5 Starters in a pack? (LSJ?)

It strikes me as a very bad thing(tm) that there are four starters in each set -well very bad for pre-releases anyway. Is there any reason for this phenomenon or is it just a hang-over from WoTC and their other game? I can't imagine any reason why the boxes couldn't be that little bit bigger...

[ quoted text not captured ] Each set? You mean like the 3 in Anarchs or the 6 in Camarilla edition? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ expounded: > Each set? > You mean like the 3 in Anarchs or the 6 in Camarilla edition? That's exactly what I mean! No why didn't anyone else point that out to me? Anyway how do you decide how many to put in a set?

[ quoted text not captured ] By whatever the needs of the set/marketing/production are. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ expounded: > > Anyway how do you decide how many to put in a set? > > By whatever the needs of the set/marketing/production are. Ok.. so why 4 in BH? (hope it's not all far too complicated and convoluted ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] It's as much art as science, you know. With that in mind... Those were the 4 that didn't yet have starters. !Gangrel would've come too close on the heels of the Gangrel starter from a marketing POV, as I understand it. That clan would possibly be served by two starters (city/country) in addition, when it is eventually done. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:10:11 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >!Gangrel would've come too close on the heels of the Gangrel starter >from a marketing POV, as I understand it. That clan would possibly be >served by two starters (city/country) in addition, when it is >eventually done. This does however suggest the very real possibility that these starters will one day surface then :) Allthough it might take a while. Doesn't seem that likely with Gehenna ;)

>> Ok.. so why 4 in BH? (hope it's not all far too complicated and >> convoluted ;) > >It's as much art as science, you know. With that in mind... > >Those were the 4 that didn't yet have starters. > >!Gangrel would've come too close on the heels of the Gangrel starter >from a marketing POV, as I understand it. That clan would possibly be >served by two starters (city/country) in addition, when it is >eventually done. > Pander could use some clan cards.

Curevei wrote: > Pander could use some clan cards. A minority opinion, I think. Pander do not lend themselves to mono-clan deckbuilding except in weenie decks. Weenie decks need no boosts currently. At any rate, the point is not on-topic for this thread, which is about starter decks, not clan cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Pander could use some clan cards. > >A minority opinion, I think. > >Pander do not lend themselves to mono-clan deckbuilding except in weenie >decks. Weenie decks need no boosts currently. Isn't one of the reasons they don't lend themselves to mono-clan, non-weenie decks because they haven't gotten any new cards that encourage such? Aren't there more Pander who are older like Benezri? Or, couldn't they just be made? I would find it odd to see Joseph Pander as a weenie, though I know next to nothing about him. >At any rate, the point is not on-topic for this thread, which is about >starter decks, not clan cards. You said that the 4 BH precons were for the clans that didn't have them prior to BH and went on to mention the !Gangrel as not having one still. No mention was made of how the other Sabbat clan, the Pander, don't have one. A Pander precon would make more sense if the Pander were more functional as a clan which would be more likely if they had more clan cards.

Curevei wrote: > Isn't one of the reasons they don't lend themselves to mono-clan, non-weenie > decks because they haven't gotten any new cards that encourage such? The reason is that they're weenies. That fact cannot be overcome by printing more Legacy of Pander type cards. > Aren't there more Pander who are older like Benezri? Or, couldn't they just be > made? I would find it odd to see Joseph Pander as a weenie, though I know next > to nothing about him. Hard to build a mono-Benezri deck, I imagine. Certainly not a common enough desire among players to make another Pander card. >>At any rate, the point is not on-topic for this thread, which is about >>starter decks, not clan cards. > > You said that the 4 BH precons were for the clans that didn't have them prior > to BH and went on to mention the !Gangrel as not having one still. No mention > was made of how the other Sabbat clan, the Pander, don't have one. > > A Pander precon would make more sense if the Pander were more functional as a > clan which would be more likely if they had more clan cards. If you say so. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > > Curevei wrote: > > Pander could use some clan cards. > > A minority opinion, I think. I agree with him. That'd be two to one. :-} > Pander do not lend themselves to mono-clan deckbuilding except in weenie > decks. Weenie decks need no boosts currently. I don't think that's a valid observation. When you build a weenie deck, you generally don't conform to clan limitations of any kind at all, unless you need what Gomi calls a "clan toy" or two. But to the extent you attempt to conform your weenie deck to the need for such a thing, it constrains what weenies you can use. For instance, if I want to put enough Malkavians into my weeny deck featuring the cheapest minions that have inferior obfuscate to support Muddled Vampire Hunters, I have to start going up it bit in capsize. I can see the reluctance to print anything really powerful or very many things, but right now it's hard to find any reason to play Pander at all. Ghouled Street Thug is overcosted and has little synergy with most Pander anyway. And while current Legacy of Pander is possibly worth using IF you're building a LoP deck for other reasons, it's really not a good enough reason to build one by itself. (And it's worthless to build a partial Pander deck to get, unlike the Muddled Vampire Hunter example above with Malkavian weenies - since the fewer Pander you put in, the fewer potential votes you'll get from it.) PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Pander could really use at least another good clan card, if not a few, to make things interesting. THIS HAS BEEN A PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT! Fred

In message <3FB98AE0...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >> Pander do not lend themselves to mono-clan deckbuilding except in weenie >> decks. Weenie decks need no boosts currently. > >I don't think that's a valid observation. When you build a weenie deck, There are 13 Pander, counting Benezri only once. 11 of those Pander are 3-caps or cheaper, ie. weenies. Therefore: Pander are almost all weenies => true statement. A Pander clan deck will be mostly weenies => true statement. Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. Pander decks need no boosts => true statement. QED. >you generally don't conform to clan limitations of any kind at all, unless Unless you are building a Pander deck, which is composed of weenies. >you need what Gomi calls a "clan toy" or two. But to the extent you >attempt to conform your weenie deck to the need for such a thing, it >constrains what weenies you can use. For instance, if I want to put enough >Malkavians into my weeny deck featuring the cheapest minions that have >inferior obfuscate to support Muddled Vampire Hunters, I have to start going >up it bit in capsize. Or doubling up on vampires, the ACTUAL solution. 2x Watenda, 2x Normal, you get the idea. >I can see the reluctance to print anything really powerful or very many >things, but right now it's hard to find any reason to play Pander at all. There are, of course, many other non-weenie clans for which it is easy to find reasons to play. Perhaps the current designers intend to move the game away from weenies. >Ghouled Street Thug is overcosted and has little synergy with most Pander Nobody is sure why the Sabbat designers created Ghouled Street Thug, much less what he was supposed to do. >Pander could really use at least another good clan card, if not a few, >to make things interesting. Alternately, just play non-weenie decks. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3FB98AE0...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >> Pander do not lend themselves to mono-clan deckbuilding except in weenie > >> decks. Weenie decks need no boosts currently. > > > >I don't think that's a valid observation. When you build a weenie deck, > > There are 13 Pander, counting Benezri only once. > 11 of those Pander are 3-caps or cheaper, ie. weenies. > Therefore: > > Pander are almost all weenies => true statement. > A Pander clan deck will be mostly weenies => true statement. > Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. This is the step in the proof that's thoroughly flawed. I'd concede that there are some very good weeny decks out there. On the other hand, that point doesn't mean you can just take 12 random weenies and make a good deck out of them. This is the implication you're suggesting when you equate "Pander Deck" = "Weeny Deck" but then use the same symbol ("Weeny Deck") to unfairly associate, for example, some deck of all-dominate weenies that have been tearing up tables with the crypt you get from choosing 12 of the Pander. > >you need what Gomi calls a "clan toy" or two. But to the extent you > >attempt to conform your weenie deck to the need for such a thing, it > >constrains what weenies you can use. For instance, if I want to put enough > >Malkavians into my weeny deck featuring the cheapest minions that have > >inferior obfuscate to support Muddled Vampire Hunters, I have to start going > >up it bit in capsize. > > Or doubling up on vampires, the ACTUAL solution. 2x Watenda, 2x Normal, > you get the idea. Fine. But doubling up has its own problems as well. I didn't say they were very bad problems, necessarily. In this case I'd say they're pretty slight whichever way you go. I was just demonstrating the point that confining your weenies to a single clan weakens the crypt. In the case of Pander (or Caitiff, were that a clan), the problem is much worse because their disciplines aren't almost entirely confined to three choices. > >I can see the reluctance to print anything really powerful or very many > >things, but right now it's hard to find any reason to play Pander at all. > > There are, of course, many other non-weenie clans for which it is easy > to find reasons to play. Perhaps the current designers intend to move > the game away from weenies. Maybe. But given that much more powerful weeny decks already exist, I'm just suggesting that it wouldn't hurt anything to let people have some actual fun with a Pander clan deck. I don't think it's much problem to do that in a way that won't make the truly powerful weeny decks any worse. So I suppose that would involve making sure you don't give them something that can be easily integrated into a deck with three or four Pander and eight or nine other vampires that are organized around a discipline instead of the Pander clan. Fred

> LSJ wrote: > > > > Curevei wrote: > > > Pander could use some clan cards. > > > > A minority opinion, I think. > > I agree with him. That'd be two to one. :-} Make that two all. There are far more interesting avenues to explore than more Pander cards. Chris.

In message <3FB9ACB6...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> There are 13 Pander, counting Benezri only once. >> 11 of those Pander are 3-caps or cheaper, ie. weenies. >> Therefore: >> >> Pander are almost all weenies => true statement. >> A Pander clan deck will be mostly weenies => true statement. >> Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. > >This is the step in the proof that's thoroughly flawed. I'd concede that >there are some very good weeny decks out there. On the other hand, that So weenie decks, then, need no boosts. I believe this directly contradicts your statement that the step is "thoroughly flawed". >point doesn't mean you can just take 12 random weenies and make a good >deck out of them. This is the implication you're suggesting when you >equate "Pander Deck" = "Weeny Deck" but then use the same symbol ("Weeny >Deck") to unfairly associate, for example, some deck of all-dominate >weenies that have been tearing up tables with the crypt you get from >choosing 12 of the Pander. What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? This deck needs no boost. And it is impossible to prevent any cards that read "Pander-only" from being used with this deck. >> >inferior obfuscate to support Muddled Vampire Hunters, I have to start going >> >up it bit in capsize. >> >> Or doubling up on vampires, the ACTUAL solution. 2x Watenda, 2x Normal, >> you get the idea. > >Fine. But doubling up has its own problems as well. I didn't say they All of which pale in comparison to the benefits, especially in a deck which is likely to use Effective Management AND have its minions occasionally burned. >confining your weenies to a single clan weakens the crypt. In the case >of Pander (or Caitiff, were that a clan), the problem is much worse >because their disciplines aren't almost entirely confined to three choices. Weenie decks need no boosts. >> >I can see the reluctance to print anything really powerful or very many >> >things, but right now it's hard to find any reason to play Pander at all. >> >> There are, of course, many other non-weenie clans for which it is easy >> to find reasons to play. Perhaps the current designers intend to move >> the game away from weenies. > >Maybe. But given that much more powerful weeny decks already exist, I'm >just suggesting that it wouldn't hurt anything to let people have some >actual fun with a Pander clan deck. I don't think it's much problem to However, any Pander cards could be used to make a more powerful "traditional" weenie deck as well as your hopeful "fun" decks. Since we already know that weenie decks need no boosts, it is unlikely that additional Pander cards would be a good idea. >do that in a way that won't make the truly powerful weeny decks any >worse. So I suppose that would involve making sure you don't give them See above; how do you deal with the Pander Computer Hack deck, that is backed up with Tributes, Hungry Coyote, etc.? Would you make that deck better? I don't think so. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3FB9ACB6...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> There are 13 Pander, counting Benezri only once. > >> 11 of those Pander are 3-caps or cheaper, ie. weenies. > >> Therefore: > >> > >> Pander are almost all weenies => true statement. > >> A Pander clan deck will be mostly weenies => true statement. > >> Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. > > > >This is the step in the proof that's thoroughly flawed. I'd concede that > >there are some very good weeny decks out there. On the other hand, that > > So weenie decks, then, need no boosts. I believe this directly > contradicts your statement that the step is "thoroughly flawed". Nope, sorry, doesn't work. The difference between *some* weeny decks being good and *all* weeny decks being good. > > >point doesn't mean you can just take 12 random weenies and make a good > >deck out of them. This is the implication you're suggesting when you > >equate "Pander Deck" = "Weeny Deck" but then use the same symbol ("Weeny > >Deck") to unfairly associate, for example, some deck of all-dominate > >weenies that have been tearing up tables with the crypt you get from > >choosing 12 of the Pander. > > What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, > Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? If you did that, you'd get a sucky deck. > This deck needs no boost. I guess. If you like losing. Not much point in going on if you can't figure out how to beat a deck with 12 random weenies, Computer Hacks, Dodges, Effective Managements, and Tribute to Masters. Cripes, why did they even bother inventing disciplines? Fred

In message <3FBABCE7...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> In message <3FB9ACB6...@removethis.com>, >> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled >> something about: >> >> >> Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. >> > >> >This is the step in the proof that's thoroughly flawed. I'd concede that >> >there are some very good weeny decks out there. On the other hand, that >> >> So weenie decks, then, need no boosts. I believe this directly >> contradicts your statement that the step is "thoroughly flawed". > >Nope, sorry, doesn't work. The difference between *some* weeny decks being >good and *all* weeny decks being good. Which doesn't matter, because all you need for something to be broken is "some". If X weenie decks are mediocre, while Y weenie decks are good, then adding something which makes all weenie decks better simply means that X weenie decks are good, and Y weenie decks are broken. Yes, sorry, does work, Freddie. Assuming that people will never play the decks of group Y is a laugher. >> >point doesn't mean you can just take 12 random weenies and make a good >> >deck out of them. This is the implication you're suggesting when you >> >equate "Pander Deck" = "Weeny Deck" but then use the same symbol ("Weeny >> >Deck") to unfairly associate, for example, some deck of all-dominate >> >weenies that have been tearing up tables with the crypt you get from >> >choosing 12 of the Pander. >> >> What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, >> Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? > >If you did that, you'd get a sucky deck. Which would nevertheless likely oust at least its first prey (if not more) when seeded against random decks, OR force the table to turn against it. See the X/anti-X pattern? Please read back over the newsgroup for 5 years and do some research as to why the "play X or anti-X" syndrome is bad. Then come argue with the big boys. >> This deck needs no boost. > >I guess. If you like losing. Oh whatever, Freddles. I know you play nothing but weenies, and as such you play in an environment where there is consistently a lot of specialized anti-weenie stuff around. This is called "Playing to Screw Fred's Weenies", which isn't too surprising and happens anywhere someone just can't bring himself to put down his weenie crutch. Eventually you'd think the guy with the weenie crutch would figure it out and get some clue. But some people just are sticks-in-the-mud... >Not much point in going on if you can't figure out how to beat a deck >with 12 random weenies, Computer Hacks, Dodges, Effective Managements, >and Tribute to Masters. Cripes, why did they even bother inventing >disciplines? Nevermind that part of the reason it's even possible to beat a deck with 12 random weenies and the above list of cards is because the designers have made a concerted effort over... 6 sets, is it? ..to move the game away from weenies, both with anti-weenie cards and making big vamps stronger. Why turn around and make weenies stronger when you've spent so much effort improving the quality of the game? [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3FBABCE7...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >> > >> In message <3FB9ACB6...@removethis.com>, > >> Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > >> something about: > >> > >> >> Weenie decks need no boosts => true statement. > >> > > >> >This is the step in the proof that's thoroughly flawed. I'd concede that > >> >there are some very good weeny decks out there. On the other hand, that > >> > >> So weenie decks, then, need no boosts. I believe this directly > >> contradicts your statement that the step is "thoroughly flawed". > > > >Nope, sorry, doesn't work. The difference between *some* weeny decks being > >good and *all* weeny decks being good. > > Which doesn't matter, because all you need for something to be broken is > "some". If X weenie decks are mediocre, while Y weenie decks are good, > then adding something which makes all weenie decks better simply means > that X weenie decks are good, and Y weenie decks are broken. Yea, but now you've slipped something else that's wrong. Unless, you're paranoid about decks the _might_ get one victory point and then crash and burn horribly, giving the Panders an extra clan toy or two isn't going to help weeny decks that are actually good one iota - given the caveat that such toys not be usable in decks with a small minority of Pander. > >> >point doesn't mean you can just take 12 random weenies and make a good > >> >deck out of them. This is the implication you're suggesting when you > >> >equate "Pander Deck" = "Weeny Deck" but then use the same symbol ("Weeny > >> >Deck") to unfairly associate, for example, some deck of all-dominate > >> >weenies that have been tearing up tables with the crypt you get from > >> >choosing 12 of the Pander. > >> > >> What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, > >> Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? > > > >If you did that, you'd get a sucky deck. > > Which would nevertheless likely oust at least its first prey (if not > more) when seeded against random decks, OR force the table to turn > against it. So it forces the table to turn against it. And they do. And the thing dies horribly. So what? That's why people don't play much *better* decks than the one you're all convulsed and shaking about. Decks that ultimately lose, one way or another, are not a problem. > See the X/anti-X pattern? Hardly. I don't see where any "anti-weeny" decks even enter the discussion. They're not necessary. > >> This deck needs no boost. > > > >I guess. If you like losing. > > Oh whatever, Freddles. I know you play nothing but weenies, and as such > you play in an environment where there is consistently a lot of > specialized anti-weenie stuff around. This is called "Playing to Screw > Fred's Weenies", which isn't too surprising and happens anywhere someone > just can't bring himself to put down his weenie crutch. Oh, dear me. I had no idea I was so infamous in these parts. Funny, I've never noticed anyone doing anything that seems geared to weeny-bopping anywhere I play. I remember going to Gencon a couple years back and getting my ass handed to me at an even greater frequency than I was used to out here. Apparently, there must a LOT of guys all over the country who, "Play to Screw Fred's Weenies". Pardon me if I just thought I was running into better players. So none of this has anything to do with decks Derek would like to play were it not for all those stinkin' weenies running around? I don't know what issues you have with this but it would be inane to think that poor l'il Panders can't a lousy break because Derek Rey is scared to death of disciplineless weenies running around with Computer Hacks and Dodges. Fred

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:51:13 -0700, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> scrawled: Benevolent Sponsor Action, Requires Pander +1 stealth Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one Benevolent Sponsor. Is this a usable clan toy for Pander that doesn't help degenerate weenie decks? I'm sure the designers, if they were so inclined, could come up with any number of Pander cards that aren't weenie deck boosters. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

In message <3FBCE2F1...@removethis.com>, Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled something about: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> Which doesn't matter, because all you need for something to be broken is >> "some". If X weenie decks are mediocre, while Y weenie decks are good, >> then adding something which makes all weenie decks better simply means >> that X weenie decks are good, and Y weenie decks are broken. > >Yea, but now you've slipped something else that's wrong. Unless, you're >paranoid about decks the _might_ get one victory point and then crash >and burn horribly, giving the Panders an extra clan toy or two isn't going >to help weeny decks that are actually good one iota - given the caveat >that such toys not be usable in decks with a small minority of Pander. It is not difficult to produce a weenie crypt that will routinely get a majority of Pander out as well as other weenies, enabling them to take advantage of the Pander toy that you foolishly believed would not contribute to weenie decks. >> >> What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, >> >> Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? >> > >> >If you did that, you'd get a sucky deck. >> >> Which would nevertheless likely oust at least its first prey (if not >> more) when seeded against random decks, OR force the table to turn >> against it. > >So it forces the table to turn against it. And they do. And the thing So it's a good thing to make it easier to play decks that the whole table has to turn against, completely ruining the predator/prey relationship that is central to the entire game? >dies horribly. So what? That's why people don't play much *better* decks No, sometimes it wins. >than the one you're all convulsed and shaking about. Decks that >ultimately lose, one way or another, are not a problem. The deck above wins its fair share of games, as you well know. You are currently deliberately mis-stating its strength in an effort to support your point; however, those of us who know the truth are not fooled. >> See the X/anti-X pattern? > >Hardly. I don't see where any "anti-weeny" decks even enter the >discussion. They're not necessary. Pay attention, Freddie. You'll see the X/anti-X if you look. >So none of this has anything to do with decks Derek would like to play >were it not for all those stinkin' weenies running around? I don't know >what issues you have with this but it would be inane to think that poor >l'il Panders can't a lousy break because Derek Rey is scared to death of >disciplineless weenies running around with Computer Hacks and Dodges. That is correct, Fred, none of it has ANYTHING to do with any decks that I personally would like to play; I play them anyway, whether or not I think I'll see the Weenie Computer Hack Dodge Horde. I do not argue from personal bias, unlike you. I believe that anything which reduces the variety of viable decks is a Bad Thing, whether or not I want to play those decks. You, on the other hand, evince a clear clan preference, and have in the past evinced both an anti-combat bias (because weenies die to combat), and a pro-weenie preference. Assuming that you can make a fair judgement on this would be a laugher; you are far more likely to just be munchkinning out and hoping to sneak one by. Giving Pander a clan card improves weenie decks, because the Pander are a weenie clan. Improving weenie decks reduces the variety of decks which are viable at a tournament table. Therefore, while giving Pander a clan card would improve the variety of viable decks in a small fashion (for Pander), it would reduce that variety by far more than it would improve it, leading to a net loss. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:29:39 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:51:13 -0700, Frederick Scott ><freds64_at_...@removethis.com> scrawled: > >Benevolent Sponsor >Action, Requires Pander >+1 stealth >Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. >The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander >once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one >Benevolent Sponsor. let's make it a ready Sabbat vampire with a capacity above 5, just to make it actually make a bit of sense. replying to my own posts...don't i proofread? sheesh... [ quoted text not captured ]

>Giving Pander a clan card improves weenie decks, because the Pander are >a weenie clan. There are all sorts of ways to create Pander cards that don't improve weenie decks. For instance, could have as part of the text "Burn this card at any time you control more than 3 vampires." Offhand, maybe something like - Thuganomics Action Cost = 1 (blood) +1 stealth action. Requires a ready Pander. Put this card on the acting Pander. The Pander with this card may recruit allies for one less blood or pool (to a minimum of zero blood or pool). Allies recruited by this Pander gain a You Can't See Me Counter. Allies with a You Can't See Me Counter have +1 bleed. Burn this card if this Pander's controller controls more than 3 vampires. - to help make a bad card better. Or, could just do something completely different. Also, there's no requirement that V:TES be perfectly consistent with the source material, so it's always possible to create big Pander. Alternatively, the source material could introduce Pander who went around diablerizing a bunch of old guys and become low gen. Much diablerie was always possible, but it's more likely "now" based on what I've read of an article on the new Gehenna book for V:TM. I think it was Chris Arthur who said he didn't care for more Pander stuff because there were better things to do. Okay, there's probably things I consider better to do as well. But, I like having options with cards I already have and having Pander be good for nothing but weenie decks or lowering ave. cap. in decks isn't terribly interesting.

salem expounded: > Benevolent Sponsor > Action, Requires Pander > +1 stealth > Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. > The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander > once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one > Benevolent Sponsor. > > Is this a usable clan toy for Pander that doesn't help degenerate > weenie decks? Not really. Pander Vote&Bleed is in the building!

[delayed because it got lost in my software] LSJ expounded: > Timlagor wrote: > > LSJ expounded: > > > >>>Anyway how do you decide how many to put in a set? > >> > >>By whatever the needs of the set/marketing/production are. > > > > Ok.. so why 4 in BH? (hope it's not all far too complicated and > > convoluted ;) > > It's as much art as science, you know. With that in mind... > > Those were the 4 that didn't yet have starters. > > !Gangrel would've come too close on the heels of the Gangrel starter > from a marketing POV, as I understand it. That clan would possibly be > served by two starters (city/country) in addition, when it is > eventually done. No Assamites (I gather they are prominent in the RPG) because there is one already and you didn't want to have Assamite Antitribu as seperate? Does this mean that there aren't likely to be any more Clan starters? (after the !gangrel(s)) I'm intrigued by your "from a marketing POV, as I understand it". Who decides on the marketing PoV? (I heard at least oneperson bemoan the absence of !gan btw :) I suppose it would be difficult to do justice to a lot of starters with small expansions too. Did you consider holding one back to go with the !Gangrels? in another set? (ie another 3 pack expansion)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:24:32 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] But surely if you need a 6 cap plus to use it, it's not a weenie deck? [ quoted text not captured ]

salem expounded: > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:24:32 -0000, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: > > >salem expounded: > >> Benevolent Sponsor > >> Action, Requires Pander > >> +1 stealth > >> Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. > >> The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander > >> once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one > >> Benevolent Sponsor. > >> > >> Is this a usable clan toy for Pander that doesn't help degenerate > >> weenie decks? > > > >Not really. Pander Vote&Bleed is in the building! > > But surely if you need a 6 cap plus to use it, it's not a weenie deck? 1 6+ and a horde of weenies. That Pander Vote Card. Some Presence Push. The 6+ untaps all the pander and calls a vote with Voter Cap to fill up again. All the weenies get to act twice. It would at least take some skill to build and even play such a deck though.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:31:29 -0000, Timlagor <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] See, i know what I'm doing. :) and yes, it would take some skill to build. and it'd not be some standard cheesy weenie dom tap and bleed, and probably wouldn't even help such a deck type at all... [ quoted text not captured ]

salem wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:51:13 -0700, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> scrawled: (...that Panders could be given clan cards without helping weenie decks that simply use a few Pander for their disciplines.) > > Benevolent Sponsor > Action, Requires Pander > +1 stealth > Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. > The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander > once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one > Benevolent Sponsor. > > Is this a usable clan toy for Pander that doesn't help degenerate > weenie decks? Yep, exactly. Creating permanents that are only of value to Panders is one way to do it - especially if the permanent gives only moderate value but to each Pander on the board (like Legacy of Pander). The fact that this card requires an older vampire helps, too - though I don't think it would be absolutely necessary for Pander clan cards. (In this case it probably is, but it depends on the card.) Fred

salem wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:31:29 -0000, Timlagor > <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: > > >salem expounded: > >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:24:32 -0000, Timlagor > >> <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> scrawled: > >> > >> >salem expounded: > >> >> Benevolent Sponsor > >> >> Action, Requires Pander > >> >> +1 stealth > >> >> Put this card on a ready vampire you control with a capacity above 5. > >> >> The vampire with this card can burn 1 blood to untap this ready Pander > >> >> once during each of your minion phases. A vampire can only have one > >> >> Benevolent Sponsor. > >> >> > >> >> Is this a usable clan toy for Pander that doesn't help degenerate > >> >> weenie decks? > >> > > >> >Not really. Pander Vote&Bleed is in the building! > >> > >> But surely if you need a 6 cap plus to use it, it's not a weenie deck? > > > >1 6+ and a horde of weenies. That Pander Vote Card. Some Presence Push. > >The 6+ untaps all the pander and calls a vote with Voter Cap to fill up > >again. All the weenies get to act twice. > > > >It would at least take some skill to build and even play such a deck > >though. > > "A vampire can only have one Benevolent Sponsor." Besides, what if you don't draw the single 6+ cap? I'd think you'd need more than one - which is kind of the point. It wouldn't really be a weeny horde deck. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > > In message <3FBCE2F1...@removethis.com>, > Frederick Scott <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> mumbled > something about: > > >Derek Ray wrote: > >Yea, but now you've slipped something else that's wrong. Unless, you're > >paranoid about decks the _might_ get one victory point and then crash > >and burn horribly, giving the Panders an extra clan toy or two isn't going > >to help weeny decks that are actually good one iota - given the caveat > >that such toys not be usable in decks with a small minority of Pander. > > It is not difficult to produce a weenie crypt that will routinely get a > majority of Pander out as well as other weenies, enabling them to take > advantage of the Pander toy that you foolishly believed would not > contribute to weenie decks. It's not difficult to produce the crypt. It's just difficult to produce a crypt like that _and_ have it be a weeny deck that anyone cares about that much. > >> >> What if I use 12 Pander and put a bunch of Computer Hacks, Dodges, > >> >> Effective Managements, and Tribute to the Master in a deck? > >> > > >> >If you did that, you'd get a sucky deck. > >> > >> Which would nevertheless likely oust at least its first prey (if not > >> more) when seeded against random decks, OR force the table to turn > >> against it. > > > >So it forces the table to turn against it. And they do. And the thing > > So it's a good thing to make it easier to play decks that the whole > table has to turn against, completely ruining the predator/prey > relationship that is central to the entire game? No, that's not a good thing. But it's not a good deck, EITHER. So people don't play decks like that. So what I don't understand is why you're going all apeshit worrying about a deck that people don't play when there's much BETTER decks that people don't play for the exact same reason? It's a LOT easier to just take 12 presence weenies and have a much surer first victory point and a lot better chance (but still pretty negligible) to hang on and do something else. > >dies horribly. So what? That's why people don't play much *better* decks > > No, sometimes it wins. ... > The deck above wins its fair share of games, as you well know. No, I DON'T "well know" that. No one even bothers to try playing such decks around here. I suppose it could grab a surprise win before players figured out what it did but it's so vulnerable to collusion against it and so likely to inspire collusion against it that almost no one ever wants to play those sorts of decks. And that is exactly why this whole line of reasoning makes a rotten argument against creating a Pander card. > I do not argue > from personal bias, unlike you. I believe that anything which reduces > the variety of viable decks is a Bad Thing, whether or not I want to > play those decks. You, on the other hand, evince a clear clan > preference, and have in the past evinced both an anti-combat bias > (because weenies die to combat), and a pro-weenie preference. Assuming > that you can make a fair judgement on this would be a laugher; you are > far more likely to just be munchkinning out and hoping to sneak one by. I'm not sure what all this babbling is about, but let me be clear. If I thought for ONE FUCKING MOMENT that creating a card like this was going to beget some monster deck that was going to become a tournament power deck, I would never suggest it. As far as I know, you're the first one who's ever accused me of wanting to push something that would deliberately unbalance the environment. That's just insane. The problem here is that you're paranoid about the off-chance of helping some miserable disciplineless deck that nobody plays anyway for good reason. Is it "personal bias" to want to help some part of the environment I'd be interested in playing if it were at all viable? Of course it is. So what? That's not a bad thing when the issue is about some fragment of the game that's completely underutilized basically for lack of attention on the designers' part. I think there's a lot of people here who see parts of the game, deck archetypes or something that they'd like to play but can't because some tool or part is missing. Your inference that something's supposed to be "wrong" or "evil" with drawing attention to it is inane. Absent the paranoia that a Pander toy would be problematic somehow, this has been an entirely pointless thread. Fred

Frederick Scott expounded: > > >1 6+ and a horde of weenies. That Pander Vote Card. Some Presence Push. > > >The 6+ untaps all the pander and calls a vote with Voter Cap to fill up > > >again. All the weenies get to act twice. > > > > > >It would at least take some skill to build and even play such a deck > > >though. > > > > "A vampire can only have one Benevolent Sponsor." Yep missed the bit about the BS going on the big vamp (because referring to the big vamp as the Sponsor was such an intuitive reading of that [quoted] sentence). > Besides, what if you don't draw the single 6+ cap? I'd think you'd > need more than one - which is kind of the point. It wouldn't really > be a weeny horde deck. I meant only bring one out. Having more in the crypt would be a nuisance but youwoulnd't need many as you would be planning to bring a lot of vamps out so could expect to find it.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Frederick Scott wrote: > No, that's not a good thing. But it's not a good deck, EITHER. So > people don't play decks like that. So what I don't understand is why > you're going all apeshit worrying about a deck that people don't play > when there's much BETTER decks that people don't play for the exact same > reason? It's a LOT easier to just take 12 presence weenies and have a > much surer first victory point and a lot better chance (but still pretty > negligible) to hang on and do something else. I don't expect to convince you, since your arguments seemed based mainly upon your experience rather than any kind of first principles, but I do consider the "One Cap Hack" deck to be a serious threat, and chalk up its lack of popularity more to social factors than competitive ones. Sure weenie pre/dom/pot/for/whatever gets access to discipline tricks the one cap deck doesn't have, but they are... what? Two to three times as big, ergo two to three times as slow. The strength of the 1CH lies in it's "one-ness". Where most people fail with that deck is not paying enough attention to maintaining the steady flow of ablative minions. *That's* why it gets one VP and stalls, if it actually stalls. I see this deck played, Fred. I see it win. And we don't suck, and for a while, *not* building your deck to deal with weenies around here was suicide. I was prepared for it, everybody knew the deal, and it still won. Not every time, but often enough. Best as I can recall, though, it's prey was just about always screwed. I'll side with Derek, so far as what the deck is capable of doing. Oh heck, I just remembered... here's an anecdote for you: brought a noob with us to the SE Qualfier in Atlanta. Put the 1CH in his hands. He got his prey *every game*, and a few more besides. No, he didn't win. But he also barely knew the game, and that's how he did. What's your anecdote? And I will never, ever, everevereverever buy your argument that "If it makes people gang up on it and they can sometimes stop it that way, then it isn't broken". But we've had this argument before; nothing new to say. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

> >Derek Ray wrote: > It is not difficult to produce a weenie crypt that will routinely get a > majority of Pander out as well as other weenies, enabling them to take > advantage of the Pander toy that you foolishly believed would not > contribute to weenie decks. If the new pander card is of a type that doesn't help weenie decks, or maybe even hurt them ... It all depends ;)