 5 to 10 pool,
>pretty common at that state, for a rusher to oust me across the table will
>take generally 6 or more actions (one rush for each of 4 minions, plus 2
>or more bleed to actually do the job). For a voter, it will take 2 or 3
>actions, plus everybody else on the table can piddle in what he's doing.
>
>An unblockable bleeder can oust in 1 or 2 actions, and nobody can
>generally interfere. Unrestricted CTB, or even just heavy CTB, gives S&B
>and (sometimes) Tap and Bleed the trump card in cross-table interaction.
>They hardly need it.
See, the problem I have is that limiting a bleed up front makes
the interaction less useful. If I can threaten to bleed you, I had
better be able to back it up. If there's no mechanism in the game for
it that can back up my threat (1 pool is insignificant in most cases,
and can't hurt enough to even slow the other guy down), it takes away
from the point of having the interaction.
A threat to torporize a minion can be backed up. A threat to
vote you into serious trouble can be backed up. Both are open ended. A
threat to bleed needs to be so as well. Or at least it needs to be
painful.
Hmm. I'll have to think about it some more. Maybe there is
some sort of compromise that will still work...
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>The crux of my game balance objections to CTB is that big unblockable
>>bleeds are by far the best way to oust somebody. Assuming 5 to 10 pool,
>>pretty common at that state, for a rusher to oust me across the table
will
>>take generally 6 or more actions (one rush for each of 4 minions, plus 2
>>or more bleed to actually do the job). For a voter, it will take 2 or 3
>>actions, plus everybody else on the table can piddle in what he's doing.>>>An unblockable bleeder can oust in 1 or 2 actions, and nobody can
>>generally interfere. Unrestricted CTB, or even just heavy CTB, gives
S&B
>>and (sometimes) Tap and Bleed the trump card in cross-table interaction.>>They hardly need it.> See, the problem I have is that limiting a bleed up front makes
>the interaction less useful. If I can threaten to bleed you, I had
>better be able to back it up. If there's no mechanism in the game for
>it that can back up my threat (1 pool is insignificant in most cases,
>and can't hurt enough to even slow the other guy down), it takes away
>from the point of having the interaction.
If I've got 6 pool (typical late in the game):
4 Rushes + some more stuff = oust
6 Unblockable 1 pool bleeds = oust
Pretty close, actually. You'll never oust with 1 Rush, that's for sure.
Voting can be faster, but that's OK; voting should be better at
cross-table.
CTB's need to be limited so that Mr. Malk will have to spend several
actions to oust.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3kqksg$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:
>If I've got 6 pool (typical late in the game):
>
>4 Rushes + some more stuff = oust
>6 Unblockable 1 pool bleeds = oust
>
>Pretty close, actually. You'll never oust with 1 Rush, that's for sure.
>Voting can be faster, but that's OK; voting should be better at
>cross-table.
A well-placed Rush is *much* more damaging than that. If I can
Rush your best minion I may be able to cripple you for your predator to
mop up (which is more economical than ousting you myself if you're going
to be ousted anyway). Assuming you have 4 minions (seems to be about
right from preliminary results of my survey), I only need to take 2
Rushes to give your predator a *huge* advantage (assuming I can
torporize or burn on the Rush, which is the analagous situation to the
big bleed).
>CTB's need to be limited so that Mr. Malk will have to spend several
>actions to oust.
I see what you're saying, and I'm not sure I'm in total
agreement with it, but I'm thinking about it. There *does* need to be a
way to keep the bleed open ended, but it has to be difficult to get it
high (it's more difficult to guarantee torpor than it is to guarantee a
high bleed). Does that sound like a good point to start from?
[ quoted text not captured ]
js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote:>>If I've got 6 pool (typical late in the game):>>>4 Rushes + some more stuff = oust
>>6 Unblockable 1 pool bleeds = oust>>>Pretty close, actually. You'll never oust with 1 Rush, that's for sure.>>Voting can be faster, but that's OK; voting should be better at
>>cross-table.> A well-placed Rush is *much* more damaging than that. If I can
>Rush your best minion I may be able to cripple you for your predator to
>mop up (which is more economical than ousting you myself if you're going
>to be ousted anyway). Assuming you have 4 minions (seems to be about
>right from preliminary results of my survey), I only need to take 2
>Rushes to give your predator a *huge* advantage (assuming I can
>torporize or burn on the Rush, which is the analagous situation to the
>big bleed).
Timing of ousts is often critical. If the predator can't mount some
serious bleeds, he may take 2 or even 3 turns to oust a 6, even with no
blockers. In any case, he will get jumped by his own predator first, and
a good reason to oust someone is to give 6 pool to his doomed predator
just to keep him in the game a bit longer. Surviving a turn or two also
allows retaliation, also a big disadvantage.
IME, CTBs often go at rush decks that have basically exterminated all
their predator's vampires. In those circumstances the predator can't
oust, only the grandpredator. It's an ideal situation to give blood to
the predator, because he's unlikely to be able to do much with it.
Also, if you're not Nosferatu (and who plays them?) or occaisionally
Gangrel, that Rush is at 0 stealth. You'll torporize the minion of the
target's choice (the one who blocks), not the best (under ordinary
circumstances).
>>CTB's need to be limited so that Mr. Malk will have to spend several
>>actions to oust.> I see what you're saying, and I'm not sure I'm in total
>agreement with it, but I'm thinking about it. There *does* need to be a
>way to keep the bleed open ended, but it has to be difficult to get it
>high (it's more difficult to guarantee torpor than it is to guarantee a
>high bleed). Does that sound like a good point to start from?
I can live with very difficult CTOs, but never underestimate the
cleverness of a player. I think Night Moves and Cat Burglary received
such a strict (and not entirely necessary) limit because a) you don't want
the rule too complicated and b) what if somebody figures a reliable way
around it? Complex limitation schemes also have to deal with potential
future cards that nix the scheme - we have little or no control over the 1
or 2 expansions headed our way.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <3kngke$5...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) writes:
>js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>>>James R. McClure Jr. <jrmc...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu> wrote:>>>Maybe WotC should hire [Curt], Alan, Joe, Scott, and myself to rewrite
>>>the rules/cards for the revised edition. I'd do it for free, what about
>>>you (all)?
Hello folks,
For my money, I would like to see a battle of the hall of famers here.
A table with James, Curt, Alan, Joe, and Scott going at it, and afterwards a
post of who played what, who sat next to whom, and how it all turned out. Some
plays of the game might be interesting too. However, I realize that it is
probably next to impossible to get you all together unless you met someplace
like GenCon or something...
Still, it would be interesting to see a game involving the more
prolific post-ers here. And see how you all do and play against one another
since you have all had a lot to say about the rules and certain cards.
Maybe even try to con Tom Whylie into ref-ing the game.
Well, I think it would be interesting.
Cliff Murphy
cb_m...@smcvax.smcvt.edu
[ quoted text not captured ]
kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu (kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: um, I'm kinda new to the newsgroup but why are "James, Curt, Alan, Joe and
: Scott" important?
Well, these 5 people (plus possibly myself) contribute about 60-70% of
the posts on this group in any given week, and sometimes even a higher
percentage if there is a great discussion going on. They are, in no
particular order: (sorry guys if I've left out anything you wanted said.
this is off the top of my head.)
James McClure The OS/2 apostle. Starts every message with the
phrase, "Peace"
Curt Adams Major proponent of 'Cross Table Bleeds are BAD'
Joe Cochrane Major proponent of 'Cross Table Bleeds are GOOD'
Alan Kwan Has opinions on all facets of the game, and is not
afraid to let them be known. Wrote several long but
excellent articles on Jyhad Game Theory
L. Scott Johnson Author of the Jyhad Complete Rules Guide and Single
Card Errata (posted here every two weeks). Closest
thing we have to an authority on the rulings of the
Design Team and Tom Wylie, as he has every single
one on file.
Me Editor of Jyhad Complete Rules Guide. Nobody Special.
Any one of these people will answer rules questions asked in this forum,
and can usually be counted on to be mostly right if not 100% - if there
is not agreement with the answer, you can count on the others to correct
them posthaste.
[ quoted text not captured ]
>um, I'm kinda new to the newsgroup but why are "James, Curt, Alan, Joe and
>Scott" important?
They post a lot about rules and proposed fixes.
By the way, my friend's Ventrue/Malkavian, S&B/Political
>deck always kicks my %$&*#^, does anyone out there have any ideas as to how
>I could send him back to the drawing board?
There is the typical rush combat, counter politics or intercept. Tremere
are probably the answer. Theft of Vitae isn't affected by fortitude. They
have good intercepts and with dominate they have powerful bleeds at +1
stealth. If he keeps playing the same clans you can always use clan hosers
but its not very fair. Is this a 2 player game?
"kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu" <kron...@gold.tc.umn.edu> writes:
<cb_m...@smcvax.smcvt.edu> wrote:
>> For my money, I would like to see a battle of the hall of famers
here.
>>A table with James, Curt, Alan, Joe, and Scott going at it, and
afterwards a
>>post of who played what, who sat next to whom, and how it all turned
out. Some
>>plays of the game might be interesting too.>um, I'm kinda new to the newsgroup but why are "James, Curt, Alan, Joe
and
>Scott" important?
'Cause we yak a lot. :-)
Seriously, there have been a number of lively rules discussions in the
past month, and those are the top 5 posters. Naturally there have been
other posters with important things to say too.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
In article <Daniel.B.Hoffman...@nd.edu>,
Daniel Hoffman <Daniel.B....@nd.edu> wrote:
> By the way, my friend's Ventrue/Malkavian, S&B/Political
>>stealth. If he keeps playing the same clans you can always use clan hosers
>but its not very fair. Is this a 2 player game?
Not very fair? I think that clan hosers are an *excellent* way
to keep the game from becoming static in a local area. Slap a few
dementias and Ventrue whatsits in the deck, and you'll force your friend
to either change the deck or get hosed. They make sure that no deck can
remain unbeatable for too long.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lc28p$v...@tribune.usask.ca>,
Shane Hamish William Travis <sht...@duke.usask.ca> wrote:
>Joe Cochrane Major proponent of 'Cross Table Bleeds are GOOD'
If you're writing or typing my name, please use Joe or
Joseph Cochran. FWIW, I'm also a newsgroup old timer and moderator.
I also have a full copy of all DTR's available for ananymous ftp from my
directory pub/outgoing/jsciv at discus.ise.vt.edu.
[ quoted text not captured ]
D-actions should allow for the posibility of only allowing them to be directed
at one Meth. .
Consider a card which stays in play and any minion can take a D-acction
to burn it. (e.g. Army of rats, Smiling Jack,, etc.)
Has anyone considered taking a D-action against a diffrent Meth. to
the one owning the anoying card, to dispose of the card? No?
Some D-actions are only directable against one Meth.
This should apply to bleeds as well.
Ben Sanders
sht...@duke.usask.ca (Shane Hamish William Travis) wrote:
> James McClure The OS/2 apostle. Starts every message with the
> phrase, "Peace"
[wait for it]
Peace Shane,
[just like that]
Gee, I'm "famous." [more like a legend in my own mind]
> Me Editor of Jyhad Complete Rules Guide. Nobody Special.
Well, now, Shane, I wouldn't say that! What would we be without our token
Canadian. 8^)
> Any one of these people will answer rules questions asked in this forum,
> and can usually be counted on to be mostly right if not 100% - if there
> is not agreement with the answer, you can count on the others to correct
> them posthaste.
You definitely got that right.
Nil carborundum illigitimi,
James R. McClure Jr.
The OS/2 Apostle
<insert disclaimer here>
In article <D698x...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
[ quoted text not captured ]
Cards that allow a (D) to do that give you the ability to take
out that target. It's absurd to interpret that as taking a (D) against
something other than the card that will be the target of the action.
However, it is not absurd to assume that you may want to bleed someone
other than your prey. There are a myriad of reasons that you would do
so, some that we all agree on, others that we have disputes over. But
nobody thinks that bleeds against someone other than your prey is
completely out of the question. Best example? Night Moves.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lchsm$k...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <Daniel.B.Hoffman...@nd.edu>,
>Daniel Hoffman <Daniel.B....@nd.edu> wrote:>> By the way, my friend's Ventrue/Malkavian, S&B/Political
>>
>>stealth. If he keeps playing the same clans you can always use clan hosers
>>but its not very fair. Is this a 2 player game?>
> Not very fair? I think that clan hosers are an *excellent* way
>to keep the game from becoming static in a local area.>[...] They make sure that no deck can>remain unbeatable for too long.
My opinion is that if the game is `perfectly' balanced out,
it will be possible to tune any deck against any other `static'
deck WITHOUT using clan hosers. If the only way to stop a
deck from being `unbeatable' is using clan hosers, then
in my opinion the game has a balance problem.
Stone-paper-scissors is a perfectly balanced game. Every
gesture has a `hoser' to counter it; anybody who constantly
makes the same gesture will lose. Yet this does not make
S-P-S too much of `a great game' other than as a method
to randomly determine something.
Mathematically, clan hosers work like S-P-S. Suppose that there
are three `unbeatable' deck configurations, each using a different
clan, that cannot be beaten by any decks other than these 3
without using clan hosers. Then the game would reduce to merely
trying to guess which of the 3 `unbeatable' decks your opponent
is using, and putting in lots of the appropriate clan hoser.
IMO, clan hosers reduce (to a certain extent) the `level' of
the game to that of S-P-S. Clan hosers is IMO a cheap substitute
of designing and tuning a deck strategy to counter a deck.
IMO relying on clan hosers to `balance' a game is a cheap game design
element substitute of carefully balancing out the core elements
of the game system.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
In article <3lesq3$1...@agnar.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <3lchsm$k...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:>> Not very fair? I think that clan hosers are an *excellent* way
>>to keep the game from becoming static in a local area.
>>[...] They make sure that no deck can
>>remain unbeatable for too long.>
>My opinion is that if the game is `perfectly' balanced out,
>it will be possible to tune any deck against any other `static'
>deck WITHOUT using clan hosers. If the only way to stop a
>deck from being `unbeatable' is using clan hosers, then
>in my opinion the game has a balance problem.
Not every player is going to have the resources or the ingenuity
to beat every deck. Nor should they. But this is only a comment. The
meat of my assertation lies below...
>Stone-paper-scissors is a perfectly balanced game. Every
>>Mathematically, clan hosers work like S-P-S. Suppose that there
>are three `unbeatable' deck configurations, each using a different
>clan, that cannot be beaten by any decks other than these 3
>without using clan hosers. Then the game would reduce to merely
>trying to guess which of the 3 `unbeatable' decks your opponent
>is using, and putting in lots of the appropriate clan hoser.
>IMO, clan hosers reduce (to a certain extent) the `level' of
>the game to that of S-P-S. Clan hosers is IMO a cheap substitute
>of designing and tuning a deck strategy to counter a deck.
>IMO relying on clan hosers to `balance' a game is a cheap game design
>element substitute of carefully balancing out the core elements
>of the game system.
I don't accept the logic here. Clan Hosers do not work like
S-P-S. They are not absolute hosers (many of them are quite easy to
overcome), their set of targets is much larger (S-P-S only works because
the set size is three, so the actions will *have* to interact), and they
are one tool in a larger game, not a game unto themselves.
I never said that they were the 'balancing' pin on which Jyhad
was built. They are a tool to be used in a much larger game. Jyhad has
borrowed many tools from classic game design theories. It's borrowed
terms and formats from its predecessor, Magic. Many of the design
elements are based on an RPG. Yes, some of the interaction (voting
particularly) may even be based on (dare I say it) Diplomacy. Why, then
should one tool be singled out and removed?
And I did not mean that clan hosers were the way to introduce
'beatableness' to an 'unbeatable' deck. I meant that they were a way to
force the game out of a rut where one person's deck was constantly
winning, when other methods may not be available (such as low card
resources, inability to think up the strategy, or even players' ability
imbalances). This does not mean that I think that there is an
'unbeatable' deck that needs them. In fact, I believe that Jyhad is
well-designed enough that there is not any one deck that is
'unbeatable.' What this *does* mean is that I think that they
are a tool that can allow the play environment to evolve.
And from the number of people here on the net that know exactly
what clans their particular "help me beat X" nemesis uses, I think they
are an under-utilized tool.
[ quoted text not captured ]
On 30 Mar 1995, Alan Kwan wrote:
> In article <3lchsm$k...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:> >In article <Daniel.B.Hoffman...@nd.edu>,
> >Daniel Hoffman <Daniel.B....@nd.edu> wrote:
> >> By the way, my friend's Ventrue/Malkavian, S&B/Political
> >>
> >>stealth. If he keeps playing the same clans you can always use clan hosers
> >>but its not very fair. Is this a 2 player game?
> >> > Not very fair? I think that clan hosers are an *excellent* way
> >to keep the game from becoming static in a local area.
> >[...] They make sure that no deck can
> >remain unbeatable for too long.
>
> My opinion is that if the game is `perfectly' balanced out,
> it will be possible to tune any deck against any other `static'
> deck WITHOUT using clan hosers. If the only way to stop a
> deck from being `unbeatable' is using clan hosers, then
> in my opinion the game has a balance problem.
[cut a bit]
>
> --
> "Live Life with Heart."
>
> Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
>
>
Unfortunately, I agree with Alan, somewhat. The best reason for clan
hosing cards is to be abusive to another player. The fact that I am
holding a few Cultivated Blood Shortages is only going to get me so far
when my opponent is holding Brujah Frenzies. They are all (almost) just as
nasty as the next and a balanced within themselves. (The only exception
is Nosf. Putresence that can be avoid by Ani. and Pot. strikes {though
you can throw them without using master card actions.}} Arrrgh. I'm
confusing myself!
My two blood counters,
Marty Runyon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there
must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your
beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."
- The Doctor, "Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of Earth"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty "Anjin" Runyon <run...@robles.callutheran.edu>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <3lf1ed$m...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3lesq3$1...@agnar.cs.cornell.edu>,
>Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:>>My opinion is that if the game is `perfectly' balanced out,
>>it will be possible to tune any deck against any other `static'
>>deck WITHOUT using clan hosers. If the only way to stop a
>>deck from being `unbeatable' is using clan hosers, then
>>in my opinion the game has a balance problem.> Not every player is going to have the resources or the ingenuity
>to beat every deck. Nor should they. But this is only a comment. ...
Disagree. See below.
>>Mathematically, clan hosers work like S-P-S.>> [...]>>IMO, clan hosers reduce (to a certain extent) the `level' of
>>the game to that of S-P-S. Clan hosers is IMO a cheap substitute
>>of designing and tuning a deck strategy to counter a deck.
>>IMO relying on clan hosers to `balance' a game is a cheap game design
>>element substitute of carefully balancing out the core elements
>>of the game system.>
> I don't accept the logic here. Clan Hosers do not work like
>S-P-S. They are not absolute hosers (many of them are quite easy to
>overcome), their set of targets is much larger (S-P-S only works because>the set size is three, so the actions will *have* to interact) ...
I agree that Jyhad with Clan Hosers isn't S-P-S, but I hold that
clan hosers still pull the game towards the level of S-P-S.
The use of Clan Hosers is just too good (and IMO cheap) a
substitute for a carefully conceived deck strategy.
> I never said that they were the 'balancing' pin on which Jyhad
>was built. They are a tool to be used in a much larger game. Jyhad has
>borrowed many tools from classic game design theories. It's borrowed
>terms and formats from its predecessor, Magic.
... which many people in this newsgroup agree is an inferior game
to Jyhad.
There aren't many CCG's in "classic game design". CCG's involve
many new concepts and a significant departure from classic
games. For example, the Sega Mega-Drive game "Warsong 2"
(a fantasy military strategy game) has units which react like
the S-P-S relationship, but I'm not complaining about that
because the game engine is essentially different (you don't
have deckbuilding). Elements which are common in classic games
may or may not be desirable in a CCG.
My opinion is that if Clan Hosers is a "tool", it's an unnecessary
tool that does not improve the game. Anyone may hold on to the
view that anything WotC put in their games are desirable elements
in the game, but I am not a member of that faith. :-)
>I meant that they were a way to
>force the game out of a rut where one person's deck was constantly
>winning, when other methods may not be available (such as low card
>resources, inability to think up the strategy, or even players' ability
>imbalances).
This is where I strongly disagree.
Concerning "low card resources": if you believe this is a problem,
this is an inherent problem due to the (evil?) $$$-making nature
of CCG's. I personally do not `believe in' CCG's (i.e. I feel
that the requirement of physical possession of certain cards in
order to implement certain strategies `improper' for a `game'), but
for those who do `believe in' CCG's and play them, I do not think
that they have the right to complain. CCG's have the inherent
nature of `if you don't have the cards for a strategy, you're
deprived of that strategy, and if you lose because of that, then
you lose, period'; if anybody doesn't like that, they don't have to
play CCG's.
Also, your point is immaterial for Jyhad, because the important
cards are common cards, and the Clan Hosers are not common.
How come a newbie doesn't have enough common cards for his
counter-strategy, but have many of the Clan Hosers for a
counter-deck?
Concerning "inability to think up the strategy, or even players'
ability imbalances": Jyhad is by all means a game of strategy.
Why does a strategy game have to include mechanisms to let
off the player who is strategically unable? I repeat,
Jyhad is a game of strategy; if it is `ideally balanced',
and a good counter-strategy exists for a deck but the
player can't think it up or play it out because of his
strategic inability, then in all my opinion he deserves to
lose. Should Chess include a rule that a player who is
checkmated `because of his inability' can turn the
table upside down and claim it to be his win? This is
just no excuse for allowing the rude Clan Hosers in
the game.
>What this *does* mean is that I think that they
>are a tool that can allow the play environment to evolve.
... at the cost of the `devolution' of the overall game, IMO.
If the situation you stated occurs with a player coming up
with a number of near `unbeatable' decks which the other players
does not have the `resources' or `ability' to counter save
using Clan Hosers, then the game reduces to whether the other
players can guess correctly which clan/deck the `unbeatable'
player is using, i.e. S-P-S. The "play environment" would
stop `evolving' at that point, then. IMO the play environment
`evolves' when players conceive genuine strategies (not just
the obvious, trivial inclusion of Clan Hosers) to counter
existing `effective' strategies, and so forth; having the
clan hosers to fall back to relieves the players of the
need to conceive genuine counter-strategies, and IMO
lowers the level of the game overall.
> And from the number of people here on the net that know exactly
>what clans their particular "help me beat X" nemesis uses, I think they
>are an under-utilized tool.
Most of those requests for help has been well-answered by people
on this group, with other than the use of Clan Hosers. Think
about it, which is more interesting: a reply `use this (genuine
strategy) deck ...' or the single statement `clan-hose him'.
Widespread `utilization' of such "tool" would /really/
turn Jyhad into S-P-S. There was a time when people thought
that "Malk. Dementia" is the /only/ counter to Malk. S&B ...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Alan Kwan writes:
>IMO relying on clan hosers to `balance' a game is a cheap game design
>element substitute of carefully balancing out the core elements
>of the game system.
Theoretically, yes, but I don't think it's practical to balance a game to
those standards with over 300 cards (more to come) and intricate rules.
Clan hosers (and strategy hosers, like bleed bounce and combat ends) are a
realistic and practical solution to what would otherwise be an intractable
problem to anyone limited to the resources of a game company.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Actually, I once made a Toreador/Gangrel block deck with all the clan
hosers (except Tragic Love Affair) in it as part of the deck concept... It
worked really well. I think that clan hosers do have a good purpose in a
deck... but you have to be careful. If you realize that the Ventrue in
general are going to be a weakness with your deck, then put in a Cultivated
Blood Shortage. You just have to be carefulin how you use them. One shouldn't
design a deck with the idea that "it'll stomp Mr. X's deck to pieces!" but
with the concept "this'll bring me closer to my goals." It's difficult,
butif you've got a concept that works, clan hosers will help considerably.
John Baker
[ quoted text not captured ]
Well, AH had games more complex and with more elements (monster
games), but they managed to balance those. Considering the relative
amount of $$$ earned with a CCG relative to an average AH game,
your argument would seem to be undermined by the real world
situation.
WotC is `supposed to' have more resources because they make huge $$$
with /one/ game. And although Jyhad is about the most complex
CCG, it is relatively simple compared to the AH games in general.
Jyhad inherited Clan Hosers from Magic, a decision made IMO without
serious considerations of their appropriateness (in the same way
as they `ripped off' the Monocle from Cosmic Encounter). This is
nothing exceptional from WotC.
The strategy hosers easily became balance problems themselves.
In Jyhad, non-combat
clans have a certain degree of combat ability. Malks have
disguised weapons, and Ventrues have Fortitude. Plus, the
"do not replace" non-discipline cards are always availiable.
IMO, the last point make the inclusion of any combat ends
unnecessary (a Malk can almost fight as good as any Tremere
or Nosferatsu, with the ammo cards). As you noticed,
Majesty can easily make Dodge and Open Crate wallpaper,
as well as Fortitude.
[ quoted text not captured ]
kw...@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan) writes:
>>>IMO relying on clan hosers to `balance' a game is a cheap game design
>>>element substitute of carefully balancing out the core elements
>>>of the game system.>> Theoretically, yes, but I don't think it's practical to balance a game
to
>> those standards with over 300 cards (more to come) and intricate rules.>> Clan hosers (and strategy hosers, like bleed bounce and combat ends)
are a
>> realistic and practical solution to what would otherwise be an
intractable
>> problem to anyone limited to the resources of a game company.>Well, AH had games more complex and with more elements (monster
>games), but they managed to balance those. Considering the relative
>amount of $$$ earned with a CCG relative to an average AH game,
>your argument would seem to be undermined by the real world
>situation.
A CCG is far more complex to balance, as you can't determine the starting
positions or resource limits nearly as easily as with a fixed AH-type
games. Just considering possibly degenerate 3-card combination would leave
you with 27 million combinations - too many to think about, much less
test. When you start considering less outrageously degenerate decks, the
number will be many orders of magnitude greater than that. It's simply
impossible to playtest thouroughly, so the wisest course is to leave in
cards that can "hose" broad categories of decks when the decks are tightly
focused. Then the hosers can block the crocked decks which will have to
slip past playtesting.
>The strategy hosers easily became balance problems themselves.
Agreed without reservation. Any "hoser"-type card necessarily must
attract particularly extensive playtesting. I think this was not fully
followed with Jyhad (e.g. Majesty, Wake, and maybe Deflection)
> As you noticed,
>Majesty can easily make Dodge and Open Grate wallpaper,
>as well as Fortitude.
A major slip-up, Majesty: a) an extremely cheap (free even at normal level
for one of the most common discipline) hoser, b) a relatively cheap (1
blood) offensive untap. Still, changing its cost to 1/2 or 1/3 I think
fixes the problems nicely.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
It's Alan and Joe, at it again:
In article <3lg0oj$q...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>Mathematically, clan hosers work like S-P-S.
>>> [...]>>>> I don't accept the logic here. Clan Hosers do not work like
>>S-P-S. They are not absolute hosers (many of them are quite easy to>>I agree that Jyhad with Clan Hosers isn't S-P-S, but I hold that
>clan hosers still pull the game towards the level of S-P-S.
>The use of Clan Hosers is just too good (and IMO cheap) a
>substitute for a carefully conceived deck strategy.
That's not the way what you said before sounded to me.
>> I never said that they were the 'balancing' pin on which Jyhad
>>was built. They are a tool to be used in a much larger game. Jyhad has
>>borrowed many tools from classic game design theories. It's borrowed
>>terms and formats from its predecessor, Magic.>
>... which many people in this newsgroup agree is an inferior game
>to Jyhad.
But which, like many of the other concepts I listed, was
essential in the evolution of the game. Jyhad wouldn't be here without
Magic. And the parts that have been borrowed are some of the best
parts. If you think that Jyhad would be here without Magic, you are
sadly mistaken. If you think that Jyhad could exist without the
elements borrowed from Magic, go redesign the game without them. Whatever
you get, it won't be Jyhad.
>My opinion is that if Clan Hosers is a "tool", it's an unnecessary
>tool that does not improve the game. Anyone may hold on to the
>view that anything WotC put in their games are desirable elements
>in the game, but I am not a member of that faith. :-)
Nor am I, but in this case, I disagree with you. It is a tool
that adds another element of balance that is orthogonal to many other
aspects of the game. There are no other checks and balances to clan
makeup that cross the whole game. Without them, single clan decks gain
needless power. With them, diversity is encouraged.
>>I meant that they were a way to
>>force the game out of a rut where one person's deck was constantly
>>winning, when other methods may not be available (such as low card
>>resources, inability to think up the strategy, or even players' ability
>>imbalances).>
>This is where I strongly disagree.
>
>Concerning "low card resources": if you believe this is a problem,
>this is an inherent problem due to the (evil?) $$$-making nature
>of CCG's. I personally do not `believe in' CCG's (i.e. I feel
>that the requirement of physical possession of certain cards in
>order to implement certain strategies `improper' for a `game'), but
Like it or not, that is the part that *makes* the TCG genre what
it is and differentiates it from other games.
>for those who do `believe in' CCG's and play them, I do not think
>that they have the right to complain. CCG's have the inherent
>nature of `if you don't have the cards for a strategy, you're
>deprived of that strategy, and if you lose because of that, then
>you lose, period'; if anybody doesn't like that, they don't have to
>play CCG's.
So because you don't have the cards for strategy A, you try for
the cards for strategy B. Or strategy C. More strategies give more
opportunities to get what you need, getting us closer to everyone having
what they need. What you're advocating is removing strategies and
forcing people to get those certain cards.
>Also, your point is immaterial for Jyhad, because the important
>cards are common cards, and the Clan Hosers are not common.
>How come a newbie doesn't have enough common cards for his
>counter-strategy, but have many of the Clan Hosers for a
>counter-deck?
The generally powerful cards are common, but cards to defeat a
certain strategy are most certainly not common. We've been discussing
Eagle's Sight and permanent intercept in many cases, which are also
uncommon, and may require specific clan makeups. Hosers are available
across a much wider spectrum of strategies, and don't require Auspex.
That takes much more $$ or trading than hosers.
>Jyhad is a game of strategy; if it is `ideally balanced',
>and a good counter-strategy exists for a deck but the
>player can't think it up or play it out because of his
>strategic inability, then in all my opinion he deserves to
>lose. Should Chess include a rule that a player who is
>checkmated `because of his inability' can turn the
>table upside down and claim it to be his win? This is
>just no excuse for allowing the rude Clan Hosers in
>the game.
In a way, Chess has just such a thing. There are skill ratings
and handicaps, and people are usually matched against others of their
own level so that they can enjoy the game. Only in tournaments are
newbies stupid for thinking that they can win. I've often seen someone
highly experienced "go easy" on someone new to let them enjoy the game.
I don't accept that Jyhad should be more ruthless than chess.
>>What this *does* mean is that I think that they
>>are a tool that can allow the play environment to evolve.>
>... at the cost of the `devolution' of the overall game, IMO.
>If the situation you stated occurs with a player coming up
>with a number of near `unbeatable' decks which the other players
The situation I meant was a player coming up with one, maybe
two almost unbeatable decks. If he's far enough above the skill level
of everyone else that he can make more than that, he should probably go
find someone who will actually challenge him rather than bullying the
wimps around.
How he manages to make those one or two decks better (better
resources better ability, whatever) is immaterial.
>stop `evolving' at that point, then. IMO the play environment
>`evolves' when players conceive genuine strategies (not just
>the obvious, trivial inclusion of Clan Hosers) to counter
>existing `effective' strategies, and so forth; having the
>clan hosers to fall back to relieves the players of the
>need to conceive genuine counter-strategies, and IMO
>lowers the level of the game overall.
IMO, clan hosers are not an "obnoxious, trivial" strategy. The
proper use of them can be just as challenging as the proper time to
bleed, and by assuming that they automatically win the game, you are
trivializing them and stereotyping them far beyond what they actually
do. They can be just as much a part of a "genuine" strategy as any
other card, but because you think that they are mindless, you dismiss
them. Who is devolving the game when one person is looking at all
possibilities and the other is ignoring a part of the game just because
it doesn't seem to fit his world view?
>> And from the number of people here on the net that know exactly
>>what clans their particular "help me beat X" nemesis uses, I think they
>>are an under-utilized tool.>
>Most of those requests for help has been well-answered by people
>on this group, with other than the use of Clan Hosers. Think
>about it, which is more interesting: a reply `use this (genuine
>strategy) deck ...' or the single statement `clan-hose him'.
I never said that we shouldn't help answer those questions when
we get them, and I'm glad to see it. That's not my point. My point is
that given the number of people who know exactly what clan(s) their
nemesis uses, the clan hoser is under utilized. No suggestion of how to
respond to these questions was stated nor implied.
>Widespread `utilization' of such "tool" would /really/
>turn Jyhad into S-P-S. There was a time when people thought
>that "Malk. Dementia" is the /only/ counter to Malk. S&B ...
And now the game has evolved past that point. Why? Maybe
because people found that dementia wasn't a game-winner. It was just
another tool to be used. But it sure helped. And just because it isn't
the 'only' tool anymore doesn't mean that it can't still be a tool.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lijn7$6...@agnar.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Jyhad inherited Clan Hosers from Magic, a decision made IMO without
>serious considerations of their appropriateness (in the same way
>as they `ripped off' the Monocle from Cosmic Encounter). This is
>nothing exceptional from WotC.
How were Clan Hosers ripped off from Magic? I'm not being
flippant, I just don't see Magic as the source of them and was wondering
how you arrived at that conclusion.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lrv34$a...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>In article <3lijn7$6...@agnar.cs.cornell.edu>,
>Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:>>Jyhad inherited Clan Hosers from Magic, a decision made IMO without
>>serious considerations of their appropriateness (in the same way
>>as they `ripped off' the Monocle from Cosmic Encounter). This is
>>nothing exceptional from WotC.> How were Clan Hosers ripped off from Magic? I'm not being
>flippant, I just don't see Magic as the source of them and was wondering
>how you arrived at that conclusion.
That is obvious - the `Color Hosers' from Magic, such as Karma,
Tsunami, etc. Also lesser ones, such as the Exorcist. Cards
which react with other cards based on their /identity/, rather than
based on their functions within the game system (such as
"Terror" countering "Regeneration").
For example, Press to end cancels a Press to continue, but this
is more of a game function thing rather than as a card identity
interaction. A Dodge cancels a strike, and that is similar.
Clan Hosers attack cards of a certain identity, in a manner
with little regard to their function within the more coherent
part of the game system.
I'm surprised that anyone can't see the obvious connection.
[ quoted text not captured ]
Joseph Cochran (js...@discus.ise.vt.edu) wrote:
: Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
: >Jyhad inherited Clan Hosers from Magic,: How were Clan Hosers ripped off from Magic? I'm not being: flippant, I just don't see Magic as the source of them and was wondering
: how you arrived at that conclusion.
Well, in Magic they were called Colour Hosers - they were cards that only
worked against a specific colour rather than all cards of that type in
play. Examples of the top of my head: (freely mixing and abusing
terminology...)
Flashfires - Red card to burn all White land in play
Tsunami - Green card to burn all Blue land in play
Red Elemental Blast - counter any Blue card as it is being played
Blue elemental Blast - as above, but for Blue vs. Red.
Gloom - Black card that made all White cards more expensive to cast
Deathgrip/Lifegrip - Black/Green card that stayed in play and could (for a
cost) counter any Green/Black spell as it was cast.
Karma - White card that hurt you every turn for every Black land you had.
There are more, and this list is just from the basic set. The main
difference between Magic and Jyhad (in this respect) is that colours had
certain pre-defined 'enemies', and had cards to counter the spells of
those enemy colours. In Jyhad, there are no pre-set enmities (a good
thing, IMHO, as it increases flexibility) and anyone can use a 'clan
hoser' as they are all Master Cards instead of discipline-specific cards.
Please do _not_ add to this list - it is an example only and I have no
intention of turning this into a MtG thread.
Shane Travis | A man who carries a cat by the tail learns
sht...@duke.usask.ca | something he can learn no other way.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | -- Mark Twain
I fail to understand the "need" to limit CTE's in any way here. The
built in limits seem fine to me: your action actually gives another
player a victory point and 6 pool; and (more subtle) the Meth' you are
CTExterminating has to have his pants down. If your deck can't stop
big bleeders cross table, what happens when one sits predator side from
you? The reason night moves is limited to one bleed is the payoff for
+3(+6) stealth...I've never taken anyone out of the game with it, but
it works quite nicely for grabbing the edge.
Lance Berg
Game Masters, PA
In article <3lskaj$2...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>Jyhad inherited Clan Hosers from Magic, a decision made IMO without>>> How were Clan Hosers ripped off from Magic? I'm not being>>That is obvious - the `Color Hosers' from Magic, such as Karma,
>Tsunami, etc. Also lesser ones, such as the Exorcist. Cards
>>For example, Press to end cancels a Press to continue, but this
>is more of a game function thing rather than as a card identity
>interaction. A Dodge cancels a strike, and that is similar.
>Clan Hosers attack cards of a certain identity, in a manner
>with little regard to their function within the more coherent
>part of the game system.
>
>I'm surprised that anyone can't see the obvious connection.
Force and counterforce is an idea that has been around forever.
The idea that there is something that is inherently opposite to
something else by virtue of its identity is a concept that is at the
basis of humanity, from God and the devil to life and death. Magic was
set up with these adversarial relationships already in place, so it is
perfectly natural that each color should have specific things in it to
hurt those colors that are its enemies for no other reason than their
identity.
Jyhad, on the other hand, has no inherent opposites (although
one of the variants made an attempt to do that), and thus, there are no
cards that oppose one another due to strict identity. However, each
clan has a weakness, represented by their hoser card. There is no
opposition, no connection between one clan and the other, and no tie to
basic force-counterforce tendencies. Hosers are much more related to
the weaknesses of the clans from the RPG than to red vs blue in Magic
(although I do not doubt that the whole 'clan hoser' set was conceived
as one thing).
So, you see, I don't think that there *is* an obvious
connection, merely a superficial one that disappears when you look at
the games more closely.
[ quoted text not captured ]
The discussiuon on clan-hosers is missing a "practical" aspect which
I thought I'd try to add.
It seems to me that clan-hosers are there for 2 reasons. The first
is from Magic: a single clan/color has certain obvious advantages
(tighter disciplines, access to "helps all clan X" cards, and so on.)
The "hosers" are there to encourage you to consider a little more
diversity.
Secondly, which I agree is a silly reason, the crypt is the focus
of a good deck, so if some strategy turns out to be "optimal" than
people will tend to include a higher percentage of hosers for the
vampires used, making it less optimal.
For purpose number 2, ANY hoser would work. Suppose someone has a
unstoppable crypt made of Rabbits and Pigs. As long as the other players
can play cards which do anything at all to Rabbit and Pigs (tap 1, make
them lose a blood, anything) the hosers "work" to slow him down.
For purpose number 1, the hosers SUCK. The biggest problem are the
single-vamp hosers (Malks, Brujah, Gangrels, Nosfer, Toreador.) They
do nothing to encourage you to include a few non-clan vampires in a
mostly-1-clan crypt. In fact, they do the opposite.
Suppose you have 11 vampires picked out and just need a 12th that
fits in well (and don't want to use a duplicate.) Adding one from one
of the aforementioned clans gives someone a chance to use a clan-hoser
on you to full effect (for example, adding Uma Hatch to a weenie voter
deck without other Brujah is asking for her to Frenzy while calling a
vote.) Lots of people toss a Malk Dementia in their decks since Malks
are so hated. I'd be a fool to include Normal in my "Nosfers with
Concealed Weapons" deck.
Other hoser comments:
Cultivated Blood Shortage: This is easily the most deadly hoser. An all-
Ventrue deck can be hit for 4 net blood loss in 1 turn by this.
It's removed at +1 stealth, right? (I traded mine away.) This still
makes me never want to play an all-Ventrue deck twice in a row with
the same people.
Nosferatu Putresense: This isn't even a real clan-hoser -- it's a strategy
hoser. I've got a potence/fortitude combat deck that uses Nosfers (and
a silly 4-card limit) that this card could destroy. Someone else's
Nosfer/Ventrue vote deck would hardly notice this card being played.
Gangrel De-evolution: This has also been noted as not a real clan-hoser,
as well. I've got a Gangrel "all minions go to torpor" deck. Someone
De-evolves half my vampires. My strategy is still unchanged, it will
just take me longer to oust my helpless prey, or I just use Gypsies and
Army of Rats.
In article <3lupac$9...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> js...@discus.ise.vt.edu (Joseph Cochran) writes:
>>> How were Clan Hosers ripped off from Magic? I'm not being> I replied:>>That is obvious - the `Color Hosers' from Magic, ...> Force and counterforce is an idea that has been around forever.> [irrelevent `reasoning' deleted]> Jyhad, on the other hand, has no inherent opposites (although
>one of the variants made an attempt to do that), and thus, there are no
>cards that oppose one another due to strict identity. However, each
>clan has a weakness, represented by their hoser card.
Each clan also has weaknesses /not/ represented by hoser cards but
more elegantly within the game system by their lack of certain disciplines.
> So, you see, I don't think that there *is* an obvious
>connection, merely a superficial one that disappears when you look at
>the games more closely.
On the contrary, although looking at the superficial aspects of
the game, such as the setting, theme, ect. Clan Hosers
are significantly different from color hosers, in terms of
game mechanics, their functions are very similar.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In article <3lv8pj$j...@sif.cs.cornell.edu>,
Alan Kwan <kw...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>>That is obvious - the `Color Hosers' from Magic, ...>>> Force and counterforce is an idea that has been around forever.
>> [irrelevent `reasoning' deleted]
I hardly consider it irrelevant. I wouldn't have written it if
I did consider it so.
>> Jyhad, on the other hand, has no inherent opposites (although
>>one of the variants made an attempt to do that), and thus, there are no
>>cards that oppose one another due to strict identity. However, each
>>clan has a weakness, represented by their hoser card.>
>Each clan also has weaknesses /not/ represented by hoser cards but
>more elegantly within the game system by their lack of certain disciplines.
More variety, more strategies to try out. Good thing, IMO.
>> So, you see, I don't think that there *is* an obvious
>>connection, merely a superficial one that disappears when you look at
>>the games more closely.>
>On the contrary, although looking at the superficial aspects of
>the game, such as the setting, theme, ect. Clan Hosers
>are significantly different from color hosers, in terms of
>game mechanics, their functions are very similar.
No, I don't believe that they are. They do have their
similarities, but in Magic, you are forced to use a particular color to
hose another color (back to the identity thing). This limits your
strategies if you want to use those hosers. Clan hosers require no
specific strategy to implement (no conflict by identity), and thus
broaden the strategies you can use. From a game mechanics point of
view, that's the total opposite of color hosers.
[ quoted text not captured ]