KMW Precons: Interesting Cards

...as I see it - and "interesting" does not necessarily mean "good. (working from The Lasombra's precon-deck listings) Note that I am just scanning the lists. There's no gurantee I caught all the examples of a given class, such as listing _all_ "first reprints", etc. Corrections of such things are welcome. Fred ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Alastors -------- Precon-Only Vampire: Echo (also a magazine promo) Precon-Only Vampire: Benedict Giovanni Precon-Only Library: Powder of Rigidity Alastor - rare from Gehenna expansion Depravity - first reprint in the new layout Disarm - rare from The Sabbat and Sabbat War Heidelburg Castle - first reprint in the new layout Praxis Seizure: Barcelona - first reprint in the new layout Praxis Seizure: Rome - first reprint in the new layout Anethema -------- Precon-Only Vampire: Jayne Jonestown Precon-Only Vampire: Rabbat Precon-Only Library: Threestar Cab Company Anarch Revolt - new card text Dreams of the Sphinx - "rare 2" from Ancient Hearts, first reprint in the new layout Media Influence - first reprint in the new layout Rebirth - rare from KMW boosters The Final Nights - first reprint in the new layout Baali ----- Precon-Only Vampire: Maureen (2 copies!) Precon-Only Vampire: Sahira Siraj Precon-Only Library: The Book of Going Forth by Night Call the Great Beast - "rare 1" from Bloodlines, first reprint in the new layout Concordance - first reprint in the new layout Conflaguration - first reprint in the new layout D`habi Revenant - first reprint in the new layout Ecstasy - first reprint in the new layout Enticement - first reprint in the new layout Fear of the Void Below - first reprint in the new layout Form of Corruption - "rare 2" from Ancient Hearts/Rare from Final Nights, first reprint in the new layout Heart of Darkness - new card text, first reprint in the new layout Mylan Horseed - rare from Gehenna Psychomachia - first reprint in the new layout Ruins of Charizel - rare from KMW boosters Sense the Sin - first reprint in the new layout Serpentis - first reprint in the new layout Skin of the Adder - first reprint in the new layout Temptation - "rare 2" from Ancient Hearts/Rare from Final Nights, first reprint in the new layout Gangrel Antitribu ----------------- Precon-Only Vampire: Denette Stensen Precon-Only Vampire: Jeffrey Mullins (2 copies!) Precon-Only Library: Inquisition Bay and Howl - rare from KMW boosters Black Spiral Buddy - first reprint in the new layout Campground Hunting Ground - first reprint in the new layout City Gangrel Connections - first reprint in the new layout Dreams of the Sphinx - "rare 2" from Ancient Hearts, first reprint in the new layout Quick Meld - first reprint in the new layout Shadow of the Beast - first reprint in the new layout Shadow Feint - first reprint in the new layout Talons of the Dead = rare from Black Hand Wolf Companion - first reprint in the new layout The Path of the Feral Heart - first reprint in the new layout

I don't understand the precon-only cards... In the !gan there an Inquisition. It is the most unusable cards in then KMW. Otherwise, in the Baali precon is there an Book of Going Forth by Night, that is very nice cards. why????

"Bala" <ba...@coder.hu> schreef in bericht news:1109074009.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] <mode = commie>because WWGS is a money-hungry capitalistic multi-national corporation, why else? :-) </mode> probably, to get more people a reason to buy at least one of each precon, I guess.

Bala wrote: > I don't understand the precon-only cards... I don't understand your question. > > In the !gan there an Inquisition. It is the most unusable cards in then > KMW. > Otherwise, in the Baali precon is there an Book of Going Forth by > Night, that is very nice cards. > > why???? Why are there pre-con only cards? To provide incentive to buy starters (although certainly in this set, the pre-cons are filled with fantastic, hard to get rares as it is). Luckily, they all seem to be fairly low on the "I need this card!" scale--Powder of Rigidity is pretty corner case except for off color jokes; The book is again, fairly corner case--not bad, but not real necessary; 3star cab Company is pretty much the same; Inquisition is, again, pretty corner case. So there are three cards that provide collector incentive to buy starters, but they have fairly limited play value, so no one is going to be out of sorts 'cause they only have one of them. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BE40AAC3.1DA6B%pd...@lightlink.com... > Why are there pre-con only cards? To provide incentive to buy starters > (although certainly in this set, the pre-cons are filled with fantastic, > hard to get rares as it is). Luckily, they all seem to be fairly low on the > "I need this card!" scale--Powder of Rigidity is pretty corner case except > for off color jokes; The book is again, fairly corner case--not bad, but not > real necessary; 3star cab Company is pretty much the same; Inquisition is, > again, pretty corner case. So there are three cards that provide collector > incentive to buy starters, but they have fairly limited play value, so no > one is going to be out of sorts 'cause they only have one of them. Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in the boosters. Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:24:20 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Bala wrote: > >> I don't understand the precon-only cards... > > I don't understand your question. > >> >> In the !gan there an Inquisition. It is the most unusable cards in then >> KMW. >> Otherwise, in the Baali precon is there an Book of Going Forth by >> Night, that is very nice cards. >> >> why???? > > Why are there pre-con only cards? No, you don't speak Hunglish. ;) The question was, why is one precon-only card (in this case, the Inquisition found in the Gangreal Antitribu starter) pretty much bordercase, almost unusable, when another one (the Book in the Baali starter) is a pretty solid card. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:45:54 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in > the boosters. > > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? Was powder REALLY needed? I mean, I'm not trying to say it is weak or something, but I'm curious what sort of serious deck would consider it? The only thing that can come into mind is a Tremere Antitribu that heavily utilizes Selena and has lots of MotSs. Maybe. But then again, moving to long and stealing blood is still better in the vast majority of cases. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsmltvh...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:45:54 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > > > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in > > the boosters. > > > > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? > > Was powder REALLY needed? Was Trophy REALLY [sic] needed? Which cards are absolute necessities? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:17:16 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsmltvh...@news.chello.hu... >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 09:45:54 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in >> > the boosters. >> > >> > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? >> >> Was powder REALLY needed? > > Was Trophy REALLY [sic] needed? > > Which cards are absolute necessities? You're the designer, so I presume you have a ready answer for that. ;) Anyaway, without really wanting to do your job, just for the sake of argument, I'd list a few criteria that pop into my mind that might be considered when designing the new cards (again, without even the faintest hint of aspiration to do your job or tell you how it should be done - I'm sure you know all this and even more). - A card that opens up a new strategy or strengthens a weaker strategy is good. - A card that strengthens an already strong strategy is bad (except if it adds another angle to the older strategy, by merging it with another strategy, etc.). - A card that does something another card already does is generally bad. - A card that does something new is generally good. - A card that has so little practical use that not a single archetypical deck would even consider its inclusion is bad. - A card that is conceptually well-designed is good. - A card that hoses/cancels another card or effect is generally bad. ...dunno, there are probably many more arguments. Powder is "bad" because it is a very specific _hoser_ that is _similar to_ Shape Mastery and is _not powerful enough_ to be included in too many decks. Generally, as for neccessity... Well, no card is really NEEDED per se. However, even KMW has some cards that do not unbalance the game but are worthy additions. Providing untap effects for fatties, interesting multi-discipline cards that open up new strategies, etc. I'm sure you kind of know what I am referring to... ;) -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in > the boosters. Umm, ok. I was simply pointing out that the starter only cards are good as starter only cards, for the resons I pointed out. > > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? Of the 4, Powder is the most wonky. The other three easily could have been rares. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ wrote: > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in > the boosters. > > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? Do I want immense size as my rare either? So why isn't THAT in the starters too? :) (just playing with reverse logic)

Daneel wrote: > - A card that opens up a new strategy or strengthens a weaker strategy is > good. > - A card that strengthens an already strong strategy is bad (except if it > adds > another angle to the older strategy, by merging it with another strategy, > etc.). > - A card that does something another card already does is generally bad. Unless that initial card was doing something weak/underused/under the power curve itself. > - A card that does something new is generally good. > - A card that has so little practical use that not a single archetypical > deck would > even consider its inclusion is bad. > - A card that is conceptually well-designed is good. > - A card that hoses/cancels another card or effect is generally bad. Disagree: If the hose is light. Consider: Specific Threat: AM aus dom: +1 bleed. No more bleed mods. If this bleed actions target is changed, the methuselah you were initially bleeding burns one pool. AUS DOM: as above, but +2 bleed, and the methuselah burns a pool if he reduces the amount of the bleed by more than one. Hoses bleed bounce and reduction, but I think that's OK.

"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1109091841.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] The parallel is lost on me. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't forget foiling most Tzimisce, Gangrel and !Gangrel decks. I don't mind packing one or two Powders in a tournament deck if I expect to see some Protean or Vicissitude. It almost completely negates Rotschreck availablity for these clans. Good addition to Sire's Index Finger, which is of course better but is unique, so I won't include more than 2 copies of it in any deck (even if I'm too afraid of Rotschreck.) Both have the problem of being equipments, which are always harder to get when facing a Tzimisce wall, but there plenty of ways to overcome this. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now) http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/

On 22 Feb 2005 09:11:18 -0800, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> - A card that does something another card already does is generally > bad. > > Unless that initial card was doing something weak/underused/under the > power curve itself. Yeah, but even then the new card should be different enough to make the old one better in special cases. >> - A card that hoses/cancels another card or effect is generally bad. > > Disagree: If the hose is light. Consider: > > Specific Threat: AM aus dom: +1 bleed. No more bleed mods. If this > bleed actions target is changed, the methuselah you were initially > bleeding burns one pool. AUS DOM: as above, but +2 bleed, and the > methuselah burns a pool if he reduces the amount of the bleed by more > than one. > > Hoses bleed bounce and reduction, but I think that's OK. This card isn't really a hoser. Sure, it hoses some of the defences that can be used against it, but it is a legitimate bleed card in its own right. It would be a hoser if it would be an action to be put on a vampire, and when that vampire plays a reaction card to change the target (or reduce the amount) of a bleed this acting vampire attempts, his or her controller burns a pool. Hosing is bad. Consider Immortal Grapple, Disengage, etc. Hosers shift the game towards the "I hose the hoser with which you want to hose my hoser!" boredom. The reason I sometimes like to play without any canceling card (even SR or DI) is that the game is more about matching strategies that way. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsml3ot...@news.chello.hu... > Hosing is bad. Consider Immortal Grapple, Disengage, etc. Hosers shift > the game towards the "I hose the hoser with which you want to hose my > hoser!" boredom. The reason I sometimes like to play without any > canceling card (even SR or DI) is that the game is more about > matching strategies that way. One man's "hoser" is another man's "matching strategies". Intercept hoses stealth. Bounce/reduction hoses bleed. etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsml3ot...@news.chello.hu... > On 22 Feb 2005 09:11:18 -0800, Screaming Vermillian <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> - A card that does something another card already does is generally >> bad. >> >> Unless that initial card was doing something weak/underused/under the >> power curve itself. > > Yeah, but even then the new card should be different enough to make the > old one better in special cases. That's not really important in some cases. If a card is wallpapery enough, screw it. Just admit that it was a mistake and write it off. Or do what they did for Concealed Weapon and reissue it in a more useful form. Though I'd rather they not try to fix the million or so chronically underpowered Jyhad cards that way. > Hosing is bad. Consider Immortal Grapple, Disengage, etc. Hosers shift > the game towards the "I hose the hoser with which you want to hose my > hoser!" boredom. The reason I sometimes like to play without any > canceling card (even SR or DI) is that the game is more about > matching strategies that way. I don't think hosing is always bad. It depends on what you mean and what you're hosing. Hosing a specific card that's clearly above the power curve in order to reduce its power is probably bad because games start to hinge too much on drawing individual cards at the right time. On the other hand, entire strategies/deck archetypes that hose one another is a good thing in my estimation - and these frequently depend on individual cards that "hose" one another on some level. Fred

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:58:45 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > I don't think hosing is always bad. It depends on what you mean and what > you're hosing. Hosing a specific card that's clearly above the power > curve in order to reduce its power is probably bad because games start to > hinge too much on drawing individual cards at the right time. On the > other > hand, entire strategies/deck archetypes that hose one another is a good > thing in my estimation - and these frequently depend on individual cards > that "hose" one another on some level. Okay, I'm not talking about how a good bloat engine will allow you to ignore a stealth bleed deck, and survive long enough so that the S&B's hand is jammed on stealth, and it can't really do anything against you. Or how Thaumaturgy "hoses" Fortitude prevention defence. That is part of the beauty of the game. I'm talking about the "Suddening the Direct played on the Delaying during the PTO vote" type of hosing suckiness. -- Bye, Daneel

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:01:08 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsml3ot...@news.chello.hu... >> Hosing is bad. Consider Immortal Grapple, Disengage, etc. Hosers shift >> the game towards the "I hose the hoser with which you want to hose my >> hoser!" boredom. The reason I sometimes like to play without any >> canceling card (even SR or DI) is that the game is more about >> matching strategies that way. > > One man's "hoser" is another man's "matching strategies". > Intercept hoses stealth. Bounce/reduction hoses bleed. etc. Well, Intercept and Stealth are integral parts of the game. So is bleed and bounce. Being good against something is not hosing that something. Canceling another card is generally an example of hosing. So is canceling the effects of a card. Or preventing certain cards from being played. Etc. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsml42m...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:01:08 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> > wrote: > > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > > news:opsml3ot...@news.chello.hu... > >> Hosing is bad. Consider Immortal Grapple, Disengage, etc. Hosers shift > >> the game towards the "I hose the hoser with which you want to hose my > >> hoser!" boredom. The reason I sometimes like to play without any > >> canceling card (even SR or DI) is that the game is more about > >> matching strategies that way. > > > > One man's "hoser" is another man's "matching strategies". > > Intercept hoses stealth. Bounce/reduction hoses bleed. etc. > > Well, Intercept and Stealth are integral parts of the game. So is bleed and > bounce. Being good against something is not hosing that something. Yes, counters are integral parts of the game. IG counters Majesty, etc. > Canceling another card is generally an example of hosing. So is canceling > the effects of a card. Or preventing certain cards from being played. Etc. Semantics. Getting +X intercept is a lot like canceling +X stealth, Just like maneuvering back to close is a lot like canceling a maneuver to long. Bounce hoses bleed even worse than canceling it would, as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Play a group 2-3 Lasombra Mind Rape deck. Nick other people's sabbat vampires over 5 capacity. Make them bishops with Tobias Smith and then when there's enough of them out there chuck 'em all out a window. Sorted.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsml4uh...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:58:45 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I don't think hosing is always bad. It depends on what you mean and what >> you're hosing. > > I'm talking about the "Suddening the Direct played on the Delaying during > the PTO vote" type of hosing suckiness. WARNING WARNING WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! Cards like Sudden Reversal and Direct Intervention should never be thought of as "hose" cards anyway: 1) If you think of a generalized cancel card like SR or DI as a "hose" card, then in theory nothing can be considered overpowered. The old form of Return to Innocence is too powerful? No, it's not - you can DI it. The original Tomb of Ramses III is abusable? No, it's not - you can SR it. That way lies madness - stay away! 2) Generalized cancel cards like DI and SR in fact *don't* hose most things because they don't "punish" you for playing them. If I spend a deck slot on a standalone (that is, non-combo-based) overpowered card and you cancel that, how has that hurt me? I just say, "Oh, well - it was worth a shot." Maybe I just put more in the deck next time - it's risk free. To truly "hose" a card or a strategy, you must punish a player for using it. That's the whole Rock/Paper/Scissors game - making players guess which strategies and cards to use and which to avoid. If one's riskfree, that's the one to use. If Paper only tied Rock instead of actually beating it, why wouldn't everyone always choose Rock? Might not win but at least it will never lose? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] and if anyone wants to trade (or give me) heaps of Mind Rapes to make this deck a reality then that would be tops. *grin*

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:26:41 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote: >> Well, Intercept and Stealth are integral parts of the game. So is bleed > and >> bounce. Being good against something is not hosing that something. > > Yes, counters are integral parts of the game. IG counters Majesty, etc. IG is borderline. It "hoses" a good deal of defensive and offensive combat strategies. Also, it can give a press and for a close combat deck, the setting range effect is also significant. So while it is technically a hoser, its uses are wide enough to be part of a proactive strategy. >> Canceling another card is generally an example of hosing. So is >> canceling >> the effects of a card. Or preventing certain cards from being played. > Etc. > > Semantics. > > Getting +X intercept is a lot like canceling +X stealth, > Just like maneuvering back to close is a lot like canceling > a maneuver to long. Dunno. You can use Intercept against most decks, as a good deal of actions are at a default stealth. A maneuver can serve a deck well even if the opponent uses no maneuvers. > Bounce hoses bleed even worse than canceling it would, as well. Well, theoretically true... But then, the result is simply a bleed directed at your prey (which is nothing out of the ordinary, given how bleeding is perhaps the most fundamental strategy). Also, your benefits exceed the prevented effect. You could probably argue, as far as semantics go, that everything is a hoser, because - for example - pool gain hoses bleed, etc. While intellectually amusing, I fail to see the validity of such an argument. Common sense says that hosers hose and non-hosers instead are proactive. Bounce bounces, so it isn't exactly a hoser; Detection hoses, so it is. IG is beneficial to most decks even if there is nothing to "hose"; Disengage hoses IG with little additional benefits. I mean, "hoser" could be defined as something whose primary purpose is to prevent another effect, and which is mostly unusable on its own (without the effect to be hosed). Sure, you cannot use Intercept if there is no stealth, but there is bound to be some, as a lot of actions start at +1 stealth. Also, sure, bounce is unusable if there is no bleed, but common sense reminds that about 99% of all decks bleed at least once in a while, because bleeding is an integral part of the game. -- Bye, Daneel

LSJ wrote: > Semantics. You're not anti-semantic, are you?

> and if anyone wants to trade (or give me) heaps of Mind Rapes to make > this deck a reality then that would be tops. *grin* > I don't think I've seen someone actually play a Mind Rape before yesterday.

LSJ wrote: > "Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1109091841.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > LSJ wrote: > > > Actually, they're not in the boosters because they shouldn't be in > > > the boosters. > > > > > > Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? > > > > Do I want immense size as my rare either? So why isn't THAT in the > > starters too? :) (just playing with reverse logic) > > > The parallel is lost on me. (you were basically saying "Powder is in the starters because people don't want it in the boosters" which I flipped to demand that any other card that I don't want in the boosters should be in starters too)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:31:59 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message > news:opsml4uh...@news.chello.hu... >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:58:45 -0700, Frederick Scott >> <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> I don't think hosing is always bad. It depends on what you mean and >>> what >>> you're hosing. >> >> I'm talking about the "Suddening the Direct played on the Delaying >> during >> the PTO vote" type of hosing suckiness. > > WARNING WARNING WARNING WILL ROBINSON!!! Cards like Sudden Reversal and > Direct Intervention should never be thought of as "hose" cards anyway: Okay, maybe hose wasn't the word I was looking for. I'm more referring to cards or effects that stop other people from playing cards, effects, etc. than about stuff that actually "hoses" them for doing so. I probably should have used the term "reactive" or better yet "canceling" effect. > 1) If you think of a generalized cancel card like SR or DI as a "hose" > card, > then in theory nothing can be considered overpowered. The old form of > Return > to Innocence is too powerful? No, it's not - you can DI it. The > original > Tomb of Ramses III is abusable? No, it's not - you can SR it. That way > lies > madness - stay away! Indeed. I agree that even cards that have ways to be cancelled can be powerful or even overpowered. > 2) Generalized cancel cards like DI and SR in fact *don't* hose most > things > because they don't "punish" you for playing them. If I spend a deck slot > on a standalone (that is, non-combo-based) overpowered card and you > cancel > that, how has that hurt me? I just say, "Oh, well - it was worth a > shot." The cancelation is often used on cards that are part of a combo, though. > Maybe I just put more in the deck next time - it's risk free. To truly > "hose" > a card or a strategy, you must punish a player for using it. That's the > whole > Rock/Paper/Scissors game - making players guess which strategies and > cards to > use and which to avoid. If one's riskfree, that's the one to use. If > Paper > only tied Rock instead of actually beating it, why wouldn't everyone > always > choose Rock? Might not win but at least it will never lose? Also, nothing is risk free. You include X cards, Y of which cycle well enough to be used in your strategy, and you still have Z (X-Y) cards you get rid of because they showed up at the wrong time (or never draw into). In this sense DI or other cancelation cards will get rid of one "Y" card, and not one "X" card. Cycling past the "Z" cards is part of the opportunity cost to play "Y" cards. So it is a bit more than a fair trade of 1 card for 1 card. -- Bye, Daneel

Screaming Vermillian wrote: > LSJ wrote: >>"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>LSJ wrote: >>>>Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? >>> >>>Do I want immense size as my rare either? So why isn't THAT in the >>>starters too? :) (just playing with reverse logic) >> >>The parallel is lost on me. > > (you were basically saying "Powder is in the starters because people > don't want it in the boosters" which I flipped to demand that any other > card that I don't want in the boosters should be in starters too) I understood what you were trying to say, but the suitability of Immense Size as the parallel keystone is lost on me -- it isn't the same sort of animal. -- 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/

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsmmgwk...@news.chello.hu... > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:31:59 -0700, Frederick Scott >> 2) Generalized cancel cards like DI and SR in fact *don't* hose most things because they don't "punish" you for playing them. If >> I spend >> a deck slot on a standalone (that is, non-combo-based) overpowered >> card and you cancel that, how has that hurt me? I just say, "Oh, well - >> it was worth a shot." > > The cancelation is often used on cards that are part of a combo, though. Right. For purposes of idle discussion (no disagreement with your last post), these are the functions of generalized cancel cards that I can think of: 1) Cancel one-half (or one-third, one-fourth, etc.) of a combination - thus gaining a one-card-to-two-cards (or three cards, etc.) advantage and generally stalling the source of offensive and/or defensive power your opponent was counting on creating when he built the deck. Thus, the availability and usability of card-canceling cards are a large factor in determining to what degree a collectable card game supports strategies involving card combinations. 2) To negate a single key function in your opponent's overall strategy. The classic example of this is based on the common use of relatively small numbers of master cards for pool management. One possible means of attacking your prey is to concentrate on stopping that function alone. If part of your strategy is to do quick bleeding which will give you a short term advantage balanced by a position that will weaken and peter out in the long term, it's important to deny your prey his normal means of replenishing his pool. Sudden Revearsal works great for that. 3) To combat toolbox-card advantages and/or to cover a glaring weakness in your own strategy. I thought of separating these concepts but they're really the same thing. The point of the 'toolbox' deck or even just 'toolboxy' cards is a calculated risk. Spend one or a very small number of card slots on cards that are often worthless out of the conviction that they'll yield enough of a payoff when they are relevant that they're worth the risk. A toolbox deck is making a bunch of those bets, like a high-tech venture capital firm that invests in lots of small high-risk enterprises on the specualation that if even a small percentage are successful, the payoff will be sufficient to cover losses of all the others and still make a better than average profit. But cancel cards are the bane of toolbox cards: "No, you can't have your payoff!". This is particularly important when you have a deck that fears some particular type of toolbox card. My boilerplate example is a weeny deck using Direct Intervention to stop the Ancilla Empowerments, Domain Challenges, and so forth it has neither the votes nor the intercept to deal with in the normal ways. (Works against Aranthebes, too!) Fred

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:26:41 -0500, "LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled: >"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message [snip] >> Well, Intercept and Stealth are integral parts of the game. So is bleed >and >> bounce. Being good against something is not hosing that something. > >Yes, counters are integral parts of the game. IG counters Majesty, etc. Pool counters influence, blood counters health, umm..... ok, i'm home sick. leave me alone. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:39:54 -0500, LSJ <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled: >Screaming Vermillian wrote: >> LSJ wrote: >>>"Screaming Vermillian" <vermil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>LSJ wrote: >>>>>Do you want Powder as your rare? Common? >>>> >>>>Do I want immense size as my rare either? So why isn't THAT in the >>>>starters too? :) (just playing with reverse logic) >>> >>>The parallel is lost on me. >> >> (you were basically saying "Powder is in the starters because people >> don't want it in the boosters" which I flipped to demand that any other >> card that I don't want in the boosters should be in starters too) > >I understood what you were trying to say, but the suitability of >Immense Size as the parallel keystone is lost on me -- it isn't >the same sort of animal. Yeah. It's much bigger. (being more serious i think Powder and Immense are both 'hosey' type cards...and we'll just ignore the fact that as far as i can recall there were no vamps with vic in any of the starters...maybe one or two at basic, but not enough so you'd notice...) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:34:02 -0500, Gregory Stuart Pettigrew <ethe...@sidehack.sat.gweep.net> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] really? and how was your first time? spectacularrrr (heidleberg all blood off, diablerise someone, force of will with daring the dawn), or a bit of a fizzle (bleed for one)? [ quoted text not captured ]

> >I don't think I've seen someone actually play a Mind Rape before > >yesterday. > > really? and how was your first time? spectacularrrr (heidleberg all > blood off, diablerise someone, force of will with daring the dawn), or > a bit of a fizzle (bleed for one)? > My prey was going to Diablerize a Famous Vampire Cross-table and burn the Diablerizing Prince.

[ quoted text not captured ] Nice assesment. There may also be the "universal antidote"-effect, which may warrant a paragraph of its own: that is, using a universal card to shield a temporal weakness when that weakness would come into play. Like, being suddenly out of bounce and DI-ing a Contitioning (you would've been better of with bounce in this case), another time being low on combat and using DI to cancel a Rush (you probably would've been better off with a Majesty), at another time being low on intercept and DIing a PTO (you would have been better off... never mind). Most of the time I put DI in decks with specific threats in mind, like your #2 and #3 (e.g. vs. PTO for fatty indies, etc.). However, the card's versatility allows me to use the card in cases when a well-played card could save my prey or oust me, similar to your #1 (or my added paragraph - which is kind of similar to your #1, the common notion being canceling the unforeseen right card at the opportune moment). Your #1 is also interesting though because of the note on card combinations. While in theory I agree that universal cancel cards cannot harm the game, for being a sort of balancing factor, preventing unavoidable combos and such, in practice I think they (or their necessity) make the game somewhat less interesting. Because pulling off multicard combos has its own associated cost - having the cards in hand at the right time. The payoff is significantly more as well, though. Like Fists of Death and Blur - a CEL POT minion with Strength 1 will inflict 3 damage with either, but 9 damage with both. If you manage to cancel one of these, you save 6 blood. -- Bye, Daneel

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:11:06 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:39:54 -0500, LSJ ><vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> scrawled: > >>I understood what you were trying to say, but the suitability of >>Immense Size as the parallel keystone is lost on me -- it isn't >>the same sort of animal. > >Yeah. It's much bigger. > >(being more serious i think Powder and Immense are both 'hosey' type >cards...and we'll just ignore the fact that as far as i can recall >there were no vamps with vic in any of the starters...maybe one or two >at basic, but not enough so you'd notice...) Nitpick: the Tzimisce released in KMW has [VIC]. Couldn't find any other vampire with [vic] or [VIC], though. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:50:58 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" <fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> scrawled: >>(being more serious i think Powder and Immense are both 'hosey' type >>cards...and we'll just ignore the fact that as far as i can recall >>there were no vamps with vic in any of the starters...maybe one or two >>at basic, but not enough so you'd notice...) > >Nitpick: the Tzimisce released in KMW has [VIC]. and which STARTER was she in, huh? :P >Couldn't find any other vampire with [vic] or [VIC], though. i thought so. nyer! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:56:15 +1100, salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:50:58 -0300, "Fabio \"Sooner\" Macedo" ><fabio_...@NOSPAMyahoo.com.br> scrawled: > >>>(being more serious i think Powder and Immense are both 'hosey' type >>>cards...and we'll just ignore the fact that as far as i can recall >>>there were no vamps with vic in any of the starters...maybe one or two >>>at basic, but not enough so you'd notice...) >> >>Nitpick: the Tzimisce released in KMW has [VIC]. > >and which STARTER was she in, huh? :P Gah :P Shouldn't post after careful reading, sorry. >>Couldn't find any other vampire with [vic] or [VIC], though. > >i thought so. nyer! > >salem >http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm >(replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email) Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor [ quoted text not captured ]