More thoughts on AH

I just wanted to throw out some thoughts on Ancient Hearts for discussion. CAVEAT: I haven't played with AH, due to the card back issue, and am unlikely to do so in the future. However, I have read the spoilers and the discussions of various cards. So far, I haven't seen any outrageous spoilers. Some cards (e.g., Return to Innocence, Scorpion Sting) may be the basis of extremely powerful decks, but there are counters to the in the card mix, so I expect the game can deal with it. However, a number of these card very markedly increase the power of certain decks, e.g.: Return to Innocence: Sneaky or otherwise unblockable bleed. Scorpion Sting: Gangrel combat Blood to Water: Tremere 2nd round combat Uncontrollable Rage: Any hand-to-hand rush deck Mass Reality: Weenie gun decks, esp. with DBR While none of these may be spoilers per se, I think it's pretty obvious that the above cards move the appropriate decks to entirely new levels of power. I think the difference is marked enough that a deck without AH will generally have a poor chance in an environment with substantial AH. In other words, WotC is escalating the game (intentionally or not). This doesn't appear limited to Magic. Consider the ad for the new Magic expansion I saw on the back of the last Inquest: >>>>>>>>>>> ALLIANCES PLAY TO WIN (picture of ongoing Magic game) (picture of cheery teenager) "Hey, check out this card!" (picture of dejected teenager obvious playing with Cheery) "What the ^&%$^*%$&!" (Cheery) "It's awesome!" (Dejected) "Game over, man." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They're obviously implying that you need cards from Alliances to stay competitive (as well as obviously marketing to the munchkins). A good friend of mine who still plays Magic says that the situation with Alliances resembles that of AH - there's no out-and-out spoilers, but a lot of cards that markedly increase the power level. He thinks he will have to rebuild every single one of his decks to keep up. Anyway, I think I detect a shift in strategy from WotC. For quite some time, they've been trying to despoiler Magic and keep the power level under control. I think the relatively low average power level of Dark Sovereigns implies that was the strategy there as well, and the high-powered cards from DS were inadequately playtested errors. This contrasts with AH and Alliances, which both have lots of high-powered, but relatively well-tested cards. I believe the relative disappointments of Homelands and DS, and the realization that the munchkin market is quite a bit bigger than the serious gamer market, have convinced WotC that they will sell more cards (and make more $$$) with mild to moderate escalation in new expansions. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

I must disagree with your point about "Power Escalation" in AH, as most of the cards I have seen that seem to increase power actually only patch holes in the game propper. Take for instance the cards Scorpion Sting and Blood to Water. Scorpion Sting aids the Gangrel greatly, but only against decks that up till now they were completely (and unfairly) useless against. Before Scorpion Sting (and Dog Pack), even the most efficient and killer Gangrel combat deck was completely helpless against a deck that was outfitted with a handfull of S:CE or Dodges. A dozen Majesties or Nimble Feet in a deck would completely negate the use of even the best Gangrel deck. With Scorpion Sting and Dog Pack, the Gangrel can fight well against combat avoidance decks, which is as it should be. Combat decks should be able to compete on even ground with Bleed and Vote decks, and up until now, has not been the case. Now the Gangrel can compete on an even level against these decks, which before they could do nothing against. Scorpion Sting has no effect against other non combat-avoidance decks, or Fortitude decks, so fails to break the game there, and basically patches a big hole in the Gangrel deck that should not have been there to begin with. Dog Pack prevents S:CE, and S:CE is pretty much agreed to be more potent than it should be. Blood to Water, while it seems pretty grusome, only helps if the Tremere can make it a second round of combat. Now, if they do, they will REALLY kill you, but that is the way it is supposed to be, and before now, was just not the case. Even if the Tremere managed to make it alive to a second round (all the dodges and Theft of Vitae in the world won't help the Tremere against Immortal Grapple or, well, Scorpion Sting), their mighty Cauldron of Blood/Drain Vitae/Walk of Flame strikes could still be Dodged or S:CE or Prevented(for the ones you can prevent). The Tremere "I kill you on the second round" deck has never been as scary as it should be, and now at least if they make it that far, they can do 5 unpreventable damage before you Dodge/S:CE/Fortitude their huge killer strike. Granted, with Thoughts Betrayed, the Tremere can become mighty scary, but IMHO Thoughts Betrayed is a VERY broken card (the only broken card I can think of out of DS), where Blood to Water has almost the same effect (makes the Tremere as good as they should be) but is not even close to as offensive as TB. Yes, certain decks that are built without AH cards will not be as good as those same decks with AH cards, but that is mostly because the AH cards help to patch holes in the basic game design, not because the AH cards are particularly killer cards. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "Nothing vanishes without a trace. Burn it!" -Smoking Man

pd...@aol.com (PDB6) writes "I must disagree with your point about "Power Escalation" in AH, as most of the cards I have seen that seem to increase power actually only patch holes in the game propper. Take for instance the cards Scorpion Sting and Blood to Water. " You're not contesting my claim that AH escalates the power level of Jyhad. You even specifically state that it drastically rasises the power level of a couple of decks. Yor disagree in that you say this was an appropriate and necessary escalation rather than (as I claim) a market-driven or accidental escalation. We don't disagree on the effect, merely on the motivation. Obviously neither of us has access to the thought processes of the AH designers, so there's no way to resolve the disagreement directly. They themselves may not even know why they changed the power level - sometimes people do things without clearly understaning why. I can however, argue that the original power level of your example clans was not a flaw, but typified what I believe is an excellent aspect of Jyhad. You complain that it was possible to make any deck nearly immune to Gangrel or Tremere with a good supply of defensive combat cards. This is indeed true, but it's nearly universally true of ANY Jyhad deck. It's likewise possible to be nearly immune to any strategy - bleed bounce or rush for S&B, Delaying tactics or intercept for vote, etc. This is a very good thing, as you rarely get the "ah, nothing I can do" problem you see with most CCGs, and you can play almost any clan in any environment just by adjusting your card mix. This defensive flexibility didn't cause problems with unbeatable decks, as building a deck to ignore Gangrel entailed 20-25% defensive combat cards. If you played between 2 non-combat decks you spent the game staring at an endless hand jam of Dodge and Press to End. Now a few things stood out from this system. Celerity combat definitely broke the rules, as there was no defense against additional strikes save combat ends or outrageous amounts of fortitude (or Celerity of your own). Tremere, Malks, and Nosferatu were all pretty much helpless before Cel/Pot or Celerity gun decks. But THIS was the problem, not the manageable power level of more reasonable combat decks. WotC seems to be raising all the combat clans to the semi-spoilerish level of Celerity combat. Certainly with the AH and DS cards "normal" combat defense is basically useless against Brujah, Tremere, or Gangrel. Given that WotC won't withdraw cards, or errata them weaker, perhaps this was the only way to deal with the relative imbalance of Celerity vs. other combat strategies. But there are 2 big problems. First, it creates a planned obsolesence problem in that it requires ongoing card purchases to keep up with the escalating power level. We can't say "just buy a few starters, trade, and you're set indefinitely". Now to invite someone into V:tES we must honestly tell them they will have to keep buying more cards as long as WotC keeps printing expansions. Second, it shortcircuits the old Jyhad game's defense against excessively powerful strategies. In old Jyhad, if one strategy turned out too good, everyone increased the proportion of defense vs. that strategy and the game rolled on without loss of variety or strategies. Against combat, Malks would put in dodges, Tremere maneuvers, Ventrue Fortitude damage prevention, etc. The game had a resiliency in that it could survive even fairly substantial playtesting errors. With this new power level it ain't so. If Gangrel Rush turns out too strong with Uncontrollable Rage/Scorpion Sting/Dog Pack, the game variety will abruptly collapse into the few decks that can cope with that kind of thing. FWIW, my group finds Gangrel to be perfectly playable, and quite strong, with the original card set. Tremere combat is a bit weak, but this is compensated for with the flexibility from Auspex intercept, Dominate Bleed, and extensive bleed bounce. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Well, I guess one man's "Power Escalation" is on man's "Play Balance". You say tomato, I say tomato (that just doesn't translate into print real well, does it :-) The cards in AH, I found, mostly fix up what I had found to be problems in the game. They were not huge problems, and the fixes are not huge fixes. Mostly, I have noticed that the cards in AH have helped put the combat deck up to par with the bleed deck and the vote deck. While this could grow into a completely different thread, in my experience combat decks, while viable, are much more difficult to make work than either of the other two basic deck designs. Firstly, combat's mean to the basic end (reducing its preys pool to zero) is incredibly obtuse and card combo intensive (as opposed to S&B or KRC). Secondly, the amount of effort needed to counteract a combat deck is much lesser than the effort needed to make a combat deck work, i.e. an ounce of combat avoidance is worth a pound of combat. Mind you, this is not something I wish to debate, this is just something our gaming group has discovered over the last year of playing Jyhad. At the Origin's Jyhad game last year and a half (the only non-local Jyhad experience I have had), out of the 20 or so decks I saw myself and the other 20 or so decks that were seen by my cohort, we saw only 1 combat deck, and that was some "Zip Gun/Dragon Breath Round" monstrosity that I don't even consider a honest combat deck. I don't know if this was a result of a problem, or a symptom of a problem, but there it was. All the problems you pointed out about celerity, I basically agree with, but there have always been good ways to deal with celerity, be it sending them to torpor before they get to use their additional strikes or playing with Skin of Steel. The Nosferatu (or other Brujah) could always get away with Immortal Grapple and big hits, hoping that the Brujah was relying on Blur rather than stacked Potence strikes but the Gangrel could do nothing but try to not die as they Dodge and multi-strike. The Tremere never have been as good at combat as they could have been, which is indeed made up for by their versatility, but it would be nice to be able to make a Tremere deck that could fight effectively. I guess, all in all, I agree with WOTCs development of the game. At some point they realized that Sneak and Bleed was too easy to get away with, and so they added stuff to fix that. I guess now they have realized what I have known all along, that combat was too difficult to make work (relative to voting or bleeding), so thay have added stuff to fix that. I am viewing the release of AH trough the eyes of a player in a group that has evolved the combat deck to an art form, and in doing so, have found all the big (and small) flaws with the various clans on that level. AH, we have found, patched these up and made us happy. Jyhad is still a game where you can buy a couple of starters, a hand full of boosters and play with, but in that enviornment, you will end up with a bunch of people playing Malk S&B decks. Then everyone will want to buy more cards to try to deal with that and work from there. If they go out and buy some AH, more power to them :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

(This post is not meant as a personal attack on Curt, just something for people to think about.) CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >CAVEAT: I haven't played with AH, due to the card back issue, and am >unlikely to do so in the future... Then you'll forgive me for ignoring any comments you have on the power level of the cards in general. The only sure way to know how powerful a card is is to play with it; eyeballing it normally isn't enough. >In other words, WotC is escalating the game (intentionally or not). So you say. But you've just said you aren't even going to play with the cards, so how would you know? >They're obviously implying that you need cards from Alliances to stay >competitive (as well as obviously marketing to the munchkins). A good >friend of mine who still plays Magic says that the situation with >Alliances resembles that of AH - there's no out-and-out spoilers, but a >lot of cards that markedly increase the power level. He thinks he will >have to rebuild every single one of his decks to keep up. A gross overstatement. Various decks will want to retune themselves to account for Alliances cards, but this is true for any expansion. New cards shake things up, and it's insane to think that the typical deck can keep up its level of performance if it doesn't change. But this has to do more with flexibility and such than with sheer power. >Anyway, I think I detect a shift in strategy from WotC. For quite some >time, they've been trying to despoiler Magic and keep the power level >under control. I think the relatively low average power level of Dark >Sovereigns implies that was the strategy there as well, and the >high-powered cards from DS were inadequately playtested errors. This >contrasts with AH and Alliances, which both have lots of high-powered, but >relatively well-tested cards. I believe the relative disappointments of >Homelands and DS, and the realization that the munchkin market is quite a >bit bigger than the serious gamer market, have convinced WotC that they >will sell more cards (and make more $$$) with mild to moderate escalation >in new expansions. Dark Sovereigns was the first expansion for V:TES, and we played it a bit conservatively since it was unclear what the impact of an expansion would be. While it is true that the average card power is ramping up slightly, this is not aimed at catering to the munchkins. A weak card set is a boring card set; I doubt that even a fourth of the Fourth Edition card set is used tournaments, for example, and one would think that more like a third of the basic set would appear in tournaments. Also, if we stop printing "wallpaper" cards, which everyone seems to be in favor of, then the power level will escalate by definition. It was recognized early on that a trading card game can't help but escalate slightly over time, as new cards make existing strategies slightly more efficient, unless the designers actively try to tone things down. What we don't want is for the power level to be making quantum jumps following the release of an expansion, which I don't think has happened with either Ancient Hearts or Alliances. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

(Post split in 2 part due to #$#@#%#$^#$% AOL length restrictions) aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >(This post is not meant as a personal attack on Curt, just >something for people to think about.) Not taken as a personal attack. >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>CAVEAT: I haven't played with AH, due to the card back issue, >>and am unlikely to do so in the future... >The only sure way to >know how powerful a card is is to play with it; eyeballing it >normally isn't enough. I disagree. Theoretical analysis is extremely powerful. My first reaction to Jyhad, before I ever played the game was that S&B and Majesty were to powerful, especially Majesty. I believe that these judgements have held. Given the complexity of CCGs, there is no human way to be "sure" about any card from play. As I pointed out once in an article, the potential number of Jyhad decks is on the order of 10 to the 80th power. No playtest will ever be truly adequate. My primary initial claim, that many Jyhad deck are much more powerful with appropriate AH cards, has not been contested by either you or Peter Bakija. You're saying that this escalation was unavoidable; Peter that it only applies to decks shortchanged by the previous cardset, but neither of you is disagreeing with the change in power. (Re a claim that Alliances significantly escalates Magic.) >A gross overstatement Could be; I'm just reporting that claim. But that Inquest ad was certainly directed at the powerhungry munchkin market. >Various decks will want to retune themselves to account for >Alliances cards, but this is true for any expansion. New cards >shake things up, and it's insane to think that the typical deck >can keep up its level of performance if it doesn't change. But >this has to do more with flexibility and such than with sheer >power. New V:tES cards needn't alter the balance of power. 3 options: 1) New cards are only those applying to the new clans, plus a few obvious missing links (like adoption and Clan Impersonation). This would expand the game without any meaningful change in power level. 2) New cards apply to existing clans, but provide no impartant new abilities. This would create your situation where increased power comes only from flexibility and not raw card power 3) New cards provide important new abilities to existing decks and clans. This obviously does increase the power level. AH is clearly class 3. Giving Gangrel and Tremere ways to ignore Dodge is definitely an important new ability. Including vampires with extensive out-of-clan abilities is definitely an important new ability. Giving a non-stealth clan (Tremere) 2 vampires with built-in stealth is definitely an important new ability. Cards that produce major global benefits (like Mass Reality) are definitely an important new ability. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

Tom Wylie writes: >Also, if we stop printing "wallpaper" cards, which >everyone seems to be in favor of, then the power level >will escalate by definition. Not if you follow option 1 above. But do stop wallpaper as much as you can, regardless of your choice of expansion power level; even a smaller set is better if no purchasing is wasted on filling up closets. >A weak card set is a boring card set. It was recognized early on >that a trading card game can't help but escalate slightly over >time, as new cards make existing strategies slightly more >efficient, unless the designers actively try to tone things down. >What we don't want is for the power level to be making quantum >jumps following the release of an expansion, which I don't think >has happened with either Ancient Hearts or Alliances. Sorry if this came across as an attack. Escalation is common in sequential fiction - people tend to lose interest in a story which is continually more of the same. I understand that commercial pressures may force WotC (or any other CCG manufacturer) to do the same with their CCGs. CCGs do share some aspects of sequential fiction. But AH was escalated more than game considerations would require (class 3 versus class 1 or even class 2). Your comments about "weak card sets" indicates this was intentional, not accidental. Although I cannot say what WotC's intentions were, that Inquest ad inclines me to suspect that the intent was to please the munchkin market (the actual escalation itself gives no clear indication). I acknowledge that the reason could have been a desire for a certain turnover rate in tournament deck construction, a response to customer surveys, or any of a number of other items. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>The only sure way to >>know how powerful a card is is to play with it; eyeballing it >>normally isn't enough. >I disagree. Theoretical analysis is extremely powerful. My first >reaction to Jyhad, before I ever played the game was that S&B and Majesty >were to powerful, especially Majesty. I believe that these judgements >have held. Theoretical analysis is powerful, yes, but it isn't everything. >Given the complexity of CCGs, there is no human way to be "sure" about any >card from play. As I pointed out once in an article, the potential number >of Jyhad decks is on the order of 10 to the 80th power. No playtest will >ever be truly adequate. > >My primary initial claim, that many Jyhad deck are much more powerful with >appropriate AH cards, has not been contested by either you or Peter >Bakija. You're saying that this escalation was unavoidable; Peter that it >only applies to decks shortchanged by the previous cardset, but neither of >you is disagreeing with the change in power. I actually would dispute that "many" Jyhad decks are "much" more powerful given Ancient Hearts. While it, like any other expansion, helped out various concepts, it's not as drastic as you claim. Your basic point is that you're not going to play with AH because you think it's overpowered; my basic point is that you're either overreacting, or against the very concept of a good expansion set, in which case your objection isn't very interesting. >(Re a claim that Alliances significantly escalates Magic.) >>A gross overstatement >Could be; I'm just reporting that claim. But that Inquest ad was >certainly directed at the powerhungry munchkin market. I suppose, if you consider a desire to win equivalent to powerhungry munchkinism. >>Various decks will want to retune themselves to account for >>Alliances cards, but this is true for any expansion. New cards >>shake things up, and it's insane to think that the typical deck >>can keep up its level of performance if it doesn't change. But >>this has to do more with flexibility and such than with sheer >power. >New V:tES cards needn't alter the balance of power. 3 options: New cards will alter the balance of power by definition, unless we issue nothing but crap variants of existing cards. And part of the whole *point* of expansions is to shake things up a bit, so people aren't just playing with the same deck concepts all the time. >1) New cards are only those applying to the new clans, plus a few obvious >missing links (like adoption and Clan Impersonation). This would expand >the game without any meaningful change in power level. The very existence of a new clan alters the balance of power, if for no other reason that the existing clans can make use of the new disciplines. >2) New cards apply to existing clans, but provide no impartant new >abilities. This would create your situation where increased power comes >only from flexibility and not raw card power In other words, the new decks would be boring since they could have been constructed with the existing clans and cards. And you just escalate games that are played with card limits anyway, since people can play with more action modifiers that provide stealth, or with a tighter set of combat strikes, or what have you. >3) New cards provide important new abilities to existing decks and clans. >This obviously does increase the power level. > >AH is clearly class 3. Giving Gangrel and Tremere ways to ignore Dodge is >definitely an important new ability. Including vampires with extensive >out-of-clan abilities is definitely an important new ability. Giving a >non-stealth clan (Tremere) 2 vampires with built-in stealth is definitely >an important new ability. Cards that produce major global benefits (like >Mass Reality) are definitely an important new ability. All of the above is true, but these are the sorts of things that make expansions interesting: new abilities, not boring rehashes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Jun 1996, Thomas R Wylie wrote: > CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: > >Tom wrote: > New cards will alter the balance of power by definition, unless we issue > nothing but crap variants of existing cards. And part of the whole *point* > of expansions is to shake things up a bit, so people aren't just playing > with the same deck concepts all the time. I agree that the balance is changed, but balance itself needs to be maintained. I am not asserting that AH is unbalanced (on the contrary, I can only find one card that I feel is questionable, and even that card I do not find to be very questionable), but that your assertions regarding balance are off. > >1) New cards are only those applying to the new clans, plus a few obvious > >missing links (like adoption and Clan Impersonation). This would expand > >the game without any meaningful change in power level. > The very existence of a new clan alters the balance of power, if for no > other reason that the existing clans can make use of the new disciplines. But Curt is talking about escalation in the sense that everything is more intense. The fact that old clans can use new disciplines is countered by the cost of trying to adopt ones decks to use them. This takes time and effort, allowing flexibility but not intensifying anything. > >2) New cards apply to existing clans, but provide no impartant new > >abilities. This would create your situation where increased power comes > >only from flexibility and not raw card power > In other words, the new decks would be boring since they could have been > constructed with the existing clans and cards. I am not sure where you get "no _important_ new abilities"==boring. The Giovanni didn't get really any important new abilities with this expansion. Neither did Ravnos. What they did get was more versatility and things that added in with their current strategies. Far from boring. > And you just escalate games > that are played with card limits anyway, since people can play with more > action modifiers that provide stealth, or with a tighter set of combat > strikes, or what have you. The people playing with card limits, as you and I both know, are not playing Jyhad as the game was intended. Whether or not it escalates them is immaterial. > >3) New cards provide important new abilities to existing decks and clans. > >This obviously does increase the power level. To add to Curt's statement, these abilities would be something that really doesn't fit in with their other powers (not expanding their existing strategies versatility, but focusing it) and merely serves to increase the intensity of what they do. If this increase in intensity doesn't come with increase in cost, escalation comes in. > > Including vampires with extensive > >out-of-clan abilities is definitely an important new ability. Giving a > >non-stealth clan (Tremere) 2 vampires with built-in stealth is definitely > >an important new ability. Cards that produce major global benefits (like > >Mass Reality) are definitely an important new ability. While I disagree with Curt on Mass Reality, he is correct about the new Tremere +1 stealther. With two of them, the Tremere are given a totally new power. > All of the above is true, but these are the sorts of things that make > expansions interesting: new abilities, not boring rehashes. By important new abilities, I mean giving typical clan powers or disciplines things that are not in line with what they were able to do before. In my mind, it shouldn't happen. There are certain things that Fortitude cannot do, there are certain things that don't make sense for Brujah, etc.. In a game mechanics sense, new powers should happen, but their cost is important. I didn't see AH as a boring rehash, and for the most part, no old thing got any new abilities (two exceptions: Gangrel combat and Tremere stealth). Their existing abilities were expanded or if their abilities were focused (Blood to Water, for example), ample cost was made on the cards. I hope to see this continue, but I am wary (given your responses) that I might see escalation in the Sabbat (meaning increase focus of already existing strategies without appropriate cost (making game balance harder to coordinate as the card set increases)). @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: >>My primary initial claim, that many Jyhad deck are much more >>powerful with appropriate AH cards, has not been contested . >I actually would dispute that "many" Jyhad decks are "much" more >powerful given Ancient Hearts. While it, like any other expansion, >helped out various concepts, it's not as drastic as you claim. AH doesn't just provide variants of existing cards (a couple of alternatives to Bum's Rush would be very nice, for example). Originally Jyhad had virtually no global effects other than votes and a few Malk cards. Global effects necessarily escalate the game, and AH has several. Originally any of the basic strategies could be cancelled by any deck with the appropriate cards (with a few exceptions that looked like errors or omissions). Now, clearly, standard combat defenses will in general be inadequate. This is a very major escalation. >Your basic point is that you're not going to play with AH because >you think it's overpowered; No; I'll not play with AH because of the back change. If they said "Jyhad" on the back I'd grit my teeth about the escalation and play with AH. >my basic point is that you're either overreacting, or against the >very concept of a good expansion set, in which case your objection >isn't very interesting. As I said above, I think that increasing variety is a fine goal for an expansion. I believe that upping the power of already viable decks will decrease, not increase, variety. >Part of the >whole *point* of expansions is to shake things up a bit, so people >aren't just playing with the same deck concepts all the time. Wouldn't it then be better to introduce cards that permit new deck types (e.g. the Settite Corruption business) rather than cards that ramp up the power of existing decks? Making existing mainstream decks stronger, if anything, reduces the variety of existing decks. (The cards I mentioned all help existing already-viable decks) The cards that give Gangrel Additional Strike and undodgeable damage will encourage the already standard Gangrel Claw combat decks; they don't do Gangrel alternatives, such as untap/bleed or animalism retainer, any good at all. >The very existence of a new clan alters the balance of power, if for no >other reason that the existing clans can make use of the new disciplines. Not that well. An existing Toreador or Brujah deck wouldn't have any vampires with Quietus. To use a new discipline will require a radical change in both crypt and library; it would be a new deck. >In other words, the new decks would be boring since they could have been >constructed with the existing clans and cards. And you just escalate games >that are played with card limits anyway, since people can play with more >action modifiers that provide stealth, or with a tighter set of combat >strikes, or what have you. Well, since existing decks aren't boring, the new ones wouldn't be either. In addition, you would see at the very least major variations on existing themes, and probably whole new possibilities. For example, just adding some small vampires with Thaumaturgy might make a Cryptic Mission deck functional. A few Thaumaturgy actions could add a lot of variety to such a deck, too. These actions don't need to be able to burn a vampire or add 1 to every minion's damage or have any other such overwhelming power to be useful; indeed such powers would be rather detrimental. Frankly, the game would benefit from duplicates of much-used cards like Wake, Blood Doll, Telepathic Counter, Fake Out, etc. Card limit games would be much more like no-limit games as you could use adequate numbers of needed cards. All players could use more of their collections; most of mine sits on the shelf as I haven't enough Blood Dolls and Wakes. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

When I purchased my first packs of AH I did notice a lack of "UMPH" in some of the new cards in comparison to DS which had some awesome cards come out of it (like pentex subversion and horrific countenance). I agree that it is a bad idea to "expand" the effect of some disciplnes. Even making such expanded effects expensive to play just dilutes the value of each discipline. Stealth is the realm of Obfuscate and perhaps protean but never presence no matter how expensive you make it. This error was inadvertently made with Presence and Dominate from the begining. These two disciplines mirror each other much too closely to be individually valuble. Most people I have played with see Presence as a powered down and more political version of Dominate. What good are Ventrue then???? A little has been done to correct this but not nearly enough. There are some really killer cards in AH like Blood to Water and Death of my concience that stay within the boundaries of the discipline but increase the excitement of the game. There are also some cards like Hidden Strength that stay within the boundaries of thier disciplines but really just plain SUCK. I can't imagine any situation I wouldn't rather use hidden strength as opposed to skin of steel. Mercy for the Weak just plain bites and does neither (though it has a cool pic). So far I haven't noticed a problem with balance in Jyhad (which really surprises me) in comparison to other CCGs (particularly Magic and Rage). There are surprisingly many efficient strategies and infinitley more themes available in comparison to Magic (PTUI! I spit on Magic!). This flexibility is hard to expand on while maintaining balance and making sense to the players. I think (or rather hope - PLEASE!) that the Sabbat expansion will be reminicent of the Wyrm expansion for Rage. I see great possibilities for many new strategies in clans like the Lasombra and Tzmisce(sp??). I also look forward to cards reflecting the brutality and dispicable acts traditionally associated with the Sabbat. (Imagine the Red headed stepchild as a retainer :) I can't wait to see the Vissicitude skill card. ********************************************************************** "...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." -Catwoman (Issue #30) *************************************** Dharia McGrew damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew **********************************************************************

Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> writes: > When I purchased my first packs of AH I did notice a lack of "UMPH" >in some of the new cards in comparison to DS which had some awesome cards >come out of it (like pentex subversion and horrific countenance). I agree There are some extremely impressive cards to come out of Ancient Hearts. Maybe you should purchase some more packs! :) > There are some really killer cards in AH like Blood to Water and >Death of my concience that stay within the boundaries of the discipline >but increase the excitement of the game. There are also some cards like >Hidden Strength that stay within the boundaries of thier disciplines but >really just plain SUCK. I can't imagine any situation I wouldn't rather >use hidden strength as opposed to skin of steel. Mercy for the Weak just You should pay closer attention to Hidden Strength vs. Skin of Steel. Skin of Steel can prevent the damage from ALL strikes within a given round (on superior). With Hidden Strength, you could only play it to prevent the damage from 1 strike... so Skin of Steel would be my preferred choice against a vampire with celerity.

Bastet wrote: > > When I purchased my first packs of AH I did notice a lack of "UMPH" > in some of the new cards in comparison to DS which had some awesome cards > come out of it (like pentex subversion and horrific countenance). I agree > that it is a bad idea to "expand" the effect of some disciplnes. Even > making such expanded effects expensive to play just dilutes the value of > each discipline. Stealth is the realm of Obfuscate and perhaps protean > but never presence no matter how expensive you make it. This error was > inadvertently made with Presence and Dominate from the begining. These > two disciplines mirror each other much too closely to be individually > valuble. Most people I have played with see Presence as a powered down > and more political version of Dominate. What good are Ventrue then???? A > little has been done to correct this but not nearly enough. > I actually think that AH cards seem to be a lot more powerful than their DS counterparts.. Even the common cards in AH seem to be a lot more powerful (Elder Impersonation, Blood to Water, Scorpion Sting, and Increased Strength to name a few..).. I do think you have a point about some of the cards from certain disciplines extending into abilities they probably shouldn't have (stealth for Celerity..?), but I guess there's some sort of twisted reasoning behind it.. :) I tend to view Presence and Dominate as two entirely seperate entities.. I rarely use presence bleed cards when I get the chance, as I find dominate bleed cards are just a lot more flexible, in general.. but Presence really shines in a vote deck... I could hardly imagine a vote deck without Bewitching Orations... and of course.. there's alwayws Majesty.. :) > There are some really killer cards in AH like Blood to Water and > Death of my concience that stay within the boundaries of the discipline > but increase the excitement of the game. There are also some cards like > Hidden Strength that stay within the boundaries of thier disciplines but > really just plain SUCK. I can't imagine any situation I wouldn't rather > use hidden strength as opposed to skin of steel. Mercy for the Weak just > plain bites and does neither (though it has a cool pic). So far I haven't > noticed a problem with balance in Jyhad (which really surprises me) in > comparison to other CCGs (particularly Magic and Rage). There are > surprisingly many efficient strategies and infinitley more themes > available in comparison to Magic (PTUI! I spit on Magic!). This > flexibility is hard to expand on while maintaining balance and making > sense to the players. Agreed.. I could almost never see playing with Mercy for the Weak... even the name doesn't sound very Jyhad-esque (can I say that..? :).. I play Jyhad with two different groups, one in a card-limited environment, and one not.. and in neither group have I really seen a play balance problem.. I think WotC is actually on the right track with this game.. other than a view Freaky bleed problems (mostly from me.. :), there hasn't been much you really could do to abuse and get a lock on the game like you can in Magic (yes.. I do play.. don't everyone kill me at once.. :).. even if it looks like you are in a position to sweep the table, one well time Misdirection can really mses up your day.... WyldStar [ quoted text not captured ]

CurtAdams wrote: > > aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes: > >CurtAdams <curt...@aol.com> wrote: > > >>My primary initial claim, that many Jyhad deck are much more > >>powerful with appropriate AH cards, has not been contested . > > >I actually would dispute that "many" Jyhad decks are "much" more > >powerful given Ancient Hearts. While it, like any other expansion, > >helped out various concepts, it's not as drastic as you claim. > > AH doesn't just provide variants of existing cards (a couple of > alternatives to Bum's Rush would be very nice, for example). Originally > Jyhad had virtually no global effects other than votes and a few Malk > cards. Global effects necessarily escalate the game, and AH has several. I actually think it's great that they aren't mass-producing cards that do the exact same thing (oh, great.. another +1 stealth/+2 stealth card.. just what we'd need..).. actually, the most powerful global effects I can think of come from DS and Jyhad.. Antidelluvian Awakening and Anarch Revolt... > > Originally any of the basic strategies could be cancelled by any deck with > the appropriate cards (with a few exceptions that looked like errors or > omissions). Now, clearly, standard combat defenses will in general be > inadequate. This is a very major escalation. > And now there are new cards to cancel those strategies... and cards to cancel strategy-killing cards... (Scorpion Sting to kill dodges, etc..).. it will all just boil down to who has the right card in their hand at the right moment.. just like it has always been.. > >Your basic point is that you're not going to play with AH because > >you think it's overpowered; > > No; I'll not play with AH because of the back change. If they said > "Jyhad" on the back I'd grit my teeth about the escalation and play with > AH. <snicker>.. now THAT I can agree with.. :) I just wish they could get their printing runs done right for once.. (sigh..) > > >my basic point is that you're either overreacting, or against the > >very concept of a good expansion set, in which case your objection > >isn't very interesting. > > As I said above, I think that increasing variety is a fine goal for an > expansion. I believe that upping the power of already viable decks will > decrease, not increase, variety. I don't see any real upping the power of any particular deck.. almost every viable deck just got a way to cancel other deck's powers.. there have been ways to screw up Fortitude all along (Blood Rage, Blood Fury, etc..), but no real ways to stop celerity from dodging then blurring all over you... and now there is a way to stop it... > >Part of the > >whole *point* of expansions is to shake things up a bit, so people > >aren't just playing with the same deck concepts all the time. > > Wouldn't it then be better to introduce cards that permit new deck types > (e.g. the Settite Corruption business) rather than cards that ramp up the > power of existing decks? Making existing mainstream decks stronger, if > anything, reduces the variety of existing decks. (The cards I mentioned > all help existing already-viable decks) The cards that give Gangrel > Additional Strike and undodgeable damage will encourage the already > standard Gangrel Claw combat decks; they don't do Gangrel alternatives, > such as untap/bleed or animalism retainer, any good at all. Scorpion Sting is not really upping the power of anything, per-se.. the damage can still be prevented, combat can still be ended... or you could just maneuver to long range.. the only thing it really does is hurt Celerity/dodge decks.. and this isonly one card from the set... and I do think Kiss of Ra has a place in any Gangrel untap/bleed deck.. it's a great way to keep your prey weak and tapped out when you come over 3 or 4 times a turn.. > > >The very existence of a new clan alters the balance of power, if for no > >other reason that the existing clans can make use of the new disciplines. > > Not that well. An existing Toreador or Brujah deck wouldn't have any > vampires with Quietus. To use a new discipline will require a radical > change in both crypt and library; it would be a new deck. > Agreed, here... it wouldn't be worth throiwng in the skill cards and the one or two vampires that do have the new disciplines from these clans.. more than likely, you'd be stuck holding Quietus and Serpentis cards in your hand.. > >In other words, the new decks would be boring since they could have been > >constructed with the existing clans and cards. And you just escalate > games > >that are played with card limits anyway, since people can play with more > >action modifiers that provide stealth, or with a tighter set of combat > >strikes, or what have you. > > Well, since existing decks aren't boring, the new ones wouldn't be either. > In addition, you would see at the very least major variations on existing > themes, and probably whole new possibilities. For example, just adding > some small vampires with Thaumaturgy might make a Cryptic Mission deck > functional. A few Thaumaturgy actions could add a lot of variety to such > a deck, too. These actions don't need to be able to burn a vampire or add > 1 to every minion's damage or have any other such overwhelming power to be > useful; indeed such powers would be rather detrimental. > > Frankly, the game would benefit from duplicates of much-used cards like > Wake, Blood Doll, Telepathic Counter, Fake Out, etc. Card limit games > would be much more like no-limit games as you could use adequate numbers > of needed cards. All players could use more of their collections; most of > mine sits on the shelf as I haven't enough Blood Dolls and Wakes. But, realisticaly, Jyhad was not meant to be played with card limits, and the set is being produced with that in mind... so the card duplications are unlikely to happen... I agree that there is a distinct lack of small vampires.. even though I know it's not nearly realistic, I'd like to see about 10-15 little vampires from each clan just so there could be a lot of diversity with the smaller guys.. it does get old bringing out Duck or Dimple as the first action of every game.. :) WyldStar > > Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On 25 Jun 1996 19:17:26 -0400, curt...@aol.com (CurtAdams) wrote: > >AH doesn't just provide variants of existing cards (a couple of >alternatives to Bum's Rush would be very nice, for example). Originally >Jyhad had virtually no global effects other than votes and a few Malk >cards. Global effects necessarily escalate the game, and AH has several. I think you focused on DS not AH here. Please give an example of a global AH effect that you see as detrimental. Off the top of my head I can't think of any. >Originally any of the basic strategies could be cancelled by any deck with >the appropriate cards (with a few exceptions that looked like errors or >omissions). Now, clearly, standard combat defenses will in general be >inadequate. This is a very major escalation. Standard combat defense is still adequete in my opinion. Obviously I am not able to play test that but the main cards that afffect combat are Scorpian Sting which helps animalism decks such as Gangrel and Nos by giving a +1 hand strike that at superior canot be dodged. It can still be combat ended which is the major defense I see in a noncombat deck. Dodges are more often in a celerity combat deck along with additional strikes. Since combat ends and Celerity combat are considered overpowered I think that is fine. Also now animalism has another aspect it broaden it. Before the only strikes were ranged and did 1 damage or equipment. Not impressive or unusual. Retainers were the most used thing and they had significant drawbacks in a fast game. Alacrity; +1 stealth and if combat occurs you get 1 maneuver. This for 2 blood is poor combat but balanced stealth. Backstab is a card that should have always been there. Death of my coscience for 3 blood allows a potence minion to cycle thru some cards; there were plenty of damage already for less cost. Increased strength is an escalation but adding damage to a sewer lid, gat or car instead of just melee is a nice touch. FOD did the same for a blood cost but allowed you to do that with a hand weapon and this has no cost but requires a potence strike to add to. Shadow of the Beast 2 blood for an additional strike at +1 hand damage is also escalation but I think minor and livable. It mainly goes against dodge since if it was an aggro strike that was not prevented in the first place it has little effect. Uncontrolable rage is a 2 cost action modifier that is a beefed up wolf claws. pay 2 instead of 1 and get +1 or 2 damage aggravated hand damage. But its a gamble since you can't wait until you see the opponents strike. Blood to water is an escalation also but Tremere are not as feared in 2nd round as they used to be. And this card burns blood and does not do damage so it will need a strike to finish the job. Compared to a drain Essence? The Gangrel retainer that avoids combat ends helps to even things up a bit IMHO. >>Your basic point is that you're not going to play with AH because >>you think it's overpowered; >No; I'll not play with AH because of the back change. If they said >"Jyhad" on the back I'd grit my teeth about the escalation and play with >AH. Well Tom may have forgotten, but I did not. Nonetheless, here were debating whether this was a good expansion not the card back issue. I feel that had this been the first expansion instead of DS this would not be much of an issue and that had it come out with anything like even half as soon as the magic expansions did that it really would not be an issue. Part of the arguement I saw and accepted against Wizards was that they were giving third rate preformance and support to Jhyad and it was felt that investing incards would be a poor choice because we could not trust them to support the game and its continued success. I feel that we wanted them to give us a solid and well tested expansion and that they did. Magic is thiere primary cash cow and we must accept that were a smaller market and get less service and attention. What will not be accepted is that the service we do get is poor and as low quality as DS would suggest where after a brief glance at the preview everyone who looked had several cards they _KNEW_ were broken. I do not feel that this is the case. There are some cards that are close but there is room for debate in matters of taste. A lot of that obviously went into these cards and there are many theme and variant strategies that are given better support. snipped a paragraph >Wouldn't it then be better to introduce cards that permit new deck types >(e.g. the Settite Corruption business) rather than cards that ramp up the >power of existing decks? Making existing mainstream decks stronger, if >anything, reduces the variety of existing decks. (The cards I mentioned >all help existing already-viable decks) The cards that give Gangrel >Additional Strike and undodgeable damage will encourage the already >standard Gangrel Claw combat decks; they don't do Gangrel alternatives, >such as untap/bleed or animalism retainer, any good at all. I too would have liked to some more variety and am quite pleased with the Setite theft idea and how serpentitis was handled. Hopefully Animailism will get a boost (Sabbot=Tizimize) with for example a hunting/restoration type of card for example in the new expansion. There are many things that could be added to this discipline and others without escalation or braodening them beyond thier thematic scope. >>In other words, the new decks would be boring since they could have been >>constructed with the existing clans and cards. And you just escalate >games >>that are played with card limits anyway, since people can play with more >>action modifiers that provide stealth, or with a tighter set of combat >>strikes, or what have you. Actually, I agree with Corruptor here in that card limits is not how the game was designed and so should'nt count for escalation purposes. >Well, since existing decks aren't boring, the new ones wouldn't be either. > In addition, you would see at the very least major variations on existing >themes, and probably whole new possibilities. For example, just adding >some small vampires with Thaumaturgy might make a Cryptic Mission deck >functional. A few Thaumaturgy actions could add a lot of variety to such >a deck, too. These actions don't need to be able to burn a vampire or add >1 to every minion's damage or have any other such overwhelming power to be >useful; indeed such powers would be rather detrimental. See Seeds of Corruption for an interesting Thaum action. And for new possibilities cards like Parthenon so we don't have to see so many Ansons up or can use the idea without having to play Toreadors or vote decks. Or try Elder Impersonation that gives Obfuscate a card to match seduction and Form of mist. Or Clan Impersonation to mix up clans. Or the contracts to add to those assasin combat decks that never quite worked right. >Frankly, the game would benefit from duplicates of much-used cards like >Wake, Blood Doll, Telepathic Counter, Fake Out, etc. Card limit games >would be much more like no-limit games as you could use adequate numbers >of needed cards. All players could use more of their collections; most of >mine sits on the shelf as I haven't enough Blood Dolls and Wakes. >Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com) And this is very true. We should have duplicates of existing cards that every deck uses that have different names and themes to encourage theme decks and have more variety. Also those that want a simple card limit rule can benefit by accessing useful but not broken or seriously threatening cards in greater numbers. Some will feel that for an example a Master card that makes a minion a Power Broker so that one blood can be drawn off/on each master phase to be wallpaper since we have Blood Doll or a Herd card for a vampire to get extra blood when hunting, Alert Snitch that allows you to react as if untapped for the current action, etc. So this should be kept to just a few per expansion but I feel would add to the game and not dtract. Futhermore to expect every card to be perfectly balanced and neither an escalationof existing strategies that are already effective nor a wallpaper card is in my opinion simply not reasonable. We should expect and get the majority of them to fit that description and that the few that are perhaps broken to be of such a nature that is was obvious they were tested but somebody missed something. That is our right as consumers and valued customers and I feel that in this expansion we were well served. Rory The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Tue, 25 Jun 1996, Bastet wrote: > When I purchased my first packs of AH I did notice a lack of "UMPH" > in some of the new cards in comparison to DS which had some awesome cards > come out of it (like pentex subversion and horrific countenance). I agree > that it is a bad idea to "expand" the effect of some disciplnes. While I don't mind expansion as far as breadth of abilities within a limited framework, I dislike expansion as far as increased depth of ability in an already established framework (an example would be a new stealth card +1/+2 stealth). > Even > making such expanded effects expensive to play just dilutes the value of > each discipline. Stealth is the realm of Obfuscate and perhaps protean > but never presence no matter how expensive you make it. This error was > inadvertently made with Presence and Dominate from the begining. These > two disciplines mirror each other much too closely to be individually > valuble. Most people I have played with see Presence as a powered down > and more political version of Dominate. What good are Ventrue then???? A > little has been done to correct this but not nearly enough. I disagree with your assessment of Presence/Dominate. Presence is more typically a voting power with some bleed, and Dominate is more typically a bleeding power with some vote power. Both are useful in different ways. > There are some really killer cards in AH like Blood to Water and > Death of my concience that stay within the boundaries of the discipline > but increase the excitement of the game. There are also some cards like > Hidden Strength that stay within the boundaries of thier disciplines but > really just plain SUCK. I can't imagine any situation I wouldn't rather > use hidden strength as opposed to skin of steel. When you want to prevent just one damage (no cost) or 2 damage from retainers (same cost then as skin of steel, but you can prevent the damage). > Mercy for the Weak just > plain bites and does neither (though it has a cool pic). Mercy for the weak connotes that your older (and supposedly more powerful) vampire is being merciful to the other minion, by S:CE. As for utility, I'd throw it into a non-presence non-combat deck. [snip] > I can't wait to see the Vissicitude skill card. You and me both. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 25 Jun 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > Frankly, the game would benefit from duplicates of much-used cards like > Wake, Blood Doll, Telepathic Counter, Fake Out, etc. Card limit games > would be much more like no-limit games as you could use adequate numbers > of needed cards. All players could use more of their collections; most of > mine sits on the shelf as I haven't enough Blood Dolls and Wakes. By duplicates, do you mean similar cards, or the same card with a different name? Depending on your intention, I might have some serious reservations. As for addressing CL, CL is another house rule. If someone uses any house rule, they should be prepared for the consequences, and not have a game not designed for CL pander to them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Thu, 27 JUN 1996 16:24:39 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Balance in AH (was More thoughts on AH (pt. 1)) > > On Tue, 25 Jun 1996 23:00:54 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> > wrote: > > . There are also some cards like > >Hidden Strength that stay within the boundaries of thier disciplines but > >really just plain SUCK. I can't imagine any situation I wouldn't rather > >use hidden strength as opposed to skin of steel. > > >> *************************************** > >Dharia McGrew > >damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu > >and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) > >http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew > >********************************************************************** > > Welol Skin of steel will only prevent damage from strikes and not say > a Wolf companion. > Rory > The Ref at refp...@best.com > > > Indomitability and unflinching persistance (not to mention skin of rock or superior undead persistance) will usually handle those little dogs quite well and offer more flexibility (as a press or a manuver) than Hidden str. If your opponenet has more than a couple on his blocker then you'd still only be preventing one damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:48:24 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote: > >> >> > Indomitability and unflinching persistance (not to mention skin of >rock or superior undead persistance) will usually handle those little >dogs quite well and offer more flexibility (as a press or a manuver) than >Hidden str. If your opponenet has more than a couple on his blocker then >you'd still only be preventing one damage. Agreed; I did not say it was a real good card but you asked for an example where you might play it instead of skin of steel and I gave you one. All in all it is an okay card but I will be surprised if it is used much except in Card Limit decks. Rory >********************************************************************** >"...I'm just a hard-working girl trying to make it in a man's world." > -Catwoman (Issue #30) > *************************************** >Dharia McGrew >damc...@mhc.mtholyoke.edu >and of course.....(in other words, LOOK AT IT!!!!) >http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~damcgrew >********************************************************************** The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:11:09 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >By duplicates, do you mean similar cards, or the same card with a >different name? >Depending on your intention, I might have some serious reservations. As >for addressing CL, CL is another house rule. If someone uses any house >rule, they should be prepared for the consequences, and not have a game >not designed for CL pander to them. > Well I would like to see a few more of both. Not simply more powerful versions but ones that are the same with a different name (though not more then a few per expansion) for building various theme decks. I also would like similar cards with different tradeoffs that are still balanced. Any objection to that? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 19:48:24 -0400, Bastet <damc...@mtholyoke.edu> > wrote: > > Indomitability and unflinching persistance (not to mention skin of > >rock or superior undead persistance) will usually handle those little > >dogs quite well and offer more flexibility (as a press or a manuver) than > >Hidden str. If your opponenet has more than a couple on his blocker then > >you'd still only be preventing one damage. > Agreed; I did not say it was a real good card but you asked for an > example where you might play it instead of skin of steel and I gave > you one. > All in all it is an okay card but I will be surprised if it is used > much except in Card Limit decks. If you are playing in a deck that wants to just survive combat, it is better than Unflinching Persistence (I believe that is the prevent 1 w/ press), because you can effectively prevent one, but can prevent more if needed (multiple agg., for example), and gives the press when damage is prevented. This makes it superior to Unflinching Persistence unless you need a deck that will stay in combat (and thus be able to press without necessarily having prevented damage). A useful card in any sense, not necessarily relegated to only in CL games. [ quoted text not captured ]

Do you play with Raven contesting Camille Devereaux? We don't, but I think we should. I play Gangrel, and Raven/Camille is a pretty important vamp. Later, 'Nis

On 30 Jun 1996, 'Nis wrote: > Do you play with Raven contesting Camille Devereaux? We don't, but I think > we should. I play Gangrel, and Raven/Camille is a pretty important vamp. Our play group does (as do most I know), but officially, you don't have to. Speaking from a strictly mathematical standpoint, it is unfair (contesting-wise) to allow them to each be considered unique. A small advantage, but an advantage, nonetheless. [ quoted text not captured ]

If you contested Raven for Camille, then you would have to contest Donal O'Conner and Constanza for the same reasons!! All have the same skills!!

mast...@aol.com (Mastaflyy) writes: >If you contested Raven for Camille, then you would have to contest Donal >O'Conner and Constanza for the same reasons!! All have the same skills!! Except that one is the Prince of Dublin, the other is the Prince of Rome. One has the special ability: "If your prey has a ready Ventrue, Constanza gets +2 bleed", the other has the special ability: "Any vampire blocking Donal burns 1 blood before combat begins." And (more importantly): some *thought* went into making Donal and Constanza be two different (non-contesting) vampires. The same cannot be said for Camille the Raven. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | I am Barney of Borg. http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | You will be nauseated. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:11:09 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >By duplicates, do you mean similar cards, or the same card with a > >different name? > >Depending on your intention, I might have some serious reservations. As > >for addressing CL, CL is another house rule. If someone uses any house > >rule, they should be prepared for the consequences, and not have a game > >not designed for CL pander to them. > Well I would like to see a few more of both. Not simply more powerful > versions but ones that are the same with a different name (though not > more then a few per expansion) for building various theme decks. If cards are redone, I would like them to keep the same name, even if the art is different. > I also would like similar cards with different tradeoffs that are > still balanced. This I like. For example, a Bum's Rush variant that supplied a press instead of a manuever. > Any objection to that? To renamed cards, yes. Otherwise, no. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: >On 25 Jun 1996, CurtAdams wrote: >> Frankly, the game would benefit from duplicates of much-used cards like >> Wake, Blood Doll, Telepathic Counter, Fake Out, etc. Card limit games >> would be much more like no-limit games as you could use adequate numbers >> of needed cards. All players could use more of their collections; most of >> mine sits on the shelf as I haven't enough Blood Dolls and Wakes. >By duplicates, do you mean similar cards, or the same card with a >different name? Either, really. Selling them as ultra-commons a la Shadowfist in starters would be nice too, although it wouldn't help with CL. >Depending on your intention, I might have some serious reservations. As >for addressing CL, CL is another house rule. If someone uses any house >rule, they should be prepared for the consequences, and not have a game >not designed for CL pander to them. The purpose is to address the shortage of certain really important cards, starting with Wake and Blood Doll, which are the limiting factor in the number of strong decks you can make. Improving the situation in CL games is a side bonus. Rory pointed out to me that this would create a problem with action modifiers and reactions, as you could then stack say, Bewitching Oration with Stirring Speech for +8. Still, though, there are a lost of cards you could do this with. Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:06:47 -0500, The Corrupter > <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: > >If cards are redone, I would like them to keep the same name, even if the > >art is different. > Why? > What is wrong with say a snitch card that acts like a wake? > (just as an example) If it acted _like_ wake, but had some different qualities, fine. But if it was basicly the same card, I would like it to keep the same name to ease confusion. Different art, fine, but different name strikes me of the ice age syndrome (look Balduvian Bears! A funky Grizzly Bear). > >> I also would like similar cards with different tradeoffs that are > >> still balanced. > >This I like. For example, a Bum's Rush variant that supplied a press > >instead of a manuever. > Okay that would be a good card but why name it Bums Rush? I didn't think it should be named Bum's Rush. Sorry if I wasn't clear. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 2 Jul 1996, CurtAdams wrote: > The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> writes: > >On 25 Jun 1996, CurtAdams wrote: [RE: Duplicate Cards] > >By duplicates, do you mean similar cards, or the same card with a > >different name? > Either, really. Selling them as ultra-commons a la Shadowfist in starters > would be nice too, That would be nice, but for those of you with internet access, there is always Ed Bayne (see *.marketplace). > although it wouldn't help with CL. Nature of the beast. People need to think about consequences before they use a house rule. > >Depending on your intention, I might have some serious reservations. As > >for addressing CL, CL is another house rule. If someone uses any house > >rule, they should be prepared for the consequences, and not have a game > >not designed for CL pander to them. > The purpose is to address the shortage of certain really important cards, > starting with Wake and Blood Doll, which are the limiting factor in the > number of strong decks you can make. While I expect to see more Wakes and Blood Dolls in the Sabbat, I hope that the expansion either leaves these cards with the same name (different art) or has alternatives that are different in their effect. In either case, more of the cards become available. > Improving the situation in CL games > is a side bonus. Rory pointed out to me that this would create a problem > with action modifiers and reactions, as you could then stack say, > Bewitching Oration with Stirring Speech for +8. Still, though, there are > a lost of cards you could do this with. Not for certain things (stealth, intercept, voting, etc.). I don't like more cards that do the same thing with different names. It just adds to confusion and doesn't add anything to the game. Having easy access to ultra-commons would be nice, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 1 Jul 1996 21:01:58 -0400, mast...@aol.com (Mastaflyy) wrote: >If you contested Raven for Camille, then you would have to contest Donal >O'Conner and Constanza for the same reasons!! All have the same skills!! The reason for contesting Raven and Cammile is that Raven replaced Cammile. If you use both this gives the Gangrel one more vampire then the other clans of the Camirrila and its a nice ones as well. The Ref at refp...@best.com

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:06:47 -0500, The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: >> Well I would like to see a few more of both. Not simply more powerful >> versions but ones that are the same with a different name (though not >> more then a few per expansion) for building various theme decks. >If cards are redone, I would like them to keep the same name, even if the >art is different. Why? What is wrong with say a snitch card that acts like a wake? (just as an example) >> I also would like similar cards with different tradeoffs that are >> still balanced. >This I like. For example, a Bum's Rush variant that supplied a press >instead of a manuever. Okay that would be a good card but why name it Bums Rush? That would just create confusion. >> Any objection to that? >To renamed cards, yes. Otherwise, no. > @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ > # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* > @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) >@#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+? The Ref at refp...@best.com

In article <Pine.NXT.3.91.960630160029.441A-100000@pentode>, sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu says... > >On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Rory wrote: > [ quoted text not captured ] Hold on. Hidden strength, if you take away the X blood cost, and the potential to stop more than one damage, is Indomitability. The exact same card, except better, because you can spend X blood to change damage from aggravated to normal, or to stop your opponent from playing pulled fangs, or other like tricks. Can anyone tell me a time when they would want to have an idomitability over a hidden strength? Because if not, this moves into the realm of whether cards which are strictly better than others should be made. WotC decided that it was imbalancing in Magic; what makes it any different here, unless they're planning on replacing Indomitability w/ hidden strength in the next issue of V:tES? Alec Chang

On Thu, 04 Jul 96 17:21:26 PST, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote: >Can anyone tell me a time when they would want to have an idomitability >over a hidden strength? Because if not, this moves into the realm of >whether cards which are strictly better than others should be made. WotC >decided that it was imbalancing in Magic; what makes it any different >here, unless they're planning on replacing Indomitability w/ hidden >strength in the next issue of V:tES? >Alec Chang Indomitability can be used as a straight press card as well. Hidden strength is a straight damage prevention card that gives you an optional press at superior. So Indomitability is more flexable but blocks less damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Rory wrote: > Date: Sat, 06 JUL 1996 07:17:06 GMT > From: Rory <refp...@best.com> > Newgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > Subject: Re: Balance in AH (was More thoughts on AH (pt. 1)) > [ quoted text not captured ] But Hidden strength costs way too much and effectively only blocks one point. Though, I admit there are a few (VERY few) uses for hidden strength it is little more than wallpaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Bastet wrote: [Re: Indomitability vs. Hidden Strength] > But Hidden strength costs way too much and effectively only blocks one > point. Though, I admit there are a few (VERY few) uses for hidden > strength it is little more than wallpaper. Actually, most people I know say that Hidden Strength made Indomitability wallpaper. In actuality, they both have their place. Indomitability: Inf: Prevent 1 damage Sup: Press, or Prevent 1 damage with Optional Press Hidden Strength: Inf: X Blood to prevent X+1 damage Sup: as above with an optional press Hidden Strength is effectively preventing the loss of just as much blood as Indomitability, but can stop aggravated from meaning anything. However, it is more flexible (and cheaper) than Skin of Steel, when you want to prevent small amounts of damage (say 1) or retainer damage. However, unlike Indomitability, you cannot use Hidden Strength's press unless you have prevented damage. Each card does something useful. [ quoted text not captured ]

For The Corrupter, Peter, and Tom: Yes, I too think that there was a slight escalation in power with the AH expansion and that some of the cards aided strategies that really didn't need the help. The Tremere got another Vampire with permanent stealth ( huh?) and the Gangrel got some additional strikes (so why play celerity?) I agree that the apparent weakness of the Gangrel deck to celerity combat decks was not a major problem. No combat deck should be perfect. Every deck design, combat or other, should have to weigh trade-offs and balance benefits with weaknesses. If I have those dodges in my hand during combat, I have given something else up that I could have in that card slot. I am not, however, unhappy with the AH card set in general. I actually like the set and think that it is quite well done. Yes, I do think the AH expansion adds a lot to the play environment. I don't think there was any burning need for the Gangrel to get additional strikes (where did that come from?) but the Dog Pack doesn't bother me. I think it is so expensive and fragile (and limitted to one vamp) that it won't be a big factor in play. The Tremere won't be much better at combat than they are now with their Blood To Water. They have a devil of a time getting to the second round, but if they do manage to press they will be a bit better off. Tom, I think AH is really quite good. Certainly there are things I would change, but you guys did a pretty good job. No major complaints from my keyboard about the set. I may revise that opinion after some more playing ( I plan to try some Assamite combat) but any thoughts about the set will be presented as constructive suggestions rather than whining ( no offense intended to _anyone_.) Good work, Tom, I think you guys can be proud. Also, the cards seem to be much sturdier and resilient. (I missed you at the San Diego Comic Con this weekend. Wanted to tell you in person how much I appreciate your efforts on the newsgroup and in the Duelist.) Hope everybody will try this expansion and find something they like in it. Thanks for listening. Doug Dunaway

On 9 Jul 1996, DOUGDWISE wrote: > For The Corrupter, Peter, and Tom: > Yes, I too think that there was a slight escalation in power with the AH > expansion and that some of the cards aided strategies that really didn't > need the help. The Tremere got another Vampire with permanent stealth ( > huh?) Something they should consider a 2 cost power, really... > and the Gangrel got some additional strikes (so why play celerity?) another agreement. > I agree that the apparent weakness of the Gangrel deck to celerity combat > decks was not a major problem. No combat deck should be perfect. Every > deck design, combat or other, should have to weigh trade-offs and balance > benefits with weaknesses. Something Jyhad has done well with. > If I have those dodges in my hand during > combat, I have given something else up that I could have in that card > slot. I am not, however, unhappy with the AH card set in general. I > actually like the set and think that it is quite well done. I certainly agree. IMHO, while AH has a glitch (low cost on a particular card) the set on the whole was _extremely_ pleasurable. Balance seemed at a premium. > Yes, I do think the AH expansion adds a lot to the play environment. I > don't think there was any burning need for the Gangrel to get additional > strikes (where did that come from?) Exactly. > but the Dog Pack doesn't bother me. Dog Pack was one of my favorite cards in the set. > I > think it is so expensive and fragile (and limitted to one vamp) that it > won't be a big factor in play. The Tremere won't be much better at combat > than they are now with their Blood To Water. They have a devil of a time > getting to the second round, but if they do manage to press they will be a > bit better off. I don't see BtW as being a problem card at all. It is expensive and really requires superior Thaumaturgy and a 2nd Round to be effective. [Snip] > Good work, Tom, I think you guys can be proud. I, too, feel that you did a good job. > Also, the cards seem to be much sturdier and resilient. This is still a problem. A friend of mine had the ink on some of his cards rub off the first day. The card stock is still a lot less quality than in the origial Jyhad printing. On a worse note, the card back problem is exasperbated by the new AH back (slightly redder). Still, the good outweighs the bad... Thanks, Tom, for your earlier assurances being held up. [ quoted text not captured ]