Musings on 7/7, is RTI more powerful?

Jeff Endres wrote: > > Return to Innocence. Now it is no longer blocked by Protected Resources or > Archon Investigation!!!! And it can't be bounced! So what does happen if > the card is burnt before the pool loss? Is the vampire still burnt? Is the > pool still lost? You can bounce the initial bleed at +0 action. Protected Racehorses and Archon Investigation are themselves arguably broken. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu

Jeff Endres <jen...@axs.com.au> wrote: > Golden Rule, a common sense and intelligent ruling. Unfortunately it falls > over because of previous other rulings. Stolen vamps loose their > disciplines, etc. because masters placed on them are still controlled by > the original methuselah. Yes, just as Discipline cards played on other player's vampires would vanish under the old rule. When a player is ousted, the cards she controls are burned. I fail to see how this topples the Golden Rule. > Mind Rape, a very weird rewrite. Mind Rape was a pretty cool card. Still > is, but there is now a new question about whether you _must_ burn the card > next turn or you must burn the card to get the effect... *chuckle* Need a > clarification on a rewrite of an otherwise clear card. Do not confuse "must" with "can" or "may". "During the acting vampire's controller's next minion phase, she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take control of the vampire until the end of her turn." No clarification is needed. > Return to Innocence. [...] So what does happen if > the card is burnt before the pool loss? Is the vampire still burnt? Is the > pool still lost? No. Cards which are put into play cease to function when they leave play. See Aggressive Tactics, Anarch Revolt, Brainwash, Camarilla Threat, Haven Uncovered, etc. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

Jeff Endres wrote: > > Jimmy Hamblin murdered some electrons to write: My name is James. Do you have a problem with that? > Claiming that the two cards are possibly broken is not a good defense for > the new RTI ruling. You're claiming that a broken card can be stopped by other broken cards, hence it's not broken. That's circular reasoning. > Besides I fail to see how they are broken. Both cards have a staggeringly low cost. In the case of AI, the cost is negative. For PR, a deck which kills you without bleeding you is very easy to construct (votes) and thus uses this card with no disadvantage. > Of course you can still bleed for more than 3, you just take a risk. Or is > that not acceptable Jimmy? What is not acceptable is your total lack of respect for me. If you can't scrounge up a shred of deceny and refer to me by my name, this discussion is over. [ quoted text not captured ]

Recent talk about broken cards/combos has spurred me to write a comment. I have been lurking for quite a while now, making occasional postings. I have been out of the loop recently and have only just recently found out about these recent RTR. There are some good ideas and some bad ideas in the rulings. I will list my _personal_ opinions on most of these and at the end of this post, state a single small change which I think should be made. I personally like the changes to Thoughts Betrayed, it's still a good card and you can make some great combos with it, but there is now a reasonable some reasonable defenses. Heidelburg Castle, a good clear common sense _clarification_. Zip Gun, A simple variation. Now a slightly useful card. Directed Actions, *chuckle* Back to original? Fine. Tomb of Ramses III. Ok variation. Although I would say reduce the cost to 2 pool since it is not permanent. Golden Rule, a common sense and intelligent ruling. Unfortunately it falls over because of previous other rulings. Stolen vamps loose their disciplines, etc. because masters placed on them are still controlled by the original methuselah. Aggravated Damage, either way is fine. I hear statements about how combat decks are weaker but also complaints about how it is too easy to burn a vampire. Aren't these complaints contradictory? Fame, an interesting variant, but that is all. It could very well be a completely new card. It makes a bunch of cool combos useless but opens up a new bunch. Mind Rape, a very weird rewrite. Mind Rape was a pretty cool card. Still is, but there is now a new question about whether you _must_ burn the card next turn or you must burn the card to get the effect... *chuckle* Need a clarification on a rewrite of an otherwise clear card. Pulled Fangs. Why? You now have two rulings which reduce burnings... Return to Innocence. Now it is no longer blocked by Protected Resources or Archon Investigation!!!! And it can't be bounced! So what does happen if the card is burnt before the pool loss? Is the vampire still burnt? Is the pool still lost? Wake with Evening's Freshness. What!!! Why? To stop people cycling? This is a very heavy restriction, and almost makes it wallpaper compared to Forced Awakening. ----------- Now for the major point of this post. Almost all these rules change the game play quite significantly. Is this an alternative to releasing new cards? Yes, it can be. But should it be official? I don't think so. Especially when RTI is now even more powerful! Most of these rewrites should be suggestions only. A complete cleansing of the RTR would be good. Trying to _reduce_ the number of significant rule changes and limit it to _errata_ and clarifications. Specific rewrites of the game to make tournament games fairly even should be available. Possibly numbering each possible rule variant to allow an organizer to easily advertise in what way the game will be played. I am not saying this is the be all and end all solution but it is a better idea than the collage of patches that is the current system. Collage. A piece of art, yes, but is it beautiful? -- Jeff Endres

LSJ <vte...@my-dejanews.com> murdered some electrons to write the following: > > Jeff Endres <jen...@axs.com.au> wrote: > > Golden Rule, a common sense and intelligent ruling. Unfortunately it falls > > over because of previous other rulings. Stolen vamps loose their > > disciplines, etc. because masters placed on them are still controlled by > > the original methuselah. > > Yes, just as Discipline cards played on other player's vampires would > vanish under the old rule. > > When a player is ousted, the cards she controls are burned. > > I fail to see how this topples the Golden Rule. I wouldn't say topple, more like trip. When you give a vampire a Master Discipline card you would expect it to be associated with the vampire not the Meth. Isn't this _common sense_? Yes I _know_ the ruling. I don't need another series of posts on what the rulings are! I would like comments about the way a new player would see this. "But I stole your vampire! How come I keep everything else then? etc. etc..." > > Mind Rape, a very weird rewrite. Mind Rape was a pretty cool card. Still > > is, but there is now a new question about whether you _must_ burn the card > > next turn or you must burn the card to get the effect... *chuckle* Need a > > clarification on a rewrite of an otherwise clear card. > > Do not confuse "must" with "can" or "may". > > "During the acting vampire's controller's next > minion phase, she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take > control of the vampire until the end of her turn." > > No clarification is needed. Perhaps not, but you could have given one anyway. This was a clear Yes or No question. It receives a blunt non-answer from the netrep. I have been polite how about a polite response. I am assuming that it is the first option, that is you must do it no matter what, although the other is a valid interpretation especially for a beginner. > > Return to Innocence. [...] So what does happen if > > the card is burnt before the pool loss? Is the vampire still burnt? Is the > > pool still lost? > > No. Cards which are put into play cease to function when they leave play. > See Aggressive Tactics, Anarch Revolt, Brainwash, Camarilla Threat, Haven > Uncovered, etc. Yes. I thought so. Although I notice a significant amount of editing here. :) Ok, I apoligise, the RTI can be boounced. I thought about that this morning but James Hamblin has responded so quickly as to render my correction unneeded. I see the major point of my post is not addressed. Why not? Please respond, I'd like to hear your views? Or are you doing the old political trick 'avoid the question'? LSJ must be Ventrue. :) -- Jeff Endres

Jimmy Hamblin murdered some electrons to write: > > Jeff Endres wrote: > > > > Return to Innocence. Now it is no longer blocked by Protected Resources or > > Archon Investigation!!!! And it can't be bounced! So what does happen if > > the card is burnt before the pool loss? Is the vampire still burnt? Is the > > pool still lost? > > You can bounce the initial bleed at +0 action. Protected Racehorses and > Archon Investigation are themselves arguably broken. > > James Yes. I thought about that when I work up this morning. Claiming that the two cards are possibly broken is not a good defense for the new RTI ruling. Besides I fail to see how they are broken. Even if a bleed deck never bleeds for more than 3 pool / vampire, if you get 3 bleeds in a turn that is 9 pool a turn, and you claim a scalp in 3 turns of bleeding. Simlarly with Protected Resources, except it has a greater cost/benifit though IMHO. Of course you can still bleed for more than 3, you just take a risk. Or is that not acceptable Jimmy? Also I fail to see any comment on the main point at the end of my post. I would like to hear some opinions on the subject. If you only jump on the things you disagree with, I am left to assume you agree with the rest... -- Jeff Endres

Greetings Jeff. > There are some good ideas and some bad ideas in the rulings. I will list > my _personal_ opinions on most of these and at the end of this post, state > a single small change which I think should be made. > Golden Rule, a common sense and intelligent ruling. Unfortunately it falls > over because of previous other rulings. Stolen vamps loose their > disciplines, etc. because masters placed on them are still controlled by > the original methuselah. Well, as mentionned by LSJ, it doesn't "fall" over, tough I'll admit it does appear strange at first glance. But, we must remember that Disciplines are "gifts" given by the Meth (you) to his minion (the vampire). BTW, this rule about Discipline cards is generalized to other Master cards except when Stolen or something like that (i.e. when the controller of the card has been explicitely changed). For instance, Anarch Troublemaker and Millicent Smith explicitely allows the controller to be changed. Others, like Curse of Nitocris and Society of Leopold (to name a few), are always *yours*, even when they are moving around the table. I wonder though if they are also burned when you are ousted (as well as when the condition on the card is satisfied...) > Mind Rape, a very weird rewrite. Mind Rape was a pretty cool card. Still > is, but there is now a new question about whether you _must_ burn the card > next turn or you must burn the card to get the effect... *chuckle* Need a > clarification on a rewrite of an otherwise clear card. >I am assuming that it is the first option, that is you must do it no matter what, >although the other is a valid interpretation especially for a beginner. No offense intended, but it is a tendancy I have observed in myself and others (often without being noticed) to try to "twist" the meaning of the words on a card to find another meaning that satisfies us. I've done it often, and will do it again; but I always try to check either I'm trying to see something that ain't there, because I need to see it there. :-( One must always remember that we must read these cards using the common signification for the words, and the sentences they are in (all the while remembering the basic rules, if required). This is not a game played by lawers, please. So, must is must; no option available. May or can gives an option. > Now for the major point of this post. Almost all these rules change the > game play quite significantly. Is this an alternative to releasing new > cards? Yes, it can be. But should it be official? I don't think so. > Especially when RTI is now even more powerful! Most of these rewrites > should be suggestions only. They are always suggestions. As mentionned numerous times in other tread, you can play with the (house) rules you wish. And it will be all right. Much the same about the law, and how it is applied inside each of our respective "private" houses. However, when meeting with other players from outside our circle, we must agree on a common set of rules so that everyone can understand each other, and deal on the same level. > fairly even should be available. Possibly numbering each possible rule > variant to allow an organizer to easily advertise in what way the game will > be played. Could be interesting. But, I don't thing it would be better to get into a tournament knowing that Combat rule 12.5 is applied, with ActionMod/Reaction 2.1 and RTI fix 3.7, etc. It would mess up most players (and the judges! :). As someone else mentionned, one of the purposes of tournaments is to compete with others in our environment, but also to compare with others in other tournament (with the point system in development). If everyone uses different rules, how are you going to make a valid comparison between different tournaments? > I am not saying this is the be all and end all solution but it is a better > idea than the collage of patches that is the current system. > > Collage. A piece of art, yes, but is it beautiful? One's appreciation of Art, as with many things, depends on your point of view, your past experiences, your knowledge, etc.. Frederic.

Jeff Endres <jen...@axs.com.au> wrote: > LSJ <vte...@my-dejanews.com> [wrote]: > > Jeff Endres <jen...@axs.com.au> wrote: > > > Golden Rule, a common sense and intelligent ruling. Unfortunately it falls > > > over because of previous other rulings. Stolen vamps loose their > > > disciplines, etc. because masters placed on them are still controlled by > > > the original methuselah. > > > > Yes, just as Discipline cards played on other player's vampires would > > vanish under the old rule. > > > > When a player is ousted, the cards she controls are burned. > > > > I fail to see how this topples the Golden Rule. > > I wouldn't say topple, more like trip. When you give a vampire a Master You said "falls over", not "stumbles". > Discipline card you would expect it to be associated with the vampire not > the Meth. Isn't this _common sense_? Yes I _know_ the ruling. I don't need > another series of posts on what the rulings are! I would like comments > about the way a new player would see this. > > "But I stole your vampire! How come I keep everything else then? etc. > etc..." This has to do with the control of master cards, not the new/old version of the Golden Rule. Try this: Meth B steals Meth A's vampire. Meth B plays a skill card on the vamp. Meth C steals the vamp from Meth B. Under the old or new rules, if Meth B is ousted, the skill card (being controlled by B) is burned while the vampire itself is not. Under the old rules, if Meth A is ousted the vampire is burned, even though Meth C had nothing to do with Meth A - he stole the vampire from Meth B. > > > Mind Rape, a very weird rewrite. Mind Rape was a pretty cool card. Still > > > is, but there is now a new question about whether you _must_ burn the card > > > next turn or you must burn the card to get the effect... *chuckle* Need a > > > clarification on a rewrite of an otherwise clear card. > > > > Do not confuse "must" with "can" or "may". > > > > "During the acting vampire's controller's next > > minion phase, she must burn this card to untap the vampire and take > > control of the vampire until the end of her turn." > > > > No clarification is needed. > > Perhaps not, but you could have given one anyway. This was a clear Yes or > No question. It receives a blunt non-answer from the netrep. The part about confusing "must" with "may" should've answered the question. To reiterate, the answer is: "must means must". It says "during [her] next minion phase, she must", therefore during her next minion phase, she must. > I see the major point of my post is not addressed. Why not? Please respond, > I'd like to hear your views? Or are you doing the old political trick > 'avoid the question'? LSJ must be Ventrue. :) I do not see why making the game "fairly even" should be an endeavor restricted to a tournament setting. Futher, piecemealling the rulings to make a sort of 'a la carte' tournament system defeats the whole process of tournament ratings. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > Others, like Curse of Nitocris and Society of Leopold (to name a few), are > always > *yours*, even when they are moving around the table. I wonder though if > they are also > burned when you are ousted (as well as when the condition on the card is > satisfied...) Yes. When you are ousted, all cards you control are burned . [ quoted text not captured ]

gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > Others, like Curse of Nitocris and Society of Leopold (to name a few), are > always > *yours*, even when they are moving around the table. I wonder though if > they are also > burned when you are ousted (as well as when the condition on the card is > satisfied...) (Curse doesn't stay under your control - it is controlled by the Methuselah it is given to, by card text). [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes: > > Besides I fail to see how they are broken. > > Both cards have a staggeringly low cost. In the case of AI, the > cost is negative. For PR, a deck which kills you without bleeding > you is very easy to construct (votes) and thus uses this card with > no disadvantage. Well, I would argue that the 2 pool for PR *is* a cost, and it only stops *single* bleeds over 2 -- hardly a killer defense. Just IMHO, of course. //Petri

[ quoted text not captured ] I think the big concern is that Bruise and Bleed decks don't have nearly as many bleed cards as your regular bleed deck, so when they want to get a bleed through, it has to be a big one (~5 or 6). This card totally screws them. I really don't like a single card that screws an entire strategy. Hence Archon Investigation goes on this pile as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeff Endres wrote in message <35BE6E45...@axs.com.au>... >Jimmy Hamblin murdered some electrons to write: >> You can bounce the initial bleed at +0 action. Protected Racehorses and >> Archon Investigation are themselves arguably broken. >> >> James > >Yes. I thought about that when I work up this morning. > >Claiming that the two cards are possibly broken is not a good defense for >the new RTI ruling. Besides I fail to see how they are broken. Even if a >bleed deck never bleeds for more than 3 pool / vampire, if you get 3 bleeds >in a turn that is 9 pool a turn, and you claim a scalp in 3 turns of >bleeding. Simlarly with Protected Resources, except it has a greater >cost/benifit though IMHO. Archon Investigation is broken because the benefit is amazingly good for the cost (a master phase action) and the swing effect is tremedous. You risk very little, and someone else loses a vampire. Essentially, AI could be reworded as a 0 cost M:OoT card, saying, "reduce a bleed greater than 3 to 3. Burn the bleeding minion." There's no risk to playing it (even a DI or SI will leave you in no worse position than you would have been if you hadn't played it) but someone else loses a vampire. (There's also the secondary issue that AI doesn't hose pure S&B deck, like everyone thinks it does, since (as you point out) they can bleed consistently for smaller amounts. Of course, Tap & Bleed decks, and Bruise & Bleed decks usually only get 1 bleed through in a turn, and at considerable risk to themselves. But hey, Jyhad will be a much better game if everyone's deck includes Dom, Aus, and AI, won't it?) Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions (and can't be stolen, either). If there were a card (Hidden Bunker, say?) that cost nothing and said "Your minions do not go to torpor when they take aggravated damage and cannot take more than 3 points of damage in combat. Burn this card if any of minions ever inflict 3 or more points of damage as a strike" then I think everyone would agree that was broken, yes? Protected Resources works about the same. >Of course you can still bleed for more than 3, you just take a risk. Or is >that not acceptable Jimmy? Not really, Jeffy. =) >Also I fail to see any comment on the main point at the end of my post. I >would like to hear some opinions on the subject. If you only jump on the >things you disagree with, I am left to assume you agree with the rest... I didn't see the post in question, I'm just jumping into the fray. -Mark Langsdorf Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

Jeff Endres wrote: > > As Mike Bohlmann, a pro-7/7, pointed out in argument against AI defense: > You may need to hold AI in your hand for a considerable time. I would > consider this another cost. Not really. If your predator is a bleed deck, they'll push the 3-bleed envelope pretty often. If not, just discard it. Besides which, when the card is played, it has a negative cost. Any other "cost" it might have only serves to bring it closer to "free". > Risks and uncertainty are what make Jyhad great. Stop looking for the 100% > effective deck, there is none. But combat should be (and is, barring RtI and such) a viable bleed defense. > I remember playing a Gangrel combat/small bleed deck vs a similar Brujah > deck in the end game of a 4 player. We were both evenly matched, when I > pulled out a RTI. "Ah ha. I've got you now." I thought. I waited a turn to > get the right situation, tapped vampires, FoM and played it. It would just > kill him (6-7 pool I think). However he plays a AI. I curse and swear, but > that's the game. I thought that was one of the best end games I've seen. So he hosed your trump card with an anti-trump trump card. Wouldn't the game have been a lot better without _either_ of these cards? [Protracted Racehorses] > Costs nothing? A Master that costs 2 pool and stops you from bleeding? Costs you 2 pool, but if you're even playing it, it will save you many times over that much. And many decks don't need to bleed to kill you. This card just isn't necessary; it was most likely crafted out of an imaginary fear of heavy bleed decks. But we don't need bleed-hoser cards to deal with bleed decks, and their existence isn't good for the game. I'll be honest with you; when these cards (PR, AI, etc.) first came out, I was happy. I was sick of getting killed by stupid bleed decks. But once I learned to put bleed defense into my decks, and learn how to keep myself from getting killed so easily, I realized that these cards are unnecessary, and simply too powerful. > I'm sorry James. If you read this post, I'd apoligise by email but I can't > connect to the mail server. No prob. Just a pet peeve of mine. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:32:05, vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > (Curse doesn't stay under your control - it is controlled by the Methuselah > it is given to, by card text). Oups. Guess I misread the "Give this card to another Methuselah" part. Maybe I should practice applying my suggestions to myself first. :-) Frederic.

Mark Langsdorf wrote: > > Jeff Endres wrote in message <35BE6E45...@axs.com.au>... > >Jimmy Hamblin murdered some electrons to write: [snip] > Archon Investigation is broken because the benefit is amazingly good > for the cost (a master phase action) and the swing effect is tremedous. > You risk very little, and someone else loses a vampire. > Essentially, AI could be reworded as a 0 cost M:OoT card, saying, > "reduce a bleed greater than 3 to 3. Burn the bleeding minion." There's > no risk to playing it (even a DI or SI will leave you in no worse position > than you would have been if you hadn't played it) but someone else loses > a vampire. As Mike Bohlmann, a pro-7/7, pointed out in argument against AI defense: You may need to hold AI in your hand for a considerable time. I would consider this another cost. > (There's also the secondary issue that AI doesn't hose pure S&B deck, > like everyone thinks it does, since (as you point out) they can bleed > consistently for smaller amounts. Of course, Tap & Bleed decks, and > Bruise & Bleed decks usually only get 1 bleed through in a turn, and > at considerable risk to themselves. But hey, Jyhad will be a much better > game if everyone's deck includes Dom, Aus, and AI, won't it?) Risks and uncertainty are what make Jyhad great. Stop looking for the 100% effective deck, there is none. I remember playing a Gangrel combat/small bleed deck vs a similar Brujah deck in the end game of a 4 player. We were both evenly matched, when I pulled out a RTI. "Ah ha. I've got you now." I thought. I waited a turn to get the right situation, tapped vampires, FoM and played it. It would just kill him (6-7 pool I think). However he plays a AI. I curse and swear, but that's the game. I thought that was one of the best end games I've seen. To use an American Football analogy, Hail Marys are cool but sometimes they get intercepted... (Forgive a stupid Aussie if my analogy is incorrect, but isn't a Hail Mary a looong pass to the wide receiver?) > Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something > *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, > and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions (and can't be > stolen, either). Costs nothing? A Master that costs 2 pool and stops you from bleeding? > If there were a card (Hidden Bunker, say?) that cost > nothing > and said "Your minions do not go to torpor when they take aggravated damage > and cannot take more than 3 points of damage in combat. Burn this card if > any of minions ever inflict 3 or more points of damage as a strike" then I > think everyone would agree that was broken, yes? Protected Resources > works about the same. You can't really compare the two. However a closer card would read more like: Your minions cannot take more than 3 points of damage per _strike_ in combat. Burn this card if your minions inflict agravated damage or more than 1 point of damage in combat. > >Of course you can still bleed for more than 3, you just take a risk. Or is > >that not acceptable Jimmy? > > Not really, Jeffy. =) Chuckle. I really hate that one too! :) (And my gf knows it!) I've had Jaff, Jaffa, Little Jeff (my father is Jeff), Hairy Legs (why? From Jeffrey-> Jeff-hairy. Sad huh?), and a number of others (many to rude to list here). I'm sorry James. If you read this post, I'd apoligise by email but I can't connect to the mail server. However Mark there is no certainty in Jyhad. You are allows taking a risk (except with the old TB). > >Also I fail to see any comment on the main point at the end of my post. I > >would like to hear some opinions on the subject. If you only jump on the > >things you disagree with, I am left to assume you agree with the rest... > > I didn't see the post in question, I'm just jumping into the fray. > > -Mark Langsdorf Laugh. It was about seperating the RTR from tournament rulings. Let them issue errata and clarification and have DCI rules for tournaments. -- Jeff Endres

LSJ wrote: > > gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > > Others, like Curse of Nitocris and Society of Leopold (to name a few), are > > always > > *yours*, even when they are moving around the table. I wonder though if > > they are also > > burned when you are ousted (as well as when the condition on the card is > > satisfied...) > > (Curse doesn't stay under your control - it is controlled by the Methuselah > it is given to, by card text). > > Yes. When you are ousted, all cards you control are burned. > > -- > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Further on the issue of control. If you control the discipline card when your vampire is stolen why are they taken by the vampire? Or is there another rule to overrule the general rule? -- Jeff Endres

[ quoted text not captured ] > -- > L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Seperating rules for tournaments doesn't mean a certain player will be better off. Unless one rule is that any player whose name is Jeff gets 3 extra VPs per game, then won't the best players win and get the points? (The best player would definitly win with that rule too! :) And having the RTR change the rules so drastically is "piecemealling" the game. There is no need for them to do this. There is no way every one will accept all these rule changes. However if the rules are clearly defined and little change to either card text or game mechanics then you will find the majority of people will accept them. I have a strong feeling none of these rules will be removed while LSJ is in charge. At least Tom Wylie was humble enough to accept when a mistake was made. -- Jeff Endres

"Mark Langsdorf" <mark.la...@amd.com> writes: > Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something > *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, > and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions ...except that PR is not free, it costs 2 pool. //Petri

Jeff Endres <jen...@axs.com.au> wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > Yes. When you are ousted, all cards you control are burned. > > Further on the issue of control. If you control the discipline card when > your vampire is stolen why are they taken by the vampire? It is kept by the vampire because it is on the vampire, and stealing the vampire doesn't cause any of the cards "on" him to be taken off him. If there was a Haven Uncovered on him, it would remain on him, and still be controlled by the Methuselah who played it. > Or is there > another rule to overrule the general rule? Nothing is being overridden. Control of a Master Card is not a function of position. It is simply control. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. [ quoted text not captured ]

gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > vte...@wizards.com (LSJ) wrote: > > > (Curse doesn't stay under your control - it is controlled by the Methuselah > > it is given to, by card text). > > Oups. Guess I misread the "Give this card to another Methuselah" part. > Maybe I should practice applying my suggestions to myself first. :-) V:TES text is clearer: "Choose a Methuselah to take control of this card. The controller of this card burns 1 pool during each of his or her untap phases. Each time a Methuselah gets the Edge, the current controller of this card chooses the next controller." -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> > As Mike Bohlmann, a pro-7/7, pointed out in argument against AI defense: > You may need to hold AI in your hand for a considerable time. I would > consider this another cost. > I pretty much agree there. While I f#@%ing hate the card, and I don't think it's an appropriate Jyhad card in any sense, I'm afraid I haven't seen any evidence that it's really overpowered. It just sucks when you see your opponents vamps have Dominate and hold on to the AI, only to have them bleed with superior Threats and nothing else (because AI is only for bleeds GREATER than 3). Then, when you discard it, they bleed you for 10. Grr... I still think the card should be banned in tournaments, but not errata'ed. > > (There's also the secondary issue that AI doesn't hose pure S&B deck, > > like everyone thinks it does, since (as you point out) they can bleed > > consistently for smaller amounts. Of course, Tap & Bleed decks, and > > Bruise & Bleed decks usually only get 1 bleed through in a turn, and > > at considerable risk to themselves. But hey, Jyhad will be a much better > > game if everyone's deck includes Dom, Aus, and AI, won't it?) > > Risks and uncertainty are what make Jyhad great. Stop looking for the 100% > effective deck, there is none. > Risks and uncertainty... I'm glad you agree. Oh look, my predator just ousted me with an unblockable RtI. That wasn't very uncertain at all. Oh look, everyone at the table has Dominate... I wonder if my bleed is going to get bounced. Isn't this exciting. Ick. > I remember playing a Gangrel combat/small bleed deck vs a similar Brujah > deck in the end game of a 4 player. We were both evenly matched, when I > pulled out a RTI. "Ah ha. I've got you now." I thought. I waited a turn to > get the right situation, tapped vampires, FoM and played it. It would just > kill him (6-7 pool I think). However he plays a AI. I curse and swear, but > that's the game. I thought that was one of the best end games I've seen. > Wow... A two card win. Why didn't you simply flip a coin to see who won and save yourself some time and thought? > To use an American Football analogy, Hail Marys are cool but sometimes they > get intercepted... (Forgive a stupid Aussie if my analogy is incorrect, but > isn't a Hail Mary a looong pass to the wide receiver?) > Don't worry, Mr. Aussie, that's basically correct. 8) However, Hail Mary's are considered horrendously stupid strategy, and will only be used in the last seconds of a losing game. They connect approximately 5% of the time and are intercepted a similar number of times. Now, if RtI said "(D) Bleed at +X, where X is equal to this vampire's capacity. The acting vampire may play no action modifiers until the end of this action, and may not use any effect which would make this action unblockable. After combat, or after the action is successful (whichever is appropriate), burn the acting vampire." THEN it would be similar to a Hail Mary. Since it doesn't say that, it's a faulty analogy. > > Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something > > *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, > > and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions (and can't be > > stolen, either). > > Costs nothing? A Master that costs 2 pool and stops you from bleeding? > You put this in, you use votes. Problem solved. Even still... I don't consider the card fundamentally broken. Just a bit overpowered and f#@%ing annoying. I advocate banning it in tournaments, but leaving it as is otherwise. > > If there were a card (Hidden Bunker, say?) that cost > > nothing > > and said "Your minions do not go to torpor when they take aggravated damage > > and cannot take more than 3 points of damage in combat. Burn this card if > > any of minions ever inflict 3 or more points of damage as a strike" then I > > think everyone would agree that was broken, yes? Protected Resources > > works about the same. > > You can't really compare the two. However a closer card would read more > like: > Your minions cannot take more than 3 points of damage per _strike_ > in combat. Burn this card if your minions inflict agravated damage > or more than 1 point of damage in combat. > That's still horribly broken (and I don't honestly think PR is as broken as this card... but it's sort of a toss-up). And note that Protected Resources limits it to 2 pool per action, so "per combat" is probably more analogous. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > But combat should be (and is, barring RtI and such) a viable bleed > defense. > I would think combat is a viable defence against RTI as well. He can't play RTI if the vamp has no blood or is in torpor. Right? Eric

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, but combat as a bleed defense is _slow_. You can't send everybody to torpor all at once. And the few bleeds that get through should not be devastating. With RtI they are. [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@my-dejanews.com wrote: > [snip bit on AI which we kind of agree] > > > > (There's also the secondary issue that AI doesn't hose pure S&B deck, > > > like everyone thinks it does, since (as you point out) they can bleed > > > consistently for smaller amounts. Of course, Tap & Bleed decks, and > > > Bruise & Bleed decks usually only get 1 bleed through in a turn, and > > > at considerable risk to themselves. But hey, Jyhad will be a much better > > > game if everyone's deck includes Dom, Aus, and AI, won't it?) > > > > Risks and uncertainty are what make Jyhad great. Stop looking for the 100% > > effective deck, there is none. > > > Risks and uncertainty... I'm glad you agree. Oh look, my predator just ousted > me with an unblockable RtI. That wasn't very uncertain at all. Oh look, > everyone at the table has Dominate... I wonder if my bleed is going to get > bounced. Isn't this exciting. Ick. > [snip] > > > To use an American Football analogy, Hail Marys are cool but sometimes they > > get intercepted... (Forgive a stupid Aussie if my analogy is incorrect, but > > isn't a Hail Mary a looong pass to the wide receiver?) > > > > Don't worry, Mr. Aussie, that's basically correct. 8) However, Hail Mary's > are considered horrendously stupid strategy, and will only be used in the > last seconds of a losing game. They connect approximately 5% of the time and > are intercepted a similar number of times. Now, if RtI said "(D) Bleed at > +X, where X is equal to this vampire's capacity. The acting vampire may play > no action modifiers until the end of this action, and may not use any effect > which would make this action unblockable. After combat, or after the action > is successful (whichever is appropriate), burn the acting vampire." THEN it > would be similar to a Hail Mary. Since it doesn't say that, it's a faulty > analogy. Actually I was thinking of posting a possible solution to RTI. It seems the real killer is when you make it unblockable, or nearly so (+50 billion stealth). But you have beaten me to it. Just no action modifier would probably be enough. Yes there are some new equipment cards which make an action difficult to block, but you shouldn't totally remove combo prospects. Or because this isn't consistent with every other action card, it is a "broken" card? > > > Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something > > > *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, > > > and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions (and can't be > > > stolen, either). > > > > Costs nothing? A Master that costs 2 pool and stops you from bleeding? > > > > You put this in, you use votes. Problem solved. Even still... I don't > consider the card fundamentally broken. Just a bit overpowered and f#@%ing > annoying. I advocate banning it in tournaments, but leaving it as is > otherwise. Wow! You really like banning. :) Yes it is cool with votes, but the new vote rules make it more difficult for vote decks anyway. Besides which, my argument for PR is that 3 bleeds of 2 per turn will result in a total of 24 pool in 4 turns, hardly slow. Slower than 3 bleeds of 5-6 killing in 2 turns of bleeds. > > > If there were a card (Hidden Bunker, say?) that cost > > > nothing > > > and said "Your minions do not go to torpor when they take aggravated damage > > > and cannot take more than 3 points of damage in combat. Burn this card if > > > any of minions ever inflict 3 or more points of damage as a strike" then I > > > think everyone would agree that was broken, yes? Protected Resources > > > works about the same. > > > > You can't really compare the two. However a closer card would read more > > like: > > Your minions cannot take more than 3 points of damage per _strike_ > > in combat. Burn this card if your minions inflict agravated damage > > or more than 1 point of damage in combat. > > > That's still horribly broken (and I don't honestly think PR is as broken as > this card... but it's sort of a toss-up). And note that Protected Resources > limits it to 2 pool per action, so "per combat" is probably more analogous. > > -Chris There is a big difference between pool and blood, and yes I don't like this imaginary card anyway. :) -- Jeff Endres

Jeff Endres wrote in message <35BFD3C1...@axs.com.au>... >Mark Langsdorf wrote: >> >> Jeff Endres wrote in message <35BE6E45...@axs.com.au>... >> >Jimmy Hamblin murdered some electrons to write: > >[snip] > >> Archon Investigation is broken because the benefit is amazingly good >> for the cost (a master phase action) and the swing effect is tremedous. >> You risk very little, and someone else loses a vampire. >> Essentially, AI could be reworded as a 0 cost M:OoT card, saying, >> "reduce a bleed greater than 3 to 3. Burn the bleeding minion." There's >> no risk to playing it (even a DI or SI will leave you in no worse position >> than you would have been if you hadn't played it) but someone else loses >> a vampire. > >As Mike Bohlmann, a pro-7/7, pointed out in argument against AI defense: >You may need to hold AI in your hand for a considerable time. I would >consider this another cost. <shrug> Okay, so it's a card slot and a master phase action. Versus your opponents vampire, vampire action, and whatever cards they held to get a 4 point bleed. I still don't see this as being balanced. >> (There's also the secondary issue that AI doesn't hose pure S&B deck, >> like everyone thinks it does, since (as you point out) they can bleed >> consistently for smaller amounts. Of course, Tap & Bleed decks, and >> Bruise & Bleed decks usually only get 1 bleed through in a turn, and >> at considerable risk to themselves. But hey, Jyhad will be a much better >> game if everyone's deck includes Dom, Aus, and AI, won't it?) > >Risks and uncertainty are what make Jyhad great. Stop looking for the 100% >effective deck, there is none. I'm not looking for a 100% effective deck (indeed, I'm deliberately trying to set up the rules to eliminate any 100% effective deck anyone makes). However, Tremere Bruise&Bleed is *not* a 100% effective strategy. You need effective combat, some rush, good bleeds, vote and bleed defense, and you need all of it to happen at the right time or you die from hand jam. So, I've got my Tremere B&B deck. By some miracle, my prey isn't playing a Bleed Bouncer or one of the combat decks that Tremere still can't handle under the 7/7 rulings, and I've managed to demonstrate that by putting one of his vampires in torpor. I bleed with GtU, my prey declines to block (not wanting to lose a second vampire), I throw in the Threats (because my predator has a Gangrel rush deck, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to bleed next turn since I'll be getting vamps out of torpor). My prey smiles and drops AI. I'm screwed! And if I don't play the Threats, it's a wasted card slot in my hand, same as the AI is in his. On top of all that, AI doesn't stop S&B, which is its nominal purpose. Get rid of it. >I remember playing a Gangrel combat/small bleed deck vs a similar Brujah >deck in the end game of a 4 player. We were both evenly matched, when I >pulled out a RTI. "Ah ha. I've got you now." I thought. I waited a turn to >get the right situation, tapped vampires, FoM and played it. It would just >kill him (6-7 pool I think). However he plays a AI. I curse and swear, but >that's the game. I thought that was one of the best end games I've seen. Err... he trumped your trumped. How... exciting. Sorry, I just don't agree. >> Protected Resources is a bit more iffy... but I think there is something >> *wrong* with a card that costs nothing to play, hoses an entire strategy, >> and cannot be removed except by the controller's actions (and can't be >> stolen, either). > >Costs nothing? A Master that costs 2 pool and stops you from bleeding? Having never seen the card, I was going by memory. I forgot about the pool cost, which is pretty minor. I think the pool cost is justified. It's the lack of a burnable clause (well, by other players) that makes this card broken. Something like "Any minion may take a directed to put a Vandalism counter on this card. Once three vandalsim counters are on this card, the card is burnt. The card's controller may spend 1 pool during their untap to remove a vandalism counter." I wouldn't have an objection to the card at that point. >> If there were a card (Hidden Bunker, say?) that cost nothing >> and said "Your minions do not go to torpor when they take aggravated damage >> and cannot take more than 3 points of damage in combat. Burn this card if >> any of minions ever inflict 3 or more points of damage as a strike" then I >> think everyone would agree that was broken, yes? Protected Resources >> works about the same. > >You can't really compare the two. However a closer card would read more >like: > Your minions cannot take more than 3 points of damage per _strike_ > in combat. Burn this card if your minions inflict agravated damage > or more than 1 point of damage in combat. No, because your opponents can sometimes force you to inflict aggravated damage or 2 points of damage. I know of no way to make my prey bleed. >However Mark there is no certainty in Jyhad. You are allows taking a risk >(except with the old TB). Thank you, I am well aware of that. I've only been playing the game since it was released and we thought it was a shoddy Magic clone. You can stop telling me that now. [ quoted text not captured ]

I've been pretty silent on the whole RTI thing, but I'm pretty much in full agreement with James (gak!). Here's how I got ousted in the finals at Origins 97'. My deck was Malkavian Anti-Tribue, all Sabbat cards. On approximately my 4th turn my predator announced that his new Inner Circle (Etrius I think) was going to bleed me with RTI. I attempted to block, he put stealth on it. I played a Misdirection to my Prey. My Prey uses a Direct Intervention on my Misdirection. Etrius increases his bleed for a total of 16 bleed. I'm at -1 pool and ousted from the game, tied for 3rd place. Opinion: The best reasonable fix I've heard in recent discussion is that Action Mods. cannot be used with RTI. It would be a lot easier explain and discuss with my playgroup than the current re-wording of 7/7. Divine Intervention: Do I feel hosed by this card? Not really. My complaint with DI is in it's extreme versatility. It's cost comes off about right otherwise. I proposed a fix for this earlier, which nobody commented on. On a last note, I'm a bit suprised that nobody mentioned pack tactics or elder intervention (the clanless 2 cards that give you +2 intercept vs. bleeds). Just wanted to point out that Auspex isn't absolutely necessary to intercept a bleed. Bernie Bresnahan Bern...@yahoo.com James Hamblin wrote in message <35C0FC01...@math.wisc.edu>... [ quoted text not captured ]

Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > > On approximately my 4th turn my predator announced that > his new Inner Circle (Etrius I think) was going to bleed me > with RTI. > I attempted to block, he put stealth on it. > I played a Misdirection to my Prey. > My Prey uses a Direct Intervention on my Misdirection. > Etrius increases his bleed for a total of 16 bleed. > I'm at -1 pool and ousted from the game, tied for 3rd place. Just a note: this is pretty standard, except for the treacherous DI from your prey. Anyone who thinks RtI isn't a problem needs to realize that when RtI exists, this kind of thing happens a lot. > On a last note, I'm a bit suprised that nobody mentioned > pack tactics or elder intervention (the clanless 2 cards > that give you +2 intercept vs. bleeds). Just wanted to > point out that Auspex isn't absolutely necessary to > intercept a bleed. Eh. Unless you're seriously making an attempt to be an intercept deck, these cards really aren't going to be that useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 3 Aug 1998, Bernie Bresnahan wrote: > Opinion: The best reasonable fix I've heard in recent > discussion is that Action Mods. cannot be used with > RTI. It would be a lot easier explain and discuss with > my playgroup than the current re-wording of 7/7. This is an interesting fix. Any comments from people that have tested this. Is it effective. This initial proposition came out when Ancient Hearts was first released, and I can't remember the conclusion we arrived at. > Divine Intervention: Do I feel hosed by this card? Not > really. My complaint with DI is in it's extreme versatility. > It's cost comes off about right otherwise. I proposed a > fix for this earlier, which nobody commented on. I think that the best fix I've seen is the "Giant's Blood" fix: Append to the text: Direct Intervention is only playable once per game. (I.e., it is unique amongst ALL the Meths). This makes the cost of the card increase dramatically (your card can easily become a wasted deckspace slot)). > On a last note, I'm a bit suprised that nobody mentioned > pack tactics or elder intervention (the clanless 2 cards > that give you +2 intercept vs. bleeds). Just wanted to > point out that Auspex isn't absolutely necessary to > intercept a bleed. Well, if a deck is not an intercept deck, Elder Intervention and pack tactics are not that useful. You simply do NOT want to block a Stealth deck if you are not an intercept deck. By not blocking, you clog the stealth Meth with stealth cards in hand, and they cannot cycle. +2 intercept is simply not enough to block a stealth bleeder. You will simply exercise their hand and waste your own time. You need EXTREME multiple copies in order to be able to drain all of their stealth. Simply put, those cards are not effective, in general. @#$ Adrian Sullivan $#@ Game Theorist Coffee Addict Hedonist @#$ Cabal Rogue Team Rogue $#@ Opinionated Gynophile Eccentric Geek @#$ V:EKN Prince of Madison $#@ heterotranshomotransexual - got that? @#$ The Corrupter $#@ GAT/WS C(+++)$ N++ PS++@+ R+++*$ z++**?