Rötschreck + Elemental Stoicism

What if a vamp has E.S. on him (sup) and gets an aggravated, can he be Röt...ed ? -- Orpheus ----------------------- "...Hardestadt continued to drink, until he held nothing but dust in his arms and the burgeoning love of the slaughter in his heart"

> What if a vamp has E.S. on him (sup) and gets an aggravated, can he be > Rotschrecked ? > A slight clarification: Rotschreck is played before damage is dealt. By the time he gets the agg, it's too late to play it. But anyway, if you are trying to deal aggravated damage to a minion that treats aggravated damage as normal, you can still play Rotschreck.

[ quoted text not captured ] Course he can! It is resolved before the strike resolution. The only important thing is to have tried an aggropok at the right range. After, even you who hate this card goes to torpor :-)

Sebastien Varrette wrote: > Course he can! It is resolved before the strike resolution. The only > important thing is to have tried an aggropok at the right range. > After, even you who hate this card goes to torpor :-) It is counter-intuitive. If the range clause weren't on the card it'd be easier to swallow, but there are already provisions on the card that check to see whether the opposing minion would really take aggrivated damage or not. And yes, I get the semantics and I get that if we reduced it to a logic statement that it is internally consistent. It is still counter-intuitive. There are about five cards I'd ban for various reasons. Rotshit makes the list (mainly because it creates its very own phase, giving rise to all sorts of trumpy and inelegant effects, IMO). __ David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote > > There are about five cards I'd ban for various reasons. Rotshit makes > the list (mainly because it creates its very own phase, giving rise to > all sorts of trumpy and inelegant effects, IMO). What are the other four, out of curiosity? (Your list includes PTO, I would assume...) Cheers, WES

Wes wrote: > What are the other four, out of curiosity? PTO Rotschreck Anarch Revolt Kindred Restructure Dramatic Upheaval DI In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a good idea, so I'm probably nuts. __ David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Wes wrote: > >> What are the other four, out of curiosity? > > > PTO > Rotschreck > Anarch Revolt > Kindred Restructure > Dramatic Upheaval > DI thats 6 cards :-) > > In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from > dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed > defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a > good idea, so I'm probably nuts. > > __ > > David Cherryholmes i agree bleedability and bounceability should have been seperated. stefan

I considered creating a thread where everyone comes up with their own ban lists, but that would get ugly, so I'll comment on yours. >PTO Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on your list. >Rotschreck I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me. >Anarch Revolt AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, just annoying to add more errata to the game. >Kindred Restructure >Dramatic Upheaval I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. >DI I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I probably wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it. Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak). >In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from >dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed >defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a >good idea, so I'm probably nuts. Suppose you give bounce to another discipline. Which? It would be pretty funny to see Animalism be the primary bounce discipline, say. But, it might cause Gangrel, who win *a lot* to be too powerful (admittedly, a lot of Gangrel wins involve playing Dominate). Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often. At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan, Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity. >__ > >David Cherryholmes

Curevei wrote: >>Rotschreck > I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a > lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the > time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird > timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar > issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me. Yeah, I don't think Rotshreck is even remotely a play balance problem. It's just clunky and inelegant to me, and does not satisfy my personal minima of card interaction (something else that might be said of PTO). >>Anarch Revolt > > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, > just annoying to add more errata to the game. Yeah, easily fixed by errata, but errata is intrinsically worse than banning, so I tend not to waste time thinking up errata solutions. > I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the > game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a > "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a > moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only > reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think > you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help > yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For > competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. They make enforcing playing to win impossible. And they are a pain in the ass. And they are the greatest temptation to the overly-psychic. Once again, not a card I'd ban from a play balance perspective. >>DI > > > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I probably > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it. > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak). Another card I approach from the perspective of re-enforcing the predator-prey relationship. It's too easy for some guy across the table to lob one of these out there, removing some linchpin card from a chain, and oust another player. As the game stands, DI may be necessary, but if it were more balanced as a whole we wouldn't need to suffer with DI. I also dislike the way including four of these cards props up the "moronic" bleed decks even further. > Suppose you give bounce to another discipline. Which? Auspex, and Auspex-like disciplines. It satisfies me that decks which tend to lack means of going forward can utilize the forward motion behind them. And yes, it means there would still be some bleeders that can bounce, but if they deform their crypt such that the AUS is there, and they tap and/or wake with every bounce, it would be sufficient to my mind (note the heavy use of "IMO" throughout... I don't normally qualify my opinions, but we are talking about sweeping changes I've yet to test). > Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to > begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more > common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines > heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often. Everyone playing bounce seems worse to me than most everyone playing bounce. I'd rather see it be an isolated strategy than a ubiquitous one. Still, I think Xzealot captured it best when he said the answer lies not in knocking down strategy X, but in making strategies Y and Z more appealing; if stealth bleed were less clearly the most competitive strategy, then the opportunity cost of bounce would rise, and things might balance out without the need to change any staples. Unfortunately, the (IMO) overly-conservative design strategy the game currently operates under makes this approach either impossible, or resolved in some distant future. > At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan, > Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity. Maybe, but it seems more and more plausible to me that the various clans were never intended to be equal, and Assamites are placed rather low on the food chain. The latest news of four !Gangrel, some of which are group three, in the face of the Group 4 indy situation seems to suggest this. Guess we'll see. __ David Cherryholmes

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<c6o93f$e9of0$1...@ID-209231.news.uni-berlin.de>... > Wes wrote: > > > What are the other four, out of curiosity? > > PTO > Rotschreck > Anarch Revolt > Kindred Restructure > Dramatic Upheaval > DI I'm going home tonight, I think I can put a decent deck together abusing......Ya, ALL of these cards! :) With enough playtesting I think I can have it ready by a Week of Nightmares! > so I'm probably nuts. Com'on David, PROBABLY??? ;) ***JediMike*** Anarch of L.A.

Stefan Ferenci <a950n...@unet.s.p.a.m.univie.ac.at> wrote in message news:<408fa8b5$0$16036$3b21...@usenet.univie.ac.at>... > David Cherryholmes wrote: > > In a radical world that would never exist, I would remove bounce from > > dominate entirely, creating an either/or scenario wrt bleed and bleed > > defense, but so far not a single person has agreed that that would be a > > good idea, so I'm probably nuts. > > > > __ > > > > David Cherryholmes > i agree > bleedability and bounceability should have been seperated. > > stefan Several clans would require gross redesign (some already do of course, but that's beside the point). The Samedi would be joined in the 'no bounce, no intercept, no decent rush' corner by so many others... I think the main effect would be to make both flavours of Malkavian even cheesier. I'd rather keep the game as-is. Regards, Patrick PS. Saving grace of the idea would be to make the obfuscate-Ventrue freakdrive deck slightly less powerful. Although they'd still have Second Tradition (+Obedience and/or Majesty), of course.

Curevei wrote: >> PTO > > Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of > it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on > your list. Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly overpowered. It just should not be. > >> Rotschreck > > I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a > lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the > time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird > timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar > issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me. Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant. > >> Anarch Revolt > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a > V:TES > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, > just annoying to add more errata to the game. Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and planning. > >> Kindred Restructure >> Dramatic Upheaval > > I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the > game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a > "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a > moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the > only > reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think > you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help > yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For > competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to re-arrange the table. > >> DI > > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I > probably > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it. > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak). I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BCB5B686.162FA%pd...@lightlink.com... <snip> > >> DI > > > > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm > > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I > > probably > > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. > > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays > > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it. > > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak). > > I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them > overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use > them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but > usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one. > That's I try to reserve my DI use for an important reaction (like 2nd Trad in a Prince/Justicar deck) or action modifer (like Call of the Hungry Dead in a Gio power bleed deck) for which there is no other card that provides exactly the same effect... nothing worse than the Govern-DI-Govern spin cycle. :) - Pat

In article <c6orb4$e2q8g$1...@ID-209231.news.uni-berlin.de>, David Cherryholmes says... > Another card I approach from the perspective of re-enforcing the > predator-prey relationship. It's too easy for some guy across the table > to lob one of these out there, removing some linchpin card from a chain, > and oust another player. As the game stands, DI may be necessary, but > if it were more balanced as a whole we wouldn't need to suffer with DI. > I also dislike the way including four of these cards props up the > "moronic" bleed decks even further. It's a crutch, plain and simple. It's not necessary and just gives a wonderful "haha your plan fails" flavor to the game. > Auspex, and Auspex-like disciplines. It satisfies me that decks which > tend to lack means of going forward can utilize the forward motion > behind them. Define "auspex like disciplines". There are plenty of clans that have access to auspex and plenty of forward motion (any of the clans that are AUS and dom/dem/pre). > And yes, it means there would still be some bleeders that > can bounce, but if they deform their crypt such that the AUS is there, > and they tap and/or wake with every bounce, it would be sufficient to my > mind Many (not necessarily bleed) decks rely on using dominate at inferior just as a splash for bleed defense. This would have to be replaced with at least something useable. > Everyone playing bounce seems worse to me than most everyone playing > bounce. I'd rather see it be an isolated strategy than a ubiquitous > one. Bounce is clearly the best bleed defense "type". I'd prefer it be available to "most everyone" instead of "very few". Or make better "reduce" cards. Bounce doesn't have to be the only answer, but there have to be somewhat equally good answers. -- -Snapcase

In article <20040428121521...@mb-m01.aol.com>, Curevei says... > >Rotschreck > > I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a > lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the > time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird > timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar > issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me. Dunno what the big hubbub is about this card. You have to be able to block, and it's only a trump card for decks that can't handle S:CE in the first place. And it only works 1x per turn. > >Anarch Revolt > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a V:TES > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, > just annoying to add more errata to the game. Best to wait for a "reprint change", but yeah, it needs change. > >Kindred Restructure > >Dramatic Upheaval > For competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. Indeed. A large amount of the time these cards really read "steal target player's vp, and make lots of people lose a turn". That and I hate having to get up and move my cards around. If nothing else, these cards waste a whole lot of game time that we don't have. > >DI > > It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. It's the ultimate trump of trump cards. It says "haha your plan fails at a crucial moment and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it." Annoying to the extreme. > Anyway, while I'm often in the realm of "wish they had done that differently to > begin with", for today, why not just give everyone bounce? Is there any more > common element to decks than bounce? Its restriction to two disciplines > heavily skews what decks actually see play and which decks win more often. Amen, brother. -- -Snapcase

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040428121521...@mb-m01.aol.com>... > I considered creating a thread where everyone comes up with their own ban > lists, but that would get ugly, so I'll comment on yours. > > >Kindred Restructure > >Dramatic Upheaval > > I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the > game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a > "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a > moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the only reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think > you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help > yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For > competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. > 'Hard' PPD... is that like overloaded? Six pulses of that goodness, oh yeah :). You'll have to mke sure they don't dive within the minimum range. Cost me my CA, last time. Of course, it's kind of my fault to forget the wild weasels... Regards, Patrick PS. This message was brought to you by the ISC - saving the galaxy in a star system near you. Spread the word (and play more SFB) :)

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040428121521...@mb-m01.aol.com>... > At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan, > Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity. Celerity and Obfuscate come to mind. Maybe Animalism rather than Obfuscate, but definitely for Celerity. Magnus

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCB5B686.162FA%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Curevei wrote: > > >> PTO > > > > Does something no card should do. Ignoring all previous discussion as none of > > it has done anything to change my view of the card, I see why it would be on > > your list. > > Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly > overpowered. It just should not be. I wouldn't say "wildly overpowered", but still, it's overpowered > > > > >> Rotschreck > > > > I've mellowed on my hostility towards this card. It's limited and, unlike a > > lot of other things, it can be recovered from, at least a decent amount of the > > time. I'm sure I could find cards that annoy me more. While it has weird > > timing/interaction issues, I think there are other cards that cause similar > > issues. Spirit Marionette, for example, would cover both complaints for me. > > Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if > you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage > out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant. Indeed. Rotschreck is no problem. Except for the loads or errata and rulings that were made on it. > > > > >> Anarch Revolt > > > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a > > V:TES > > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, > > just annoying to add more errata to the game. > > Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing > games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs > in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in > relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and > planning. Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone, but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b) play on their own against the whole table. > > > > >> Kindred Restructure > >> Dramatic Upheaval > > > > I might be persuaded that seat switching serves an important function in the > > game in that it breaks up the predator-prey dynamic to a helpful degree as a > > "hard" p-p-d is somehow bad. Might. Putting aside competitive play for a > > moment, I often have these in hand in casual games and pitch them with the > > only > > reason being that they are annoying to resolve. At the point where you think > > you gain more from not annoying your friends than you do from trying to help > > yourself to victory, the card(s) may exceed the obnoxious threshold. For > > competitive play, what is most bothersome is the deck built around them that > > totally skews the predator-prey dynamic. Still, V:TES (Jyhad) has always been > > about many small effects and seat switching is not at all a small effect. > > Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than > overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross > table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing > position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't > actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to > re-arrange the table. IMO, they're annoying, because they take too long to resolve and to actually change seats. But I'm not against the effect as such. > > > > >> DI > > > > I'd rather that counterspells were never made. I'm annoyed by Sudden, but I'm > > easy to convince that the game can't currently function without it. I > > probably > > wouldn't put DI on my short list. It's stapleish, but so are lots of cards. > > I've rarely seen it ruin games, more often stopping even more obnoxious plays > > (than itself). Often, I'll have one in hand and not have a good use for it. > > Maybe I just don't see it often enough in my opponents' hands (so to speak). > > I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them > overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use > them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but > usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one. > > what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp. OTOH, The thing I HATE about DI, it that it kind of negates the biggest weakness of s&b decks. Usually S&B decks don't really have a great deal of table influence, except from bouncing. My ban list: - succubus Club (still) My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course: - PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game) - Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of original master gets a new MPA) - DI (only once per player per game) - Skill cards: should be trifles, imo My wish list: - my pet peeve: a disciplineless bounce card, see older threads :-) grtz, Jeroen

"Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > >> Anarch Revolt > > > > > > AR *decks* change the game into something not resembling what I picture a > > > V:TES > > > game to be. Not much defense here except it would be easy to errata the card, > > > just annoying to add more errata to the game. > > > > Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing > > games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs > > in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in > > relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and > > planning. > > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > has 4 ARs in play... :-) Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try "riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder. In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing, as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third, fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :) Cheers, WES

The question of > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > has 4 ARs in play... :-) Who? me? W

So we're on the Hate List subject, uh ? > PTO Obviously? Obvious errata : "Once Per Game". Nuff said. > Rotschreck Hate it !! I have been hindered too many times by this card, in cases where no other combo could have sent me to torpor (because I had waited for just the right hand to act, and because my decks were thought for resistance against many forms of combat). And you can't even Sudden the thing yourself !! True, you can play only one per turn. Well, let me tell you that losing one important vamp per turn is quite enough (if he could send you to torpor once, your opponent can also stop your rescues, or come to get you if he's your prey...). Ban altogether, or change the wording so that damage prevention cuts it, or at least that the effects that turn the damage to normal stop it. > Anarch Revolt Make it Unique, like Antediluvian Awakening, and it will make the first one reasonable, the second back from wallpaper to playable. > Kindred Restructure > Dramatic Upheaval Effects we are now used to. But yes, certainly some of the more powerful in the game. Well, I wouldn't ban them or otherwise alter them, but they certainly are very, very powerful effects. > DI 200% agreed. SR I can do with (it "only" counters Masters), the second just shouldn't be, as it can counter ANY type of well-thought strategy if used correctly and with a little luck. You think of everything during your turn, and there you are : it fails with just ONE card. Bleuah !! :-( I'd also, of course, include all the other "play this" cards : Kiss of Rā ("you don't play For ? Too bad...") and Judgement : Camarilla Segregation ("Play Cammies !!") ; the second could be just plain bad depending on table seating, but as the "place-change" votes do exist... ;-) These two cards should burn to the hell of card games. And of course, Dreams of the Sphynx annoys me because it is a "must-include", overpowered card, and that as such everyone puts it in most tournament decks. But well, I have trouble seeing how it could be errated. As for separating deflecting and bleed abilities : quite agreed, but way too late for that... [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint > > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of > > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > > has 4 ARs in play... :-) > > Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try > "riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder. Not in an Anarch Revolt deck (although sunday I won a table because of such a deck ; but then, I was lucky and the player / deck not quite good enough). > In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than > changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing, > as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I > am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third, > fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :) Then : LET'S MAKE IT UNIQUE !!! [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> PTO > > Yeah, see, I really dislike this card 'cause, ya know, it is wildly > overpowered. It just should not be. Agree. > >> Rotschreck > > Rotschreck? Yeah, whatever. It is only useable once per turn, and only if > you block someone (essentially). The effort it takes to really get mileage > out of this card (as opposed to PTO) is significant. Agree. > >> Anarch Revolt > > Yeah, I still think AR should be errataed to be less capable of demolishing > games. I always liked the "costs X pool to play, where X is thenumber of ARs > in play". So you could play 1 AR, and the game would not change at all in > relation to now. But playing a lot of them would take both effort and > planning. Disagree. There are many effects that change the dynamics of the game. Repeated use of many votes like Autarkis Persecution or Honor the Elders simply give more blood/pool to players, but they nevertheless widen a gap that eventually unbalances the game completely. In fact, IMHO AR in itself is less detrimental to the game than such selective poolgaining votes, if used with impunity. Gehenna is supposed to come, after all. ;) The suggested cost increasing errata would make sense, but I'm against it for simplicity's sake. > >> Kindred Restructure > >> Dramatic Upheaval > > Yeah, I'm of a similar mindset. I think they are more annoying than > overpowered--I mean, yeah, more than once I have been tooled by a cross > table Upheaval and goten my game winning position turned into a game losing > position by no fault of my own (Ya hear that, Steele!!! :-) but it doesn't > actually happen that often, and more than anything, I just dislike having to > re-arrange the table. Agree. > >> DI > > I dislike "counterspells" in an absolute sense, but I don't really find them > overpowered. Mostly, I find DI not that effective, such that Inever use > them. Yeah, sometimes you'll get an IG (or PTO) and save your ass, but > usually, you get, like, a Govern, and then they just play another one. Disagree. You can choose not to play the card. I sometimes wait turns to play it. Having one in my hand means at least that the next PTO will be cancelled (unless I'm also having Vox Domini, which is far superior to DI, as it keeps the IC tapped). Sure, the 1 pool cost may mean that "yeah, I DIed that would-be ousting Conditioning, but now they need only a Threats because of the pool cost", but it may also mean that you just survive that final bleed (giving you another round to oust). Alas, there were many years during which I never played SR or DI, because I'm generally more into a "let's each of us play their decks and see what that adds up to" gaming style. However, with certain power cards that is IMHO no longer a healthy approach. Bye, Daneel

"Wes" <gh...@NYETSPAMmnsi.net> schreef in bericht news:c6qoj...@enews1.newsguy.com... > > "Jeroen" <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > > > >> Anarch Revolt > > > > <snip> > > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint > > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of > > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > > has 4 ARs in play... :-) > > Interesting. My general strategy with Anarch Revolts in play is to try > "riding the wave", ie damage my prey faster and harder. That's exactly what the AR player wants. He will probably also have a life boon in his hand when you kill you're prey. > > In my experience, Anarch Revolt just speeds up the play rather than > changing the dynamics. And speeding up play is not always a bad thing, > as the number of timed-out games of late should demonstrate. In fact, I > am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third, > fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :) > true: 1 AR is actually good most of the time

Jeroen wrote: > I wouldn't say "wildly overpowered", but still, it's overpowered Well, ya know, that's me. I still fall on the "wildly overpowered" side, in the sense that playing that single card usually, when successful, completely end someone's game, even if they are in a solid position when played. Too much swing for one card that is easy to call, easy to pass (as it is being called by Arika), and can be completely unblockable. > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone, > but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b) > play on their own against the whole table. Have you played with crazy ass AR decks? Ya know, the ones that put one or two ARs into play each turn, every turn? Yeah, they aren't that likely to win (although occasonally they do), but they certainly do ruin a game like nobody's buisness. I just really think there should be more cost to playing them. Costing X (X=number of ARs already in play) would be good. Something as subtle of changing the timing to burning the pool during your discard phase (so the guy playing them takes the damage first and people can react to new ARs before they hit them) would be very significant. But as it is, they are just too easy to build a deck around that has a moderate (not good, but not impossible, such that they are just encouraging enough to play) chance of winning but if they don't win, they tend to make the game a random, crappy waste of time for everyone else. > what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you > seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can > really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who > cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you > can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only > have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp. I'm not saying DI *can't* be very strong. I've just never seen it happen, personally. And I play a lot of VTES. They are versitile and handy, but I can't think of a single instance where an actual DI being played has made that much of a difference. I mean, yeah, I have been in a lot of instances where a DI being played would have saved the day, but they never seem to be in hand at that particular point. Like, 90% of the DI plays I see are usually not that big of a deal--they get an Action that just gets replaced; they get a combat card that just gets replaced; they get an action modifier, and a different one just gets played. > My ban list: > - succubus Club (still) Oh, yeah. Succubus Club. Still. That card is still just soooooo wrong for competetive play. But I apparently can't convince anyone of this enough. > > My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course: > - PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game) I like the "once per game", mostly due to simplicity and precident. > - Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of > original master gets a new MPA) Meh. Just like DI. I see them played all the time. Rarely are they *that* significant. > - DI (only once per player per game) I can't really argue with this, if only on principal. > - Skill cards: should be trifles, imo Oooh! That would be really cool. Maybe too cool. But cool! [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > In fact, I > am often happy to have an Anarch Revolt in play. It's the second, third, > fourth, etc that tend to piss me off a bit :) Oh, sure--Ihave no problem at all with AR as an individual card. Many decks can benefit from throwing one on the table. But when someone plays 2 a turn, every turn, it just demolishes the game. AR decks like this *can* win--the chances aren't great, but large enough to encourage people to keep trying--but if they don't, they just make the game a crappy, random, nightmare. Which is why I like either increasing the cost to X (X=number of ARs currently in play) or moving the "take the AR damage" phase to your discard phase rather than start of turn (so the guy playing them takes the damage first, and everyone else can react to the new ARs before they are killed by them). Either of these would have very little, if any impact at all on playing one AR at a time, but would have a significant impact on playing 5 of them at a time. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Which is why I like either increasing the cost to X (X=number of ARs > currently in play) or moving the "take the AR damage" phase to your discard > phase rather than start of turn (so the guy playing them takes the damage > first, and everyone else can react to the new ARs before they are killed by > them). Either of these would have very little, if any impact at all on > playing one AR at a time, but would have a significant impact on playing 5 > of them at a time. Why not just plain make them Unique ? Easiest solution I could see, still makes it a viable card, and de-wallpapers Antediluvian Awakening... Orpheus

Daneel wrote: > Disagree. > > There are many effects that change the dynamics of the game. Repeated > use of many votes like Autarkis Persecution or Honor the Elders simply > give more blood/pool to players, but they nevertheless widen a gap > that eventually unbalances the game completely. In fact, IMHO AR in > itself is less detrimental to the game than such selective poolgaining > votes, if used with impunity. Gehenna is supposed to come, after all. > ;) The suggested cost increasing errata would make sense, but I'm > against it for simplicity's sake. Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can* win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table, regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck. Making them less attractinve to play in groups strikes me as only a good thing. Making them cost X (as above) has zero effect on playing 1 AR (well, unless someone else already played one...), but makes playing lots of them very unattractive. Making them do damage during the discard phase punishes the guy who plays them *first* and lets people react to them before they die from the new ones played. Either of these would make AR *much* less disruptive to play, but still useful in moderation. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > Why not just plain make them Unique ? Easiest solution I could see, still > makes it a viable card, and de-wallpapers Antediluvian Awakening... Very easy fix, yeah, but makes playing multiples *impossible* as opposed to just difficult--would probably have too much impact on the card. I mean, yeah, I agree that it is easy, and would make me perfectly happy, but it is far more severe than either of the fixes I suggest. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCB6D5B3.16388%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Jeroen wrote: > <snip> > > > Don't really have a problem with AR. The only thing it does is paint > > a big target on the head of the player playing them. The question of > > "where will I bounce this bleed too?" is soo much easier when someone > > has 4 ARs in play... :-) OK. It sucks to give away a VP to someone, > > but the same thing happens with all decks that a) either suck or b) > > play on their own against the whole table. > > Have you played with crazy ass AR decks? Ya know, the ones that put one or > two ARs into play each turn, every turn? Yeah, they aren't that likely to > win (although occasonally they do), but they certainly do ruin a game like > nobody's buisness. yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson, Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away. Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for the life boon. > > I just really think there should be more cost to playing them. Costing X > (X=number of ARs already in play) would be good. Something as subtle of > changing the timing to burning the pool during your discard phase (so the > guy playing them takes the damage first and people can react to new ARs > before they hit them) would be very significant. But as it is, they are just > too easy to build a deck around that has a moderate (not good, but not > impossible, such that they are just encouraging enough to play) chance of > winning but if they don't win, they tend to make the game a random, crappy > waste of time for everyone else. > > > what? DI is one of the strongest cards in the game. Unfortunatly, you > > seem to play them only on actions or combat cards. IME, you can > > really do some damage by DI-ing action Modifiers or Reaction, who > > cannot be played again. For example, in a weenie pot rush deck, you > > can DI you're predators deflections. and because he will probably only > > have one minion, he won't deflect again with another vamp. > > I'm not saying DI *can't* be very strong. I've just never seen it happen, > personally. And I play a lot of VTES. They are versitile and handy, but I > can't think of a single instance where an actual DI being played has made > that much of a difference. I mean, yeah, I have been in a lot of instances > where a DI being played would have saved the day, but they never seem to be > in hand at that particular point. Like, 90% of the DI plays I see are > usually not that big of a deal--they get an Action that just gets replaced; > they get a combat card that just gets replaced; they get an action modifier, > and a different one just gets played. Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it. And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn: just play it on their first Freak Drive. > > > My ban list: > > - succubus Club (still) > > Oh, yeah. Succubus Club. Still. That card is still just soooooo wrong for > competetive play. But I apparently can't convince anyone of this enough. I've seen enough tables get screwed over by SC, you don't need to convince me. :-) > > > > > My "in need for errata" list (and some idea's) all IMO, of course: > > - PTO (only once per justicar or IC per Game) > > I like the "once per game", mostly due to simplicity and precident. > > > - Sudden Reversal (bring it in line with Bleeding the vine, player of > > original master gets a new MPA) > > Meh. Just like DI. I see them played all the time. Rarely are they *that* > significant. a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying. SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ... > > > - DI (only once per player per game) > > I can't really argue with this, if only on principal. > > > - Skill cards: should be trifles, imo > > Oooh! That would be really cool. Maybe too cool. But cool! > :-)

Jeroen wrote: > Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That > way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it. Also true of my (former) playgroup. It makes for crap games, or very, *very* boring decks that are resistant to that sort of thing. > And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn: > just play it on their first Freak Drive. Something else I know very well from personal experience. Fucko with the stealth bleed deck held me off for three turns with three DI's in a row. -- David Cherryholmes

> Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The > problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it > very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. I agree with you. The reason I mentioned other cards with global effects is because AR is not alone in basically turning the game into another one. The key point, as you mentioned, is the repeated use. One Ancilla + Bribes won't disrupt the table, but 10 will. Like with AR. That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose, otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and friends). > Making them cost X (as above) has zero effect on playing 1 AR (well, unless > someone else already played one...), but makes playing lots of them very > unattractive. > > Making them do damage during the discard phase punishes the guy who plays > them *first* and lets people react to them before they die from the new ones > played. > > Either of these would make AR *much* less disruptive to play, but still > useful in moderation. Your suggested modifications make sense, even though I don't like the second option. Making them cost pool is okay, but again, from my personal experience, the inconvenience of an errata still slightly outweighs the disruptiveness of the card. Maybe 'cause I see about five IC voting decks for every deck that uses AR. ;) Also, AR hurts everyone, including the guy who played it, and oftimes it contributes much to his or her demise in one way or another. Bye, Daneel

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCB6D853.1638A%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The > problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it > very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can* > win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR > isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of > the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and > arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table, > regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck. Winning twenty percent of the time on a five-player table....

sam...@hotmail.com (Patrick van der Reest) wrote in message news:<92081c66.04042...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] A wild weasel should not have affected this situation that you have described thus far. And if they got that close and you needed one I imagine a tractor beam (which they should have energy in) would have stifled that idea. Robert Scythe ( what is SFB??? ) ;)

Jeroen wrote: > yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson, > Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the > table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away. > Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust > someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for > the life boon. Which is just a very well illustrated, very concrete example of how an AR deck completey derails the regular play of the game. When a given deck strategy virtually requires the entire rest of the table to ignore the regular victory conditions of the game and the regular predator/prey mechanic and all conspire to work together to deal with it, that is an illustration of something seriously wrong. > Problem is that over here most decks pack 1-2 and even 3-4 DI. That > way, if something nasty happens, someone will play a DI on it. Seems likely. I've just never played in such an environment, locally or in large regional/national tournaments. I see the occasional DI, which, at best, is irritating. > > And of course, DI will hold of a Multi Rush deck for a complete turn: > just play it on their first Freak Drive. Reasonable plan. > a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying. > SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ... I mean, yeah, in theory, that happens. But most of the time, it just, like, Suddens a skill card or hunting ground which doesn't really make that much of a difference--for every time I have been like "If I had a Sudden for that Minion Tap, I'd soooo win the game!", I have been in, like, 15 situations where Iwas like "Boy. Am I holding this Sudden. I really hope someone plays, like, a Skill card soon just so I can cycle it..." [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can > only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose, > otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes > a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and > friends). Yeah, an AR deck can *really* savage a game. I was playing one for a while (after the last great Anarch Revolt thread...) which did really well in three player games; did moderately well in 4-5 player games; got into the finals of a tournament but did even come close to winning the final. Whenever I played it in 4-5 player games, everyone was like "I hate you". Especially Sackett, who, like clockwork, was ousted uniformly by my deck, regardless of his relative table position. In general, they either win (rarely) or just randomly make someone else win (usually). In either case, the game usually sucks for everyone else. More so when the deck loses, 'casue the owner can't even justify their strategy by saying "yeah, it sucked, but I won!" > Your suggested modifications make sense, even though I don't like the > second option. Making them cost pool is okay, but again, from my > personal experience, the inconvenience of an errata still slightly > outweighs the disruptiveness of the card. The second option (pool loss during the discard phase) strikes me as both perfectly viable and the least damaging to the current card design. [ quoted text not captured ]

Legendre wrote: > Winning twenty percent of the time on a five-player table.... Is not an acceptible ratio when the other 80% of the time, the strategy is disruptive to the point of making the game suck for everyone else. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The > problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it > very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. But because they *can* > win, people play them. And when they win, the players get to say "See! AR > isn't problematic! I won using my planned strategy!" But the other 80% of > the time, such decks just ruin the game and make them wildly random and > arbitrary. And often make people lose just for sitting at the table, > regardless of their predator/prey relationship to the AR deck. > I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir) On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right. It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for "banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad. W

SeatSwitchers are my only cards that i think banningworthy. I hate it when someone just takes the VP for someone elses hard work, not really fun. I play DI's because of these (not because of PTO) W

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe it's ironic. DI to me is a card that is exceedingly useful to stopping a small number of annoying and powerful plays that don't occur particularly often during games and sufficiently flexible otherwise to warrant playing with even if those plays don't happen. Which plays? Seat switching is the main one, various other unusual plays next. If there weren't seat switching votes, I'd probably rarely play it. Oh, I might play it in ally decks to cut down on ally steal or decks easily hosed by something, like single vampire decks that die to Sens. Dep. or whatever.

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir) > On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won > games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the > game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right. Umm, yeah. See, the "played right" aspect of what you mention here is the sticking point. Most decks strategies, when not "played right" just make you lose. Heck, they might even be a pain in someone elses ass (like poorly concieved cross table Rushes). But when AR decks are not"played right", they pretty much ruin the game for everyone, in the sense that any concept of normal game play is thrown out the window. > > It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain > pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is > more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for > "banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted > direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad. I don't think anyone is claiming that AR is too powerful. Any argument I have ever heard for changing AR is that it is simply too disruptive to play when used in numbers, and tends to make games suck when not played right. A lot. So anything that makes the card less attractive to play foolishly strikes me as a good plan. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:BCB82D52.1642E%pd...@lightlink.com... > Jeroen wrote: > > > yup. I have. Multiple times. I even played one. The classic: Anson, > > Anneke + lotst of AR. The reaction that's actually the best for the > > table, IME is 1. gang up on the AR deck and never vote an AR away. > > Don't oust before the AR deck is of the table, unless you can oust > > someone when it's not your turn AND you have a sudden in your hand for > > the life boon. > > Which is just a very well illustrated, very concrete example of how an AR > deck completey derails the regular play of the game. When a given deck > strategy virtually requires the entire rest of the table to ignore the > regular victory conditions of the game and the regular predator/prey > mechanic and all conspire to work together to deal with it, that is an > illustration of something seriously wrong. If this is the only reason, then Baltimore Purge and Smiling Jack should get the same treatment, for exactly the same reason. > <snip> > > > a lot of suddens I see, make the difference between living or dying. > > SR on Minion Tap for 11 eg, SR on the Secure Haven, Pala Grande, ... > > I mean, yeah, in theory, that happens. But most of the time, it just, like, > Suddens a skill card or hunting ground which doesn't really make that much > of a difference--for every time I have been like "If I had a Sudden for that > Minion Tap, I'd soooo win the game!", I have been in, like, 15 situations > where Iwas like "Boy. Am I holding this Sudden. I really hope someone plays, > like, a Skill card soon just so I can cycle it..." > yeah, that happens too :-)

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > If this is the only reason, then Baltimore Purge and Smiling Jack should get > the same treatment, for exactly the same reason. Smiling Jack is unique, doesn't necessarily directly hit your pool, and *much* easier to get rid of--it hits the table, does nothing for a full turn around the table, then does 1 damage around the table, then does 2 damage around the table. That is, what, 12 (not counting the guy who played it) player turns of completely acceptible losses to get rid of it easily (i.e. take an action that isn't blocked). If it lasts past that, everyone gets what they ask for. The damage is easier to absorb (you can lose blood off minions--when you are in the 1-3 range of Jack, this is easy). The guy playing them *must* take pool loss as opposed to blood loss. You can't play 2 of them a turn, every turn. And taking an action to burn the single Jack on the table is *much* easier than calling votes that might burn one of the 4 or 5 ARs on the table at any given moment, especially when your game is completely compromised by the large pool loss already caused by the ARs. And you get to see Jack coming an react *before* it even does anything to anyone. I have seen innumerable games savaged by AR decks. I have seen most Smiling Jack decks either lose Jack before it hits 3 counters, or win the game, in which case, the Jack deck isn't disruptive--it is successful. Baltimore Purge, much like Jack, you can see coming. It is much easier to stop (i.e. it isn't even at inherrent stealth, unless you are using a Ravanos, in which case you don't get to choose the vampire, unless you are playing a historically very effective Lasombra/Ravanos deck (???). And it doesn't directly cause pool loss. And if someone plays lots and lots of Baltimore Purges, everyone ends up in torpor, and the game simply stops. Both of these cards certainly have a random element to them. But the amount of effect on the game that their random elemet has is significantly less that that of multiple Anarch Revolts. Very significantly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCB92050.1646B%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > I have played AR-decks in several forms now. (Anson / Salubri / Qadir) > > On every tournament that i can recall 1 GW and VP's in all not-won > > games as well. so "the other 80%" isn't very accurate. It changes the > > game, yes, but it is not at all random when played right. > > Umm, yeah. See, the "played right" aspect of what you mention here is the > sticking point. Most decks strategies, when not "played right" just make you > lose. Heck, they might even be a pain in someone elses ass (like poorly > concieved cross table Rushes). But when AR decks are not"played right", they > pretty much ruin the game for everyone, in the sense that any concept of > normal game play is thrown out the window. I think it doesn't really matter what the methuselah plays who doesn't "play right" I have lost many tournamnet table because my grandpredator/prey was a newby. He doesn't need to be playing AR's for that. I can't recall one game where i lost because a bad player was playing AR's. > > > > > It is a powerful card, no doubt about that. it is a near certain > > pooldamage to your prey (only Suddens help). Still i think Govern is > > more powerful, so "power" shouldn't be the deciding factor for > > "banning/errating". The fact that it changes the game into an unwanted > > direction could be a reason. But i don't think it is that bad. > > I don't think anyone is claiming that AR is too powerful. Any argument I > have ever heard for changing AR is that it is simply too disruptive to play > when used in numbers, and tends to make games suck when not played right. A > lot. Do you feel the same about Baltimore Purge? I have seen this card ruin more games to be honoust and those games were usually not won by the user of them. W So anything that makes the card less attractive to play foolishly > strikes me as a good plan. I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit. W

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCBA9F65.164CC%pd...@lightlink.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't agree, i think 3 BP played in one turn has a lot more effect than 3 AR's played. AR's can very often be rmoved as well (depends on the deck) W

> I don't agree, i think 3 BP played in one turn has a lot more effect > than 3 AR's played. AR's can very often be rmoved as well (depends on > the deck) > > W Playing 3 BPs would mean having 3 minions of important enough size that they affect everyone you want ; it also means having 3 BPs, plus the stealth, plus combat resistance to avoid being destroyed before your next untap phase, plus bleed resistance for the same reason poolwise ; and that the 3 minions will be able to get out of torpor AND do something useful. That's a lot of things... Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked upside the head, as opposed to burned). If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'? Morgan Vening

"Robert Scythe" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:66e41881.04043...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] That would be Star Fleet Battles, with a miss placed smilie in the end, should have been wrapped to the next line for easy of reading. Raille Failed proof reader

"Orpheus" <orph...@DEADSPAMfree.fr> wrote in message news:<409624a6$0$12732$636a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, but being able to play 3 AR's succesfully also means about the same things... Having huge amounts of pool, having combat defense, having block capability (or have them removed). Having Lifeboons. W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit. What cost? You just errata them to whatever change is necessary. And then reprint them in whatever the next set is that can do that. No cost at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:17:27 +1000, Morgan Vening <mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained >in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked >upside the head, as opposed to burned). >If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'? Yes. You must burn the vampire to avoid the effects of Baltimore Purge. LSJ 2002-10-22 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DB53907.FCDDA8A6%40white-wolf.com LSJ 2002-09-26 http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D9325E1.44D95A24%40white-wolf.com Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

> > > PS. This message was brought to you by the ISC - saving the galaxy in > > > a star system near you. Spread the word (and play more SFB) :) > > > > > > A wild weasel should not have affected this situation that you have > > described thus far. And if they got that close and you needed one I > > imagine a tractor beam (which they should have energy in) would have > > stifled that idea. > > > > Robert Scythe ( what is SFB??? ) ;) > > That would be Star Fleet Battles, with a miss placed smilie in the end, > should have been wrapped to the next line for easy of reading. > > Raille > Failed proof reader Actually, if it wasn't obvious enough from my answer, I was being facetious. My smilie is a wink, knowing full well what SFB, ISC, and PPD all stand for. Robert Scythe Failed sarcasm writer

On Mon, 03 May 2004 18:50:48 -0400, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com> scrawled: >On Mon, 03 May 2004 23:17:27 +1000, Morgan Vening ><mor...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > >>A question, regards Baltimore Purge, that I think is kind of explained >>in your answer, but I'm not sure (as destroyed could just mean smacked >>upside the head, as opposed to burned). > >>If the 'purging' vampire is in torpor, does the Purge 'go off'? > >Yes. > >You must burn the vampire to avoid the effects of Baltimore Purge. surely 'removed from the game', returned to uncontrolled region, returned to crypt (if that's possible....hmm...Gaspare does something like that, doesn't he?) would also be acceptable. basically, no longer controlled. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BCB82EFD.1642F%pd...@lightlink.com... [ quoted text not captured ] And ut effects the player playing the card the same turn the card is played. No free ride any longer. Raille

"Raille" <rai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<1c1e314dd2d6ea34...@news.teranews.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Do you think it would be played at all? It damages yourself for sure, and you are not even sure that it damages your prey... Sounds to me like i would never play it, besides maybe in smilingjack-kinda-deck...and we already have smilingjack.... W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Do you think it would be played at all? Sure. All the time. In decks that want to play 1 or 2 occasionally just to speed things up. Lots of decks use 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts just to speed things up, and I don't think the incentive to use them for that would be reduced at all. I think the incentive to play 6 of them would be reduced immesurably. > It damages yourself for sure, > and you are not even sure that it damages your prey... > Sounds to me like i would never play it, besides maybe in > smilingjack-kinda-deck...and we already have smilingjack.... That's you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCBECCEE.166B2%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > Do you think it would be played at all? > > Sure. All the time. In decks that want to play 1 or 2 occasionally just to > speed things up. It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) W

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCBC20B7.1656D%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > I think the "cost" for changing it doesn't weigh up to the benefit. > > What cost? You just errata them to whatever change is necessary. And then > reprint them in whatever the next set is that can do that. No cost at all. > Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they do? and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to believe you? W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt, especially if it is possible I'll be: -Blocked -Voted down -Delaying Tacticed The 1 pool I'll be losing a turn isn't that big of a deal, especially as I can probably be doing something much more useful with my action. And there is always the possibility that someone else will be willing to kill it. So unless that 1 pool a turn is really going to kill me (more than the extra forward momentum is going to help me) or Ihave a lot of extra actions to waste and the ability to get votes passed (which might be the result of table coalition), I'll just leave 1 Anarch be. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they > do? Nope. Given the choice between: A) A game that works better with more errata and B) A game that works worse and has less errata I'll always go with (A). Errata is a necessary evil. But when necessary and used, always improves things far more than it hurts them. > and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to > everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to > believe you? What are they gonna do? Get in a fight with me? If necessary, I'll just explain. If I sit down to a game with a deck based on errataed cards, I'll likely make sure my opponent's know the errata before we start playing. I have never, ever, actually had any trouble in casual play with people not knowing errata--I'll just explain the errata, and they'll be like "Yeah, ok". In competetive play, I'll have a judge to back me up. And they should probably know the errata anyway. I'm not seeing who this is a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCC01C99.16731%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the > > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) > > Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt, > especially if it is possible I'll be: > > -Blocked > -Voted down > -Delaying Tacticed > > The 1 pool I'll be losing a turn isn't that big of a deal, especially as I > can probably be doing something much more useful with my action. And there > is always the possibility that someone else will be willing to kill it. > > So unless that 1 pool a turn is really going to kill me (more than the extra > forward momentum is going to help me) or Ihave a lot of extra actions to > waste and the ability to get votes passed (which might be the result of > table coalition), I'll just leave 1 Anarch be. > I usually play cards that play to my strategy, if they get removed my strategy is hampered. My enemies know that. They will try to remove that AR. Net Result: they took one action (or more if blocked/voteddown/DTed) that was not taken against their prey: slows play down instead of speeding it up. W

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCC01DA0.16732%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > Don't you find it annoying that your cards don't do what they say they > > do? > > Nope. Given the choice between: > > A) A game that works better with more errata > > and > > B) A game that works worse and has less errata > > I'll always go with (A). Errata is a necessary evil. But when necessary and > used, always improves things far more than it hurts them. I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card. > > > and even if you know what they do, that you have to explain it to > > everyone who isn;t on the net so often? And that they kinda have to > > believe you? > > What are they gonna do? Get in a fight with me? If necessary, I'll just > explain. If I sit down to a game with a deck based on errataed cards, I'll > likely make sure my opponent's know the errata before we start playing. > > I have never, ever, actually had any trouble in casual play with people not > knowing errata--I'll just explain the errata, and they'll be like "Yeah, > ok". In competetive play, I'll have a judge to back me up. And they should > probably know the errata anyway. > > I'm not seeing who this is a problem. It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to explain their own cards to them. (Old-fame-based-deck anyone? 5th-tradition-tap?). Sure they will believe me but it wonı be a lot of fun... I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing. W

Wouter wrote: > I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be > changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is > not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them > is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card. I don't think every card that isn't perfect needs to be changed. For instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal. So I agree that you don't need to fix *every* card in the game. But some cards are too good or too disruptive and do need to be fixed. Anarch Revolt is still one of those cards (along with PTO). Given that fixing AR would improve the game as a whole significantly, I'm perfectly happy to have to deal with the errata. > It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to > explain their own cards to them. Yup. That is one of the hazards with any game. Anywhere. There are always rules changes or tweaks that someone doesn't know. > I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought > it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing. Makes sense to me. But then next time, they know what the card actually does. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the > > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) > > Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt, > especially if it is possible I'll be: > > -Blocked > -Voted down > -Delaying Tacticed So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt would incredibly lame because: 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything useful; and 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off. But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame... ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the attempt to remove it." Can you say, "self-contradiction"? How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic" is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly. Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card. It's only use was in massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card. By comparison, Antediluvian Awakening, which is unique, has a rather stiff cost to remove - precisely because it *IS* unique. You want to make Anarch Revolt unique, you're going to have to give something back to the card in order to prevent them from become coasters. One obvious thing would be to change its removal cost to something real. Otherwise, it's clearly and obviously obsolesced by Antediluvian Awakening. If you accept no other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*. Fred [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the > > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) > > Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt, > especially if it is possible I'll be: > > -Blocked > -Voted down > -Delaying Tacticed So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt [ quoted text not captured ] Fred > [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt > would incredibly lame because: > 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything > useful; and > 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there > aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on > the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In > fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often > simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off. What the hell are you talking about? I wasn't discussing Unique Anarch Revolts. I was discussing Anarch Revolt as a card that did its damage during the discard phase. Which would still be perfectly playable in numbers. The post you were replying to was in regards to using a single Anarch Revolt that did its damage during the discard phase. Wouter was saying that it would be voted out before it did damage to its prey. Certainly a possibility, but also certainly possible it wouldn't be. Again. What the hell are yot talking about? > > But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame... > ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the > attempt to remove it." No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to play one Anarch Revolt. > > Can you say, "self-contradiction"? Can you say "drop the crack pipe and just walk away from the shfit key"? > > How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic" > is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly. The discussion you are reacting to was simply in regards to changing the damage taking phase to the discard phase. If the damage was applied during the discard phase, the guy playing the card would take the damage first. And it is possible that other folks would not take any damage. But only if they can get rid of them. I still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play 1 Anarch Revolt. I still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play multiples of them. It would just require a lot more thought. > > Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card. If you say so. > It's only use was in > massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in > mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card. I was not discussing taking away its ability to be thrown on the table in mass numbers. I was simpy discussing changing when the damage was applied. > You want to make Anarch Revolt unique, Umm, no, no I don't. Dude. Before you, like, freak out, you really should have some sense of what it is that you are freaking out about. >If you accept no > other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe > paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*. Maybe unique Anarch Revolt is total garbage. But then, I wasn't talking about making Anarch Revolt unique. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic" > is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly. So you were so het up about this argument, the one where you are arguing about something that I wasn't even trying to assert, that you decided to post it twice? Awsome! Again. Put. Down. The. Crack. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't > attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good > idea to play one Anarch Revolt. Yeah, that first "would" should clearly be "wouldn't". [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt > > would incredibly lame because: > > 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything > > useful; and > > 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there > > aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on > > the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In > > fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often > > simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off. > > What the hell are you talking about? > > I wasn't discussing Unique Anarch Revolts. I was discussing Anarch Revolt as > a card that did its damage during the discard phase. Which would still be > perfectly playable in numbers. > > The post you were replying to was in regards to using a single Anarch Revolt > that did its damage during the discard phase. Wouter was saying that it > would be voted out before it did damage to its prey. Certainly a > possibility, but also certainly possible it wouldn't be. > > Again. What the hell are yot talking about? All right, sorry for the misunderstanding. I can't find it now but somewhere in this thread a while ago, the concept of Anarch Revolt as a unique card got talked about and you guys were now discussing the merits of playing just one. I now see how you got to that point but it seemed like such a logical assumption that I didn't go back and check the discussion history like I should have. Again, my apologies for not doing something I should have. That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove them. The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself completely off the hook and not play them at all. Masochism: right for fetishes. Wrong for winning at Jyhad. > > But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame... > > ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the > > attempt to remove it." > > No, I was saying I would attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt. I wouldn't > attempt to remove *one* Anarch Revolt now. That doesn't mean it isn't a good > idea to play one Anarch Revolt. Watch him try and drive that logic one way then the other attempting to find a rationale which explains why anyone would ever bother with the card. > The discussion you are reacting to was simply in regards to changing the > damage taking phase to the discard phase. If the damage was applied during > the discard phase, the guy playing the card would take the damage first. And > it is possible that other folks would not take any damage. But only if they > can get rid of them. Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards. > I still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play 1 Anarch Revolt. I > still think it would be perfectly reasonable to play multiples of them. It > would just require a lot more thought. Dude, put down the crack pipe. > So you were so het up about this argument, the one where you are arguing > about something that I wasn't even trying to assert, that you decided to > post it twice? Awsome! Have you never had problems with your newsposting software? Don't be so quick to make assumptions like that. Fred

dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.04043...@posting.google.com>... > > Again, the problem with AR is not seeing one of them at the table. The > > problem is seeing 6 at the table. It just destorys the game and makes it > > very random. Such AR decks can win, but not often. > > I agree with you. The reason I mentioned other cards with global > effects is because AR is not alone in basically turning the game into > another one. The key point, as you mentioned, is the repeated use. One > Ancilla + Bribes won't disrupt the table, but 10 will. Like with AR. Not really a fair comparison IMHO. AR requires nothing to set up other than a parthenon (or early rumours). Ancilla requires a minion, an unblocked action and a successful referendum. Multiple Ancillas are obviuosly that much more difficult to achieve. > > That being said, my personal experience is not that bad with AR. I can > only name a handful of games in which it really made me lose, > otherwise it only makes people rethink their strategies. It also makes > a deck type (block) a viable strategy (along with Smiling Jack and > friends). Yeah, don't see it a lot, but hate it when I do. One of the players here has a weenie obf/computer hack/anarch deck that annoys the piss out of everyone, thankfully he whips it out infrequently. <snip> > Bye, > > Daneel

magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote in message news:<70eabfe1.04042...@posting.google.com>... > cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040428121521...@mb-m01.aol.com>... > > At a minimum, if going to take baby steps, should be given to either a clan, > > Assamite comes to mind, or a discipline like Celerity. > > Celerity and Obfuscate come to mind. Maybe Animalism rather than > Obfuscate, but definitely for Celerity. > > Magnus Who, in their right mind, would give flick/bounce to obfuscate?? -scrote

Frederick Scott wrote: > > All right, sorry for the misunderstanding. I can't find it now but > somewhere in this thread a while ago, the concept of Anarch Revolt as a > unique card got talked about and you guys were now discussing the merits > of playing just one. Oh--sure. The "unique AR" idea was tossed around at some point. I'm sure I even discussed it somewhere. I'm just not a big fan. > I now see how you got to that point but it seemed > like such a logical assumption that I didn't go back and check the > discussion history like I should have. Again, my apologies for not > doing something I should have. Quite allright. I just took advantage of the opportunity to be a dick :-) > > That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory > as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes > no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based > on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove > them. They aren't so useless that my opponents won't bother to remove them. If my predator plays a single AR, and I think my actiona are better spent going forward, as opposed to spending them getting rid of the AR (which might fail), and if I think the AR might not hurt my particular position so much and might even help out my position? I'll leave it be, and let someone else worry about it. If I think that the single AR is going to hurt me more than not, and I think I can get rid of it, and I think that I have actions to waste, I'll kill it. I see single AR's in play all the time. In decks that just, like, wanna speed things up some. They don't intend on playig more than 1 or 2 at a time, if even 2. And sometimes they get voted off. Sometimes not. > The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because > you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself > for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or > two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself > completely off the hook and not play them at all. Well, that strikes me as a perfectly logical plan in my book. I don't like Anarch Revolts. If it turned out that one of my suggestions "accidentally" made them night unplayable, I could live with that. This being said, I don't think changing the timing of the damage would make them completely unplayable. > Watch him try and drive that logic one way then the other attempting to > find a rationale which explains why anyone would ever bother with the > card. Who? Watch *me*? Yeah, whatever. > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards. If you are playing a deck that can't defend the ARs, you don't play them. Putting 1 or 2 in, like, a Gangrel intercept wall, to go along with the Smiling Jacks and Army of Rats and whatever? Makes perfect sense to me. Even if it did damage during discard. > Dude, put down the crack pipe. See, but crack is wack. > Have you never had problems with your newsposting software? Don't be so > quick to make assumptions like that. Of course I have. And of course I know that it was a glitch, rather than you doing it intentionally. I was, ya know, being a dick. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <409CF236...@nospam.com>, Frederick Scott says... > That said, your argument is still completely insane and self-contradictory > as if you were trying to suggest Anarch Revolt be unique. It STILL makes > no sense whatsoever to suggest "1 or 2 Anarch Revolts" are useful based > on the concept that they're so useless your opponents won't bother to remove > them. There are 14 decks in the TWD archive that include 4 or less Anarch Revolts (so you're probably likely to only get 1-2 into play over the course of a game). A lot of decks are benefited by having their prey hit for 1-2 extra damage per turn over the course of the game, without the need to hit everyone for 6+ damage every turn. Personally, I think a change similar to that of Army of Rats would be more fair than making it unique. I think that making it activate in the discard phase /would/ stop people from using it in small quantities. And probably large quantities as well. > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards. Explain why people are using them in small quantities then. -- -Snapcase

Peter D Bakija wrote: > I see single AR's in play all the time. In decks that just, like, wanna > speed things up some. They don't intend on playig more than 1 or 2 at a > time, if even 2. And sometimes they get voted off. Sometimes not. OK, here's where observations differ. I barely ever see that. Where I have, I've gotten the sense that either the person didn't know what they were doing or was playing the card to deliberately misdirect people into thinking they were facing an AR deck when they weren't. In any event, I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of that card. When those groups failed to vote an AR off the table, it was probably because they perceived the AR wasn't doing anything worthwhile for whoever played it. If that was the perception, then it probably wasn't - making it a bad play for that reason. > Frederick Scott wrote: > > The change in timing will likewise make the card asswipe paper because > > you'd hit yourself first. If you play lots of them, you'll hit yourself > > for lots of pool before hitting your opponents. If you play only one or > > two of them, you'll be easier on yourself. But why not just let yourself > > completely off the hook and not play them at all. > > Well, that strikes me as a perfectly logical plan in my book. I don't like > Anarch Revolts. If it turned out that one of my suggestions "accidentally" > made them night unplayable, I could live with that. This being said, I don't > think changing the timing of the damage would make them completely > unplayable. Ah, and here I was all set to have a big flamewar over whether the card would be playable or not. Instead, you went and admitted what I suspected: that your first priority was to get rid of the card in the context of massed usage (people using Parthenons and Ansons and such to dump two and three of them on the table per turn) and that you really don't care much if it goes away entirely. As you've also admitted that your problem with the card is disruptiveness and not power, then it follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness will tend to make the card useless. You may also be correct in saying that the card might not become entirely useless if it's just tweaked a bit. But it's just the wrong solution for the particular type of problem. To the extent you don't castrate it, it will continue to be used to your irritation. And to the extent you do, you turn it into wallpaper. Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status. We already have far too many of those cards and not nearly enough beers to put on all of them. If you're going to solve a disruptiveness problem, you need to change the card so it's not disruptive any more, not castrate it. I don't have a problem with it myself, but I think I can sympathize with the people who do: you start a game, you've got a well-planned deck in a good position, you've invested maybe a little more pool in your minions than usual but you've got great minions on the board that you feel put you in a good position to defend against anything bad your predator and prey might want to try to do against you. Then, BAM! Some joker across the board starts dumping two ARs a turn on the table and there's not shit you can do about it. Even if you shut him down and oust him, by the time you do your position will be trashed and the result of the game will be basically random. That's frustrating. It's also hard to plan strategy against, which is a bad thing in a strategy game. So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5 votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much more intriquing to use and far less of a pain. Fred

Snapcase wrote: > > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there > > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against > > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards. > > Explain why people are using them in small quantities then. I can't. It just doesn't seem very smart to me. On the other hand, I've seen lots of tourney-winning decks that contained confusing, non- productive-looking elements which didn't seem like they belonged in the deck. As one of the other posters on this board is fond of pointing out: Jyhad is a multiplayer game which often means that the most effective cards don't always win. It's the most effective play of those cards including the diplomatic elements (e.g. turning your opponents against one another and distracting them from harming you) that frequently has the most impact. Not to mention luck and bad play by one's opponents. The bottom line is that I don't always think a card being in a winning deck necessarily means it's a winning card, unless the winner gives me a reason why the card was crucial. Why many Anarch Revolts can help a person win a game is obvious to me. How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot harder to comprehend. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > OK, here's where observations differ. I barely ever see that. Ok. I see it all the time. Wall decks play 1 or 2 ARs. Bloat decks play 1 or 2 ARs. Not, like, 5 of them. Just one or two. To speed things up and give the game a clock. They usually come with a lot of votes or a lot of intercept--things that plenty of decks have already (i.e. they aren't just in there to defend the AR's). Because they have a lot of votes or a lot of intercept, it is often not worth the effort to try and get rid of the 1 or 2 ARs on the table. But it does speed things up. > In any event, > I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever > card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of > that card. Ok. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts? Certainly an issue. They have an effect on the game. People care that they are there. But given that often the effort spent to try and get rid of them (facing, say, an AUS/DOM intercept Obedicance bloat deck or a Prince 2nd Tradition deck) is not insignificant, it is often in one's best interest to simply not waste the actions trying to get rid of them and instead plow forward, hoping that the 1 or 2 pool loss per turn is going to not kill you and the actions spent trying to oust your prey instead are probably more in your interest. 5 or 6 Anarch Revolts on the table are a problem that everyone needs to deal with. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts on the table is a problem that might or might not be something anyone needs to deal with. This does not mean that it was useless to play them. > When those groups failed to vote an AR off the table, it was > probably because they perceived the AR wasn't doing anything worthwhile > for whoever played it. If that was the perception, then it probably > wasn't - making it a bad play for that reason. Um, ok. When your predator plays Army of Rats, do you immediately spend every action you have trying to destroy it until it is gone? Or do you look at the table situation, see if the 1 pool a turn is going to destroy your game and decide if you are better off just going forward, considering what stands in the way of you getting the Army of Rats? If you don't destroy it, does that mean it was a bad play for your predator? > Ah, and here I was all set to have a big flamewar Clearly, you were. It was fairly dick-tacular. > over whether the card > would be playable or not. Instead, you went and admitted what I suspected: What you suspected? I am on record from day 1 as being in favor of Anarch revolt being completely neutered, if not removed from the game completely. This being said, that is kind of unreasonable, so I am more realistically in favor of some sort of tweak--either moving the damage to the discard phase or making it cost X, where X is the number of ARs already in play. Either of these strike me as reasonable fixes that keep the card playable in small numbers or larger numbers given the appropriate deck design. You seem to disagree. Go nuts. > that your first priority was to get rid of the card in the context of > massed usage (people using Parthenons and Ansons and such to dump two > and three of them on the table per turn) and that you really don't care > much if it goes away entirely. I never claimed otherwise. You are hardly catching me up in an impenetrible web of logic here, counselor. Again. I don't like AR in its current form. I think it is too disruptive to play when used in multiples. I'd be perfectly happy if it vanished. But that is kind of unreasonable, so I'd also be perfectly happy if it were tweaked in such a way as to make it still a viable card yet less attractive to be used in large numbers. The "take damage during the discard phase" idea is simple and discourages using too many of them. But it also makes it much less likely to be useful (as it is certainly possible that a given AR will be killed before it hurts someone). Which is certainly a strike against the idea. The "AR costs X, where X is the number of ARs in play" plan has zero effect on playing 1 AR (and I always like adjusting cards in such a way that you can keep the card as close to the original function as possible while still reigning it in). It makes playing multiples expensive and questionable. Which strikes me as a fine idea. But playing 1 or 2, which contrary to your particular belief, is something that people do, is still viable. > As you've also admitted that > your problem with the card is disruptiveness and not power, And once again, I have never claimed otherwise. Please go find a place in the countless discussions I have had on this particular subject where I say "Anarch Revolt is too powerful". Really. Go. In many places I say "AR is too disruptive to play" and "AR leads to stupid games". But I don't claim it is too powerful. >then it > follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness > will tend to make the card useless. Only if you think that playing 1 or 2 of them is useless. You seem to think it is. Which is fine. I think you are incorrect. As do the various people who have won tournaments with decks that contain a few Anarch Revolts and tend to play only 1 or 2 at a time. > Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all > three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status. Just 'cause it was reprinted? If you say so. I'd be perfectly happy if all those reprinted PTO's were made into coasters too. I hold no belief that just 'cause a card is printed it needs to be playable to the detriment of the game. I'm perfectly happy that all my RTI's and Madness of the Bards are all coasters too. > So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card > to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't > give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want > to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it > wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a > bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to > make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5 > votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far > more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the > referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The > removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's > removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much > more intriquing to use and far less of a pain. Sure. All of these are perfectly viable ideas. And see--you can get them across without raving against points that I didn't make and shouting in all caps. Dude. I think you need some of those beers you don't have enough of. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:409D2E9E...@nospam.com... > The bottom line is that I don't always think a card being in a winning > deck necessarily means it's a winning card, unless the winner gives me > a reason why the card was crucial. Why many Anarch Revolts can help > a person win a game is obvious to me. How a small number of them can > contribute much of anything is a lot harder to comprehend. > Well, from what I've seen, if you're confident that your deck will most likely be the one that moves forward the fastest and/or requires the least setup time to get rolling, then including a few could make it so that more vp's are easier to take for this deck instead of running out of steam and stalling too quickly. > Fred

> I don't think every card that isn't perfect needs to be changed. For > instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be > made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only > need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need > to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams > needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too > good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to > overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that > have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card > isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal. Interesting. IMHO there are three instances when cards need to be fixed. 1. Unbalanced. The card makes you win if you have it. IMHO currently none of the cards fall into this category. Dreams may be a "must-have" for most people, but the main reason I seldom play it is its uniqueness. Many times were I gazing intently on my Dreams that occupied my 7th slot and were unable to play it for countless turns, as when one expired another one was played before my turn came. 2. Disruptive. The card makes other people lose (or be vastly disappointed) by the card. Basically counter-cards are the ones that could fall into this category. In VTES pulling a 6-card combo that cannot be defended against is far less aggravating than playing a single card. IMHO currently PTO is on the wrong side of the verge of falling into this category. On the good side there is Judgement: Camarilla Segregation and Goratrix, Advanced. They are far rarer and/or less powerful. 3. Utterly Lame. Only thing that qualifies here is when two cards are exactly the same in all but one effect parameter. The only current example is Chainsaw vs. Gas Powered Chainsaw. Mario and Cristophero, or Bastard Sword and Meat Cleaver do not count, as their effect parameters match. So in the current (IMHO rather fairly balanced) game I would change exactly two cards. PTO (slightly balancing the effect to either allow more dedicated defence or a decreased effect), and Chainsaw (by adding a Maneuver and/or Press to the stike, for example, or decreasing the cost / increasing the damage). On a sidenote, after decent amounts of pondering, I exluded AR and similar cards. AR is the typical example of something that I think needs to be addressed by altering the in-game balance with newly introduced cards. Even if it is a specific action, like one that allows a titled (?) vampire to burn all Anarch Revolts with a +2 stealth action (giving you the option to include specific defence). The card could be burn option, regarding the target (discard if no AR is in play). This is an extreme example, but it shows my way of thinking. Bye, Daneel

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > In any event, > > I stand by my point that "Your opponents need not care about your (whatever > > card you're talking about)" is a poor argument for the effectiveness of > > that card. > > Ok. 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts? Certainly an issue. They have an effect on the > game. People care that they are there. Not usually. Two of them starts to make people uncomfortable, but saying people "care" about one AR is usually an exaggeration. > But given that often the effort spent > to try and get rid of them (facing, say, an AUS/DOM intercept Obedicance > bloat deck or a Prince 2nd Tradition deck) is not insignificant, I will NOT give you that. It costs an action at stealth with a pre-check to make sure people will vote with you. It's one of the easiest sweeps in the game. If you can't get the votes, it's usually because the thing is *SO* insignificant, it's off peoples' radar screens. In which case it was a waste of master phase. > 1 or 2 Anarch Revolts on the table is a problem that might or might > not be something anyone needs to deal with. This does not mean that it was > useless to play them. OK. So you insist on asserting this inherently self-contradictory position. You can make whatever argument you like but it's still wrong. If no opponent cares about it, it's useless. I'm not playing a card just to entertain myself. If my opponents don't care about my cards, they're trying to tell me something. > Um, ok. When your predator plays Army of Rats, do you immediately spend > every action you have trying to destroy it until it is gone? Or do you look > at the table situation, see if the 1 pool a turn is going to destroy your > game and decide if you are better off just going forward, considering what > stands in the way of you getting the Army of Rats? The latter - which implies the former, more times than not. (You DID say "decide IF", didn't you? Usually the answer is no.) Which is the reason Army of Rats actually doesn't get played all that much. A guy puts it on the table - his prey then takes it off the table. Whoop, whoop. (Twirls finger unenthusiastically.) And it's a card that's at least unfair in its effect. It's also harder to sweep, because it's not at stealth like removing the AR. > If you don't destroy it, > does that mean it was a bad play for your predator? If they could have done something more effective than something I'd ignore, sure. And certainly if they did something I instantly undid. > I am on record from day 1 as being in favor of Anarch > revolt being completely neutered, if not removed from the game completely. > This being said, that is kind of unreasonable, so I am more realistically in > favor of some sort of tweak--either moving the damage to the discard phase > or making it cost X, where X is the number of ARs already in play. Either of > these strike me as reasonable fixes that keep the card playable in small > numbers or larger numbers given the appropriate deck design. You seem to > disagree. Go nuts. Just that your proposed solution basically does the first thing you said: removes it from the game completely. A coaster is a dead card in a CCG. > The "take damage during the discard phase" idea is simple and discourages > using too many of them. It discourages them PERIOD. That much is simple enough. This is a case of, "If some is good, more is better." If many suck, one or two still suck - just not as much. Zero would therefore suck less. > The "AR costs X, where X is the number of ARs in play" plan has zero effect > on playing 1 AR (and I always like adjusting cards in such a way that you > can keep the card as close to the original function as possible while still > reigning it in). It makes playing multiples expensive and questionable. > Which strikes me as a fine idea. But playing 1 or 2, which contrary to your > particular belief, is something that people do, is still viable. You may have observed people doing it. But it's a stupid play. Presumedly, one would expect such people to prefer Anteduluvian Awakening to AR. You've said nothing about people using AA first and then using AR as a fallback because they can't use more than one AA. But then, that would contradict your suggestion that anyone want more than one or two in play. The first one, by all accounts, should Anteduluvian Awakening. > >then it > > follows that reducing the card's power as an answer to disruptiveness > > will tend to make the card useless. > > Only if you think that playing 1 or 2 of them is useless. I think it defies logic to hold otherwise. > > Anarch Revolt has been printed as an uncommon in all > > three basic sets and shouldn't be relegated to coaster status. > > Just 'cause it was reprinted? If you say so. Just because it's in print and people own them. I don't claim that to be a reason you should never modify an overpowered card or even a disruptive one, if it's causing enough pain. But it's sure a decent reason to make sure you don't wallpaper it in the process. > > So the problem here is not emasculating the card. It's changing the card > > to make it useful in small numbers rather than large numbers that don't > > give opponents a decent chance to respond. I agree that people who want > > to speed up the game might find the card usable in small numbers if it > > wasn't so easy to get rid of in that context. The uniqueness idea isn't a > > bad one. You just have to raise its removal criteria at the same time to > > make it more difficult. For instance, you could give the controller 5 > > votes in the referendum to remove it - making it still removable but far > > more difficult to do. Or you could charge anyone wanting to call the > > referendum 2 pool to make it more risky. Or something like that. The > > removal cost should be something comparable to Antediluvian Awakening's > > removal cost in terms of difficulty. Doing that would make the card much > > more intriquing to use and far less of a pain. > > Sure. All of these are perfectly viable ideas. And see--you can get them > across without raving against points that I didn't make and shouting in all > caps. > > Dude. I think you need some of those beers you don't have enough of. You're welcome. May your keg never run dry, either. Fred

>How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot harder >to comprehend. It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a little damage before going away. That's why. I put it down. At the very least, it'll hit my prey for one before being removed. If you play it in the late game, people will realize you're not playing a Revolt deck and not come after you directly for it, even if they do remove the card. In the early game, it'll likely make you enemies. Just another way to oust a prey that you've been putting on the ropes. One that can't be deflected or reduced. How many times have you had just enough firepower to get your prey down to 1 pool, only to have them Tap back up to 10 plus on their turn? A well timed revolt is a solution to that. For toolbox decks, it's a solid strategy. For focused decks, it dilutes the focus somewhat, so may not be a good idea. Kelly

The Fanboy wrote: > > >How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot > >harderto comprehend. > > It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a > little damage before going away. That's why. No, it is NOT a free effect! It cost a master phase action, something far more valuable than the simple stealth minion action to get rid of it. I can much better uses for my master card slots. > Just another way to oust a prey that you've been putting on the ropes. > One that can't be deflected or reduced. How many times have you had > just enough firepower to get your prey down to 1 pool, only to have > them Tap back up to 10 plus on their turn? Um, not really very often. I'll grant you, it is a good finisher play if you're one pool away from the oust...assuming you didn't have to use your master phase for a better card to bring yourself within one pool of the oust. But it's not that common of a scenario, as long as you're taking into account that you're not allowed to dictate when the card comes up in your deck. That is, being within one pool of an oust isn't all that rare but being within one and drawing or being able to maintain in your hand one of a very few copies of a given card sure is. People tend to forget that when they get involved in these arguments. It's all well and good to conceive of a given scenario when a card would be useful in a real game. It's quite another thing to have that scenario actually come up. > For toolbox decks, it's a solid strategy. Sorry, I find there's much better cards to use your master slots on. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Not usually. Two of them starts to make people uncomfortable, but saying > people "care" about one AR is usually an exaggeration. Ok. 1 AR costs you a pool a turn. Losing a pool a turn is rarely a good thing when not prepared for it. It isn't likely going to kill you immediately, but it'll certainly make a dent. The issue is whether the effort spent to kill it is a valid trade off for the damage you can cause to your prey insetad. > I will NOT give you that. Umm, Ok. You should still probably settle down some. > It costs an action at stealth with a pre-check > to make sure people will vote with you. It's one of the easiest sweeps > in the game. Well, ya know, unless the AR is played by an AUS/Obedience deck. Or a deck that controls the vote situation. Or is using Delaying Tactics anyway. > If you can't get the votes, it's usually because the thing is > *SO* insignificant, it's off peoples' radar screens. In which case it was > a waste of master phase. To make your prey lose pool. Hardly a waste for my money. But, ya know, me. > OK. So you insist on asserting this inherently self-contradictory position. > You can make whatever argument you like but it's still wrong. If no > opponent cares about it, it's useless. I'm not playing a card just to > entertain myself. If my opponents don't care about my cards, they're > trying to tell me something. Umm, yeah. Whatever, man. As mentioned, 1 pool a turn from an Anarch Revolt speeds things up (as opposed to not losing a pool a turn). It will increase the overall speed with which people are ousted. By a pool per turn. Sometimes, someone will consider it worth the effort to get rid of. Sometimes not. Sometimes the actions spent going forward are worth more than the saving of the pool from the AR. If this isn't the case, then the AR gets killed. If not, it stays around and speeds up the game. There are certainly worse expenditures of master phase actions. > If they could have done something more effective than something I'd > ignore, sure. And certainly if they did something I instantly undid. And if they block you and send to to torpor, then it was certainly effective for something. If you don't take an action to kill the AoR, and it costs a pool a turn, it is also effective. > Just that your proposed solution basically does the first thing you said: > removes it from the game completely. A coaster is a dead card in a CCG. Ok. Then it possibly isn't the best solution to the problem. I never said it was the best possible option. Just an option. > You may have observed people doing it. But it's a stupid play. Presumedly, > one would expect such people to prefer Anteduluvian Awakening to AR. You've > said nothing about people using AA first and then using AR as a fallback > because they can't use more than one AA. But then, that would contradict > your suggestion that anyone want more than one or two in play. The first > one, by all accounts, should Anteduluvian Awakening. Maybe. But Antedulivan is Unique. So playing more than 1 is counter productive, if you might want to play 2 of them. So you put in an Antedeluvian and a few ARs. 1 AA is interchangable with 1 AR for most purposes. > I think it defies logic to hold otherwise. Go crazy, man. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<409D5729...@nospam.com>... > The Fanboy wrote: > > > > >How a small number of them can contribute much of anything is a lot > > >harderto comprehend. > > > > It's a free effect that, even if not defended, will do at least a > > little damage before going away. That's why. > > No, it is NOT a free effect! It cost a master phase action, something > far more valuable than the simple stealth minion action to get rid > of it. I can much better uses for my master card slots. What other free Master Cards do *sure* damage to your prey? Except for the Unique Antideluvian Awakening, which isn't sure? And the Unique Curse of Nitocris that gets passed around if you also bleed during your turn? Bye, Daneel

pd...@lightlink.com (Peter D Bakija) wrote in message news:<aadbb36b.0405...@posting.google.com>... > Wouter wrote: > > I think there is a balance in there. Ofcourse RtI needed to be > > changed. But not all cards that are not perfect (let's assume AR is > > not perfect) are worth changing. Sometimes the "cost" of changing them > > is higher then the "cost" of keeping an imperfect card. > > I don't think every card that isn't perfect needs to be changed. For > instance, back when a billion people wanted Concealed Weapon to be > made disciplineless, I was falt against it, on the grounds of "We only > need to fix cards that are too good or too disruptive. We don't need > to fix cards that are weak." I also don't think cards like Dreams > needs fixing, even though it is pretty obviously too good--it is too > good, but not such that it is either disruptive to play to > overwhelmingly game effecting. The only effect that cards like that > have is that they get used a lot, but as an individual use of the card > isn't that significant, it isn't a big deal. > > So I agree that you don't need to fix *every* card in the game. Ok, good. So what you are saying is just that AR is too disruptive to play (since you already said that you haven't seen it win a lot of games) But > some cards are too good or too disruptive and do need to be fixed. > Anarch Revolt is still one of those cards (along with PTO). Given that > fixing AR would improve the game as a whole significantly, I'm > perfectly happy to have to deal with the errata. So you take it as a given that AR is too disruptive? I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept deck. Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck. And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper deck. And on top of that, bad decks/ bad players (especially when playing for instance AR or Wall) are always disruptive) > > > It is not necessarly a problem, but it is a hassle. I have had to > > explain their own cards to them. > > Yup. That is one of the hazards with any game. Anywhere. There are > always rules changes or tweaks that someone doesn't know. Sure, but our game has a lot of those...and errata stink. heard on tournaments: Rule #1 : read the (f*cking) card. But it is bad when rule #2 becomes Rule #2: Don't trust what is written on the card..... and it is going that way.... > > > I usually let them play the cards as they were..the way they thought > > it worked when building the deck...it often isn't that unbalancing. > > Makes sense to me. But then next time, they know what the card > actually does. True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has another niche... (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....) Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening... W

> True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling > people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or > encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has > another niche... > > (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they > come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that > doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after > seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with > an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....) > Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening... > It is a risk that errata will cause people to become unhappy with the official rules and by extension tournaments, but get absolutely trashed by obscene decks are not a good thing either. I know that there are worse types than anarch revolt/weenie bleed or anarch/pool machine/major boon decks or what have you. But even if you disagree on our reasons you should realize that stacking ARs cause some of us to see absolutely red. I'll try to win that particular game but maybe my judgement will be clouded by a sincere wish to see the AR deck go down (preferably from its own revolts). You can't really justify playing an irritating deck by winning games in my opinion. I'm sure you would think ganging up on a AR deck just because it annoys you is bad play but it doesn't really matter. People will be tempted to do so when their deck collapses and their chance of a VP seem remote. Most players have broken or disruptive decks that they really feel are quite clever deckbuilding. Maybe you prefer AR types while other like weenie presence bleed or whatever. I like walls. And everytime you pick a disruptive deck you increase the odds of people going with their own favorite abomination of a deck for the next game. Which is a bad thing for both casual and tournament play - and at least as damaging to the game as errata can ever be imo. FC

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and > expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your > i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept > deck. These are not accurate comparisons. "Slow and expensive" are relative terms, whereas floating a deck on +1 stealth (and I'm assuming you don't mean a 'bruise and x' deck, for which the lack of stealth is not a bug, but a feature) is an objective fact. Secondly, I'd suspect the number of decks that would qualify for your former category is much larger than the latter, making the number of targets to be hosed by AR much larger than those hosed by light intercept. __ David Cherryholmes

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck. This is crazy talk! Wall decks hose a single person, their predator, and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla" game dynamics. Further, they only really hose the goobers who think bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute is clever and fun. Bruise decks and combat decks are left relatively unharmed by the wall. > And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper > deck. No argument, though, that those table dancers are every bit as annoying and disruptive as AR decks. Those people *must* be blown off the table the moment their archetype becomes known. __ David Cherryholmes

> This is crazy talk! Wall decks hose a single person, their predator, > and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla" > game dynamics. Further, they only really hose the goobers who think > bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute > is clever and fun. Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh, laugh... Good stuff, keep it coming. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh, laugh... > > Good stuff, keep it coming. [Buzz Lightyear] You're mocking me, aren't you? [/Buzz Lightyear] __ David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:2g9kvr...@uni-berlin.de... > XZealot wrote: > > > Man, this is the second post today to just make me laugh, laugh, laugh... > > > > Good stuff, keep it coming. > > [Buzz Lightyear] > > You're mocking me, aren't you? > > [/Buzz Lightyear] Stop it! You are going to send me to the hospital, and I am at work to boot! I can barely contain myself.... In fact, I couldn't contain myself, and now people are sticking there heads into my office to find out what was so funny. The sad thing is that they wouldn't get it. Thanks for the Funny Monday. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > Ok, good. So what you are saying is just that AR is too disruptive to > play (since you already said that you haven't seen it win a lot of > games) That is all I have ever been saying. Decks that play lots and lots of ARs just make the game suck. Not for someone's prey. Not for their predator. For everyone. The game just sucks. > So you take it as a given that AR is too disruptive? I do. Yes. > > I don't agree. Sure it stinks when your deck that is rather slow and > expensive encounters an AR-deck. It also stinks when your > i-do-a-lot-of-cool-stuff-at-1-stealth-deck encounters an intercept > deck. Yes. At which point *one* person's deck sucks. And if your deck runs into a trump, it is supposed to suck. AR decks don't make one person's deck suck. They make everyone's deck suck. There is a vast difference between making my prey's game suck (which is my job, being his predator and all) and making *everyone's* game suck (which just makes the game a waste of time). > > Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck. > And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper > deck. A wall deck is disruptive to its predator. An AR deck is disruptive to everyone. > > And on top of that, bad decks/ bad players (especially when playing > for instance AR or Wall) are always disruptive) A bad player with a deck has an effect on the people sitting next to them, and possibly not for a very long time. An AR deck tends to have a significant, concrete negative effect on every deck at the table. > > True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling > people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or > encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has > another niche... I am unconcerned with the ability of people to understand/know errata. Games have errata. Pretty much all games have errata. It is something that people deal with all the time. Not an issue. AR is a bad card for the game. I would much rather it get errataed so it is less bad for the game than leave it alone out of fear of more errata. > (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they > come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that > doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after > seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with > an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....) > Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening... If people are playing in a tournament, it isn't unreasonable to expect that they know all the rules. The rules aren't that difficult to find. -Peter

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:409D2E9E...@nospam.com... > Snapcase wrote: > > > Right. And getting rid of them is incredibly easy - *especially* if there > > > aren't more than one or two of them and if the user has no defense against > > > removal - which he wouldn't bother with to defend one or two cards. > > > > Explain why people are using them in small quantities then. > > I can't. It just doesn't seem very smart to me. I play 1 in my Baali stealth bleed deck (Bouncin' Baali, I think there are posts). Just 2 reasons. One is if I get it first or second turn, people usually keep it around for 2-3 turns. Making everyone more vulnerable to stealth bleed. Two, the extra pool damage really can make a difference in how long your prey *thinks* they will be able to survive. In the end game, where I have blood dolls and social charm and coven (plus the pool from ousting people) its good free damage. I wouldn't play it in most other kinds of stealth bleed (or I would play more), but between the bounce and intercept, and more importantly Greta, its a good bet. Colin Riggs plus people always laugh "Baali and Anarchs, you dead"

"Frederick Scott" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:409C75D8...@nospam.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > > > It doesn't speed up anything, it gets removed before they get the > > > damage (unless you are a dedicated blocker) > > > > Why? I'm likely not going to waste an action burning a single Anarch Revolt, > > especially if it is possible I'll be: > > > > -Blocked > > -Voted down > > -Delaying Tacticed > > So let me get this straight: It seems apparent that a unique Anarch Revolt > would incredibly lame because: > 1) You can't mass the effects of Anarch Revolt to accomplish anything > useful; and > 2) There's no point in bothering with a defense of your ARs since there > aren't enough of them in your deck to warrant spending any slots on > the unusual cards (e.g. Delaying Tactics) required to defend them. In > fact, their main defense WAS their extreme numbers as opponents often > simply wouldn't have enough actions to sweep them all off. > > But YOU'RE saying, "No, folks: Anarch Revolt WON'T become too lame... > ....BECAUSE....it's *SO* lame, people won't even bother to make the > attempt to remove it." > > Can you say, "self-contradiction"? > > How about, "oxymoronic argument"? OK, I don't know if "oxymoronic" > is actually a word, but you get the point. This is silly. > > Anarch Revolt is next to worthless as a sole card. It's only use was in > massed numbers. Take away it's ability to get thrown on the table in > mass numbers and you've completely castrated the card. By comparison, > Antediluvian Awakening, which is unique, has a rather stiff cost to > remove - precisely because it *IS* unique. You want to make Anarch > Revolt unique, you're going to have to give something back to the card > in order to prevent them from become coasters. One obvious thing would > be to change its removal cost to something real. Otherwise, it's clearly > and obviously obsolesced by Antediluvian Awakening. If you accept no > other reasonable demonstration of proof that a unique AR is asswipe > paper, any reasonable person would at least have to concede *THAT*. > > Fred Well we could make the removal of AR only done by a vote called by a titled baron. Fit thematically at least. ;) Raille

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<2g9bc7...@uni-berlin.de>... > Wouter Kuyper wrote: > > > Basically, i think an AR-deck is about as disruptive as a wall deck. > > This is crazy talk! Wall decks hose a single person, their predator, > and possibly their prey. That's perfectly in line with the "vanilla" > game dynamics. Bad walldecks make their prey win the game, even good walldecks have problems ousting their preys. And even when they are about to win...it is not at all unheard that tables with 1 or more walldecks go through time...I would call that more disruptive than an AR-deck. Further, they only really hose the goobers who think > bypassing game interaction with the unevenly favored stealth attribute > is clever and fun. Bruise decks and combat decks are left relatively > unharmed by the wall. IMO good walldecks should have some sort of combat package that hurts...(sniperrifles...burst-rotschreck, or something like that) But yes, bruise and combatdecks should have less problems with it...but even then, i walldeck is only a wall, when it is not ousted. a GOOD waldeck gets his 3rd VP somewhere and within timelimit. I've seen a lot more walldecks that got 3 games timeout than i saw AR-decks make other people randomly lose. > > > And i think it is a lot less disruptive than a tabledance/vp-sniper > > deck. > > No argument, though, that those table dancers are every bit as annoying > and disruptive as AR decks. Those people *must* be blown off the table > the moment their archetype becomes known. Hi Tobias :-) Don't get this wrong, i love to see those decks work, just because they are cool. But seatswitchers interfere much more in the predator-prey relationship than AR does (and thus disrupt the game more). Decks based on seatswitchers ...well you can add it up... W

"FC" <fcap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c7nnvq$jpu$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk>... > > True...but you tell me what is more disruptive for game play...telling > > people that the cards they play don't do what they thought they do, or > > encountering the occasional AR-deck, which in the right hands just has > > another niche... > > > > (and next time they know that their fame-deck doesn't work, and they > > come with a 5th-tradtion-tap-deck, and after explaining that that > > doesn't work either, they bring a majesty-based deck...and after > > seeing that that isn't that effective anymore....then they come with > > an AR-deck, then they won't come to tournaments anymore....) > > Ofcourse that IS a bit exagerated...but i can see it happening... > > > > It is a risk that errata will cause people to become unhappy with the > official rules and by extension tournaments, but get absolutely trashed > by obscene decks are not a good thing either. Absolutely true...but i have not seen that happen a lot either...and then they know they could have done the same thing, and perhaps will the next tournament...( i know i personally don't mind losing if someone saw a great combo that i dind't see, even though i know all the cards) > > I know that there are worse types than anarch revolt/weenie bleed or > anarch/pool machine/major boon decks or what have you. > > But even if you disagree on our reasons you should realize that > stacking ARs cause some of us to see absolutely red. I'll try to win > that particular game but maybe my judgement will be clouded by > a sincere wish to see the AR deck go down (preferably from its own > revolts). Oh, you can have all the favorites/antifavorites you want, and so will i. But there is not a hair on my head (is that an English expression) that thinks about removing intercept from the game (or weakening it) just because i don't like playing or encountering it...And if i know i am playing an not-too-liked-deckstyle i KNOW i need to prepare for beatings (Purge anyone?) I don't have a problem with that either (as long as everyone is playing to win) W

mud...@hotmail.com (scrote) wrote in message news:<b618d4f6.04050...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all could need bounce. Magnus

Magnus wrote: > Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all > could need bounce. Yeah, 'cause weenie OBF needs the help, right? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<Zx2dndRLKap...@speakeasy.net>... > Magnus wrote: > > Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all > > could need bounce. > > Yeah, 'cause weenie OBF needs the help, right? No, because these clans are incapable of deflecting by themselves. Of course WW could respectively give bounce to Serpentis, Quietus, Protean and Potence, if that more suits your style. <sigh> I never said that it´d be perfect, but Obfuscate, Celerity and Animalism are disciplines which encompass about everyone of the clans that doesn´t has bounce ( Bloodlines excepted ). Magnus

Magnus wrote: > No, because these clans are incapable of deflecting by themselves. Of > course WW could respectively give bounce to Serpentis, Quietus, > Protean and Potence, if that more suits your style. True, but if you give obf bounce, then you give weenie obf bounce. As good as your intentions are, you'd also create the ultimate in weenie decks. --Colin McGuigan

magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote in message news:<70eabfe1.04051...@posting.google.com>... > mud...@hotmail.com (scrote) wrote in message news:<b618d4f6.04050...@posting.google.com>... > > Who, in their right mind, would give flick/bounce to obfuscate?? > > Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all > could need bounce. > > Magnus Speaking for the !Nosferatu, that simply isn't true - they do not 'need' bounce, as I think I've amply demonstrated in recent tournaments. -John Flournoy, !Nosferatu newsletter-writer

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<TKGcnQb6rO_...@speakeasy.net>... > True, but if you give obf bounce, then you give weenie obf bounce. As > good as your intentions are, you'd also create the ultimate in weenie decks. And I thought Derek Rays Crypt Machine was the ultimate weenie deck... although my version of it didn´t perform all that well at the German Championship. :) How about this idea: The Obfuscate bounce card can only be used by minions with 5+ capacity. Magnus

magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote in message news:<70eabfe1.04051...@posting.google.com>... > Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<Zx2dndRLKap...@speakeasy.net>... > > Magnus wrote: > > > Me. :) Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all > > > could need bounce. > > > > Yeah, 'cause weenie OBF needs the help, right? > > No, because these clans are incapable of deflecting by themselves. Of > course WW could respectively give bounce to Serpentis, Quietus, > Protean and Potence, if that more suits your style. Woop! Woop! SARCASM WARNING. LOTS OF SARCASM FOLLOWING. Because the inability to bounce means you cannot possibly win, naturally. No clan ever does well that cannot bounce with an in-clan discipline. > <sigh> I never said that it´d be perfect, but Obfuscate, Celerity and > Animalism are disciplines which encompass about everyone of the clans > that doesn´t has bounce ( Bloodlines excepted ). If it would in fact be 'perfect' if every clan could bounce, wouldn't it also be perfect if every clan could: Bleed at lots stealth Bleed for >5 in an action Generate tons of intercept Generate tons of stealth Prevent combat damage Maneuver lots Do lots of hand damage Do lots of unpreventable damage Do lots of aggravated damage S:CE Prevent S:CE Recruit kick-ass allies and retainers Generate additional strikes Vote with lots of titles Call whatever vote they like (PTO!) Add blood to uncontrolled vampires Etc etc. Heck, why not just do away with silly concepts like 'clan' or 'discipline' and let every vampire play any and every type of card they want? > Magnus -John Flournoy

> > Speaking for the !Nosferatu, that simply isn't true - they do not > 'need' bounce, as I think I've amply demonstrated in recent > tournaments. I agree that the !Nos *certainly* don't need bounce. They're intercept machines already and have NASTY combat in their ani/pot. As a matter of fact, I think the only clans who really need some way to bounce are Assamites and *MAYBE* Setites. That, or a global card. I've made a couple of suggestions in the past, but the one I still like the most is one that would bounce a bounced bleed back to the one who sent it through you. That'd be quite some opportunity cost and only a defensive mechanism instead of the offensive mechanism regular bounce is. Off topic, but on topic for NG: Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My Enemy's Enemy. Sure it's free. Sure, it's useful if your Telepathic gets DI'd, but in all reality, Telepathic Misdirection is a *vastly* better card. The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; my grandpredator - yet he's the most likely target for a MEE. I'm seeing this card more and more on deckbot (and some people actually go through the trouble of trading a bunch for real....) instead of Tele Misdirection, "cuz it's free". Someone care to shed a light?

Izaak wrote: > Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My > Enemy's Enemy. Sure it's free. Sure, it's useful if your Telepathic gets > DI'd, but in all reality, Telepathic Misdirection is a *vastly* better > card. The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; my > grandpredator - yet he's the most likely target for a MEE. I'm seeing > this card more and more on deckbot (and some people actually go through > the trouble of trading a bunch for real....) instead of Tele > Misdirection, "cuz it's free". Don't knock "cuz it's free". Five cards later, the five blood saved is huge. It also means that little Isabel or Martin can bounce all day without having to do that pesky, blockable hunt... As for usage: Well, not the best against stealth bleeds, of course, but if your grandpredator has any sort of combat whatsoever, being able to bounce minions into him is sort of like giving him a free rush against his prey. Typically, a bounce ends in "hands for 1" (or less) on each side...not so if it's a predator/prey combat. I admit I'm not enthralled with the card...but I have been in the situation more and more often where my minions are running on empty, and I wish I could swap the TM in my hand for a MEE. --Colin McGuigan

Magnus wrote: > And I thought Derek Rays Crypt Machine was the ultimate weenie deck... > although my version of it didn´t perform all that well at the German > Championship. :) It's got speed and numbers, but that's it. Specifically, it doesn't have stealth ('cept for Seductions), and it works its best when it can hit people coming out of the gate. Weenie potence can shut it down cold. > How about this idea: The Obfuscate bounce card can only be used by > minions with 5+ capacity. Ok. Replace 'weenie OBF' with '!Malkavian stealth/bleed' in my previous post. =P --Colin McGuigan

> Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My > Enemy's Enemy. Sooner or later, it's a three-player game. > The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; Sooner or later, your "tablebuddy" is your prey.

"Gregory Stuart Pettigrew" <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> wrote > > Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My > > Enemy's Enemy. > > Sooner or later, it's a three-player game. And soon after that it's a two-player game, but still... is the window of opportunity large enough, if you intend to use this card against your prey? How many turns of your average game will it be down three players? Not many, I should think. I don't absolutely hate MEE but I find the versatility of TM is generally worth spending the 1 blood. Deflecting to my grand-predator without some kind of arrangement strikes me as rather obnoxious, not to mention that it won't do anything to help me win most of the time. Cheers, WES

> Deflecting to my grand-predator without some kind of arrangement strikes > me as rather obnoxious, not to mention that it won't do anything to help > me win most of the time. > As a matter of fact, last week, when I was bled by a bruise/bleed deck having trouble with its Predator, I said: "If I do you a favor, will you not bleed me on your next turn?" and subsequently played MEE.

> Off topic, but on topic for NG: > > Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My > Enemy's Enemy. Sure it's free. Sure, it's useful if your Telepathic gets > DI'd, but in all reality, Telepathic Misdirection is a *vastly* better > card. The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; my > grandpredator - yet he's the most likely target for a MEE. I'm seeing > this card more and more on deckbot (and some people actually go through > the trouble of trading a bunch for real....) instead of Tele > Misdirection, "cuz it's free". > > Someone care to shed a light? I'm not exactly Lucifer, but MEE allows you decent control over your grandpredator. If your grandpredator is strong, you can use MEE "regularly", that is, when the bleed has stealth and all sorts of goodies. If he is week (and your predator thinks that he is week too), you may flick the bleed immediately as it is announced, allowing more options for the situation to resolve. Because it is free, you don't get hosed a blood for using it for Intercept. Because it is free, noone will think you included it specifically to flick to your grandpredator. It is also free. That said, in a deck that does not use at least moderate Intercept I'd prefer TM, even if I'd throw in a prayed MEE or two anyway. Ever got your flick DI'd? It's convenient to have a different one just in case. Bye, Daneel

"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message news:<c7rpjq$c4f$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>... > Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My > Enemy's Enemy. Sure it's free. Sure, it's useful if your Telepathic gets > DI'd, but in all reality, Telepathic Misdirection is a *vastly* better > card. The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; my > grandpredator - yet he's the most likely target for a MEE. I'm seeing > this card more and more on deckbot (and some people actually go through > the trouble of trading a bunch for real....) instead of Tele > Misdirection, "cuz it's free". > > Someone care to shed a light? Bouncing to your grandpredator is underrated; it can be a good idea even when you have Deflection, Redirection or Telepathic Misdirection. No one else at the table will have a greater interest in blocking and beating up the redirected bleeder. Also, no one has less of an interest in returning the bleed to you, unless it is purely out of spite. And at 5-person tables, killing your grandprey's prey is not a disaster, since it stymies your prey and ups the pressure on your predator. Note also that MEE is more useful at 2- or 3-person tables than Telepathic Misdirection. Since you're going to be at 2- or 3-person tables more often than at 4- or 5-person tables (the endgame), MEE looks pretty good.

flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message > Woop! Woop! SARCASM WARNING. LOTS OF SARCASM FOLLOWING. Yeah, replace "Sarcasm" with "Hyperbole" and you got it quite right. > Because the inability to bounce means you cannot possibly win, > naturally. No clan ever does well that cannot bounce with an in-clan > discipline. I didn´t say that. But it obviously falls much easier prey to the typical stealth/bleed concept. Rushing backwards is always an option, I know, but you don´t win games like this. > If it would in fact be 'perfect' if every clan could bounce, wouldn't > it also be perfect if every clan could: > Bleed at lots stealth > Bleed for >5 in an action > Generate tons of intercept > Generate tons of stealth > Prevent combat damage > Maneuver lots > Do lots of hand damage > Do lots of unpreventable damage > Do lots of aggravated damage > S:CE > Prevent S:CE > Recruit kick-ass allies and retainers > Generate additional strikes > Vote with lots of titles > Call whatever vote they like (PTO!) > Add blood to uncontrolled vampires > Etc etc. > > Heck, why not just do away with silly concepts like 'clan' or > 'discipline' and let every vampire play any and every type of card > they want? Wow, what an elaborate and thought out point! Obviously I am *completely* wrong, because the most basic decktype still is stealth/bleed in this game, and giving clans without the ability to bounce a method to avoid getting bled to death, *without* having to go backwards all the time will unbalance the game *completely*! Horrors upon horrors, VTES would surely *die* if WW would try to even out the advantage Dominate and Auspex clans have over all the others! But I guess me even suggesting that the game would benefit from bounce for those three disciplines *obviously* means that I want every clan to be the same as all the others, and that I hate diversity. Who would have thought? I better get a shrink, so that I can tell him of your *brilliant* deduction. Thanks, John, I´m sure you´ll get your Nobel Peace Price soon in the mail. Magnus

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<BXSdnZNoMKs...@speakeasy.net>... > Ok. Replace 'weenie OBF' with '!Malkavian stealth/bleed' in my previous > post. =P If this gets multiposted, blame Google. :) Gee, you mean having Dominate and Auspex as in-clan disciplines wouldn´t be enough? :) Yeah, I realize that every discipline the Malks ( at least the old Malks ) have, would be a bounce discipline, but they have the other two anyway, so no big deal on that account. Ok, here´s my detailed idea for the three bounce cards: Hidden Resources Obfuscate, Reaction, 1 pool [obf] Only usable when you are being bled. Only usable by a vampire of capacity 5 and above. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the one controlling the minion bleeding you. The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. [OBF] As above, but do not tap this vampire. Evasion Celerity, Reaction, 1 blood [cel] Only usable when you are being bled. Not usable if the acting minion has Celerity.. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the one controlling the minion bleeding you. The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. [CEL] As above, not usable if the acting minion has superior Celerity. Terror Animalism, 1 blood, Reaction, Frenzy card [ani] Only usable when a younger vampire is bleeding you. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the acting vampire's controller. That acting vampire is now bleeding the chosen Methuselah. [ANI] As above, but the acting vampire can be the same age or older. Whaddaya think? :) Magnus

>> Speaking for the !Nosferatu, that simply isn't true - they do not >> 'need' bounce, as I think I've amply demonstrated in recent >> tournaments. > >I agree that the !Nos *certainly* don't need bounce. They're intercept >machines already and have NASTY combat in their ani/pot. As a matter of >fact, I think the only clans who really need some way to bounce are >Assamites and *MAYBE* Setites. I don't think it's important what some clan needs. If you have access to bounce, you are better than if you don't. EuroBrujah builds are some of the best Brujah builds, quite a few of the Gangrel TWDs run bounce. Etc. >Off topic, but on topic for NG: > >Now that I'm talking offensive bounce anyway, what's the fuss about My >Enemy's Enemy. Sure it's free. Sure, it's useful if your Telepathic gets >DI'd, but in all reality, Telepathic Misdirection is a *vastly* better >card. The LAST person I'd want to hurt is my tablebuddy; my >grandpredator - yet he's the most likely target for a MEE. I'm seeing >this card more and more on deckbot (and some people actually go through >the trouble of trading a bunch for real....) instead of Tele >Misdirection, "cuz it's free". > >Someone care to shed a light? I see MEE as primarily an intercept card that doubles as bounce and TM as primarily a bounce card that doubles as intercept. I don't know if that explains it by virtue of the decks you are seeing actually like blocking actions. I certainly don't find it unusual to see a couple MEE tossed in with half a dozen or so TMs just for diversity. If you are seeing MEE as someone's primary bounce source, I would find that a tad odd.

Magnus wrote: > Gee, you mean having Dominate and Auspex as in-clan disciplines > wouldn´t be enough? :) Yeah, I realize that every discipline the Malks > ( at least the old Malks ) have, would be a bounce discipline, but > they have the other two anyway, so no big deal on that account. My post referred to the !Malks, not the Malks. But close enough. =P > Whaddaya think? :) obf bounce makes obf/dem the ultimate stealth bleeder, worse than obf/dom is. Not good. cel bounce? Eeeeh. cel/pre becomes more viable, so you get the Eurobrujah decks who can now play with all of the Brujah/!Brujah, and maybe, depending upon pot usage, the Toreador and !Toreador, too. Not saying they'd be overpowering, but it'd be taking an already strong archetype and making it stronger. (Presence is slightly weaker in terms of bleed modifers and bloating, but you'd be able to use lower cap minions, and more of 'em) ani bounce? Of the three, this is the the one that doesn't spring an abusable example into mind. But, on the other hand, I don't like on the surface the idea of pretty much copying the effect of a card wholesale from one discipline to another. The Frenzy is a nice touch, but it still screams, "Hi, I'm Deflection for another Discipline!" --Colin McGuiga

>Note also that MEE is more useful at 2- or 3-person tables than >Telepathic Misdirection. Since you're going to be at 2- or 3-person >tables more often than at 4- or 5-person tables (the endgame), MEE >looks pretty good. I suppose if you are an optimist. At a table of equal players and decks, figure that you are the first person ousted 20-25%, depending upon table size, depending upon whether someone ever gets ousted. If you make the assumption that TM is better with 4-5 players still in the game, actually, you are more likely to get ousted first by playing MEE than TM.

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<9KycnQ5V4sH...@speakeasy.net>... > obf bounce makes obf/dem the ultimate stealth bleeder, worse than > obf/dom is. Not good. As !Malks also have Auspex in their in-clan spread, I don´t see the problem. Also, I made the Obfuscate deflection card the most difficult to use on purpose ( 1 pool and only 5+ caps ). Telepathic Misdirection is much better than the Obfuscate card I proposed. > cel bounce? Eeeeh. cel/pre becomes more viable, so you get the > Eurobrujah decks who can now play with all of the Brujah/!Brujah, and > maybe, depending upon pot usage, the Toreador and !Toreador, too. Not > saying they'd be overpowering, but it'd be taking an already strong > archetype and making it stronger. (Presence is slightly weaker in terms > of bleed modifers and bloating, but you'd be able to use lower cap > minions, and more of 'em) As someone who loves to play Brujahs, decks of this stripe almost always fall prey to the problem that they have to work too much backwards, if they got a strong predator of any kind. One can prepare for that with Delaying Tactics if your predator plays politics, but Brujah decks have absolutely no inherent defense against Stealth/Bleed. Assamites and !Gangrel, btw, have also that same problem. Toreadors have Auspex as an in-clan discipline, anyway, so I don´t see why they´d use the Celerity bounce I proposed, anyway. Telepathic Misdirection is also better than my Celerity version, just as with the Obfuscate ( and Animalism ) card. > ani bounce? Of the three, this is the the one that doesn't spring an > abusable example into mind. But, on the other hand, I don't like on the > surface the idea of pretty much copying the effect of a card wholesale > from one discipline to another. The Frenzy is a nice touch, but it > still screams, "Hi, I'm Deflection for another Discipline!" Actually, it´s a Redirection for Animalism, not a Deflection. :) But, yeah, I went out of ideas for how to make this one unique to Animalism, and it seemed just as cheap to just copy the Celerity concept of "Acting minion can´t have Animalism/Superior Animalism", so I went with the "No older vampires/Also older vampires" concept of Redirection. Magnus

Magnus wrote: > As !Malks also have Auspex in their in-clan spread, I don´t see the > problem. Also, I made the Obfuscate deflection card the most difficult > to use on purpose ( 1 pool and only 5+ caps ). Telepathic Misdirection > is much better than the Obfuscate card I proposed. TM requires AUS. Your proposed card requires only obf, which is something that the vamps in the crypt are going to have anyway. Sure, TM is cheaper than your proposed, but adds on another requirement to the crypt. > As someone who loves to play Brujahs, decks of this stripe almost > always fall prey to the problem that they have to work too much > backwards, if they got a strong predator of any kind. One can prepare > for that with Delaying Tactics if your predator plays politics, but > Brujah decks have absolutely no inherent defense against > Stealth/Bleed. The Eurobrujah do: Deflection and Redirection. And the Eurobrujah archetype is pretty strong -- giving cel bounce takes the Eurobrujah archetype and lets them use the entire Brujah/!Brujah crypt. So you'd have a crypt of people who can do combat (pot/cel), bleed (pre), vote (pre), and deflect (cel). Use the cheap princes for the 2nds, and you've got pretty good intercept, too. --Colin McGuigan

cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote in message news:<20040512160230...@mb-m07.aol.com>... > >Note also that MEE is more useful at 2- or 3-person tables than > >Telepathic Misdirection. Since you're going to be at 2- or 3-person > >tables more often than at 4- or 5-person tables (the endgame), MEE > >looks pretty good. > > I suppose if you are an optimist. At a table of equal players and decks, > figure that you are the first person ousted 20-25%... If you always play 5-person tables, and the odds of ousting are always equal, you will be at a 3-person table in 60% of games and a 2-person table in 40% of games. If you always play 4-person tables, and the odds of ousting are always equal, you will be at a 3-person table in 75% of games and a 2-person table in 50% of games. There's no available statistics on how many turns you're likely to take while the game is at 4- or 5-players compared to while it is at 3- or 2-. However, your predator is likely to have more minions taking actions for you to block or bounce in the late game.

I'm pretty sure that if you're going to give another discipline bounce, you can make up a lot of examples of abuse. That said, it's generally accepted that bounce is a nessecary evil. Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. With it, AUS and dom have an inherent "advantage" over the other disciplines. Otoh, on a combat table you'll end up discarding deflections and in such situations it's for and cel that have the inherent "advantage". I don't think printing a new discipline-based bounce card is a bad idea. All it would do is give a couple more clans access to in-clan bounce and increase the frequency of that discipline (and the decks built with it). As it stands, many people don't *want* to play dom or AUS all the time. When the choice broadens to, say, dom, AUS, or obf you'll only end up seeing more bounce and be even more fucked if you don't play bounce. I think (and I already have suggested it a couple of times) that the best idea to solve the "problem" is too look at bounce as a defensive tool. Let's not forget that bounce is more offense than defense. Sure, it saves you a couple of pool, but even better is that it hurts your prey (generally) at the expense of an action of your predator. Win/win situation if you ask me. I still believe it'd be a good idea if there was a disciplineless bounce card that bounced something back to the original target. Something like this: Confusing Orders Reaction 1 blood Do not replace until your next discard phase Only usable on a bleed of more than 2 that's being redirected to you. The acting minion is now bleeding the Methuselah that redirected the bleed to you. Tap this reacting minion.

Izaak wrote: > That said, it's generally accepted that bounce is a nessecary evil. Eh? I see it as: "Bounce is dumb, but it's printed, and there's no errata'ing it now" sort of thing. > Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. Actually, no. Yes, one less defense against S+B, but since S+B tends to play with bounce _anyways_, I don't think there'd be a dominance effect. You don't need to worry about your S+B predator bouncing bleeds into you. Nor do you need to worry about your S+B prey bouncing your bleeds to your grandprey. > I don't think printing a new discipline-based bounce card is a bad idea. > All it would do is give a couple more clans access to in-clan bounce and > increase the frequency of that discipline (and the decks built with it). > As it stands, many people don't *want* to play dom or AUS all the time. > When the choice broadens to, say, dom, AUS, or obf you'll only end up > seeing more bounce and be even more fucked if you don't play bounce. That's pretty much my point. The more "needs to play" there are, the worse the game gets, and bounce is already kind of like this in tournaments. Sure, you have the occasional person who can win a tournament without bounce, but most of the time, the person who doesn't have bounce at the table becomes the bleed sink. And, of course, once everyone is packing bounce, it becomes (at best) a question of who has more bounce cards in their hand. Whoop de do. > Confusing Orders > Reaction > 1 blood > Do not replace until your next discard phase > Only usable on a bleed of more than 2 that's being redirected to you. > The acting minion is now bleeding the Methuselah that redirected the > bleed to you. > Tap this reacting minion. Why have it cost anything, or tap? It's usability is already highly restricted. But I'd rather just get rid of bounce altogether. --Colin McGuigan

> > Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. > > Actually, no. Yes, one less defense against S+B, but since S+B tends to > play with bounce _anyways_, I don't think there'd be a dominance effect. > You don't need to worry about your S+B predator bouncing bleeds into > you. Nor do you need to worry about your S+B prey bouncing your bleeds > to your grandprey. From the bleeders PoV: hey, now all I have to worry about *ever* is Archon Investigation. Sounds cool. Let's make a Malk OOT "I bleed you for 7 per action" deck that packs Suddens to deal with the AI's and let's see how fun this game is. Or hell, just bleed for 4 the whole time, let the AI fall and then bleed for 7. As it is, Bleeders should incorporate bounce into their bleeding strategies. You don't WANT your bleed for 7 at 4 stealth being bounced into your grandprey. So you bleed responsible, lure out the bounce, play Spying Mission etc. All this leading to your deck ousting slower and as such more vulnerable to rush, requiring a defensive package etc etc. If bounce would be gone, we'd be in trouble. > That's pretty much my point. The more "needs to play" there are, the > worse the game gets, and bounce is already kind of like this in > tournaments. Sure, you have the occasional person who can win a > tournament without bounce, but most of the time, the person who doesn't > have bounce at the table becomes the bleed sink. > > And, of course, once everyone is packing bounce, it becomes (at best) a > question of who has more bounce cards in their hand. Whoop de do. Hence the cornercase anti-bounce tech below. > > Confusing Orders > > Reaction > > 1 blood > > Do not replace until your next discard phase > > Only usable on a bleed of more than 2 that's being redirected to you. > > The acting minion is now bleeding the Methuselah that redirected the > > bleed to you. > > Tap this reacting minion. > > Why have it cost anything, or tap? It's usability is already highly > restricted. Because it'd have to be cornercase. If you give everyone easy accesible bounce, you'd totally trounce S/B, who are then unable to ever bleed their prey hard. Hell, any deck that bleeds for 3 or 4 every once in a while for the ousting push (think cards like Iron Glare, Aire of Elation and Sense the Sin here) would be fucked, because you can never be sure where it lands. I'm inclined to ALSO put a minion capacity restriction on it and get rid of the blood cost.

>> > Confusing Orders >> > Reaction >> > 1 blood >> > Do not replace until your next discard phase >> > Only usable on a bleed of more than 2 that's being redirected to >you. >> > The acting minion is now bleeding the Methuselah that redirected the >> > bleed to you. >> > Tap this reacting minion. >> >> Why have it cost anything, or tap? It's usability is already highly >> restricted. > >Because it'd have to be cornercase. I think it has to not be cornercase. If you make a bad bounce card, people will just continue to play with AUS and/or Dom. You have to make the card good enough that it's too much effort to splash/graft/force an out of clan discipline to get the slightly better effects of the superior bounce cards. >If you give everyone easy accesible >bounce, you'd totally trounce S/B, who are then unable to ever bleed >their prey hard. To an extent, everyone already has bounce in that bounce being in two disciplines heavily shapes the metagame. This is why I don't get the reluctance to have easy bounce for vampires without the current bounce disciplines. Why should some disciplines be so much more important to playing the game than others? Bounce doesn't stop stealth bleed, if it did, then stealth bleed wouldn't currently be viable. To do that, you need to play something like 20+ bounce cards (if just using bounce, obviously other possibilities exist). Bounce runs out. There's also diminishing returns to the amount of bounce put into a deck such that people aren't inclined to run double digit numbers of bounce cards. >Hell, any deck that bleeds for 3 or 4 every once in a >while for the ousting push (think cards like Iron Glare, Aire of Elation >and Sense the Sin here) would be fucked, because you can never be sure >where it lands. I'm inclined to ALSO put a minion capacity restriction >on it and get rid of the blood cost. Seems to me this is the current situation. Suppose, for the sake of argument, Deflection - not some Redirection wannabee, Deflection - was disciplineless (I guess ignore the superior). How does the game change? Is it worse? Why? And, as to the argument that not everybody should do everything, WWEF, if you go by the source material, should have been a Thaumaturgy card. Would that have made the game better to have only one clan have access to it? Could argue that the two effects - waking and bouncing - are qualitatively different to where one is more necessary to the game functioning, but I don't think anyone is going to put the effort into that argument by working through all of the differences in the game if waking wasn't a staple effect to show conclusively that the two are different enough.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't think I agree with this. Any deck should incorperate defenses for the three mainstream strategies. Combat, vote and bleed. A combat deck has its combat defense easiliy availabe: it knows how to fight itself, so doesn't have to worry about that. Voters have their vote defense ready as well - they're a voter themselves after all. No need to worry about either. A bleeder does not get such defense for free. It has to add cards to its deck to defend itself against its own strategy; something non-bleeders don't need to do. I think that was the primary reason to print redirection and deflection as dominate cards. As for Telepathic; it makes perfect sense for an Auspex card and the fact that it requires AUS makes it balanced if you ask me, especially within the context of Auspex as a whole. If you'd print Deflection as a disciplineless card, you'd give *every* strategy easy accesible no-brainer bleed defense. Not only is this bad for the creativity of decks (see also, MTG) but the game would more and more become about who has the most bounce cards. Imagine Potence weenies with deflection. They are already existant with the little Giovanni, but choices are limited there. How about presence weenie with deflection? How about just about any combat deck (whose natural nemesis is S/B) with deflection? No more backrushing. Ever. If deflection and telepathic are shaping metagames now, that new theoretical card of yours would shape the metagame even worse. > And, as to the argument that not everybody should do everything, WWEF, if you > go by the source material, should have been a Thaumaturgy card. Would that > have made the game better to have only one clan have access to it? Could argue > that the two effects - waking and bouncing - are qualitatively different to > where one is more necessary to the game functioning, but I don't think anyone > is going to put the effort into that argument by working through all of the > differences in the game if waking wasn't a staple effect to show conclusively > that the two are different enough. This argument is not only a whole different ballgame, it's a different ballgame, if it's a ballgame at all, on a different planet. WWEF, which is indeed a 1st lvl Tha ritual in the RPG, is not even remotely comparable to deflection. I won't comment any further on such a silly comparison.

Izaak wrote: > From the bleeders PoV: hey, now all I have to worry about *ever* is > Archon Investigation. Or rush. Or intercept. Or table dancers. Or being bled out _faster_. Or... > Sounds cool. Let's make a Malk OOT "I bleed you > for 7 per action" deck that packs Suddens to deal with the AI's and > let's see how fun this game is. Or hell, just bleed for 4 the whole > time, let the AI fall and then bleed for 7. And how does this Malk S+B deck deal with its prey first minion action being, "I burn the Madness Network"? By blocking and getting into combat? > As it is, Bleeders should incorporate bounce into their bleeding > strategies. You don't WANT your bleed for 7 at 4 stealth being bounced > into your grandprey. So you bleed responsible, lure out the bounce, play > Spying Mission etc. All this leading to your deck ousting slower and as > such more vulnerable to rush, requiring a defensive package etc etc. If > bounce would be gone, we'd be in trouble. Without bounce, the Malk S+B would also have to worry about being bled out. Can it guarantee it'll bleed out its prey first if its predator is just like it? As things stand now, a Malk S+B deck _loves_ it when its predator is just like it. Either the predator can sit there and bleed for 1, or the S+B can bounce it to its grandprey. There's a total lack of pressure in this case, because of bounce. > Hence the cornercase anti-bounce tech below. How does your card address the point that "need to have" cards are bad? > Because it'd have to be cornercase. It's already cornercase, since it can only be used when a bounce is directed to you; can't be used just when you're being bled, yes? --Colin McGuigan

Curevei wrote: > To an extent, everyone already has bounce in that bounce being in two > disciplines heavily shapes the metagame. This is why I don't get the > reluctance to have easy bounce for vampires without the current bounce > disciplines. Why should some disciplines be so much more important to playing > the game than others? They shouldn't. Ban bounce cards, that's my solution. =P > Suppose, for the sake of argument, Deflection - not some Redirection wannabee, > Deflection - was disciplineless (I guess ignore the superior). How does the > game change? Is it worse? Why? Well, pros: 1) Fairer. No need to graft aus or dom onto your crypt to get the ultimate bleed defense. 2) Bleeding reduced in importance compared to vote and combat. Vote doesn't need the help, combat does. Cons: 1) Slower. Less lunges will be successful, and predators will have to be more cautious when playing bleed modifiers. Thus, the game lasts longer. 2) More erratic. Not only do you have to worry about your predator's vampires, now you also have to worry about your grand-predator's vampires, your grand-grand-predator's vampires, etc. If you have no bounce _in hand_, you're much more likely to become a bleed sink, since there'll be more bouncing going on. > And, as to the argument that not everybody should do everything, WWEF, if you > go by the source material, should have been a Thaumaturgy card. Would that > have made the game better to have only one clan have access to it? I'd argue that WWEF is another "need to have" card, and therefore bad. Under the current system, it's more or less necessary to play fatties and even midcaps -- weenies rule, otherwise. I think the game would've been better with an innate effect, such as "Any vampire older than the acting vampire may burn a blood to act as if untapped for the rest of the action" or similar. --Colin McGuigan

magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote in message news:<70eabfe1.04051...@posting.google.com>... > flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message > > > Woop! Woop! SARCASM WARNING. LOTS OF SARCASM FOLLOWING. > > Yeah, replace "Sarcasm" with "Hyperbole" and you got it quite right. Fine, here's some more serious commentary. > > Because the inability to bounce means you cannot possibly win, > > naturally. No clan ever does well that cannot bounce with an in-clan > > discipline. > > I didn´t say that. But it obviously falls much easier prey to the > typical stealth/bleed concept. Rushing backwards is always an option, > I know, but you don´t win games like this. Generally not, no. Thankfully, there exist multiple options for how to win games that do not include bouncing bleeds or rushing backwards. Lots of decks win games and win tournaments with neither bounces nor rushes. It's certainly an easy way to defend against the typical stealth/bleed deck - no argument there. But it's not a _necessity_ either, and you did use the (somewhat garbled) sentence "Setites, Assamites, !Gangrel, !Nosferatu and Nosferatu all could need bounce" in your posts in this thread. My base point is that in the case of (at least) one clan that you listed, they do not _need_ bounce, at all, to succeed. > Wow, what an elaborate and thought out point! Obviously I am > *completely* wrong, because the most basic decktype still is > stealth/bleed in this game, and giving clans without the ability to > bounce a method to avoid getting bled to death, *without* having to go > backwards all the time will unbalance the game *completely*! Horrors > upon horrors, VTES would surely *die* if WW would try to even out the > advantage Dominate and Auspex clans have over all the others! Again, there are answers to 'don't get bled to death' besides bounce or rushing backwards. For example, lots of decks use intercept instead of bounce or rush. Lots of decks try to bloat faster than they lose pool to bleeding. Lots of decks use votes to hamper bleeders or move away from them on the table. Some decks even use bleed reduction instead of bounce. Perhaps more importantly, while stealth/bleed is one of the most _basic_ decktypes, that doesn't make it the _dominant_ deck type these days. (Anecdotal example: at the recent Qualifier for our region, four of the five decks in the finals were not stealth bleed, and the fifth was a hybrid stealth vote deck that did some secondary stealth bleeding. The winning deck was an intercept-gun deck with 0 stealth cards in it.) Yes, I think that other clans and disciplines getting a way to bounce would be helpful to them - I'm certainly not about to claim that it would not. But here's another point: your argument seems to be based entirely around the fact that having a Bounce discipline available to you is an advantage towards winning games for the clans that have it because stealth/bleed is so powerful, and therefore should be addressed by giving other clans that option as well. But what's the difference between arguing that Celerity should have a bounce card so that Celerity clans can keep up with Dom/Aus bounce, and arguing that Potence should have a big stealth card so that Potence clans can compete with Obf/Pro for ousting people via stealth/bleed? One of the absolute _core_ design points of every Vampire game WW has made is that not all clans are equal in the details. Some of them are better at certain tasks than the others, and every clan has things they are bad at. That core diversity is a big reason why they _bother_ to have the concept of Clans in the first place, to make it so that not every Vampire nor every Clan will be exactly the same when the games are played. Yes, some of the VTES clans are unbalanced and weaker than others right now, and that's _definitely_ something a lot of players would like to see resolved. However, rather than resolve it by giving the weaker clans the exact same (or carbon-copy) cards as the stronger clans, it would be much, much better if they found ways to strengthen those clans in _different_ ways, that maintain the diversity between the various clans. For example, in the Sabbat/Sabbat War period, very few people felt _any_ of the Independent clans were competitive; they lacked way too much to make them able to stand up to the Camarilla or Sabbat clans. Instead of saying 'well, we'll make Independents have their own Traditions' or 'we'll give the Setites lots of intercept and bounce because they can't stop bleeds for squat', the designers made a bunch of new cards that I'd like to think most players would agree helped seriously address the imbalance of power levels. Things like Shambling Hordes, Week of Nightmares, Clandestine Contract, Provision of the Silisia, Enticement, Call the Hungry Dead, Free States Rant, etc etc. Armed with a wide range of new strategies and options, the Independent clans suddenly got played a _lot_ more often and easily, and did much, much better in tournament play. (Sadly, that significant boost to the independents didn't completely rebalance the field; many people find the Assamites to still be very weak in comparison.) So rather than try to give similar-to-identical bounce options to the clans/disciplines that are weaker for lacking that option, wouldn't it be better to try to come up with _new_ and varied options and cards for them, ones that will balance things overall without turning the game into 'Vampire: Only The Names Are Different'? > Magnus -John Flournoy

>Any deck should incorperate defenses for the three mainstream >strategies. Combat, vote and bleed. And, I don't find this to be the case. Every deck might as well run bleed defense since almost every deck bleeds. Actually, more specifically, every deck might as well run bounce, if it isn't trouble to do so, because bounce is bleed defense and increased ousting power. It's much easier to take your chances with defending against vote and/or combat. If you lowball defenses, then you free up space for other things (well, more ousting power one presumes). And, the defenses against these don't help you oust anyone (it would be funny, though, if new cards did). >A combat deck has its combat defense >easiliy availabe: it knows how to fight itself, so doesn't have to worry >about that. I see this highly varying. A combat deck designed to beat noncombat decks may be easily trumped by another combat deck (possibly purely by accident). >Voters have their vote defense ready as well - they're a >voter themselves after all. No need to worry about either. Much easier to pass votes than to defend against them. I see vote decks all of the time that can't stop votes. >A bleeder >does not get such defense for free. It has to add cards to its deck to >defend itself against its own strategy; something non-bleeders don't >need to do. I think that was the primary reason to print redirection and >deflection as dominate cards. As for Telepathic; it makes perfect sense >for an Auspex card and the fact that it requires AUS makes it balanced >if you ask me, especially within the context of Auspex as a whole. So, given that bounce helps you win *and* not lose, should bounce have been reduction instead? >If you'd print Deflection as a disciplineless card, you'd give *every* >strategy easy accesible no-brainer bleed defense. Not only is this bad >for the creativity of decks (see also, MTG) but the game would more and >more become about who has the most bounce cards. Imagine Potence weenies >with deflection. They are already existant with the little Giovanni, but >choices are limited there. How about presence weenie with deflection? Okay, I buy the weenies with bounce problem. Then, change dDeflection to being a nonweenie card, something like requires a vampire of capacity 5 or greater. Has the added benefit of discouraging weenies (indirectly). >How about just about any combat deck (whose natural nemesis is S/B) with >deflection? No more backrushing. Ever. You know, I'd be happy to see no more backrushing. But, assuming rush gets played, it's still likely to go backwards fairly often because, gee, predator is still trying to oust you. >If deflection and telepathic are shaping metagames now, that new >theoretical card of yours would shape the metagame even worse. Like make bleeding weaker such that putting in bleed defense is less important which, in turn, makes bleeding stronger to somewhat counter the direct effects? It's very difficult to track all of the effects of a change in a CCG. Or, like cutting down on the amount of big bleed decks that currently see play? Since I see it as being far too easy to bleed for far too much, I'm not sure this would bother me. Admittedly, could help weenie decks just by virtue of the fact that bounce isn't as good against large numbers of bleeds. >> And, as to the argument that not everybody should do everything, WWEF, >if you >> go by the source material, should have been a Thaumaturgy card. Would >that >> have made the game better to have only one clan have access to it? >Could argue >> that the two effects - waking and bouncing - are qualitatively >different to >> where one is more necessary to the game functioning, but I don't think >anyone >> is going to put the effort into that argument by working through all >of the >> differences in the game if waking wasn't a staple effect to show >conclusively >> that the two are different enough. > >This argument is not only a whole different ballgame, it's a different >ballgame, if it's a ballgame at all, on a different planet. WWEF, which >is indeed a 1st lvl Tha ritual in the RPG, is not even remotely >comparable to deflection. I won't comment any further on such a silly >comparison. I'm making the comparison. Prove it's silly. I don't think you can. I don't think anyone is going to playtest Jyhad without Wake (can't even get people to playtest most minor changes in the game let alone anything major). I don't think anyone can do the analysis without playtesting. For one thing, you do have to stick to Jyhad since everything printed afterwards factored in the availability of Wake. Want evidence that it isn't silly? Limited play is possible when people have hardly any wake ability. The game would be massively different. So what? It would be massively different making all sorts of changes, for instance if bounce didn't exist or if it was easy available to every vampire.

>> Suppose, for the sake of argument, Deflection - not some Redirection >wannabee, >> Deflection - was disciplineless (I guess ignore the superior). How does >the >> game change? Is it worse? Why? > >Well, pros: >1) Fairer. No need to graft aus or dom onto your crypt to get the >ultimate bleed defense. >2) Bleeding reduced in importance compared to vote and combat. Vote >doesn't need the help, combat does. But, here are some of the indirect effects: people expect voting to be stronger so run more vote defense; bleeding is still going to be a main way to oust people and may get weaker in general and in certain circumstances but some bleed decks may be advantaged as bounce doesn't hurt things like swarm bleed nearly as much - some secondary shifts in the metagame may occur which causes the game to change which is good because CCGs are prone towards getting stale otherwise. >Cons: >1) Slower. Less lunges will be successful, and predators will have to >be more cautious when playing bleed modifiers. Thus, the game lasts >longer. As lunging is already one of the ways to work around bounce, I'm not seeing the less lunging. I'm seeing only the greater risk in bleeding clans/vampires that currently have no possibility of bouncing. >2) More erratic. Not only do you have to worry about your predator's >vampires, now you also have to worry about your grand-predator's >vampires, your grand-grand-predator's vampires, etc. If you have no >bounce _in hand_, you're much more likely to become a bleed sink, since >there'll be more bouncing going on. There's only more bouncing going on if you already don't have a metagame full of bounce. Not that I think most metagames are bouncefests. Given that big bleed is somewhat discouraged by the increased ubiquity (heh) of bounce, you may have less dedicated bleed decks which means less opportunities to bounce killer bleeds. I can see an erratic argument given that people have less reason to run a lot of bounce even if, now, every deck runs some, but the erratic part is whether you have the bounce in hand when only playing 3-5 (instead of 6+) rather than whether someone crosstable is going to screw you. >> And, as to the argument that not everybody should do everything, WWEF, if >you >> go by the source material, should have been a Thaumaturgy card. Would that >> have made the game better to have only one clan have access to it? > >I'd argue that WWEF is another "need to have" card, and therefore bad. >Under the current system, it's more or less necessary to play fatties >and even midcaps -- weenies rule, otherwise. I think the game would've >been better with an innate effect, such as "Any vampire older than the >acting vampire may burn a blood to act as if untapped for the rest of >the action" or similar. I don't think CCGs should have "in every deck" cards. Always too late to do anything about it, though. I do think CCGs should strive for variety and balance. While decks may look more alike where every deck runs ~4 bounce, lots of decks effectively banned by not having sufficient bleed defense become unbanned, which means more variety in decks seen (well, maybe, again, it's hard to work through all of the effects of changes in the game) and greater balance between elements in the game not particularly well balanced.

Curevei wrote: > But, here are some of the indirect effects: people expect voting to be > stronger so run more vote defense; bleeding is still going to be a main way to > oust people and may get weaker in general and in certain circumstances but some > bleed decks may be advantaged as bounce doesn't hurt things like swarm bleed > nearly as much - some secondary shifts in the metagame may occur which causes > the game to change which is good because CCGs are prone towards getting stale > otherwise. Mmm. More weenies. That's what the game needs. > As lunging is already one of the ways to work around bounce, I'm not seeing the > less lunging. I'm seeing only the greater risk in bleeding clans/vampires that > currently have no possibility of bouncing. Eh? Lunging doesn't work around bounce. Lunging plays right into bounce's hands. To lunge, I usually have to commit all of my resources to it -- tap all my minions, play my good cards in hand, etc, leaving me to the tender mercy of my predator when it gets to their turn; IOW, I won't lunge unless I think I can oust my prey. Would I tap myself out and play X bleed modifiers if there's disciplineless bounce? Not likely. > There's only more bouncing going on if you already don't have a metagame full > of bounce. Not that I think most metagames are bouncefests. I don't think most are; stealth/bleed is actually kind of a rarity in Chicago currently, and although there's one player I can always count on to have bounce, and if someone is playing aus or dom, they'll have it, but people don't go out of their way to throw it into their decks. YMMV, but if you introduced disciplineless bounce, I'd expect the amount packed to go up a lot. > Given that big bleed is somewhat discouraged by the increased ubiquity (heh) of > bounce, you may have less dedicated bleed decks which means less opportunities > to bounce killer bleeds. True. I think there'd be a slowdown in the 7-8 bleed range, and a pickup in the 2-3 bleed range. But the point stands, that much bounce added to the game makes it random luck of the draw as to who's going to eat a bleed. > I can see an erratic argument given that people have less reason to run a lot > of bounce even if, now, every deck runs some, but the erratic part is whether > you have the bounce in hand when only playing 3-5 (instead of 6+) rather than > whether someone crosstable is going to screw you. It won't be that somebody crosstable sets out to screw you. It'd be, Meth A bleeds B, who bounces it to C, who bounces it to you. You don't have any bounce, you eat it. Meth B bleeds C, who bounces it to you, you eat it again. And then Meth C, being your predator, bleeds you, and you eat it yet some more. > I don't think CCGs should have "in every deck" cards. Always too late to do > anything about it, though. Yeah, I know. Second to banning, I think a disciplineless bounce card would be best. But I'm not happy about it. --Colin McGuigan

>Eh? Lunging doesn't work around bounce. Lunging plays right into >bounce's hands. To lunge, I usually have to commit all of my resources >to it -- tap all my minions, play my good cards in hand, etc, leaving me >to the tender mercy of my predator when it gets to their turn; IOW, I >won't lunge unless I think I can oust my prey. Would I tap myself out >and play X bleed modifiers if there's disciplineless bounce? Not likely. If you start to lunge and realize you can no longer kill your prey, why continue? It's so much easier to deal with someone who bleeds a couple times a turn then it is someone who concentrates attacks. If not overloading the bounce cards, going to overload the wake ability. What's lunging but concentrating your attacks? Well, whatever, I'm not seeing the lunging issue as being one of the top concerns with whether there should be more bounce or not.

"Colin McGuigan" <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> schreef in bericht news:qxidnfEhC7b...@speakeasy.net... > Izaak wrote: > > From the bleeders PoV: hey, now all I have to worry about *ever* is > > Archon Investigation. > > Or rush. Or intercept. Or table dancers. Or being bled out _faster_. > Or... Stealth still trumps intercept. Generally speaking. > > Sounds cool. Let's make a Malk OOT "I bleed you > > for 7 per action" deck that packs Suddens to deal with the AI's and > > let's see how fun this game is. Or hell, just bleed for 4 the whole > > time, let the AI fall and then bleed for 7. > > And how does this Malk S+B deck deal with its prey first minion action > being, "I burn the Madness Network"? By blocking and getting into combat? Malks do have access to both Obedience (and that dem card that does the same) and Auspex. You can defend one fairly well, especially early on. Or, as I added, just bleed for 4 all the time until the AI falls and THEN bleed for 7. > > As it is, Bleeders should incorporate bounce into their bleeding > > strategies. You don't WANT your bleed for 7 at 4 stealth being bounced > > into your grandprey. So you bleed responsible, lure out the bounce, play > > Spying Mission etc. All this leading to your deck ousting slower and as > > such more vulnerable to rush, requiring a defensive package etc etc. If > > bounce would be gone, we'd be in trouble. > > Without bounce, the Malk S+B would also have to worry about being bled > out. Can it guarantee it'll bleed out its prey first if its predator is > just like it? Well, the last one worrying about ousting speed should be the Malks in this scenario. It's more the Setites, Toreador and Ventrue that should worry about being ousted faster than they can oust. Group 1 malks have their precious dominate the dementation guys have easy poolgain through kindred spirits. This actually stresses my point: the game will be about who can bleed the fastest, even more than it apparently is now. I have to say that I don't see an awful lot of S/B around here. > As things stand now, a Malk S+B deck _loves_ it when its predator is > just like it. Either the predator can sit there and bleed for 1, or the > S+B can bounce it to its grandprey. There's a total lack of pressure in > this case, because of bounce. > > Hence the cornercase anti-bounce tech below. > > How does your card address the point that "need to have" cards are bad? It doesn't. Neither do I think I said that. I also don't think "need to have cards" are bad, as far as there is a real "need to have" card. For example, I recently won a tournament with a deck *without* Wakes and *without* Bounce. So far for the need to have. What example card does is give decks that are traditionally the bleed sink, an option to say "fuck you that bleed was for you not for me" without adding to the amount of offensive bounce. > > Because it'd have to be cornercase. > > It's already cornercase, since it can only be used when a bounce is > directed to you; can't be used just when you're being bled, yes? Well, you can pretty sure that you're getting bounced into if the metagame is indeed the dom/AUS fest you describe, lowering the opprtunity cost. Yeah, it would be less powerful than bounce but isn't that exactly what we wanted? Some way to reduce the effectiveness of bounce for the clans that don't have access to it? I mean, if you're going to make disciplineless deflection, might as well print Conditioning without the dom symbol as well...

Curevei wrote: > If you start to lunge and realize you can no longer kill your prey, why > continue? Usually, when I lunge, I order my weakest attack first -- if something's going to get blocked or bounced, I'd rather it be a bleed for 2 than a bleed for 4. So I could be sitting there, knowing I can oust him if he has no bounce, but figuring the chance of him having some is too much. So, no oust, so, longer games. > Well, whatever, I'm not seeing the lunging issue as being one of the top > concerns with whether there should be more bounce or not. It would be just another thing to limit the offensive power, and thus make games last longer. Normally, I think that limiting the offensive power wouldn't be so bad, but the games take long enough as it is. --Colin McGuigan

Izaak wrote: > Stealth still trumps intercept. Generally speaking. Nice to focus on one of stealth's counters... > Malks do have access to both Obedience (and that dem card that does the > same) and Auspex. You can defend one fairly well, especially early on. > Or, as I added, just bleed for 4 all the time until the AI falls and > THEN bleed for 7. So, this Malk deck here has Obedience and Auspex intercept, plus as much stealth as it needs to not get blocked, plus as many bleed modifiers as it wants. That's nice flow. > Well, the last one worrying about ousting speed should be the Malks in > this scenario. It's more the Setites, Toreador and Ventrue that should > worry about being ousted faster than they can oust. Group 1 malks have > their precious dominate the dementation guys have easy poolgain through > kindred spirits. This actually stresses my point: the game will be about > who can bleed the fastest, even more than it apparently is now. I have > to say that I don't see an awful lot of S/B around here. I think it'd be the reverse if you removed bounce. The decks that worry about bleeding the fastest are the decks that have no defense. At all. A deck that has defense can't bleed as fast -- pretty simple. Currently, all a Malk deck has to do is throw in deflections, and it's got 100% bleed defense. Doesn't need to worry about big bleeds at all. Take that away, and suddenly the Malk has to start worrying about it, just like everyone else. > Well, you can pretty sure that you're getting bounced into if the > metagame is indeed the dom/AUS fest you describe, lowering the > opprtunity cost. Yeah, it would be less powerful than bounce but isn't > that exactly what we wanted? Some way to reduce the effectiveness of > bounce for the clans that don't have access to it? I think you misunderstand. I was saying that the card was overcosted, not overpowered. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<pBmcnTVESd7...@speakeasy.net>... > That's pretty much my point. The more "needs to play" there are, the > worse the game gets, and bounce is already kind of like this in > tournaments. Sure, you have the occasional person who can win a > tournament without bounce, but most of the time, the person who doesn't > have bounce at the table becomes the bleed sink. > And, of course, once everyone is packing bounce, it becomes (at best) a > question of who has more bounce cards in their hand. Whoop de do. So, you´d rather have the clans who can´t bounce be the ones who are normally getting fucked at the tournaments, so that less people will play them? :) Ok, counterproposal. Assuming that your point is right, why not print bleed *reduction* cards, like Telepathic Counter, but for Obf, Cel and Ani? Magnus

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<JJydnRzRS4r...@speakeasy.net>... > They shouldn't. Ban bounce cards, that's my solution. =P Not likely to happen. :) Which is why I am advocating bounce for other disciplines ( or bleed reduction, if that愀 more your style ). Hell, I悲 like to see Direct Intervention banned, and argued for it on the Conclave list, but I *know* that this is highly unlikely, and therefore said it悲 be better to simply reprint the card, so that everybody can participate in the sleaze, not just the rich players. Magnus

flou...@rcn.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<57327a82.04051...@posting.google.com>... <snip> > So rather than try to give similar-to-identical bounce options to the > clans/disciplines that are weaker for lacking that option, wouldn't it > be better to try to come up with _new_ and varied options and cards > for them, ones that will balance things overall without turning the > game into 'Vampire: Only The Names Are Different'? Good points, all, and it愀 quite true that I went the way of least resistance in simply saying "bounce for those clans", instead of coming up with some more innovative stuff. And maybe in Gehenna we惻l get some of them from WW. For the moment, though, it really bugs me that I can愒 play, say, !Brujah or Nossies of both sects, without having to worry about a Malkavian stealth bleed deck ousting me before I have my second vampire out. And I think this situation needs to be rectified by WW as soon as possible ( just as Weenie decks need to get even more clobbered by them, IMO ). Magnus

Magnus wrote: > So, you´d rather have the clans who can´t bounce be the ones who are > normally getting fucked at the tournaments, so that less people will > play them? :) No, I'd rather have no bounce at all. > Ok, counterproposal. Assuming that your point is right, why not print > bleed *reduction* cards, like Telepathic Counter, but for Obf, Cel and > Ani? Like Banner of Neutrality? --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<3DSdnRy3W9H...@speakeasy.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] No, like Telepathic Counter. Magnus

[ quoted text not captured ] How is Banner of Neutrality not a bleed reduction card? -- 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/

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<3DSdnRy3W9H...@speakeasy.net>... > Magnus wrote: > > So, you´d rather have the clans who can´t bounce be the ones who are > > normally getting fucked at the tournaments, so that less people will > > play them? :) > > No, I'd rather have no bounce at all. Addendum: Out of fantasy la-la land, because WW sure as hell will not ban the bounce cards, do you think that my proposal of bounce ( or bleed reduction ) cards for other disciplines would be good, yes or no? Magnus

> > Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. > > Actually, no. Yes, one less defense against S+B, but since S+B tends to > play with bounce _anyways_, I don't think there'd be a dominance effect. > You don't need to worry about your S+B predator bouncing bleeds into > you. Nor do you need to worry about your S+B prey bouncing your bleeds > to your grandprey. ??? SB does not rely on bouncing. It relies on bleeding at stealth. If there is no bounce, you will need to (1) block, (2) bloat or (3) go upstream. (1) If you pack enough intercept to reliably block a SB you will die horribly when anything that is not stealth-heavy sits behind you. (2) Bloating is always good, but it remains one deck strategy, and we're talking about a game that is supposedly playable with many different concepts. (3) Going upstream (with AI, (D) Rush, etc.) is strategically sound till a point. It does not, however, win you games. Bounce requires bleeders to be responsible, or at least weigh the consequences of their actions. A bleed for six at stealth may easily turn out to give your prey +6 pool instead of -6. Not to mention the VP lost (that could have been gained). Bounce is cool for the game. Without it, the game would be even more about SB vs. Anti-SB. Bye, Daneel

Colin McGuigan wrote: > Like Banner of Neutrality? Haha! No, that card is ass, as I'm sure you intended to illustrate. A free reaction card that reduces by three might do the trick. It *still* wouldn't be as good as deflection, but it would at least give comperable defense. If the card tapped the reacting minion, it wouldn't even wallpaper Telepathic Counter (although I would be willing to wallpaper TC in order to fix the current, incredibly lame, status quo. __ David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] I never quite understood why reduction wasn't simply made to parallel bleed action modifiers. Something like: Reconditioning Reaction Auspex Do not replace this card until the end of the action. 1 blood [aus] Reduce a bleed against you by 2. [AUS] As above, but reduce the bleed by 3. ...would have gone a long way to make bleed reduction a more effective option, while not wallpapering TC at all. Flux

magn...@gmx.de (Magnus) wrote in message news:<70eabfe1.04051...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Speaking as the !Nos newsletter writer, I'd like to point out that playing a specific !Nos deck with no bounce, virtually no rush (one or two copies of the Beast in the crypt, zero rush minion cards), and no bleed reduction, I've been ousted only _once_ in eight tournament games. Picked up five game wins , a tourney win, and a seat at the finals, between a 20+ person tourney and a Regional Qualifier. (Details of the deck are in one of the newsletters, even.) The Camarilla Nos have plenty of Storyline tourney wins to indicate that they, too, are not begging for help in surviving games (or winning them) - for instance a 5-cap vampire who can 2nd Tradition goes a long way towards slowing down and/or stopping stealth bleed decks, I've noticed. But sure, worrying about a small-cap stealth-bleed monster behind you is scary. It's scary even if you _have_ bounce - you still have to draw it, have a minion out that can use it, etc etc. > Magnus -John Flournoy

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:<Qm1pc.56223$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > How is Banner of Neutrality not a bleed reduction card? It愀 a bleed reduction card, but, IMO, too specific ( every Independent clan can still bleed with impunity ). What I meant, was that the cards I悲 like to see would function like Telepathic Counter, not like Banner of Neutrality. Sorry if I was unclear about that. Magnus

>How is Banner of Neutrality not a bleed reduction card? Card? Surely you must be mistaken. As I was taking my afternoon tea, I set down my mug upon one BoN while my eyes wandered across the walls ...

Magnus wrote: > Addendum: Out of fantasy la-la land, because WW sure as hell will not > ban the bounce cards, do you think that my proposal of bounce ( or > bleed reduction ) cards for other disciplines would be good, yes or > no? Assuming that bounce isn't going to be banned, I'd rather see disciplineless bounce (much like how we've already gotten disciplineless intercept and stealth -- not super, and expensive, but still there). While on the subject, I don't think a "bounce back to bouncer" card is as good an idea -- cards that exist just to hose other cards that exist are bad. I much prefer things like Spying Mission, which are useful on their own, and also as a way to get around other cards. So perhaps a card such as: Giving Directions Reaction 1 blood Only usable when you are being, before block attempts are declared. The acting Methuselah may change the target of the bleed as this card is played. If the target is not changed, for the remainder of the action no further bleed modifiers may be played, and your minions may not attempt to block. Anti-bounce, as you can always play it to let the bleeder bleed who they were trying to in the first place. Cornercase use if you want to set something up with your predator. Or, it lets you eat a bleed of a certain amount. --Colin McGuigan

Daneel wrote: >>>Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. >> >>Actually, no. Yes, one less defense against S+B, but since S+B tends to >>play with bounce _anyways_, I don't think there'd be a dominance effect. >> You don't need to worry about your S+B predator bouncing bleeds into >>you. Nor do you need to worry about your S+B prey bouncing your bleeds >>to your grandprey. > > > ??? > > SB does not rely on bouncing. It relies on bleeding at stealth. If > there is no bounce, you will need to (1) block, (2) bloat or (3) go > upstream. Didn't say "rely". Said "tends to play with". A S+Ber is either going to have dom (Malk, Lasombra) or aus (!Malk) anyways. I've yet to see a S+B deck that couldn't've included bounce with the disciplines its crypt already had. > Bounce is cool for the game. Without it, the game would be even more > about SB vs. Anti-SB. With bounce, the game becomes (for the S+B predator) "Does my prey have bounce in his hand or not?" If he does, the S+B loses -- it can do jack else. If he doesn't, the S+B wins. Not seeing the improvement. --Colin McGuigan

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Haha! No, that card is ass, as I'm sure you intended to illustrate. A > free reaction card that reduces by three might do the trick. It *still* > wouldn't be as good as deflection, but it would at least give comperable > defense. If the card tapped the reacting minion, it wouldn't even > wallpaper Telepathic Counter (although I would be willing to wallpaper > TC in order to fix the current, incredibly lame, status quo. No bleed reduction card is going to be as good as deflection, since deflection is a bleed reduction of 100%. (Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the lack of bleed reduction cards, considering how many bleed enhancement cards there are.) --Colin McGuigan

> Didn't say "rely". Said "tends to play with". A S+Ber is either going > to have dom (Malk, Lasombra) or aus (!Malk) anyways. I've yet to see a > S+B deck that couldn't've included bounce with the disciplines its crypt > already had. Then you need to play more. Setites S/B, !Tor pre tap and bleed (while not really S/B I'm perfectly willing to catagorize it along with it), Ravnos S/B To name a couple. > > Bounce is cool for the game. Without it, the game would be even more > > about SB vs. Anti-SB. > > With bounce, the game becomes (for the S+B predator) "Does my prey have > bounce in his hand or not?" If he does, the S+B loses -- it can do jack > else. If he doesn't, the S+B wins. Not true. If he has, the S/B can lure it out with bleeds for 2 and 3 and spy it away and hit hard with the deflection gone. Much like you lure out intercept and AI if those are an issue on a given table. With deflection gone it'd be all about dominate skill cards and obf weenies (or the other way around) and a LOT of conditionings with no added strategy ever. It's easy to gain a VP with a irrepsonsive "just" S/B deck. It's hard to win tables with. Because of the very existance of bounce you need tech to deal with it, or bleed slower. This takes both deckbuilding and playing skills. While S/B is *strong*, a GOOD S/B deck doesn't bleed its prey to death in 5 turns. You slowly kill him and let the table build up some tension. And then when you have the opportunity, you hit hard and take 2-3 meths down in the same number of turns. Contrary to popular believe S/B is not as easy to play as most people think. It's the irresposible type that's easy to play, but rather weak in the bigger picture.

Izaak wrote: > Then you need to play more. > > Setites S/B, Give you the Setites. Of course, OTOH, Setite S+B isn't hurt much by bounce, what with Enticement, so their existence shoots a hole in the "S+B decks require that bounce exist" argument. > !Tor pre tap and bleed (while not really S/B I'm perfectly > willing to catagorize it along with it), Sure. That's some nice AUS they have. With...wait for it...bounce! > Ravnos S/B And how does the Ravnos generate more than 1 stealth? > Not true. If he has, the S/B can lure it out with bleeds for 2 and 3 and > spy it away and hit hard with the deflection gone. This is the S+B with no defense that itself has a predator to worry about, right? Just making sure. > With deflection gone it'd be all about dominate skill cards and obf > weenies (or the other way around) and a LOT of conditionings with no > added strategy ever. It's easy to gain a VP with a irrepsonsive "just" > S/B deck. Weenies don't care about bounce as it is, since they bleed with numbers. Why would a weenie obf/dom deck care if you bounce a bleed for 3 if it has 5 more ready to go? --Colin McGuigan

"Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote in message news:c832i3$hh6$1...@reader11.wxs.nl... > While S/B is *strong*, a GOOD S/B deck doesn't bleed its prey to death > in 5 turns. You slowly kill him and let the table build up some tension. > And then... This would appear to be an extremely subjective opinion. I would presume that the environment that you are referring to does not have a large presence of combat decks. If there are 1 or two rush decks on the table you better bleed big and bleed quick before the table turns against you and you don't have any minions left. And don't try to tell me that they are not thinking stealth bleed when a Follower of Set hits the table. They know its stealth something and votes are not going to be kind to the combat deck either. Most rush decks, be they your predator, prey or grand prey will quickly realize they have no chance of surviving (or no chance of ousting for the predator) your deck and will curtail your actions. As a dedicated stealth bleed deck has little in the way of combat defense, your only recourse is to gain pool (by ousting) to be able to replace lost minions. If you want to give your enemies ten turns to kill your minions while you build up "tension" go right ahead. -JTP

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<3DSdnRy3W9H...@speakeasy.net>... > Magnus wrote: > > Ok, counterproposal. Assuming that your point is right, why not print > > bleed *reduction* cards, like Telepathic Counter, but for Obf, Cel and > > Ani? > > Like Banner of Neutrality? Banner of Neutrality would be sweet if it read something like this: Banner of Neutrality Reaction Requires a ready Independent vampire Only usable when a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire is bleeding you. Tap this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the controller of the acting minion who controls no Independent vampires. The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. Free but limited bleed bounce!

> Give you the Setites. Of course, OTOH, Setite S+B isn't hurt much by > bounce, what with Enticement, so their existence shoots a hole in the > "S+B decks require that bounce exist" argument. Note that a single Enticement prevent you from bleeding for the rest of the turn. Not a good substitute. A Setitse S/B is something different than an Enticement deck. > > !Tor pre tap and bleed (while not really S/B I'm perfectly > > willing to catagorize it along with it), > > Sure. That's some nice AUS they have. With...wait for it...bounce! That's why I called it !Tor [pre] tap and bleed. That deck doesn't run auspex. It's just Mindnumb and bleed cards. > > Ravnos S/B > > And how does the Ravnos generate more than 1 stealth? Ooh, easy enough; Fata Morgana Mirror Image Fortune Teller shop Rom gypsie That's 4 if I can count and Rom Gypsie isn't even unique... Of course I'm not counting Daring the Dawn (you know, for is inclan for Ravnos) yet. > > Not true. If he has, the S/B can lure it out with bleeds for 2 and 3 and > > spy it away and hit hard with the deflection gone. > > This is the S+B with no defense that itself has a predator to worry > about, right? Just making sure. That's the whole point. The hell you have a predator to worry about, which is exactly why you actually need to think about your deck. I'll sum it up for you: * you want to bleed * you need to incorparate a way around bounce, just as combat has to work around SCE. * This inevitable slows down your deck * This means you need to defend yourself from your predator. * Omg omg omg this means you have to play more cards than just Govern, Lost in Crowds and Conditioning??? The horror! > > With deflection gone it'd be all about dominate skill cards and obf > > weenies (or the other way around) and a LOT of conditionings with no > > added strategy ever. It's easy to gain a VP with a irrepsonsive "just" > > S/B deck. > > Weenies don't care about bounce as it is, since they bleed with numbers. > Why would a weenie obf/dom deck care if you bounce a bleed for 3 if it > has 5 more ready to go? If a deck like this actually existed and worked then why isn't there a singele weenie obf dom that can easily get out six minions in the TDA? The truth is, it's prefectly possible to make a deck that goes hard into its prey and ousts him in, say, 5 turns. It's probably mostly commons too. Problem of course is that on your first table, you have a rush deck as your predator, meaning you maybe make one VP and end up with 5 minions empty in torpor. The second table you're preying on a bouncer and your first 4 big bleeds are getting bounced into your grandprey. Your prey snatches a VP, you get one too and your grandpredator takes the other 3. The third table you get a VP in turn 5 and get ganged up on. Nice, 3 VP's from 3 tables. Now imagine the same deck in a non-bounce environment. First table I waste my prey in 5 turns, manage to survive my identical predator's deck because I got more lucky on the bleed cards. I get six pool, oust one player more and have to split the table with an intercept deck. Second table I'm ousted by another stealth bleeder in turn 4, because he drew 2 Dominate masters early and I didn't. Third table I go full forward into my prey, but get jammed on stealth because my predator contested my Specialization. I'm shut down, am ousted a few turns later and my prey takes the rest of the table. Nice alternative.

>Banner of Neutrality would be sweet if it read something like this: > >Banner of Neutrality >Reaction >Requires a ready Independent vampire >Only usable when a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire is bleeding you. Tap >this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the >controller of the acting minion who controls no Independent vampires. >The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. > >Free but limited bleed bounce! Or: BoN Reaction Requires an independent vampire. Reduce a bleed against you by 1. If the acting minion is a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire, reduce the bleed by 2 [or 3] instead. Or: BoN Reaction Requires and independent vampire. Reduce a bleed against you by 1. If this reacting vampire is capacity 5 or higher, the acting minion is a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire, and a Methuselah who does not control the acting minion controls a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire, you may change the target of the bleed to that Methuselah instead. Okay, last is wordy ...

Izaak wrote: > * Omg omg omg this means you have to play more cards than just Govern, > Lost in Crowds and Conditioning??? The horror! Mmm. Hold on. Thinking. <removes card from hand, places it face up> Strike: Conversation Ends. --Colin McGuigan

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.04051...@posting.google.com>... > Banner of Neutrality would be sweet if it read something like this: > > Banner of Neutrality > Reaction > Requires a ready Independent vampire > Only usable when a Camarilla or Sabbat vampire is bleeding you. Tap > this reacting vampire. Choose another Methuselah other than the > controller of the acting minion who controls no Independent vampires. > The acting minion is bleeding that Methuselah. > > Free but limited bleed bounce! Not so sweet, thanks to Go Anarch.

On Fri, 14 May 2004 21:29:57 +0200, "Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> scrawled: >> Give you the Setites. Of course, OTOH, Setite S+B isn't hurt much by >> bounce, what with Enticement, so their existence shoots a hole in the >> "S+B decks require that bounce exist" argument. > >Note that a single Enticement prevent you from bleeding for the rest of >the turn. Not a good substitute. A Setitse S/B is something different >than an Enticement deck. > >> > !Tor pre tap and bleed (while not really S/B I'm perfectly >> > willing to catagorize it along with it), >> >> Sure. That's some nice AUS they have. With...wait for it...bounce! > >That's why I called it !Tor [pre] tap and bleed. That deck doesn't run >auspex. It's just Mindnumb and bleed cards. > >> > Ravnos S/B >> >> And how does the Ravnos generate more than 1 stealth? > >Ooh, easy enough; >Fata Morgana >Mirror Image >Fortune Teller shop >Rom gypsie > >That's 4 if I can count and Rom Gypsie isn't even unique... Of course >I'm not counting Daring the Dawn (you know, for is inclan for Ravnos) >yet. Occlusion. :) (just finished my pre-release) salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Not usually. Two of them starts to make people uncomfortable, but saying > > people "care" about one AR is usually an exaggeration. > > Ok. 1 AR costs you a pool a turn. Losing a pool a turn is rarely a good > thing when not prepared for it. It isn't likely going to kill you > immediately, but it'll certainly make a dent. The issue is whether the > effort spent to kill it is a valid trade off for the damage you can cause to > your prey insetad. ...and if it isn't, it isn't likely to be doing me much good. I think the trouble is, we disagree on what kind of an effort this represents. I think calling a +1 stealth vote on an effect that is generally unpopular is a superbly easy thing to do. I notice you pushing the concept that the owner's deck might have reactions, wakes, and nasty combat as a drawback to sweeping the card. But that kind of stuff is a whole strategy unto itself, with not insignificant costs. (For instance, packing all that defense inevitably weakens one's ousting ability.) If that's the kind of strategy a player wishes to pursue, there's much BETTER stuff to be sticking on the table to defend and even tempt opposing players with than a card that costs everyone pool equally beginning with you. Powerbase: Montreal, The Rack, and Smiling Jack all come to mind. (And, of course, you then start throwing out Millicent Smith since you don't like actions and are comfortable not acting yourself.) Master card space in such decks, as I continually point out, needs to be consumed by much better master cards. Assuming one is playing to win, of course. > > > I will NOT give you that. > > Umm, Ok. You should still probably settle down some. And you should probably dim your lighting further, put on another Yanni album, and try not to let it bother you. The throbbing vein on my forehead doesn't burst very often and when it does, the blood gushing all over is surprisingly easy to clean up. (Usenet. Cripes.) > > If you can't get the votes, it's usually because the thing is > > *SO* insignificant, it's off peoples' radar screens. In which case it > > was a waste of master phase. > > To make your prey lose pool. Hardly a waste for my money. But, ya know, me. And his prey and you and everyone else. It you want to cover your eyes and look at only the good part of the picture, I make anything look good. Root canal work gets you off your feet for a couple of hours, don't you know? However, it's my belief that understanding about such things requires one to look at the big picture. Most of the objections to the points I've made in this thread seem to be based on people failing to do that. > Sometimes the actions spent going forward are worth more than > the saving of the pool from the AR. If this isn't the case, then > the AR gets killed. If not, it stays around and speeds up the game. ...freeing up time for the aforementioned root canal work. What with the adjustment you're proposing for the card, certainly its user need not fear having to hang around too long. > There are certainly worse expenditures of master phase actions. Sure. As long things like Brainwash exist, there certainly are. I could even target my own locations with Unnatural Disasters, getting myself coming and going. However, if one wants to look there will almost inevitably be much _better_ expenditures of master phase actions - which I think is more the point. > > Just that your proposed solution basically does the first thing you said: > > removes it from the game completely. A coaster is a dead card in a CCG. > > Ok. Then it possibly isn't the best solution to the problem. I never said it > was the best possible option. Just an option. OK, good. Because then we get to Wouter Kuyper was trying to make to you: about whether it's even an option that's better than leaving things alone. I doubt we'll make headway on that one, however. It depends on how much pain you feel the card causes, which is a pretty subjective thing. > > You may have observed people doing it. But it's a stupid play. Presumedly, > > one would expect such people to prefer Anteduluvian Awakening to AR. You've > > said nothing about people using AA first and then using AR as a fallback > > because they can't use more than one AA. But then, that would contradict > > your suggestion that anyone want more than one or two in play. The first > > one, by all accounts, should Anteduluvian Awakening. > > Maybe. But Antedulivan is Unique. So playing more than 1 is counter > productive, if you might want to play 2 of them. So you put in an > Antedeluvian and a few ARs. 1 AA is interchangable with 1 AR for most > purposes. Not really. The removal cost on the AA makes it much more desirable to use, for the first one. Since you're claiming that the use of the modified AR would involve only one or two of them being on the table at a time, there's almost no reason to use them. Use AA instead. You'll be limited to one on the table at a time but that basically fulfills the use you're talking about putting AR to and is the far superior way to do it. Fred

> I悲 like to see Direct Intervention banned, and argued for it on the > Conclave list, but I *know* that this is highly unlikely, and > therefore said it悲 be better to simply reprint the card, so that > everybody can participate in the sleaze, not just the rich players. The reason that it is highly unlikely is that the Conclave list is for PROMOTING THE GAME NOT FOR RULES OR CHANGES. You want something changed then you bring it here or to the WW Forums. Advocating a rules change on the Conclave is like going to your local Lions Club submitting a Bill and then wondering why Congress (if you aren't from the U.S.A. then substitute your own Legislative body here) hasn't passed your Bill. It is this kind of stuff that makes the Conclave emails garbage. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

XZealot wrote: > The reason that it is highly unlikely is that the Conclave list is for > PROMOTING THE GAME NOT FOR RULES OR CHANGES. You want something changed > then you bring it here or to the WW Forums. Advocating a rules change on > the Conclave is like going to your local Lions Club submitting a Bill and > then wondering why Congress (if you aren't from the U.S.A. then substitute > your own Legislative body here) hasn't passed your Bill. Maybe I should start posting a Conclave FAQ on the Conclave every time someone breaks a rule there, too :-) > > It is this kind of stuff that makes the Conclave emails garbage. This is what I keep telling people. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "Mr. President, ask not what your rest home can do for you. Ask what you can do for your rest home." -Elvis

"XZealot" <nbr...@rapidretailsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<2gs07uF...@uni-berlin.de>... > The reason that it is highly unlikely is that the Conclave list is for > PROMOTING THE GAME NOT FOR RULES OR CHANGES. You want something changed > then you bring it here or to the WW Forums. Advocating a rules change on > the Conclave is like going to your local Lions Club submitting a Bill and > then wondering why Congress (if you aren't from the U.S.A. then substitute > your own Legislative body here) hasn't passed your Bill. > > It is this kind of stuff that makes the Conclave emails garbage. I wouldn´t know what to answer to this statement anyway, so I guess I´m leaving it this way. Magnus

Magnus wrote: > I wouldn´t know what to answer to this statement anyway, so I guess > I´m leaving it this way. I think the point is that arguing to ban DI, or whatever, isn't something that is to be done on the Conclave, which is what he was responding to (the discussion of banning DI on the Conclave). He was just making that clear. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCCEBBFF.16C4C%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Magnus wrote: > > > I wouldn愒 know what to answer to this statement anyway, so I guess > > I惴 leaving it this way. > > I think the point is that arguing to ban DI, or whatever, isn't something > that is to be done on the Conclave, which is what he was responding to (the > discussion of banning DI on the Conclave). He was just making that clear. Eh, I don愒 think I "argued". :) I mentioned that I悲 rather see it banned, but as that愀 not likely to happen, it悲 be better to reprint it in boosters, so that normal people with normal salaries can get the card, too. I just dropped that comment there, as it was in context for a relevant argument. Magnus

Magnus wrote: > Eh, I don´t think I "argued". :) I mentioned that I´d rather see it > banned, but as that´s not likely to happen, it´d be better to reprint > it in boosters, so that normal people with normal salaries can get the > card, too. I just dropped that comment there, as it was in context for > a relevant argument. Reasonable. I'm pretty sure that I argued that DI should come for free as a promo in tournament packs. Pretty similar angle. But Norman seemed to think that you were arguing to ban a card from the game (which may or may not have been the case), which seems to be what he was reacting to. But, ya know, whatever. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > SB does not rely on bouncing. It relies on bleeding at stealth. If > > there is no bounce, you will need to (1) block, (2) bloat or (3) go > > upstream. > > Didn't say "rely". Said "tends to play with". A S+Ber is either going > to have dom (Malk, Lasombra) or aus (!Malk) anyways. I've yet to see a > S+B deck that couldn't've included bounce with the disciplines its crypt > already had. Well, what you exactly said (in context): >> Without bounce, it'd be all S/B. > > Actually, no. Yes, one less defense against S+B, but since S+B tends to > play with bounce _anyways_, I don't think there'd be a dominance effect. This implies that SB relies on bounce. Which is far from the truth. > > Bounce is cool for the game. Without it, the game would be even more > > about SB vs. Anti-SB. > > With bounce, the game becomes (for the S+B predator) "Does my prey have > bounce in his hand or not?" If he does, the S+B loses -- it can do jack > else. If he doesn't, the S+B wins. The salt and pepper of playing S&B is that there are strategies to counter it. Otherwise paying around 5 pool for a vampire who will cause about 5 pool loss to my prey *every turn* is just too good. Good enough to trump other decks. Bounce is the pillar of S&B defence. Not only does it protect the player from the bleed, but it also allows him to use the momentum of his predator against his prey. Meaning, an irresposible bleeder will likely win the table for his well-prepared prey. > Not seeing the improvement. None is needed. Bounce helps to keep S&B in check. So does AI. Many bleed decks do bleeds for 3 at sufficient stealth with a Spying mission in hand. Even against a prey who does not use bounce or AI. Because those countermeasures are considered during deck construction. Their mere existance keeps bleed decks in check. > --Colin McGuigan Best Regards, Daneel

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:<BCCFE634.16CE9%pd...@lightlink.com>... > Reasonable. I'm pretty sure that I argued that DI should come for free as a > promo in tournament packs. Pretty similar angle. But Norman seemed to think > that you were arguing to ban a card from the game (which may or may not have > been the case), which seems to be what he was reacting to. But, ya know, > whatever. Exactly. :) BTW, I was also clamoring for DI愀 in tournament packs, the "reprinting in boosters" was an alternative I was proposing. Magnus