V:TES Trading List (LARGE)

Hello. This is my trade list of singles for all V:TES-related sets. All cards are in Fine to Mint condition, with most having never been played. In addition to the cards listed below, I also have a huge stockpile of commons, uncommons, and vampires from all the V:TES-related sets. If you have any inquiries or offers to make, please do not hesitate to contact me, via email, at mattrim...@home.com and I will reply within 24 hours. Thank you. Cards that I "WANT"... Corruption (Ancient Hearts) (COMMON) Dreams of the Sphinx (Ancient Hearts) (RARE) Forced Awakening (Sabbat) (COMMON) Freak Drive (Jyhad/V:TES) (RARE) The Second Tradition: Domain (Jyhad/V:TES) (UNCOMMON) There are also a number of vampires that I seek. NOTE: when evaluating the value, and subsequent fairness, of a trade, I use Mark Korshavn's (kors...@ix.netcom.com) most recent price quotes. These price quotes can be found in rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad and rec.games.trading-cards.marketplace.misc. Without further hesitation, I present to you the cards that I am prepared to trade for any number of the cards found on my "WANT" list! Enjoy... SABBAT... Ablative Skin (1) Adaptability (1) Art of Pain, The (1) Art Scam (1) Bestial Visage (2) Blessing of Chaos (1) Blood Brother Ambush (2) Cardinal Benediction (3) Cardinal Sin: Insubordination (1) Carrion Crows (2) Code of Milan Suspended (2) Coma (2) Communal Haven: Temple (1) Concoction of Vitality (1) Consecration Rites (2) Creation Rites (1) Crusade: Atlanta (4) Crusade: Chicago (1) Crusade: Houston (1) Crusade: Mexico City (2) Crusade: Pittsburgh (2) Crusade: Toronto (1) Cull the Herd (1) Decapite (2) Disarm (1) Fade from View (1) Forgotten Labyrinth (3) Gang Territory (2) Ghouled Street Thug (1) Goth Band (1) Guardian Ghoul (1) Hand of Conrad (2) Horrid Form (5) Immortal Grapple (2) Infernal Pact (1) Innocent Bystander (3) Intimidation (1) Leather Jacket (3) Lightning Reflexes (1) Malkavian Derangement: Paranoia (1) Marked Path (1) Media Influence (3) Mind Rape (1) Mistaken Identity (1) Nephandus (Mage) (1) Obedience (2) Orgy of Blood (1) Out of Control (1) Political Antagonist (1) Political Stranglehold (1) Propaganda (2) Quick Exit (2) Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper, The (3) Sacrifice (3) Scrying of Secrets (1) Shadow Court Satyr (Changeling) (1) Slave Auction (1) Song in the Dark (1) Speed of Thought (1) Spirit Summoning Chamber (1) Succubus (1) Sudden Reversal (1) Sunrise Service (2) Sword of Judgement (1) Tithings (1) Twisting the Knife (2) Regarding The Sabbat: more Uncommons and Commons are available upon your request. Vampires are also available. ANCIENT HEARTS... Akhenaten, The Sun Pharaoh (Mummy) (1) Alamut (1) Ankara Citadel, Turkey, The (2) Beyond Reproach (1) Cairo Int'l Airport (2) Carthage Remembered (1) Children of Osiris (1) Death of My Conscience, The (5) Dog Pack (1) Grand Temple of Set (1) Jackal (2) Marijava Ghoul (5) Oath of Loyalty (2) Parthenon, The (2) Portrait, The (2) Praxis Seizure: Athens (2) Praxis Seizure: Monaco (1) Protect Thine Own (1) Realm of the Black Sun, The (2) Return to Innocence, The (1) Scorpion Sting (5) Secret Library of Alexandria, The (3) Seeds of Corruption (3) Signet of King Saul, The (3) Treachery (2) Uncontrollable Rage (5) Regarding Ancient Hearts: more Uncommons and Commons are available upon your request. Vampires are also available. DARK SOVEREIGNS... Acquired Ventrue Assets (2) Anathema (3) Antediluvian Awakening (2) Banishment (2) Brujah Debate (2) Bureacratic Overload (1) Command of the Harpies (2) Compel The Spirit (1) Fear of Mekhet (1) Force of Will (8) Forest of Shadows (2) Heidelburg Castle, Germany (1) Inveraray, Scotland (3) Judgement: Camarilla Segregation (1) Judgement: Death to the Brujah! (2) Kindred Coercion (3) Legacy of Power (1) Legendary Vampire (3) London Evening Star, Tabloid Newspaper (2) Mausoleum, Venice, The (2) Nosferatu Performance Art (1) Of Noble Blood (3) Ruins of Villars Abbey, Belgium (1) Sacrificial Lamb (8) Shackles of Endiku (1) Shepherd's Innocence (5) Strained Vitae Supply (2) Thoughts Betrayed (11) Triole's Revenge (1) Ventrue Directorate Assembly (6) Wrath of the Inner Circle (1) Regarding Dark Sovereigns: more Uncommons and Commons are available upon your request. Vampires are also available. V:TES... Curse of Nitocris (1) Elder Intervention (3) Gangrel Justicar (1) Malkavian Justicar (1) Shadow of the Beast (1) Smiling Jack the Anarch (1) The Third Tradition: Progeny (1) Tremere Justicar (1) JYHAD... Aaron's Feeding Razor (2) Anarch Troublemaker (1) Arcane Library (1) Behind You! (1) Betrayer (1) Body of Sun (2) Burst of Sunlight (2) Cat Burglary (1) Charnas the Imp (2) Curse of Nitocris (3) Dawn Operation (6) Day Operation (3) Delaying Tactics (4) Eco Terrorists (1) Flesh of Marble (3) Fragment of the Book of Nod (1) Gangrel Justicar (1) Giant's Blood (1) Golconda - Inner Peace (2) Hostile Takeover (2) Immortal Grapple (1) J. S. Simmons, Esq. (3) Kindred Intelligence (2) Kindred Society Games (2) Kine Dominance (2) Madness Network (3) Malkavian Justicar (1) Millicent Smith - Puritan Vampire Hunter (2) Mr. Winthrop (6) Murder of Crows (4) Nosferatu Justicar (2) Obedience (9) Patagia - Flaps Allowing Limited Flight (2) Political Ally (1) Psychic Veil (5) Pulled Fangs (2) Renegade Garou (7) Ritual Challenge (3) RPG Launcher (1) Rumors of Gehenna (4) Sengir Dagger (3) Smiling Jack the Anarch (2) Society of Leopold (2) Soul Gem of Etrius (1) Spawning Pool, The (2) Succubus Club (3) Sudden Reversal (9) Tasha Morgan (2) Telepathic Vote Counting (2) Temptation of Greater Power (3) The Fifth Tradition: Hospitality (2) The First Tradition: The Masquerade (1) The Third Tradition: Progeny (5) Tremere Justicar (2) Vampiric Disease (2) Ventrue Justicar (2) Regarding Jyhad: more Uncommons and Commons are available upon your request. Vampires are also available. Internet references are available upon your request. If you have any inquiries or offers to make, please do not hesitate to contact me, via email, at mattrim...@home.com and I will reply within 24 hours. Thank you. Yours Truly, Mattrim. mattrim...@home.com ~^v^V~^v^V~^v^V~^v^V~^v^V~^v^V~^v^V~^v^~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> My two cents is that the current errata seems to work fine and once > newbies learn it, it becomes a accepted game mechanism. This wasn't my point, Norm. > There is another cards which allow you to repeatedly block with the same > minion: Cat's Guidence. Or you can used Forced Awakening. Again, my point wasn't about blocking more than once with the same minion. Although, the way you suggest it, you should use Animalism if you ever want to block. > So if you really wanted to block with the same vamp all > the time use animalism. What if I want to use vamps that don't have animalsm? Just don't expect to block? > But, WWEF is a great card and any vampire can use it, which > is at the heart of this arguement. Yes and no. > Just how much should a methuselah be able to use it without it being > subjectively abusive? This point could be made with just about any card in the game. > think that if you put 20 of these in your deck that there should be a > rather expensive opportunity cost to use them, But where do you draw the line at being *too* expensive? 1 blood isn't *that* much of a cost when you compare it to going an entire turn around the table with 1 less card in your hand.I mean, hell, you can get the blood back for _free_ in many different ways. And I'm sorry, but a card slot is worth significantly more than a blood on a vamp. "Which would I rather have, hmmm.... a blood on Aleph or a TelMisdirection. That's a tough call </sar>". > How abusive is it to use it to untap constantly? So you are saying that Freak Drive is abusive? Or FA? Or Cat's Guidance? Hell, I remember several games that we played when one of us would just keep playing Cat's Guidance after a successful block. And how is untapping constantly any more abusive than playing, say, Telepathic Counter constantly? I seem to remember a few of our games where I'd bleed with my minions and you would keep Countering them. At what point did constant become abusive? > > Why is it that the card should have heavier cost at one end of > > the table yet have a far greater reduced (to almost nothing if > > used at the very last action of the pred's turn) cost at the other > > end of the table? For the *exact same opportunity*?!? Read the above again. *This* was my point. You have a 5 player game. You Wake during your prey's turn to attempt to block an action. Say, equipping a mean and nasty Flame Thrower. You are now going to have to go through 4 turns before you can redraw the Wake. Let's say you wake during your Grand Pred's turn so you can Eagle's Sight/Intercept a Political Action that you know is going to be targetted at you. You now have to wait 2 turns to redraw your Wake. Ok, now it's your Pred's turn and you Wake to block a bleed. You now have to wait <1 turn to redraw your Wake. How is this right? The main 2 people who you should be worrying about blocking are your Predator and your Prey. But for the *same opportunity* (being able to block with your tapped minion) you: * Pay the least for Waking to block your Predator * Pay most dearly for Waking to block your Prey * Pay a constantly reducing cost to Wake to block those across table from you. Why should it be that I end up paying less to block across table than I do to block my prey, one of those who I should be targetting? For the exact same opportunity? It is rediculous. It is like this errata is saying the only person you should ever be concerned about blocking is your predator. Anyone else you are going to have to pay for. And to top it off, we are going to tack onto that cost the fact that you are going to be more vulnerable against your Predator if you do try to Wake and block anyone else. I'm sorry, but all of the above does not equal 1 blood on a vampire by *any* stretch of the imagination. No other card in the game has this kind of "revolving" cost. And please don't point out that in my above examples, you should use FA instead of Wake. My point is that the cost of Wake does not equal the cost of FA (and is in fact significantly more expensive), which Wake was errata'd to bring more in line with. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <V5ud4.10735$Ce.1...@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >> So if you really wanted to block with the same vamp all >> the time use animalism. > >What if I want to use vamps that don't have animalsm? Just >don't expect to block? What if I don't want to use Setites, but still expect to Corrupt people? Or hit people hard using Auspex? There are some abilities that certain disciplines have as their asset. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

> >> So if you really wanted to block with the same vamp all > >> the time use animalism. > >What if I want to use vamps that don't have animalsm? Just > >don't expect to block? > What if I don't want to use Setites, but still expect to Corrupt people? No, because of that little symbol there on the left that says "Followers of Set". > Or hit people hard using Auspex? No, because that's not what auspex does. Blocking, however, is a *fundamental* part of the game that *all* vampires do and should be able to do. There is an incredibly diverse set of options any particular vamp has open to them to help them to block that aren't discipline based. It seems like you are summarily dismissing all the permanents in the game because they are not discipline based. > There are some abilities that certain disciplines have as their asset. Ahh, so what you are saying now is that only certain disciplines should ever be allowed to block. I mean, my lowly KRCG isn't worth that much against S&B so as such I shouldn't bother with any untaps because I'm not going to block them anyways and oh right I don't have the proper discipline to be allowed to block. So because untapping is an ability that should have been relegated to certain disciplines, it should be as costly as humanly possible? </tongue in cheek sarcasm> Having access to Wake and FA is something that all vamps should and rightly have. I just feel that the new cost for Wake is significantly greater than it should and needs to be. This game is all about resource management. I am sure everyone can agree with that (I mean, I've heard that enough times on the NG). You have the choice of any of the following: * Leave minion untapped (which a great deal of the players frown upon) * Use FA * Use Wake The first means you don't do squat with the minion against your prey, which, again, most everyone agrees is not the best of options and is a very poor use of resources. The second allows you to still use your minion and try to block your predator, but burning a blood if you fail. Your resource utilization: minion to perform whatever action and 1 blood if you fail to block. The last, allows you to still use your minion and try to block your Predator. Your resource utilization: minion to perform whatever action and you lose a very valuable resource (a card in your hand) regardless of whether or not the block was successful. You are basically trading your minion's action for a card in your hand no matter what whereas with FA, you are trading \your minions action for *maybe* 1 blood from that minion. That adds up? Plus, the amount of time varies depending on who you attempt to block. You lose in the first instance, you don't really lose anything in the second instance and you lose in the last instance, maybe even more than in the first. For all the cries to make the game fair and balanced, I don't see how this is either. It may be better than what was in others' opinions, but I can hardly see how this can be considered 'fair'.

In article <sfwd4.19739$Jy4....@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >Blocking, however, is a *fundamental* part of the game that *all* >vampires do and should be able to do. They can, they do. They can stay untapped, they can use Forced Awakening, they can use Metro Underground, they can even use Wake with Evening's Freshness. No-one is stopping anyone doing anything. However, as one option, Animalism or being a Prince/Justicar allows you to do it better than a disciplineless card - which is just how it should be. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> writes: >But where do you draw the line at being *too* expensive? 1 blood >isn't *that* much of a cost when you compare it to going an entire turn >around the table with 1 less card in your hand.I mean, hell, you can get >the blood back for _free_ in many different ways. And I'm sorry, but >a card slot is worth significantly more than a blood on a vamp. I *strongly* disagree. Where that true, I would expect to see Elder Library used a hell of a lot more than it is. Again, it just depends on what your deck does. But I play around the whole table with 6 card hands all the time with some of my decks. I won't say it's not a disadvantage but I'm really confused by someone having this much angst over the concept. (Especially when, as others have pointed out, you only use Wake against your prey very rarely.) To be honest, even given the errata, I originally thought it was Forced Awakening that was the disadvantaged reaction card. I had to actually use them in some of my decks to discover they're not so bad. (Turned out, I overestimated how often blood actually got lost.) Perhaps you should do the same with Wakeys? Have you used them much since the errata? Even if so, you might want to work on "rediscovering them" deliberately in a few decks, just to see if you're not being a bit unfair. I've found such excersises will occasionally improve my game. >How is this right? The main 2 people who you should be worrying >about blocking are your Predator and your Prey. But for the *same >opportunity* (being able to block with your tapped minion) you: > >* Pay the least for Waking to block your Predator >* Pay most dearly for Waking to block your Prey >* Pay a constantly reducing cost to Wake to block those across table > from you. > >Why should it be that I end up paying less to block across table than >I do to block my prey, one of those who I should be targetting? Are you actually questioning such a thing? What difference does it make? It's just part of the game. Who said it shouldn't cost more to wake to block your prey than your predator? How did they figure out your prey should go before your predator and everyone else ANYWAY? Is that right? And who cares? It's just part of the game. All that matters is that the cards are balanced to one another. This kind of question may be a matter of taste in how the game should work. As such, it may be legitimate to question. But this point is so picky-uny (cost of waking to block predator vs. prey) that I have a hard time believe you really care either way. Forgive me if your concern is legitimate, but isn't this really just more ammo to lob at the errata for Wake? And if so, it's not very legitimate ammo because it says nothing about whether the errata is balanced or not. >No other card in the game has this kind of "revolving" cost. Forget cards, just the fact that a tapped minion can't be used to block but an untapped minion can, and the fact that you have to tap minions to block is the exact *opposite* effect. In short, you get to see what your prey does with his minions actions before you're allowed to see what your preditor does with his actions when making the decision to tap and block. At that, your ability to block your preditor was already lower than your ability to block your prey, since you have fewer futures actions to be concerned about in the former case. Shouldn't *that* be a concern, also? When did you ever object to *that* on this board?!? It's the same thing: not all blocks are created equal. Nor were they ever intended to be. Why are we worrying about - if not to just lob something unfair at the Wake errata? >My point is that the cost of Wake does not equal the cost of FA (and is >in fact significantly more expensive), which Wake was errata'd to bring more >in line with. They're different in terms of quality: one is more dependent on when it's used than the other. That, by itself, doesn't mean they're out of line with each other. It's a deckbuilding consideration, I guess - if you expect to block your prey more often, use FA. If you expect to block your predator more, you may want to use Wake, instead. Fred

On Fri, 7 Jan 2000 19:18:23 -0600, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >This game is all about resource management. I am sure >everyone can agree with that (I mean, I've heard that >enough times on the NG). You have the choice of any >of the following: oo! oo! I see where I can stick my nose in! >* Leave minion untapped > (which a great deal of the players frown upon) >* Use FA >* Use Wake > >The first means you don't do squat with the minion >against your prey, which, again, most everyone agrees >is not the best of options and is a very poor use of >resources. Not so! A good intercept deck will leave one or several minions untapped, so as to be able to block its prey's actions for minimal cost. If your prey chooses to Misdirect your minions, excellent! You have bled your prey! (And you know he's scared of you, since Misdirection backwards is kinda rare.) So, your prey takes actions, which you block with your untapped minions and do whatever you want in the resulting combats. You now have a bunch of tapped minions. Now burn your Wakes on your predator, and the card slot liability is minimal. If you are being hit cross-table politically, that makes it tough. You're going to have to be a deal-maker, because almost no deck can successfully handle two decks' offense and one deck's defense all at the same time. Ask him why he's coming across the table in the first place? It's usually pretty rare to have significant pool loss handed out from, say, your grand-prey - he should be trying to keep you in so you can pressure his predator and give him a free ride. >The second allows you to still use your minion and try >to block your predator, but burning a blood if you fail. >Your resource utilization: minion to perform whatever >action and 1 blood if you fail to block. Meaning that approximately 20-25 cards which were designed as "free" now cost 1 blood from a vampire. Telepathic COUNTER costs 1 blood now, even. That starts to add up real fast. Especially if you're Deflecting for 2 blood each time. I prefer to use the blood on my vamps for OFFENSIVE, not defensive purposes. FA is only suitable if you intend to be blocking a lot. >The last, allows you to still use your minion and try >to block your Predator. Your resource utilization: >minion to perform whatever action and you lose a very >valuable resource (a card in your hand) regardless of >whether or not the block was successful. You are This is my objection - the loss of one card in your hand is not as valuable as you think. If you have built your deck well, you will have a few defensive cards in hand already, so you Wake, play the cards, replace THOSE cards, and now are down to 6. In my experience, Wake is only a problem after you've already played 2 - finding the defensive card to go with the third Wake is tough with only 5 cards in hand. But this is a functional cost for a deck that surprise-untaps constantly. >basically trading your minion's action for a card in your >hand no matter what whereas with FA, you are trading >\your minions action for *maybe* 1 blood from that >minion. That adds up? Er, no, your minion has already TAKEN the action. You are trading a card in your hand for the chance to take an action AND stop your opponent. And yes, it adds up. Use FA instead of Wake when you're not going to block sometime and see how fast those guys run out. >Plus, the amount of time varies depending on who >you attempt to block. >You lose in the first instance, you don't really lose >anything in the second instance and you lose in the >last instance, maybe even more than in the first. For all >the cries to make the game fair and balanced, I don't >see how this is either. It may be better than what was >in others' opinions, but I can hardly see how this can >be considered 'fair'. What's wrong with it? If you're blocking a whole lot, you're an intercept deck and you're leaving minions untapped to begin with. If you're only blocking critical actions, you can deal with the one-card loss pretty easily. In your example from before, you cite a Flamethrower equip, a nasty vote, and something your predator does. (We're going to ignore that I'd probably let the Flamethrower go through, just because it's a bleed for 4. For some reason you need it blocked. Say, the vamp is Atoned and you have weenies. whatever.) You stop the Flamethrower, and hopefully kill the vamp. Excellent result, with future implications - you can get your bleeds in safely. Cost: 1 card in hand for your predator's turn. You deal-make the vote, and just absorb the damage if you can't - I don't see actually burning Eagle's Sight for that unless you are *really* hurting. Odds are, your predator can do worse to you than whatever's coming cross-table, so you probably don't want to risk the slot. This balances because you rarely ever NEED to block cross-table. Now, you stop your predator's worst-looking action, and maybe even a third just-bad-looking action if you have the cards for it. No problem for the first two, probably only small problems for the third. If you're blocking this much, we assume your deck was designed for it... otherwise, why are you panic-blocking this much? -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

> >Blocking, however, is a *fundamental* part of the game that *all* > >vampires do and should be able to do. > They can, they do. They can stay untapped, they can use Forced > Awakening, they can use Metro Underground, they can even use Wake with > Evening's Freshness. > No-one is stopping anyone doing anything. No, but the decision whether or not to use Wake over FA (or vice versa) is practically being made for you. A card slot is worth more than a blood no matter how you look at it. > However, as one option, Animalism or being a Prince/Justicar allows you > to do it better than a disciplineless card - which is just how it should be. But FA is by far better than Wake (now) and is just as abusable. Is that how it should be, too? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >This game is all about resource management. I am sure > >everyone can agree with that (I mean, I've heard that > >enough times on the NG). You have the choice of any > >of the following: > oo! oo! I see where I can stick my nose in! Then please do. :p > >The first means you don't do squat with the minion > >against your prey, which, again, most everyone agrees > >is not the best of options and is a very poor use of > >resources. > Not so! A good intercept deck will leave one or several minions > untapped, so as to be able to block its prey's actions for minimal > cost. Minor exception. > If your prey chooses to Misdirect your minions, excellent! You > have bled your prey! (And you know he's scared of you, since > Misdirection backwards is kinda rare.) So, your prey takes actions, > which you block with your untapped minions and do whatever you want in > the resulting combats. You now have a bunch of tapped minions. Now > burn your Wakes on your predator, and the card slot liability is > minimal. But unless you are a dedicated intercept deck, this is a poor use of resources. There are a considerable number of decks that make use of casual intercept and these types of decks cannot afford to just leave their minions untapped. > If you are being hit cross-table politically, that makes it tough. > You're going to have to be a deal-maker, because almost no deck can > successfully handle two decks' offense and one deck's defense all at > the same time. Ask him why he's coming across the table in the first > place? It's usually pretty rare to have significant pool loss handed > out from, say, your grand-prey - he should be trying to keep you in so > you can pressure his predator and give him a free ride. I am not discussing strategy. Every strategy has a different tactic, etc. I understand that you have to be a deal maker. This is the case with just about any and is part of the nature of the game. What I am discussing is the _cost_ of the new Wake and how it is not in line with the cost of FA and how it is both unfair and overcosted. > >The last, allows you to still use your minion and try > >to block your Predator. Your resource utilization: > >minion to perform whatever action and you lose a very > >valuable resource (a card in your hand) regardless of > >whether or not the block was successful. You are > This is my objection - the loss of one card in your hand is not as > valuable as you think. But it is. That's why Elder Library costs a pool. And why Agressive Tactics, which is another card that reduces a players hand size, costs 2 pool. Using the same point I'm going to make in another post, so since you think that a card slot isn't that valuable, you wouldn't mind playing the game with 5 cards in your hand instead of 7? I mean, hey, those slots aren't that valuable. Or if I played a couple of Agressive Tactics against you, you wouldn't bother trying to burn it because those cards aren't valueable and as such you don't need them... > If you have built your deck well, you will > have a few defensive cards in hand already, so you Wake, play the > cards, replace THOSE cards, and now are down to 6. You are still losing the slot... > In my experience, Wake is only a problem after you've already > played 2 - finding the defensive card to go with the third Wake is > tough with only 5 cards in hand. But this is a functional cost for a > deck that surprise-untaps constantly. But you get the same thing with FA for not even a fraction of the cost. And your opinion that Wake is a problem after already playing X is part of my point. Why should it ever be a problem at all. > >basically trading your minion's action for a card in your > >hand no matter what whereas with FA, you are trading > >\your minions action for *maybe* 1 blood from that > >minion. That adds up? > Er, no, your minion has already TAKEN the action. You are trading a > card in your hand for the chance to take an action AND stop your > opponent. This what I said. And it's the *chance* to stop your opponend. If I was able to trade a card slot in my had to stop the opponent every time, I'd take it every time. But the costs of failure and success for both FA and Wake are not in line. At all. > And yes, it adds up. Use FA instead of Wake when you're > not going to block sometime and see how fast those guys run out. I'd rather have an empty vamp than an empty hand. Further, you can continue to dump the FAs even after your vamp has run out of blood whereas you can't dump anything when you haven't a hand. [snip strategy] Again, I'm not arguing strategy. Those could have been any examples at all. I just used them to illustrate the fact that the cost of Wake varies with who you block and how that is not fair, is unprecedented and is overcosted. > Now, you stop your predator's worst-looking action, and maybe even a > third just-bad-looking action if you have the cards for it. No > problem for the first two, probably only small problems for the third. > If you're blocking this much, we assume your deck was designed for > it... otherwise, why are you panic-blocking this much? You seem to be summarily dismissing the large number of decks that have and use casual intercept (such as KRCG and Sports Bike) and/or casual blocking -- not every deck is full scale offense or full scale defense. These kinds of decks are more proactive but also have an element of defense. They are using this defense against both their predator and their prey to make sure their position isn't hurt that bad. Now, because they used a Wake on their prey's turn, they put themselves in a bit worse position against their predator. If they do it again, even more in the hole against their predator as their predator is slowly gaining more offenseive ability to their defensive ability (he has 7 cards in his hand vs. your 6 or 5 or 4 or whatever). But how often you block is not the point. Whether you include 1, 4, 8, 12, 20 or 90 is not the point. The point is the fact that Wake is now way overcosted. Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

Sorrow wrote: > No, but the decision whether or not to use Wake over FA (or vice versa) > is practically being made for you. A card slot is worth more than a blood > no matter how you look at it. In <t2Ke4.12688$Ce.2...@monger.newsread.com>, you say that "This [use WwEF on small vamps and FA on big ones] is what you are you are *forced* to do". That's at least one way of looking at it that doesn't support your statement above. I certainly have seen many instances where the card slot was less valuable than vampire blood - supported by the fact that WwEF is still being used (in tournaments as well as casual play) over Forced Awakening, even when both are available during deck construction. > > However, as one option, Animalism or being a Prince/Justicar allows you > > to do it better than a disciplineless card - which is just how it should > be. > > But FA is by far better than Wake (now) and is just as abusable [as the > unerrata'ed Wake]. Is that how it should be, too? It is not far better than Wake (now), nor is it as abusable as the unerrata'ed wake. It is probably still higher on the effect/cost ladder than it should be, but probably not enough to warrant errata (given the data gathered at tournaments, on the newsgroup, and in various playgroups around the world) -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) V:TES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/rules.asp

> >But where do you draw the line at being *too* expensive? 1 blood > >isn't *that* much of a cost when you compare it to going an entire turn > >around the table with 1 less card in your hand.I mean, hell, you can get > >the blood back for _free_ in many different ways. And I'm sorry, but > >a card slot is worth significantly more than a blood on a vamp. > I *strongly* disagree. Where that true, I would expect to see Elder > Library used a hell of a lot more than it is. I do see it used pretty often. I'll make this point again: a card slot is worth enough to make the cost of Elder Library (something that allows you to have another card in your hand) 1 pool and the cost of Aggressive Tactics (a card that *takes away* a card slot) 2 pool. So since you disagree that a card slot has any worth, then, as I mentioned in another post, you wouldn't mind playing the game with 5 cards in your hand to my 7? Or that you won't bother burning the Aggressive Tactics that are played against you? Again, it just depends on what your deck does. But I play around the > whole table with 6 card hands all the time with some of my decks. I > won't say it's not a disadvantage But you are. Your predator has 7 cards to your 6 (or fewer). S/he has more offensive options than you have defensive options. > but I'm really confused by someone having this much angst over the > concept. I'll tell you why: * This sets a precedent which is bad (varying cost) * It is frustrating to me to see the kind of hypocrisy I am seeing. For all the cries of cards being unfair with regards to power v. cost, everyone is just overlooking the fact that this card has been changed to be overcosted -- it didn't start out that way like other cards in the set, it was made to be that way. Why not change Govern to cost 2 blood? Or Sudden Reversal cost 3 pool? > (Especially when, as others have pointed out, you only use Wake > against your prey very rarely.) But you still use it so why should it have a different cost in that kind of situation. > To be honest, even given the errata, I originally thought it was Forced > Awakening that was the disadvantaged reaction card. I had to actually use > them in some of my decks to discover they're not so bad. (Turned out, I > overestimated how often blood actually got lost.) Perhaps you should do > the same with Wakeys? I have played with Wake. Alot. And I've also used FA even before the errata was issued so I know the utility of both of the cards. But I found that post-errata Wake to be unfairly overcosted and nowhere near in line with FA as it was meant to be. > Have you used them much since the errata? Even if so, you might want > to work on "rediscovering them" deliberately in a few decks, just to see > if you're not being a bit unfair. I have. I've used both cards in different decks for the last year and a half. Before, I thought that Wake was overcosted. Now I am certain of it. > >Why should it be that I end up paying less to block across table than > >I do to block my prey, one of those who I should be targetting? > > Are you actually questioning such a thing? Yes. > What difference does it make? Alot > Who said it shouldn't cost more to wake to block your prey than > your predator? Why is it that it doesn't cost more to FA to block your prey than it does your predator? They both do the same thing and are both disciplineless. Cards that do basically the same thing should have basically the same cost. It is this way with just about the rest of the entire set. All HGs cost 2 pool. All Arcane Library type cards cost 2 pool, etc. Wake is overcosted when compared to Wake. > All that matters is that the cards are balanced to one another. Because Wake is overcosted, FA and Wake are not balanced. > of question may be a matter of taste in how the game should work. As such, > it may be legitimate to question. But this point is so picky-uny (cost of > waking to block predator vs. prey) that I have a hard time believe you > really care either way. I do. See above as to why. > Forgive me if your concern is legitimate, but isn't > this really just more ammo to lob at the errata for Wake? How so? > And if so, it's not very legitimate ammo because it says nothing > about whether the errata is balanced or not. It is not because it is overcosted. > >No other card in the game has this kind of "revolving" cost. > Forget cards, just the fact that a tapped minion can't be used to block > but an untapped minion can, and the fact that you have to tap minions to > block is the exact *opposite* effect. In short, you get to see what your > prey does with his minions actions before you're allowed to see what your > preditor does with his actions when making the decision to tap and block. > At that, your ability to block your preditor was already lower than your > ability to block your prey, since you have fewer futures actions to be > concerned about in the former case. Shouldn't *that* be a concern, also? I've read this a couple of times and I'm not sure I'm seeing your point. > not all blocks are created equal. Nor were they ever intended to be. This is true. Blocking a bleed of 6 is not the same as blocking a Hunt. But blocking the same action with a Wake costs more than it does with a FA, even though they both do the exact same thing. > >My point is that the cost of Wake does not equal the cost of FA (and is > >in fact significantly more expensive), which Wake was errata'd to bring more > >in line with. > They're different in terms of quality: one is more dependent on when it's > used than the other. I believe this is not the case with any other cards in the set with similar functions. Though a great number of people cry balance v. other cards in the set, Wake is not, with regards to cost, v. FA. > with each other. It's a deckbuilding consideration, I guess - if you expect > to block your prey more often, use FA. If you expect to block your predator > more, you may want to use Wake, instead. So if there was a card that did the exact same thing that Govern the Unaligned did, it had no cost but made it so that your hand size was reduced for a turn, you would consider that balanced and fair with regards to cost v. power when compared with Govern? [ quoted text not captured ]

> AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card > for ages trying to figure it out. Looked like a free discard for your > oppenent to me. I never thought about stacking the suckers. Glory > halelujah! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! > > Now, what other hints can I get for building a "Raptor deck"? :-} > > Fred Be able to intercept or Direct Intervention a Shepherds Innocence as it will beat the crap out of you. Mike

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:51:57 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> >The first means you don't do squat with the minion >> >against your prey, which, again, most everyone agrees >> >is not the best of options and is a very poor use of >> >resources. >> Not so! A good intercept deck will leave one or several minions >> untapped, so as to be able to block its prey's actions for minimal >> cost. > >Minor exception. Hm, I don't think so, actually. If I have ANY sort of intercept in my deck and intend to attempt to block one of my prey's actions, (even if it be a KRCG or a minion with a Sport Bike), i will leave one guy untapped to serve as the prey-interceptor. This serves as sending a warning to my prey, and hopefully causes him to alter his strategy sharply as a result, giving me more benefit than merely untapping and surprise-blocking him. >> If your prey chooses to Misdirect your minions, excellent! You >> have bled your prey! (And you know he's scared of you, since >> Misdirection backwards is kinda rare.) So, your prey takes actions, >> which you block with your untapped minions and do whatever you want in >> the resulting combats. You now have a bunch of tapped minions. Now >> burn your Wakes on your predator, and the card slot liability is >> minimal. > >But unless you are a dedicated intercept deck, this is a poor use of >resources. There are a considerable number of decks that make use >of casual intercept and these types of decks cannot afford to just >leave their minions untapped. Not all of them, no. BJ plays a Brujah sport bike/KRCG/ass-beating deck, and typically he takes several actions (rush, bleed, nose-pick) and then leaves one guy untapped to do the intercepty things. If his prey does nothing worth intercepting, he has a free guy to stop his predator, who will ALWAYS do something worth intercepting. If he DOES pick on his prey a bit, then he doesn't have to waste an untap card, for whatever cost. Keep in mind we see between zero-stealth and six-stealth decks around here, almost completely at random, so FA is NOT an immediate benefit for his deck - and it works just fine with Wakes in it. >I am not discussing strategy. Every strategy has a different tactic, etc. >I understand that you have to be a deal maker. This is the case with >just about any and is part of the nature of the game. What I am discussing >is the _cost_ of the new Wake and how it is not in line with the cost >of FA and how it is both unfair and overcosted. Wake costs a card slot in your hand until your untap. FA costs a blood off a vampire if you fail to block (which is not as uncommon as you think - stealth was designed to be easier to gain than intercept), OR if you need to cycle the card, OR if you play a non-blocking reaction card. Non-blocking reaction cards are VERY common - there are over 20 of them. These seem balanced. >But it is. That's why Elder Library costs a pool. And why But Elder Library takes a back seat to the Barrens and Fragment of the Book of Nod and Dreams of the Sphincter, in almost every deck. I submit that a card in hand is valued at less than a pool. >Agressive Tactics, which is another card that reduces a players >hand size, costs 2 pool. Using the same point I'm going to make This card FORCIBLY reduces a player's hand size, making him discard/waste a card that is probably useful to him. Raptors also do this, and after multiple incarnations of Raptor decks locally, we figured out the following table: - 1 Raptor is a benefit to whomever you are fighting. One free discard is great, and six cards is just not a big problem. - 2 Raptors are a nuisance, but you can function with it. - 3 or more Raptors suck all kinds of ass to EVER have to fight. This is based on a LOT of game-experience playing short a card slot or two - we found that most decks always seem to have a less than 100% perfect hand. Six cards, TEMPORARILY, is just no big deal if you've built the deck well. Six cards 'til your untap is no big deal as long as you see it coming. >in another post, so since you think that a card slot isn't that >valuable, you wouldn't mind playing the game with 5 cards in >your hand instead of 7? I mean, hey, those slots aren't that this is, of course, an exaggeration. 5 cards permanently would put you at a significant disadvantage, and so would 6. But we are discussing a temporary disadvantage, not a permanent one. >valuable. Or if I played a couple of Agressive Tactics against >you, you wouldn't bother trying to burn it because those cards >aren't valueable and as such you don't need them... Again, a permanent disadvantage, not a temporary one. But if you lobbed out one, I might consider whether to waste my time going after it, since you obviously have a heavy intercept deck to back up the AT's - why give your deck an opportunity to do what it does well? >> If you have built your deck well, you will >> have a few defensive cards in hand already, so you Wake, play the >> cards, replace THOSE cards, and now are down to 6. > >You are still losing the slot... Minor. The defensive bonus that Wake has provided is generally on the order of 2-3 pool - I assume that the basic action most people will Wake and deal with is a bleed for 2 or 3, or a KRC for 3, or Waking to block a Rush action (varies, but vampires are certainly more than 3 pool). Even if I accept your assumption above that a card slot is worth 1 pool, you are still at a benefit in the exchange - and I don't accept that assumption. Think of it this way - currently, Wake is a primarily defensive card. It serves its purpose best when used with Deflections, TC's, Delaying Tactics, and intercepting things your predator does. FA is a primarily OFFENSIVE card - you MUST intercept for it to work properly, which rules out Deflections, TC's, etc., because blood on vamps is a Good Thing. It turns into Govern the Unaligneds, Legal Manipulations, Minion Taps, Fifth Traditions... even Earth Controls. You name it. >> In my experience, Wake is only a problem after you've already >> played 2 - finding the defensive card to go with the third Wake is >> tough with only 5 cards in hand. But this is a functional cost for a >> deck that surprise-untaps constantly. > >But you get the same thing with FA for not even a fraction of the >cost. And your opinion that Wake is a problem after already >playing X is part of my point. Why should it ever be a problem >at all. Because it needs to have SOME cost, of course. A crazy-untap deck that can also do all sorts of other things is at an advantage unless there is a cost to its crazy-untapness. One untap is no biggie. Two untaps is a mediumie. Three untaps is a deck that is taking multiple actions AND multiply untapping - doing a LOT of offense and defense. That needs to have some cost. >> >basically trading your minion's action for a card in your >> >hand no matter what whereas with FA, you are trading >> >\your minions action for *maybe* 1 blood from that >> >minion. That adds up? >> Er, no, your minion has already TAKEN the action. You are trading a >> card in your hand for the chance to take an action AND stop your >> opponent. > >This what I said. And it's the *chance* to stop your opponend. >If I was able to trade a card slot in my had to stop the opponent >every time, I'd take it every time. But the costs of failure and >success for both FA and Wake are not in line. At all. Cost of success for Wake: 1 card slot less. Cost of failure for Wake: 1 card slot less, feeling of humiliation. Cost of Deflecting with Wake: 1 card slot, 1 blood from a vamp. Cost of success for FA: diddly Cost of failure for FA: 1 blood from a vamp, feeling of humiliation. Cost of Deflecting with FA: 2 blood from a vamp (ow!) I'm sorry, these seem balanced. (ok, ignore the humiliation bit, just a humor break.) Note that Gloria Giovanni, one of the most common Deflectors and nasty bleeders in the game, can now only bounce bleeds twice, and you can be certain that someone is going to be intercepting her hunt. I think you're underestimating the value of vampire blood, myself. >> And yes, it adds up. Use FA instead of Wake when you're >> not going to block sometime and see how fast those guys run out. > >I'd rather have an empty vamp than an empty hand. Further, you can >continue to dump the FAs even after your vamp has run out of blood >whereas you can't dump anything when you haven't a hand. Who exactly DO you play with that lets these empty vampires survive so well? =) and how do these empty vampires fit into your play strategy? Empty vamps around here are torpor-bait, XTC laced blood bait, Cryptic Mission/Soc Leopold bait... you name it. >[snip strategy] >Again, I'm not arguing strategy. Those could have been any >examples at all. I just used them to illustrate the fact that the >cost of Wake varies with who you block and how that is not >fair, is unprecedented and is overcosted. You have ACTIONS to take against your prey in the normal course of events. Being able to do double damage to your prey (take actions against him, then wake to stop all his) is very powerful, and requires a powerful cost. Being able to stop your predator is expected of all decks, and your predator almost certainly expects at least ONE wake to be in your hand. Your prey may not have prepared for this sort of thing. It is not overcosted. >You seem to be summarily dismissing the large number of decks that >have and use casual intercept (such as KRCG and Sports Bike) and/or >casual blocking -- not every deck is full scale offense or full scale >defense. Actually, I am to some degree. If I just have a KRCG and Rumor Mill in my deck, I am hoping to either (a) sell the intercept, or (b) have it handy for that One Time i need it to keep from being ousted. No, not every deck is full-scale offense or defense, but those are the most common at tournaments, and most "get away with it" decks have ways around light intercept. Other decks are set up to ignore light intercept or beat the hell out of anyone stopping them. >These kinds of decks are more proactive but also have an element of >defense. They are using this defense against both their predator and their >prey to make sure their position isn't hurt that bad. Now, because they >used a Wake on their prey's turn, they put themselves in a bit worse >position against their predator. If they do it again, even more in the hole >against their predator as their predator is slowly gaining more offenseive >ability to their defensive ability (he has 7 cards in his hand vs. your 6 or >5 or 4 or whatever). But how often you block is not the point. Whether >you include 1, 4, 8, 12, 20 or 90 is not the point. The point is the fact >that Wake is now way overcosted. But it's not. Why should you be able to block your prey and predator for free? You take actions against your prey, you block your predator's actions against you. That is the basic game mechanic. When you disrupt it to block your prey's actions as well, there needs to be a cost. Wake has it. So does FA. [ quoted text not captured ]

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek S. Ray) writes: >Raptors also do this, and after multiple incarnations of Raptor decks >locally, we figured out the following table: > >- 1 Raptor is a benefit to whomever you are fighting. One free >discard is great, and six cards is just not a big problem. >- 2 Raptors are a nuisance, but you can function with it. >- 3 or more Raptors suck all kinds of ass to EVER have to fight. > >This is based on a LOT of game-experience playing short a card slot or >two - we found that most decks always seem to have a less than 100% >perfect hand. Six cards, TEMPORARILY, is just no big deal if you've >built the deck well. Six cards 'til your untap is no big deal as long >as you see it coming. AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card [ quoted text not captured ]

"Cult Fiction Comics" <bh9...@semovm.semo.edu> writes: > >> AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card >> for ages trying to figure it out. Looked like a free discard for your >> oppenent to me. I never thought about stacking the suckers. Glory >> halelujah! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! >> >> Now, what other hints can I get for building a "Raptor deck"? :-} >> >> Fred > >Be able to intercept or Direct Intervention a Shepherds Innocence as it will >beat the crap out of you. Or play with them yourself? Seems like one of those hose cards that if anyone plays it while you're using animalism retainers, you're just screwed on the metagame. But how often would you expect another player to be using such things? I'm actually a lot more scared of Mariel, Lady Thunder. ("THAT'S IT LADY, I'M CALLING THE SPCA!!!....my poor birds...") Fred

On 12 Jan 2000 00:57:12 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: > > >lor...@yahoo.com (Derek S. Ray) writes: > >>Raptors also do this, and after multiple incarnations of Raptor decks >>locally, we figured out the following table: >> >>- 1 Raptor is a benefit to whomever you are fighting. One free >>discard is great, and six cards is just not a big problem. >>- 2 Raptors are a nuisance, but you can function with it. >>- 3 or more Raptors suck all kinds of ass to EVER have to fight. >> >>This is based on a LOT of game-experience playing short a card slot or >>two - we found that most decks always seem to have a less than 100% >>perfect hand. Six cards, TEMPORARILY, is just no big deal if you've >>built the deck well. Six cards 'til your untap is no big deal as long >>as you see it coming. > >AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card >for ages trying to figure it out. Looked like a free discard for your >oppenent to me. I never thought about stacking the suckers. Glory >halelujah! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! > >Now, what other hints can I get for building a "Raptor deck"? :-} > >Fred Just the usual stuff for the raptor deck ie lots of animalism and hiedelberg, Blaze Calebos are the usual suspects with much dodging and blurs with those vital tastes at the end so you can afford the next raptor, and just enough sneak to get the raptors and owl companions....just for the record our in house record is 6 raptors on Blaze followed up by 6 different combats (pysche) a grand total of 36 cards down the drain..mmmmm... Regards, Steve

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 21:29:03 -0600, "Cult Fiction Comics" <bh9...@semovm.semo.edu> wrote: > >> AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card >> for ages trying to figure it out. Looked like a free discard for your >> oppenent to me. I never thought about stacking the suckers. Glory >> halelujah! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! >> >> Now, what other hints can I get for building a "Raptor deck"? :-} >> >> Fred > >Be able to intercept or Direct Intervention a Shepherds Innocence as it will >beat the crap out of you. > >Mike > > Why not just put one or two in for yourself, if the other guy isplaying with Shepherds INN, then he will be playing with other animalism cards and you can just get them all back, besides Raptors give you 1 intercept each, by the time you have 2 or 3 it is pretty hard to get by... Regards,

LSJ wrote: > > It is probably still higher on the effect/cost ladder than it should be, > but probably not enough to warrant errata (given the data gathered at > tournaments, on the newsgroup, and in various playgroups around the world) > Looks like this argument will take Jyhad down the road of Magic the gathering, where every card needs to be BALANCED. Or at least have the appearance of being balanced. Does all these changes invaidate all the tournements played in the past. Do those player now get to be considered second class, because their victories where with cards that had not yet been watered down? All those articles writen on how to use certain cards, kaput! drive on, water down, suck it up. Raille.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > But it's not. Why should you be able to block your prey and predator > for free? You take actions against your prey, you block your > predator's actions against you. That is the basic game mechanic. > When you disrupt it to block your prey's actions as well, there needs > to be a cost. Wake has it. So does FA. > > -- Derek Its never free. You have only 90 card slots then your out of the game. Sabbat forced withdrawal rule. That is another cost to free discards. In the complete fantasy game where my predator has 8 weenies, I get about 15 turns of waking and blocking with my massive 90 WWeF deck, then regardless of what happens to all those bleeds I withdraw. That is the cost of freely cycling cards, perhaps this should be changed too? Anyhow, I have not seen any reason to change the way I'm playing, so I will continue to play Wake the old way. If you stop in to play, Its my house and my house rules. Raille.

Raille wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > It is probably still higher on the effect/cost ladder than it should be, > > but probably not enough to warrant errata (given the data gathered at > > tournaments, on the newsgroup, and in various playgroups around the world) > > Looks like this argument will take Jyhad down the road of Magic the > gathering, where every card needs to be BALANCED. Or at least have the > appearance of being balanced. That is the idea for V:TES (not to be like Magic, that is, but rather to have a balanced set of cards - as was the initial idea with Jyhad - unlike Magic). If this was meant as a cut, I don't see it. > Does all these changes invaidate all the tournements played in the past. > Do those player now get to be considered second class, because their > victories where with cards that had not yet been watered down? > > All those articles writen on how to use certain cards, kaput! > > drive on, water down, suck it up. Just to be clear: some cards are so overpowered that not "watering them down" would "water down" the game (esp. in the tournament scene) by discouraging variety - since use of the "power" card (or the power card's counter) would be necessary for winning. That had been the case with WwEF - most "competitive" decks relied on it - they had to in order to be competitive. Some cards, while more powerful than others, are not so powerful as to discourage variety. Such is the case with Forced Awakening. So such cards are not "watered down". If, before the "watering down", a player used WwEF, then of course she is not to be considered "second class". She it to be commended for discerning the best resources in the game and using them to their full effect (as well as for bringing the overpowered/undercosted cards to the spotlight). Marking players who use certain cards or strategies as "second class" is the type of "social errata" that some groups rely on to maintain "balance". The RT seeks to avoid relying on or using such tactics (by ensuring that the game itself is balanced under the rules). [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <490A8EB4D99AE11E.9FF4E8B6...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek S. Ray) wrote: <snip> > This card FORCIBLY reduces a player's hand size, making him > discard/waste a card that is probably useful to him. Raptors also do > this, and after multiple incarnations of Raptor decks locally, we > figured out the following table: > > - 1 Raptor is a benefit to whomever you are fighting. One free > discard is great, and six cards is just not a big problem. > - 2 Raptors are a nuisance, but you can function with it. > - 3 or more Raptors suck all kinds of ass to EVER have to fight. > This summary of the Raptors was great. I was nearly on the floor. > This is based on a LOT of game-experience playing short a card slot or > two - we found that most decks always seem to have a less than 100% > perfect hand. Six cards, TEMPORARILY, is just no big deal if you've > built the deck well. Six cards 'til your untap is no big deal as long > as you see it coming. > While I do agree with being down to six card is not a major deal in a combat situation. Being down any amount of cards until your turn is not the ideal situation most people enjoy being in. Sometimes it doesn't matter as much based upon who and what you have as your predator. I can see where the point of the conflict is on the WweF is at as I felt the same way when I initially restarted Jyhad after my move. It never sounded quite right that you would have to leave (through reduced hand size) yourself vulnerable to interfer with your prey more than against your predator. But with the shift of the paradigm, so to did my decks to compensate with the temporary vulnerability. <snip> > > > >This what I said. And it's the *chance* to stop your opponend. > >If I was able to trade a card slot in my had to stop the opponent > >every time, I'd take it every time. But the costs of failure and > >success for both FA and Wake are not in line. At all. > > Cost of success for Wake: 1 card slot less. > Cost of failure for Wake: 1 card slot less, feeling of humiliation. > Cost of Deflecting with Wake: 1 card slot, 1 blood from a vamp. > Cost of success for FA: diddly > Cost of failure for FA: 1 blood from a vamp, feeling of humiliation. > Cost of Deflecting with FA: 2 blood from a vamp (ow!) > > I'm sorry, these seem balanced. (ok, ignore the humiliation bit, just > a humor break) Thanks for the humor break and the breakdown. :) This breakdown actually helps provide a good overview. Success w/Wake -> 1 less card slot Failure w/Wake -> 1 less card slot, feeling humiliation Deflect w/Wake -> 1 less card slot, 1 blood from minion Success w/FA -> Nothing Failure w/FA -> 1 blood from minion, feeling humiliation Deflect w/FA -> 2 blood from minion A balance exists with the Deflection and the Failure, but in the Success it doesn't. You are still down a card slot. Sure you blocked an action but the price is carried over until your next untap no matter when you did the Wake. With FA, you have no price to pay for Success. I understand the errata was made to give Wake a cost balance on par with all the other cards while keeping it simple, but I have seen other errata used to balance cards that were not simple. I can see the Wake becoming identical to the FA (cost-wise) if the block action is successful replace card after combat, but if you fail then don't replace until next untap. However, this may be too complicated from what I have heard. <shrug> My 2 pool. Michael Eichler Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On 12 Jan 2000 04:01:02 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) wrote: >>> AhHA! So *that's* how you use Raptors! I've been looking at this card >>> for ages trying to figure it out. Looked like a free discard for your >>> oppenent to me. I never thought about stacking the suckers. Glory >>> halelujah! Thankyou thankyou thankyou! >>> >>> Now, what other hints can I get for building a "Raptor deck"? :-} >>> >>> Fred >> >>Be able to intercept or Direct Intervention a Shepherds Innocence as it will >>beat the crap out of you. > >Or play with them yourself? Well, yeah. Otherwise, how will you get all the Raptors on one guy? It's much faster to recruit three Raptors and then Shepherd them all onto one vamp, than to have one vamp stall and recruit three Raptors for three turns. (expensive for that one vampire, too.) Someone else HAPPENS to be playing with Shepherd's? Fine - just take them back on your own turn. =) >Seems like one of those hose cards that if anyone plays it while you're >using animalism retainers, you're just screwed on the metagame. But how >often would you expect another player to be using such things? > >I'm actually a lot more scared of Mariel, Lady Thunder. ("THAT'S IT LADY, >I'M CALLING THE SPCA!!!....my poor birds...") Weather Control, baby. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:33:24 -0500, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> But it's not. Why should you be able to block your prey and predator >> for free? You take actions against your prey, you block your >> predator's actions against you. That is the basic game mechanic. >> When you disrupt it to block your prey's actions as well, there needs >> to be a cost. Wake has it. So does FA. >> >> -- Derek > >Its never free. You have only 90 card slots then your out of the game. >Sabbat forced withdrawal rule. That is another cost to free discards. There is no forced withdrawal rule in DCI tournaments. And frankly, I haven't seen a deck run out of cards very often at ALL in our playgroup, OR at our tournaments. >Anyhow, I have not seen any reason to change the way I'm playing, so I >will continue to play Wake the old way. If you stop in to play, Its my >house and my house rules. (shrug) If you stop in at a DCI tourney, it will be under errata. If you can't see the flaws with it, try playing a Malk obf/dom offense, wake/aus defense deck. Moves forward fast, very difficult to do much to. Or use the Ventrue Anti - they don't bleed as well, but they have Fortitude so they survive a lot longer. With FA, they have to be careful. With unerrata'd Wake, you can just pull cards as you need them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:29:00 GMT, ramst...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article ><490A8EB4D99AE11E.9FF4E8B6...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek S. Ray) wrote: ><snip> >> This card FORCIBLY reduces a player's hand size, making him >> discard/waste a card that is probably useful to him. Raptors also do >> this, and after multiple incarnations of Raptor decks locally, we >> figured out the following table: >> >> - 1 Raptor is a benefit to whomever you are fighting. One free >> discard is great, and six cards is just not a big problem. >> - 2 Raptors are a nuisance, but you can function with it. >> - 3 or more Raptors suck all kinds of ass to EVER have to fight. >> >This summary of the Raptors was great. I was nearly on the floor. Heh. Thanks. It's really annoying, too - you look at your hand and say 'Damn. I have to pick either THESE cards to survive the combat, or THESE cards to kill my prey next turn.' *grumble, grumble* >> This is based on a LOT of game-experience playing short a card slot or >> two - we found that most decks always seem to have a less than 100% >> perfect hand. Six cards, TEMPORARILY, is just no big deal if you've >> built the deck well. Six cards 'til your untap is no big deal as long >> as you see it coming. >> >While I do agree with being down to six card is not a major deal in a >combat situation. Being down any amount of cards until your turn is >not the ideal situation most people enjoy being in. Sometimes it >doesn't matter as much based upon who and what you have as your >predator. Right, it's not ideal. That's the cost. =) If you know what your predator is likely to throw at you (Ozmo is out), then you can assess the situation appropriately - in this case, you know that you must locate a Deflection before Ozmo takes an action or you are going to eat 6. If you have no Deflection, you will immediately go fishing for one. Being down any amount of cards in this situation is mildly annoying, but not half as annoying as eating 6. >I can see where the point of the conflict is on the WweF is at as I >felt the same way when I initially restarted Jyhad after my move. It >never sounded quite right that you would have to leave (through reduced >hand size) yourself vulnerable to interfer with your prey more than >against your predator. But with the shift of the paradigm, so to did >my decks to compensate with the temporary vulnerability. Yep. Most people's have. I refer back to my post - you take actions against your prey, and defend against your predator. When you defend against your prey as well, you are unbalancing the game in your favor, so there needs to be a cost for it, since it's very powerful. >Success w/Wake -> 1 less card slot >Failure w/Wake -> 1 less card slot, feeling humiliation >Deflect w/Wake -> 1 less card slot, 1 blood from minion >Success w/FA -> Nothing >Failure w/FA -> 1 blood from minion, feeling humiliation >Deflect w/FA -> 2 blood from minion > >A balance exists with the Deflection and the Failure, but in the >Success it doesn't. You are still down a card slot. Sure you blocked >an action but the price is carried over until your next untap no matter >when you did the Wake. With FA, you have no price to pay for Success. well... I consider 2 vampire blood a LOT, since the average vamp size is probably 4 or so.. I think Wake is cheaper to use if you're non-blocking, and that balances out the fact that FA has no cost if you successfully block. Also, note that the Success and Failure are exactly the same for Wake, while for FA you start to seriously pay for being outstealthed. And again, stealth is easier to come by than intercept. >I understand the errata was made to give Wake a cost balance on par >with all the other cards while keeping it simple, but I have seen other >errata used to balance cards that were not simple. I can see the Wake >becoming identical to the FA (cost-wise) if the block action is >successful replace card after combat, but if you fail then don't >replace until next untap. However, this may be too complicated from >what I have heard. <shrug> True - but I think most of the other cards were significantly more rare. Wake is sufficiently common as to be, well, common. It tends to put an appearance in for most decks. It HAS to be a simple errata, no matter what. :/ Current errata, you say "instead of combat, read 'next untap'." That's quick to remember for new players. A more complicated errata... ick. [ quoted text not captured ]

rai...@mich.com writes: >LSJ wrote: >> >> It is probably still higher on the effect/cost ladder than it should be, >> but probably not enough to warrant errata (given the data gathered at >> tournaments, on the newsgroup, and in various playgroups around the world) >> > >Looks like this argument will take Jyhad down the road of Magic the >gathering, where every card needs to be BALANCED. Or at least have the >appearance of being balanced. Of course ever card should be balanced - unless you're relying on some sort of card limits on the good cards, like restricted cards in T1 DCI Magic construction rules. This opens the game to an additional luck factor but some folks like that, I'm told. Otherwise, imbalance just means people use mostly just the powerful cards, which to me is boring and a waste of cardboard for the weaker cards. Of course you try to balance cards. The only constroversial issues are how far you go in pursuit of balance and how much balance do you actually need. If you can get your balance before you print the cards, that's best. Errataing cards causes problem distributing the errata and getting all the players to respect the errata - or respect WotC's errata vs. their own house rules solving the same balance problem then like better. As for how much you really need, I think if all the different cards ever printed play a moderate to major role in some reasonable deck archetype (note that it's not necessary for a card to be present in a deck in large numbers to play major role) and none of them are basically obselesced (made into wallpaper) by another card, then you've done a great job. Most CCGs have so many different cards printed that it's practically impossible to do this. But if you're going to slip up, slip up by printing a few bad, underpowered cards compared to the lot. It's the ones that are distinctly overpowered that kill a CCG. Fred

Derek S. Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On 12 Jan 2000 04:01:02 GMT, fre...@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) >wrote: > >>I'm actually a lot more scared of Mariel, Lady Thunder. ("THAT'S IT LADY, >>I'M CALLING THE SPCA!!!....my poor birds...") > >Weather Control, baby. =) Weather Control isn't an issue if you have _no hand_... :> Fish.

<ne...@doughty-engineering.co.uk> wrote: > just for the record our in house record is 6 raptors on > Blaze followed up by 6 different combats (pysche) a grand total of 36 > cards down the drain..mmmmm... My favorite setup (and I've only accomplished this once, but boy was it glorious) is seven or eight Raptors on Cailean. With Canine Hordes to zap guns, and lids/a gun to shoot them with, and Cats to untap after blocking (with +7 intercept)... You can quite effectively shut down both predator and prey. Glorious. Fish.

LSJ wrote: > > > > drive on, water down, suck it up. God, I'm cranky in the morning. :) > Just to be clear: some cards are so overpowered that not "watering them > down" would "water down" the game (esp. in the tournament scene) by > discouraging variety - since use of the "power" card (or the power card's > counter) would be necessary for winning. That had been the case with WwEF > - most "competitive" decks relied on it - they had to in order to be > competitive. And I agree that some cards needed to be watered down. > If, before the "watering down", a player used WwEF, then of course she > is not to be considered "second class". She it to be commended for > discerning the best resources in the game and using them to their full > effect (as well as for bringing the overpowered/undercosted cards to the > spotlight). Marking players who use certain cards or strategies as > "second class" is the type of "social errata" that some groups rely on > to maintain "balance". The RT seeks to avoid relying on or using such > tactics (by ensuring that the game itself is balanced under the rules). In my reply to Peter, I touched on the biggest point of contension. It is that the new errata is over costed, while the non errata is undercosted. The question I have, is: Can you come up with something more middle of the road? Raille.

Derek S. Ray wrote: > True - but I think most of the other cards were significantly more > rare. Wake is sufficiently common as to be, well, common. It tends > to put an appearance in for most decks. It HAS to be a simple errata, > no matter what. :/ Current errata, you say "instead of combat, read > 'next untap'." That's quick to remember for new players. A more > complicated errata... ick. > > -- Derek Got my thinking cap on and voila. WWeF errata suggestion (and only a suggestion): Replace this card at the end of your preys turn. Helps to get a full hand before your predator takes their turn. Unless your pray and predator are the same. Raille.

Raille wrote: > In my reply to Peter, I touched on the biggest point of contension. It > is that the new errata is over costed, while the non errata is > undercosted. > > The question I have, is: Can you come up with something more middle of > the road? The new errata is not overcosted, in my estimation. It is still possibly undercosted. Most of the initial suggestions for "fixing" WwEF were harsher - making it cost a blood, making it a Master Out of Turn, etc. The current errata is "middle of the road" to those. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 16:04:48 -0500, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek S. Ray wrote: >> True - but I think most of the other cards were significantly more >> rare. Wake is sufficiently common as to be, well, common. It tends >> to put an appearance in for most decks. It HAS to be a simple errata, >> no matter what. :/ Current errata, you say "instead of combat, read >> 'next untap'." That's quick to remember for new players. A more >> complicated errata... ick. >> >> -- Derek > >Got my thinking cap on and voila. Presto! Magnifico! Errato! ... wait a minute >WWeF errata suggestion (and only a suggestion): >Replace this card at the end of your preys turn. Wake/Deflect now becomes worthless... :( since you won't EVER be deflecting your prey's bleed, unless some truly wack shit is happening. But if you Wake/Deflect your predator, you will be at 6 cards for your entire ACTIVE turn... which is pretty damn painful, if I do say so myself. Icky poo. >Helps to get a full hand before your predator takes their turn. Unless >your pray and predator are the same. Right, but it increases the cost for waking at your predator to "unbelievably expensive." eww. :/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Sorrow wrote: > But FA is by far better than Wake (now) and is just as abusable. Is > that how it should be, too? Your assertion of ti being much better seems to revolve around it being usable with a vampire at 0 blood. Far be it from me to suggest that leaving vampires on 0 blood is difficult due to enforced hunting rules, and if you're purposely hamstringing your own vampires like that then you've just added another cost to FA. The dynamics of new Wake make it a perfectly usable card. FA is 'abusable' under certain very limited circumstances, which I do not view as a problem - the circumstnaces under which it *can* be used properly cost it a little, which I do not see as a problem. -- James Coupe

LSJ wrote: > The new errata is not overcosted, in my estimation. It is still > possibly undercosted. Most of the initial suggestions for "fixing" > WwEF were harsher - making it cost a blood, making it a Master > Out of Turn, etc. > > The current errata is "middle of the road" to those. > <eyes snap open> The current ruling is Middle of the road! I can't argue with you on that, since you get all the feedback, but, with all the flak that it received with the current, I'd hate to see what would have happened with something harsher. Raille.

[ quoted text not captured ] Now that you mention it. Eww... Your right. What an incredibly difficult card to fix. Raille.

In article <PqKe4.12697$Ce.2...@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >No, but the decision whether or not to use Wake over FA (or vice versa) >is practically being made for you. A card slot is worth more than a blood >no matter how you look at it. Is it? Not in everyone's book. In a highly blood intensive deck, screw the cards - I need blood! -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <387C7F...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >Does all these changes invaidate all the tournements played in the past. >Do those player now get to be considered second class, because their >victories where with cards that had not yet been watered down? > >All those articles writen on how to use certain cards, kaput! If you believe this, you have clearly never paid attention to the group, or the issuing of rulings. Consider that Dreams of the Sphinx has never been touched. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <387CEA...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >The question I have, is: Can you come up with something more middle of >the road? Random suggestions: - No errata - play as it is read - Replace at next untap phase - Replace at end of current player's turn - Replace at end of next but (1, 2...) player's turn - Can only be used on actions the current player could block (i.e. directed at him, prey (when he gets his chance after the prey) or predator) (Prevents use for crosstable Surprise Influence however) - If the card is used during the blocking step of an action, the player must play sufficient intercept (at the same time as playing Wake) as to be able to block it, either from his hand, or from the table (utilising intercept from other player's (e.g. a cross-table rumour mill) is acceptable) [ quoted text not captured ]

snip > Now that you mention it. Eww... > > Your right. > > What an incredibly difficult card to fix. > > Raille. I have a great idea that will fix all the problems, arguments and incredibly needlessly long threads. BAN that sucker! It's the WOTC way! Please not sarcasm. I don't want to force this thread into another three weeks. Mike Buckley

> >Does all these changes invaidate all the tournements played in the past. > >Do those player now get to be considered second class, because their > >victories where with cards that had not yet been watered down? > >All those articles writen on how to use certain cards, kaput! > If you believe this, you have clearly never paid attention to the group, > or the issuing of rulings. > Consider that Dreams of the Sphinx has never been touched. I'm sure this is only a matter of time, especially after the recent disclosure that Life Boon, of all cards, is under review... </sar> Sorrow --- no hate no wars no ignorance no politics no pain no force no weapons no oppression no sorrow no chemicals no dust no leaders no violence no dust no leaders no leaders now it's time for the world to see a man with open eyes now it's time to realize we tell ourselves the best of lies

In article <21sf4.13646$Ce.3...@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >I'm sure this is only a matter of time, especially after the recent >disclosure >that Life Boon, of all cards, is under review... Many cards are placed under review, if a petition is made to LSJ, in my experience, with a serious argument. Whether that review leads to anything is an entirely different matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <387CEA...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >The question I have, is: Can you come up with something more middle of > >the road? > > Random suggestions: > > - No errata - play as it is read Ilike this, but the card is a little undercosted here. Soo.. > - Replace at next untap phase Looks better. > - Replace at end of current player's turn Also looks about the same. I am trying to see what the difference in play might be, between this and the one above. > - Replace at end of next but (1, 2...) player's turn Not sure what you meant. > - Can only be used on actions the current player could block (i.e. > directed at him, prey (when he gets his chance after the prey) or > predator) (Prevents use for crosstable Surprise Influence however) This is nice, just getting a little wordy. > - If the card is used during the blocking step of an action, the player > must play sufficient intercept (at the same time as playing Wake) as to > be able to block it, either from his hand, or from the table (utilising > intercept from other player's (e.g. a cross-table rumour mill) is > acceptable) > And even wordier. Some good thoughts their James. Raille.

In article <387FB5...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes >> - Replace at end of next but (1, 2...) player's turn > >Not sure what you meant. > Five Methuselahs around the table, A, B, C, D, E. A plays a Wake on B's turn. He replaces at end of next Methuselah but 1's turn - i.e. at the end of C's turn - or at the end of the next Methuselah but 2's turn - i.e. at the end of D's turn, and so on round the table. >> - If the card is used during the blocking step of an action, the player >> must play sufficient intercept (at the same time as playing Wake) as to >> be able to block it, either from his hand, or from the table (utilising >> intercept from other player's (e.g. a cross-table rumour mill) is >> acceptable) >> > >And even wordier. Remove the parenthetical text - the meaning in them is explicit clarification, rather than actually necessary, IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <GRdpflAL...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <387FB5...@mich.com>, Raille <rai...@mich.com> writes > >> - Replace at end of next but (1, 2...) player's turn > > > >Not sure what you meant. > > > > Five Methuselahs around the table, A, B, C, D, E. > > A plays a Wake on B's turn. He replaces at end of next Methuselah but > 1's turn - i.e. at the end of C's turn - or at the end of the next > Methuselah but 2's turn - i.e. at the end of D's turn, and so on round > the table. this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > >> - If the card is used during the blocking step of an action, the player > >> must play sufficient intercept (at the same time as playing Wake) as to > >> be able to block it, either from his hand, or from the table (utilising > >> intercept from other player's (e.g. a cross-table rumour mill) is > >> acceptable) > >> > > > >And even wordier. > > Remove the parenthetical text - the meaning in them is explicit > clarification, rather than actually necessary, IMO. this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand I understand what you are saying but I would not expect a fifteen year-old to be able to understand it [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand Replace at end of next but one player's turn. What's complicated about that? Note, these were random thoughts, not actually proposed errata supported by me. > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > "When you play Wake, you must play sufficient intercept from any source to equal or beat the current action's stealth, if you are still in the Declare Blocks section of the action." What's complicated about that? > I understand what you are saying but I would not expect a fifteen > year-old to be able to understand it That is merely insulting to 15 year olds. I know and have known quite a few 15 year olds who are perfectly competent Jyhad players, often quite subtle and devious - and more than capable of reading two or three lines of text. -- James Coupe

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.100011...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > > Replace at end of next but one player's turn. > > What's complicated about that? Note, these were random thoughts, not > actually proposed errata supported by me. > I thank you for contributing your thoughts, especially random ones which often are the most fruitful. My point is that if you begin to put algerbraic functions into how many turns you need to wait before you replace the card, it makes it that much more complicated. Granted Jyhad is not a simple game but once you get the hang of it, it is fairly rote. Yes, I know there are some cards that ask you to do simple algebra for damage (that thaumaturgy card that does 2x+2 damage at superior) which is for the most part instantaneous, but asking someone to replace a card 2 or 3 players later is asking for mistakes to be made. Nobody enjoys making mistakes that weaken their position on the table. > > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > > > > "When you play Wake, you must play sufficient intercept from any source to > equal or beat the current action's stealth, if you are still in the > Declare Blocks section of the action." > Okay what is the general rule about playing cards that you cannot furfil the requirements. I understood that the cards were burned with no effect. Now the mechanism of stealth and intercept is a constantly revolving one. I play stealth; I counter with intercept. I play more stealth; I counter with more intercept. You could never truely play the card knowing that you had enough intercept to block the current action. I would think that this could lead to abuse in the same way it was abused before errata. It would just be wordier and require a more cunning methuselah to abuse it. > What's complicated about that? > > > I understand what you are saying but I would not expect a fifteen > > year-old to be able to understand it > > That is merely insulting to 15 year olds. I know and have known quite > a few 15 year olds who are perfectly competent Jyhad players, often quite > subtle and devious - and more than capable of reading two or three lines > of text. \ My apologies to the 15 year-old Jyhad players of the world. I actually have (or had, as I think they are older now) several 15 year old jyhad players in my group and they have ousted me on many occasions. My point is I would not want to errata a card from something that is fairly simple to understand to one that could lead to misinterpretation of the errata Thanks for the feedback, Norman S. Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > > Replace at end of next but one player's turn. > > What's complicated about that? Note, these were random thoughts, not > actually proposed errata supported by me. > > > this is too complex of a mechanism for your average player to understand > > > > "When you play Wake, you must play sufficient intercept from any source to > equal or beat the current action's stealth, if you are still in the > Declare Blocks section of the action." > > What's complicated about that? > > > I understand what you are saying but I would not expect a fifteen > > year-old to be able to understand it > > That is merely insulting to 15 year olds. I know and have known quite > a few 15 year olds who are perfectly competent Jyhad players, often quite > subtle and devious - and more than capable of reading two or three lines > of text. > > -- > > James Coupe Correct it is insulting to 15year olds. Still avalid argument for the change of text. Perhaps: Replace only one Wake each untap phase. Raille.

> > Perhaps: Replace only one Wake each untap phase. > > Raille. How about this: Remove the errata and add to the text to say: Only one Wake with evening's Freshness can be played in any turn. That way you can play it once on any given turn without losing card advantage against other players. Mike Buckley

In article <38836...@moron.semo.edu>, [ quoted text not captured ] Talk about jamming your hand up. I think this is more of a penalty then the current errata [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > How about this: > > > > Remove the errata and add to the text to say: > > > > Only one Wake with evening's Freshness can be played in any turn. > > > > That way you can play it once on any given turn without losing card > > advantage against other players. > > Talk about jamming your hand up. I think this is more of a penalty then > the current errata > > Norman S. Brown Jr. > X_Zealot > Archon of the Swamp > Well, it would jam your hand up if you were stupid enough not to find the proper balance in your deck. If I was playing a S:CE deck and played 60 Majesty's in it that would also be jamming my hand up but it's deck building skills that would prevent such a jamming problem. It's true that my suggestion may give too much to the weenie rush/bleed/vote style of decks because you would only be able to WwEF once during their turn but you can also play FA's to supplement. It's only a suggestion. I like to have my hand to equal to the number of cards my opponent(s) has and not be reduced outside of my turn just because I "blocked as if untapped" ooooo what an evil thing I did. I think the current errata works fine in a 2 player game but alters far too much in a multiplayer game. Mike Buckley

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Yes, I know there are some cards > that ask you to do simple algebra for damage (that thaumaturgy card that > does 2x+2 damage at superior) which is for the most part instantaneous, > but asking someone to replace a card 2 or 3 players later is asking for > mistakes to be made. "Okay, you've played Wake. You replace it at the end of Dave's turn." > stealth; I counter with more intercept. You could never truely play the > card knowing that you had enough intercept to block the current action. The idea was for it to be based on the current amount of stealth - hence you would have to play at least 1 intercept card if you were blocking a +1 stealth action, say, when you played Wake. > I would think that this could lead to abuse in the same way it was > abused before errata. It would just be wordier and require a more > cunning methuselah to abuse it. You misunderstand. Every time they played it with a vampire, they would have to give that vampire intercept enough to block it - so you couldn't just cycle Wake cards, you'd need to 'waste' intercept, too. -- James Coupe

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Raille wrote: > Perhaps: Replace only one Wake each untap phase. So now you would advocate not only replacing during untap, but slowing down the replacing of those cards? -- James Coupe

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Cult Fiction Comics wrote: > Only one Wake with evening's Freshness can be played in any turn. Hamstringing intercept decks in the process, especially if they are up against, say, weenie vote. -- James Coupe

On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Cult Fiction Comics wrote: > Well, it would jam your hand up if you were stupid enough not to find the > proper balance in your deck. If I was playing a S:CE deck and played 60 Indeed. That is (one of) the argument(s) in favour of the current errata. It changes the card, yes - but find the right balance in your decks and it is perfectly, perfectly usable. Nobody expects any erratum to not change a card - but it doesn't make it completely unplayable. -- James Coupe

James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Did he mean, replacing one Wake on *that* player's untap phase or on *any* player's untap phase? Fred

James Coupe wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Raille wrote: > > Perhaps: Replace only one Wake each untap phase. > > So now you would advocate not only replacing during untap, but slowing > down the replacing of those cards? > > -- > > James Coupe Not really, it was how I personnally interpreted your earlier description of card replacement. Guess I got it wrong. Raille

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> writes: > > >On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Raille wrote: > >> Perhaps: Replace only one Wake each untap phase. > > > >So now you would advocate not only replacing during untap, but slowing > >down the replacing of those cards? > > Did he mean, replacing one Wake on *that* player's untap phase or on > *any* player's untap phase? > > Fred I meant replace a wake on every *any* players untap phase. Raille

In article <Pine.SOL.4.10a.10001...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@obeah.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: >> Yes, I know there are some cards >> that ask you to do simple algebra for damage (that thaumaturgy card that >> does 2x+2 damage at superior) which is for the most part instantaneous, >> but asking someone to replace a card 2 or 3 players later is asking for >> mistakes to be made. >"Okay, you've played Wake. You replace it at the end of Dave's turn." My playgroup has evolved the convention that the Wake is placed face-up, crosswise, on top of the library, and are moved to the ash-heap on untap, then are redrawn. gomi -- you say they taught you how to read and write yeah, they taught you how to count i say they taught you how to buy and sell your own body by the pound