Ideas for Wake with the evening freshness

I'm wondering if there's a better solution to give another cost, other than the actual one, to the (once good) Wake with the Evening Freshness. As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad: the hand reduction size until the player's next untap is definitively too much for a defensive card. There are some of my ideas: 1. "do not replace until the end of turn" or, 2. WwEF , blood cost 1 with no "do not replace.." effect at all... can attept to block and play react cards as untapped, is usable by allies that don't have to pay the WwEF's cost. For sure, there are many other possible solutions, so, suggestions and discussion are welcome. Emiliano, Prince of Rome. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > I'm wondering if there's a better > solution to give another cost [...] > 2. WwEF , blood cost 1 with no "do not replace.." effect at all... > can attept to block and play react cards as untapped, is usable by > allies that don't have to pay the WwEF's cost. Two points: Wake, by concept, is a vampire-only card - allies shouldn't be able to play it. Cards whose cost cannot be paid cannot be played. Since an ally cannot pay a blood cost, they cannot play cards that cost blood (like Channeling the Beast). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8id16b$f40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] If Wake with Evening's Freshness were to be altered to give it a cost more in line with Forced Awakening, which has a cost if the action is not blocked but no cost if the block is successful. I would suggest: Wake with Evening's Freshness (Non-Discipline Reaction) Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded. Replace this card at the end of your turn after a successful block, otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >>> I'm wondering if there's a better solution to give another >>> cost.... As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad. I certianly agree...as did the entire NJL rules team when we made the decision to use printed card text. While getting the WWEF back to it's original text seems unlikely, a compromise would certainly be welcome. >>> 2. WwEF , blood cost 1 with no "do not replace.." effect >>> at all... can attept to block and play react cards as >>> untapped, is usable by allies that don't have to pay the >>> WwEF's cost. Besides the already mentioned restriction of WWEF to vampires, I don't see any point in turning it into Forced Awakening. > Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: > If Wake with Evening's Freshness were to be altered to give > it a cost more in line with Forced Awakening, which has a > cost if the action is not blocked but no cost if the block is > successful. As it stands now, FA is the card of choice if you intend to block and WWEF is the card of choice if you intend to play reaction cards like Deflection. I think that any compromise should continue to be in line with that. That's why I tend to favor Tetragammon's idea of replacing it at the end of the current turn. Noal McDonald National Jyahd League -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:42:51 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >For sure, there are many other possible solutions, >so, suggestions and discussion are welcome. Actually, please, no, it's NOT welcome. We just had this thread recently, and if you look on Dejanews, you'll find PLENTY of suggestions and discussion. =( Not intending to be rude, but this is one of those threads that never goes away and is never going to change anything. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> For sure, there are many other possible solutions, >> so, suggestions and discussion are welcome. > > Actually, please, no, it's NOT welcome. We just had this thread > recently, and if you look on Dejanews, you'll find PLENTY of > suggestions and discussion. =( Not intending to be rude, but this is > one of those threads that never goes away and is never going to change > anything. > > -- Derek Need I remind you Derek, that this kind of attitude was one of the major reasons for the formation of the NJL? What's not welcome is your attempt to prevent someone from having a discussion. If you don't like it, tough. You can bugger off and ignore the thread. In the meantime, those of us interested in looking for good compromises to possbily mend some fences will continue to have a (hopefully) productive conversation. Noal McDonald National Jyhad League [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:17:32 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >As it stands now, FA is the card of choice if you intend to block and >WWEF is the card of choice if you intend to play reaction cards like >Deflection. I think that any compromise should continue to be in line >with that. That's why I tend to favor Tetragammon's idea of replacing it >at the end of the current turn. I rather approve of the inherent separation of function. Prevents wallpapering of EITHER card, and increases deck-building skill. But interestingly, I see this split: If you have a deck with Wakes and Deflections in it, you probably only want to be doing that. But in a Rush crisis, or with no Deflection, you -do- have the option to Wake and block, and the benefit always outweighs the hand size reduction. If you have a deck with FA's, you probably intend to only block and haven't even put Deflections in. This puts you at a weakness against unblockable actions since you don't have a secondary recourse. If you HAVE put Deflections in, you can pull an expensive bounce, but I'd usually rather lose the card slot since I operate with vampires at about half capacity most of the time. This makes Wake still pretty damn good, IMO. Problem about end of current turn is the old "card dumping" argument - I burn as many Wakes as I need to on my predator's last couple actions and get a nice new offensive-minded hand on my untap. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Problem about end of current turn is the old "card dumping" argument - > I burn as many Wakes as I need to on my predator's last couple actions > and get a nice new offensive-minded hand on my untap. Umm, Derek, you can do that right now, as errata'd. Please tell me how it is that you cannot. The proposal was that if you do block, you can replace at the end of the current turn. This will make it so that if you attempt to Wake and block your prey, you aren't screwed when it's your predator's turn. If you don't block, then you don't get to redraw until your untap phase, which is how it currently works. Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:56:41 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> Problem about end of current turn is the old "card dumping" argument - >> I burn as many Wakes as I need to on my predator's last couple actions >> and get a nice new offensive-minded hand on my untap. > >Umm, Derek, you can do that right now, as errata'd. Please tell me >how it is that you cannot. See Derek. See Derek be brain-dead. I can dump as many Wakes as I need to on my GRANDPREDATOR's actions and get all the cards I need in hand on my predator's untap. That'll teach me to try to post one message about "please don't discuss" and then try to discuss without actually discussing. >The proposal was that if you do block, you can replace at the end of >the current turn. This will make it so that if you attempt to Wake and >block your prey, you aren't screwed when it's your predator's turn. In the interests of brevity, the whole argument about whether Wake is currently overcosted was beaten to death on dejanews, and all I have to say is that wakey-intercepty decks around here are pretty solid. Before-last War Room tournament, Stu Pieloch's -and- mine got to the final, and Stu's ended up winning. In the recent War Room tourney, BJ's wakey-Brujah-intercepty deck got to the finals. I see too much Wake played successfully in the Atlanta group to EVER believe that it's overcosted, sorry. Hell, I have a 20-wake Talbot's Chainsaw/intercept deck. Its flaws are not because of hand jam on Wakes, but because its blood-gain vamps keep getting killed by OTHER people so the Chainsaw vampire has to die too. (I successfully played four Wakes one turn, two on my prey and two on my predator. Don't see it being a problem, myself, although I wish I'd had a fifth Wake.) Forced Awakening would've been better, sure, but I sure don't have 20 of them. With regards to 'if you block', what about Foul Blood? What about Ignis Fatuus (Ignorant Fatass, with a nod to the other thread)? How about all the vote-reaction cards, none of which involve blocking? Why should blocking matter? I believe the restriction was placed on Forced Awakening because the old Wake's card-cycling "wake-and-watch" was too powerful and they didn't want to simply duplicate it, not because they wanted people to block instead of playing reaction cards. Dammit. I didn't want to start this whole argument again. Grr. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > Problem about end of current turn is the old "card dumping" argument > > - I burn as many Wakes as I need to on my predator's last couple > > actions and get a nice new offensive-minded hand on my untap. > > Umm, Derek, you can do that right now, as errata'd. Please tell me how > it is that you cannot. The proposal was that if you do block, you can > replace at the end of the current turn. This will make it so that if > you attempt to Wake and block your prey, you aren't screwed when it's > your predator's turn. If you don't block, then you don't get to redraw > until your untap phase, which is how it currently works. Yes, Derek's point isn't very good. The current errata does however prevent dumping of excess Wakes on the grandpredator's turn (say you had 4 in hand and went down to 1), getting a much better hand for your predator's turn. Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to block the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do so). Stops the free cycling problem -- including the one you mention that still exists with the current errata. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:37 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Need I remind you Derek, that this kind of attitude was one of the major >reasons for the formation of the NJL? What's not welcome is your attempt >to prevent someone from having a discussion. If you don't like it, >tough. You can bugger off and ignore the thread. Except it involves rehashing all the same old crap that went over last time? It's just going to end up being the same people posting to the thread repeating the same arguments. And if we DON'T post once someone starts in on it, then we get a lopsided thread with few counterarguments from one side, that doesn't accurately reflect the status of things, especially if one of the counterarguments doesn't get re-said. He actually DID come up with a new twist on a fix, which is neat and lovely and new twists are GOOD and SHOULD be posted, but his basic premise that "Wake is overcosted and sucks now" needs to be proven first, and it hasn't been, as a read through Dejanews will show. Decks utilizing Wake and not FA continue to make it to the finals and win tournaments. In good, solid fashion. It certainly isn't as powerful as it was before, but it still works fine. So it ticks me off to see a message reading (cutnpasted): "I'm wondering if there's a better solution to give another cost, other than the actual one, to the (once good) Wake with the Evening Freshness. As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad: the hand reduction size until the player's next untap is definitively too much for a defensive card." It's not "once-good", it's still good. It's not DEFINITIVELY too much - that was what all the arguments from before were about. It just doesn't do a damn bit of good to see all those arguments again, because it was beaten to death the last time by everyone. If someone can come up with a new argument, that's excellent. It doesn't do a damn bit of good to speculate about "fixes" for it, though, when it hasn't even been established that the card is broken. >In the meantime, those of us interested in looking for good compromises >to possbily mend some fences will continue to have a (hopefully) >productive conversation. That'd be lovely. But re-lawnmowing old arguments won't be, it'll just piss everyone off (as it's already done by pissing me off to even see it, which has pissed you off from my response to it, and it's probably pissed some other people off who just haven't said anything at all.) Granted, my tone was pretty poor and I should've phrased it "Please look through dejanews for the reasons why Wake is the way it is - your premise was argued to death on the newsgroup recently, and it'd be good to establish some new reasons as to why it's broken as opposed to tossing out fixes first." But I hadn't had my morning coffee yet. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > Yes, Derek's point isn't very good. Actually, Derek's point is very valid. He just didn't state it as well as he wanted to. What's being discussed is whether it's as problematic as the picture was painted. I happen to believe the errata was a bit overkill, myself. Others may disagree. > The current errata does however prevent dumping of excess > Wakes on the grandpredator's turn (say you had 4 in hand > and went down to 1), getting a much better hand for your > predator's turn. This is what Derek meant to say. > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you > must then either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the > minion or attempt to block the current action (and already > have sufficient intercept to do so). First, this would result in not being able to couple it with auspex cards (or other interecept reaction cards) to block. Something I certainly do not support. Second, even if you have a sport bike (i.e., giving you the needed intercept to block a vote) your wording doesn't prevent them from waking to "attempt" to block their grandpredator and say, "Oops! I didn't draw an Eagle's Sight. I can't stop him," and replace the card...whcih doesn't stop the free cycling problem. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad: > the hand reduction size until the player's next untap is definitively > too much for a defensive card. Its still being a hugely popular card in tournaments suggests that this is definitely not the case. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous."

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > If Wake with Evening's Freshness were to be altered to give it a cost > more in line with Forced Awakening, which has a cost if the action is > not blocked but no cost if the block is successful. I would suggest: FA does not have a cost, it has an effect. (The difference is important.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then > either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to block > the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do so). > Stops the free cycling problem -- including the one you mention that still > exists with the current errata. Hypothetically, what if a vampire had an effect which didn't require them to do either? Say I had a vampire who could somehow affect a bleed (e.g. bounce it, reduce it, whatever) when untapped. Such a ruling has implications on future vampires - and we are getting some. I have no idea what we'll get, but I would note that such a ruling is interesting to try and determine for definite. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > as the picture was painted. I happen to believe the errata was a bit > overkill, myself. Others may disagree. Possibly a bit overkill, yes. But WwEF was so healthy to start with, a little bit of overkill still leaves it as a fine card, IMO, whereas, IMO, the errata on Thoughts Betrayed is a bit too much..... I find myself at a loss as to anything else, however, to submit to LSJ with a convincing argument. However, I do feel that, whilst it can still be used very effectively (and I wouldn't want it reduced to 1 blood cost, for instance), that just limiting strike cards is somehow too weak. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <BA06FD8BDD1B94F9.7039B593...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:37 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >Need I remind you Derek, that this kind of attitude was one of the major > >reasons for the formation of the NJL? What's not welcome is your attempt > >to prevent someone from having a discussion. If you don't like it, > >tough. You can bugger off and ignore the thread. > > Except it involves rehashing all the same old crap that went over last > time? It's just going to end up being the same people posting to the > thread repeating the same arguments. And if we DON'T post once > someone starts in on it, then we get a lopsided thread with few > counterarguments from one side, that doesn't accurately reflect the > status of things, especially if one of the counterarguments doesn't > get re-said. > > He actually DID come up with a new twist on a fix, which is neat and > lovely and new twists are GOOD and SHOULD be posted, but his basic > premise that "Wake is overcosted and sucks now" needs to be proven > first, and it hasn't been, as a read through Dejanews will show. Exactly why does that need to happen? Was it ever proven that Wake was UNDERCOSTED and needed to be changed in the first place? Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Exactly why does that need to happen? Was it ever proven that Wake was > UNDERCOSTED and needed to be changed in the first place? Yes. The Judith and Mark Jyhad page has a nice line on its trigonmetric (to borrow the term used) effect. Were DejaNews to be working at anything like capacity, it was also done there, many, many times. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:13:32 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><BA06FD8BDD1B94F9.7039B593...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> He actually DID come up with a new twist on a fix, which is neat and >> lovely and new twists are GOOD and SHOULD be posted, but his basic >> premise that "Wake is overcosted and sucks now" needs to be proven >> first, and it hasn't been, as a read through Dejanews will show. > >Exactly why does that need to happen? Was it ever proven that Wake was >UNDERCOSTED and needed to be changed in the first place? Absolutely. James Coupe has pointed to Judith and Mark's page (best explanation), and also to dejanews, and I can summarize it in four words: "I wake and watch." If no combat occurs, you replaced the old Wake immediately, making it a totally free card - no opportunity cost to have them in your deck. Since it has no other cost (blood off a vampire, tapping a vampire, anything), you just pile a bunch into the deck, and if you ever hand jam, just throw them away randomly on actions and get a new, improved card. Very bad. Not to mention that every other card had at least an opportunity cost. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Let me get your logic right you pile a bunch of Wake's into your deck so in the sitaution where you happen to get a lot of Wake's in your hand then you can ditch them easily to get rid of the bunch that you've got in your hand which is probably a direct result of you putting a bunch in your deck in the first place. Is this the place where you're coming from? The other problem with your logic is that if you go around with the "I wake and watch" principle then sooner rather than later your going to be the recipient of some nasty action and you're not going to have the opportunity to do squat about it.

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006171209310.24245- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Exactly why does that need to happen? Was it ever proven that Wake was > > UNDERCOSTED and needed to be changed in the first place? > > Yes. The Judith and Mark Jyhad page has a nice line on its trigonmetric > (to borrow the term used) effect. > Could you direct me to that page? I looked on the Judith and Mark Jyhad Page, but couldn't find anything on Wake. Thanks, [ quoted text not captured ]

And now time for "Passenger Pigeon Reads His Newsgroups," Episode <394C00A8...@alphalink.com.au>, with guest star shawn stanley <sta...@alphalink.com.au>: > The other problem with your logic is that if you go around with the "I > wake and watch" principle then sooner rather than later your going to be > the recipient of some nasty action and you're not going to have the > opportunity to do squat about it When you need a Wake, you have a Wake. If you foresee not needing a Wake any time soon -- say, your prey is playing a Secret Horde deck and your grandpredator has burned all your predator's minions -- you ditch you Wake at no cost. This gives you the best of both worlds, and makes some other cards (Misdirection, but also things like The Barrens) pointless. -- William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com I made a Secret Horde deck once. But it lost to an Ascendance deck. Visit my web page! Marvel! Marvel! http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/

In article <394C00A8...@alphalink.com.au>, shawn stanley <sta...@alphalink.com.au> wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > > > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 08:13:32 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > > wrote: > > > > >In article > > ><BA06FD8BDD1B94F9.7039B593...@lp.airnews.net>, > > > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > > >> He actually DID come up with a new twist on a fix, which is neat and > > >> lovely and new twists are GOOD and SHOULD be posted, but his basic > > >> premise that "Wake is overcosted and sucks now" needs to be proven > > >> first, and it hasn't been, as a read through Dejanews will show. > > > > > >Exactly why does that need to happen? Was it ever proven that Wake was > > >UNDERCOSTED and needed to be changed in the first place? Ok, to use the magic the crack habbit terminology, its a caltrap. A card that reduces the real number of cards in you deck. If you have a combo, and limited numbers of one of the cards in the combo, add a caltrap, you have a better chance of getting the card quickly. You build a 40 card deck and add 20 wakes that are cycle fodder. > > Absolutely. James Coupe has pointed to Judith and Mark's page (best > > explanation), and also to dejanews, and I can summarize it in four > > words: "I wake and watch." > > > > If no combat occurs, you replaced the old Wake immediately, making it > > a totally free card - no opportunity cost to have them in your deck. > > Since it has no other cost (blood off a vampire, tapping a vampire, > > anything), you just pile a bunch into the deck, and if you ever hand > > jam, just throw them away randomly on actions and get a new, improved > > card. Very bad. Not to mention that every other card had at least an > > opportunity cost. =) > > Let me get your logic right you pile a bunch of Wake's into your deck so > in the sitaution where you happen to get a lot of Wake's in your hand > then you can ditch them easily to get rid of the bunch that you've got > in your hand which is probably a direct result of you putting a bunch in > your deck in the first place. Is this the place where you're coming > from? > > The other problem with your logic is that if you go around with the "I > wake and watch" principle then sooner rather than later your going to be > the recipient of some nasty action and you're not going to have the > opportunity to do squat about it. And an absolute turbo cycle. Say I have 4 X for a Y deck, the other modifiers are not important, getting the X is. If you chances are 4/60 its not very good, if its 4/40 its much better. But I also agree that this deck will be very one dementional. -- Someday, Michael F. Tomkins we'll look back on this, m.to...@student.canberra.edu.au laugh nervously University of Canberra, Australia. and change the subject. http://student.canberra.edu.au/~u964617/

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:50:16 +1000, shawn stanley <sta...@alphalink.com.au> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> explanation), and also to dejanews, and I can summarize it in four >> words: "I wake and watch." >> >> If no combat occurs, you replaced the old Wake immediately, making it >> a totally free card - no opportunity cost to have them in your deck. >> Since it has no other cost (blood off a vampire, tapping a vampire, >> anything), you just pile a bunch into the deck, and if you ever hand >> jam, just throw them away randomly on actions and get a new, improved >> card. Very bad. Not to mention that every other card had at least an >> opportunity cost. =) > >Let me get your logic right you pile a bunch of Wake's into your deck so >in the sitaution where you happen to get a lot of Wake's in your hand >then you can ditch them easily to get rid of the bunch that you've got >in your hand which is probably a direct result of you putting a bunch in >your deck in the first place. Is this the place where you're coming >from? Bingo! Since you have 90 cards, and very few 90-card decks run out of cards during a tournament, you are free to load up on extra Wakes, which were easily cyclable so you don't have to worry about them jamming your hand. However, if you wish to load up on any OTHER card, you have to worry about them wedging up your hand, which is, as you mentioned, a direct result of you being dumb enough to put so many in in the first place. There are reasons to include 15+ wakes in a deck. There are even GOOD reasons to do so. However, with the new errata, you'd better have a GOOD reason to plug 15+ wakes into your deck - as opposed to the original card text where you just chuck a bunch in and don't worry about it. >The other problem with your logic is that if you go around with the "I >wake and watch" principle then sooner rather than later your going to be >the recipient of some nasty action and you're not going to have the >opportunity to do squat about it. Not bloody likely, with the amount of Wake I'll abuse under the original card text. I'll have ousted a couple preys first, easily, from my ability to cycle from Wake to the cards that I need. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Yes. The Judith and Mark Jyhad page has a nice line on its > trigonmetric > > (to borrow the term used) effect. > > > > Could you direct me to that page? I looked on the Judith and Mark Jyhad > Page, but couldn't find anything on Wake. http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html It forms part of an article on the costs of deck building. There are some issues I might make with the article but, in general, it's quite good. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On 16 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then > > either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to block > > the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do so). > > Stops the free cycling problem -- including the one you mention that still > > exists with the current errata. > > Hypothetically, what if a vampire had an effect which didn't require them > to do either? Say I had a vampire who could somehow affect a bleed > (e.g. bounce it, reduce it, whatever) when untapped. That would be unaffected. Neither WwEF nor FA grant the vampire the option of using his ability as if untapped - they just give him the option of playing reaction cards and blocking as if untapped. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) VTES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006162256370.11382- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad: > > the hand reduction size until the player's next untap is definitively > > too much for a defensive card. > > Its still being a hugely popular card in tournaments suggests that this is > definitely not the case. For sure it's still popular, but only because is the only defensive card, along with the Forced awakening, to let your vamps blocks and react "as untapped". So, i think, many players don't mind too much about the bad cost assigned to WwEF. Still, the actual replacing cost until the next untap is too bad, i think. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > For sure it's still popular, > but only because is the only defensive card, along with the Forced > awakening, to let your vamps blocks and react "as untapped". Not true. And why is it still vastly more popular than FA, even when people have access to both, if it's so bad? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00061...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > > Yes. The Judith and Mark Jyhad page has a nice line on its > > trigonmetric > > > (to borrow the term used) effect. > > > > > > > Could you direct me to that page? I looked on the Judith and Mark Jyhad > > Page, but couldn't find anything on Wake. > > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html > > It forms part of an article on the costs of deck building. There are some > issues I might make with the article but, in general, it's quite good. > Nice article. I'm inclined to agree that Wake needed to be modified from its original wording to prevent free cycling. However, I also think that it should be possible to come up with a fix that is much less annoying to players. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > from its original wording to prevent free cycling. However, I also > think that it should be possible to come up with a fix that is much > less annoying to players. True, of course. The current errata is not necessarily the best possible errata - nor would anyone tout it as such, IMO. There are better options out there. However, you have to balance off simple errata, annoying to players and balance, in order to try and come up with something useful. In the old days, it's known that one of LSJ's house rules (pre-Sabbat) was to have it cost one blood. This, of course, would make it vastly inferior to Forced Awakening now (since it canbe replaced and you *might* have to burn a blood etc.) It's difficult to know what to do with it now, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Noal McDonald wrote: > > as the picture was painted. I happen to believe the errata was a bit > > overkill, myself. Others may disagree. > > Possibly a bit overkill, yes. But WwEF was so healthy to start with, > a little bit of overkill still leaves it as a fine card, IMO, Despite my posting "alternate errata" in this thread, I certain continue to use Wakes in various decks, not just FAs > whereas, IMO, the errata on Thoughts Betrayed is a bit too much..... > I find myself at a loss as to anything else, however, to submit to LSJ > with a convincing argument. However, I do feel that, whilst it can > still be used very effectively (and I wouldn't want it reduced to 1 > blood cost, for instance), that just limiting strike cards is somehow > too weak. Yes, I agree. As it is, it is so expensive and still vulnerable to Fortitude, that only the Tremere can use it effectively (it might as well have the Tremere clan symbol instead of Dominate on it :-) ). It would be lovely if the Giovanni, for instance, could use it to try out Necromancy combat, but the cost versus effectiveness is prohibitive. I'd like to see something of a cost reduction for TB and the effect would be similar to Watenda's special: you could pay to cancel combat cards the oppenent plays. Oh well. [ quoted text not captured ]

Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then > > either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to > > block the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do > > so). > > First, this would result in not being able to couple it with auspex > cards (or other interecept reaction cards) to block. Something I > certainly do not support. I tried to make my post as brief as possible, thinking that people might think for a second before responding, but maybe I should have been more verbose. Playing an intercept card is a reaction card and is okay by the first half of what I said ("play a non-Wake/FA reaction card"). Maybe what I said needs to be reworded. Is it only legal to play intercept once you've attempted to block? If so, my change would need rewording -- namely the parenthetical clause would need to say "must add at least one intercept card if lacking sufficient intercept to block" or some such. > Second, even if you have a sport bike (i.e., giving you the needed > intercept to block a vote) your wording doesn't prevent them from waking > to "attempt" to block their grandpredator and say, "Oops! I didn't draw > an Eagle's Sight. I can't stop him," and replace the card...whcih > doesn't stop the free cycling problem. Can you attempt to block something you are not allowed to block by the rules? I don't think so, so I think you have no point here. You still cannot replace Wake until after combat you know. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On 16 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then > > either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to > > block the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do > > so). Stops the free cycling problem -- including the one you mention > > that still exists with the current errata. > > Hypothetically, what if a vampire had an effect which didn't require them > to do either? Say I had a vampire who could somehow affect a bleed > (e.g. bounce it, reduce it, whatever) when untapped. Wake has no effect for such a vampire, does it? The original text of Wake is: Do not replace until after combat. Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded. It wouldn't help a vampire with such an ability anyway. You would need an "actual" untap (2nd Tradition, Rat's Warning, etc.) to use the ability. [ quoted text not captured ]

Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: > > > Nonetheless, the errata I'd prefer is that if your Wake you must then > > > either play a non-Wake/FA reaction card on the minion or attempt to > > > block the current action (and already have sufficient intercept to do > > > so). > > > > First, this would result in not being able to couple it with auspex > > cards (or other interecept reaction cards) to block. Something I > > certainly do not support. > > I tried to make my post as brief as possible, thinking that people might > think for a second before responding, but maybe I should have been more > verbose. Playing an intercept card is a reaction card and is okay by the > first half of what I said ("play a non-Wake/FA reaction card"). Maybe > what I said needs to be reworded. Is it only legal to play intercept once > you've attempted to block? Yes. You cannot play intercept unless you need intercept, and you don't need intercept unless you're attempting to block (and the acting minion has more stealth than you currently have intercept). > > Second, even if you have a sport bike (i.e., giving you the needed > > intercept to block a vote) your wording doesn't prevent them from waking > > to "attempt" to block their grandpredator and say, "Oops! I didn't draw > > an Eagle's Sight. I can't stop him," and replace the card...whcih > > doesn't stop the free cycling problem. > > Can you attempt to block something you are not allowed to block by the > rules? No. This question typically comes up in regards to Blessing of Chaos, but is applicable here, as well. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006182231460.18758- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > For sure it's still popular, > > but only because is the only defensive card, along with the Forced > > awakening, to let your vamps blocks and react "as untapped". > > Not true. And why is it still vastly more popular than FA, even when > people have access to both, if it's so bad? Because, "deflecting" players don't want their vamps run dry too early with a blood from FA and a blood from deflect or tel misd; so the Wake, though the bad hand reduction, is still a semi-inevitable solution, unless you rely on FA and (superior) Redirection. At least i think so. Regards Emiliano, Prince of ROme > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:42:03 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006182231460.18758- >100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> Not true. And why is it still vastly more popular than FA, even when >> people have access to both, if it's so bad? > >Because, "deflecting" players don't want their vamps run dry too early >with a blood from FA and a blood from deflect or tel misd; >so the Wake, though the bad hand reduction, is still a semi-inevitable >solution, unless you rely on FA and (superior) Redirection. I don't get it. So you have a card (Wake) that is better for playing non-blocking reaction cards such as Deflection - the hand size reduction is basically meaningless since you're only playing one other card anyway, and it was already in your hand. And you have a different card (Forced Awakening) that is better for blocking actions, since you can replace it immediately with one of your cool combat cards and you're likely to play a bunch of cards anyway. But you don't have a card that can do both. (Anymore, at least.) Please tell me what's wrong with this picture? I LOVE situations where there's a trade-off. It's one of the cool things about this game - you can make a deck that beats A, B, and C, but if D shows up, is totally hosed. Or you can make a deck that beats A, B, and D, but C will smoke it silly. But you can never make a deck that beats A, B, C, *AND* D all at the same time. I just don't see how there's an actual problem with the current situation. At all. If you want to block with Wake, you get a little bit of inconvenience from the no-replace clause. If you want to play non-block reaction cards with FA, you get a little bit of inconvenience from the extra blood burned. They work out about the same, in practice. I only have 8 Forced Awakenings, so a lot of times I tend to just throw Wake in my block decks so I don't have to hunt down what deck the FAs are in - I don't recall EVER having a problem because of the hand size, ya know? Why is it bad that people have to pick between the two cards now? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006190858130.14703- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > from its original wording to prevent free cycling. However, I also > > think that it should be possible to come up with a fix that is much > > less annoying to players. > > True, of course. The current errata is not necessarily the best possible > errata - nor would anyone tout it as such, IMO. There are better options > out there. However, you have to balance off simple errata, annoying to > players and balance, in order to try and come up with something useful. > > In the old days, it's known that one of LSJ's house rules > (pre-Sabbat) was to have it cost one blood. This, of course, would make > it vastly inferior to Forced Awakening now (since it canbe replaced and > you *might* have to burn a blood etc.) It's difficult to know what to > do with it now, however. > How about an Errata for Wake that says 'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert appropriate penalty>' Examples of an what could constitute an appropriate penalty include: burn 1 blood, take 1 damage, burn 1 pool, go to torpor. Personally, I like the 'go to torpor' penalty. It reduces the number of available resources for playing Wake (i.e., tapped, ready vampires), and has certain 'real-world' appeal (i.e., you've pushed the sleepy vampire too far). A penalty like this would stop the free cycling, because you'd only bother to play a Wake for a legitimate reason. If you have a reaction card that you're going to play, then you already know that you won't be penalised. If you attempt to block and fail, then you pay the penalty (you might be better off using Forced Awakening for blocking). Any thoughts? Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:39:54 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >How about an Errata for Wake that says >'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert >appropriate penalty>' Been suggested. Forced Awakening becomes preferable at this point, since you can replace it and it only requires you to burn a blood. Still permits all-Wake/Deflect decks to function normally. >Examples of an what could constitute an appropriate penalty include: >burn 1 blood, take 1 damage, burn 1 pool, go to torpor. Appropriate examples of an appropriate penalty include: burn 1 blood. >Personally, I like the 'go to torpor' penalty. It reduces the number of >available resources for playing Wake (i.e., tapped, ready vampires), >and has certain 'real-world' appeal (i.e., you've pushed the sleepy >vampire too far). Do you know anyone who would actually play Wake in his deck if a surprise Alacrity would cause your vampire to go to torpor? Stealth is plenty powerful now as it is... let's not make it even MORE of a good thing to have stealth lurking about. (One extra Cloak could torporise my prey's vampire!) I mean, everyone expects the deck with OBF to block, yeah, but who expects that Felicia Mostrom (AUS CEL pre) would play Alacrity for +1 stealth and then Aire of Elation for +2 bleed? Her skillset leans a lot more towards intercept combat. It's the sort of thing you expect from Mariana Gilbert (PRE cel) instead. Since most of V:TES involves unexpected surprises, I wouldn't ever play Wake in my decks if I could go to torpor for attempting and failing to block. >A penalty like this would stop the free cycling, because you'd only >bother to play a Wake for a legitimate reason. If you have a reaction >card that you're going to play, then you already know that you won't be >penalised. If you attempt to block and fail, then you pay the penalty >(you might be better off using Forced Awakening for blocking). If you have to burn blood, FA is preferable across the board since it doesn't carry a do-not-replace clause. Wake needs to stay free as far as blood-cost goes to maintain the difference between the two. [Actually, Wake is fine the way it is, frankly, but for the sake of discussion, especially since you actually offered a couple ideas...] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006162304080.11382- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > > If Wake with Evening's Freshness were to be altered to give it a cost > > more in line with Forced Awakening, which has a cost if the action is > > not blocked but no cost if the block is successful. I would suggest: > > FA does not have a cost, it has an effect. > > (The difference is important.) > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > Ok, James... To fall in line with your correction, I will restate my suggestion. If Wake with Evening's Freshness were to be altered to give it an effect more in line with Forced Awakening (which allows a tapped minion to react as if untapped and has an effect of 1 blood loss from the reacting minion if the action is not blocked but no additional effect if the block is successful), my suggestion would be: Wake with Evening's Freshness (Non-Discipline Reaction) Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded. Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. Michael Eichler [ quoted text not captured ]

>How about an Errata for Wake that says >'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert >appropriate penalty>' > Here's an interesting one;drop the "play a reaction card" above, but make <appropriate penalty> = "do not replace this card until your next untap phase". Thus, Waking and successfully blocking results in immediate replacement. Wake and deflecting would work like it does now... a compromise, hmmmm? Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC Torpor penalty stuff snipped. I'd play with Mercy for the Weak before that...

On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Not true. And why is it still vastly more popular than FA, even when > > people have access to both, if it's so bad? > > > Because, "deflecting" players don't want their vamps run dry too early > with a blood from FA and a blood from deflect or tel misd; Indeed. So it's still perfectly usable. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Do you know anyone who would actually play Wake in his deck if a > surprise Alacrity would cause your vampire to go to torpor? Alacrity. Yay! It wasn't a great deck, my CEL/PRE one, but it was certainly a lot of fun to play. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > Wake with Evening's Freshness (Non-Discipline Reaction) > > Usable only by a tapped vampire. > This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though > untapped until the current action is concluded. > > Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, > otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. What if I want to play it to play, say, Dread Gaze? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, R. David Zopf wrote: > >'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert > >appropriate penalty>' > > > > Here's an interesting one;drop the "play a reaction card" above, but make > <appropriate penalty> = "do not replace this card until your next untap > phase". Thus, Waking and successfully blocking results in immediate > replacement. Wake and deflecting would work like it does now... a > compromise, hmmmm? The vampire would still have failed to block, by the precedent of Forced Awakening. Failing to block is defined as not successfully blocking, whether attempting it or not. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Here's an interesting one;drop the "play a reaction card" above, but make >> <appropriate penalty> = "do not replace this card until your next untap >> phase". Thus, Waking and successfully blocking results in immediate >> replacement. Wake and deflecting would work like it does now... a >> compromise, hmmmm? > >The vampire would still have failed to block, by the precedent of Forced >Awakening. Failing to block is defined as not successfully blocking, >whether attempting it or not. > Right. So you'd have an untap option that allows for immediate replacement off a block, and delayed replacement off a different type of reaction. Better (more powerful/functional) than current errata, hence, a compromise... RDZ

James Coupe wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > Wake with Evening's Freshness (Non-Discipline Reaction) > > > > Usable only by a tapped vampire. > > This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though > > untapped until the current action is concluded. > > > > Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, > > otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. > > What if I want to play it to play, say, Dread Gaze? > Then I would have to say that is you waked the Dread Gazed you would not replace until the start of your next untap phase. Raille

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Raille wrote: > > > Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, > > > otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. > > > > What if I want to play it to play, say, Dread Gaze? > > Then I would have to say that is you waked the Dread Gazed you would > not replace until the start of your next untap phase. But that seems to negate the fundamental difference between WwEF and FA. FA encourages blocks, with a penalty if you don't e.g. you play a reaction card. WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which just makes it into FA with a different penalty. [ quoted text not captured ]

> WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. So, "Channelling the Beast" is just "Lucky Blow" with a different 'penalty' -- it costs. And "Ambush" is just "Bum's Rush" with a different 'penalty' -- you have to target a tapped minion only. The above argument, James, is not a sound one. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

In article <691E4EFCB00C7B44.FC11480B...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:39:54 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >How about an Errata for Wake that says > >'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert > >appropriate penalty>' > > Been suggested. Forced Awakening becomes preferable at this point, > since you can replace it and it only requires you to burn a blood. > Still permits all-Wake/Deflect decks to function normally. So what's wrong with allowing Wake/Deflect decks to function normally? > > >Examples of an what could constitute an appropriate penalty include: > >burn 1 blood, take 1 damage, burn 1 pool, go to torpor. > > Appropriate examples of an appropriate penalty include: burn 1 blood. > > >Personally, I like the 'go to torpor' penalty. It reduces the number of > >available resources for playing Wake (i.e., tapped, ready vampires), > >and has certain 'real-world' appeal (i.e., you've pushed the sleepy > >vampire too far). > > Do you know anyone who would actually play Wake in his deck if a > surprise Alacrity would cause your vampire to go to torpor? Stealth > is plenty powerful now as it is... let's not make it even MORE of a > good thing to have stealth lurking about. (One extra Cloak could > torporise my prey's vampire!) > Actually, it'd be pretty easy to avoid. Just chuck in some Elder Interventions, or Pack Tactics. At the least, Wake would be more useful for playing reaction cards... Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:06:19 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, >> however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which >> just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > >So, "Channelling the Beast" is just "Lucky Blow" with a different >'penalty' -- >it costs. Correct. And you can replace it before combat is concluded, a corresponding advantage. There might be a reason to use Channeling the Beast instead of Lucky Blow, although I doubt it would matter much in practice since neither is the most frequently used card in the world. >And "Ambush" is just "Bum's Rush" with a different 'penalty' -- you have >to target a tapped minion only. Correct. And you can replace Ambush before combat is concluded, a corresponding advantage (which is HUGE for a combat deck that relies on multiple-card combinations). The decision of how many Ambush to put in compared to how many Bum's Rush is one that anyone building a good Rush deck wrestles with for quite a while, usually. >The above argument, James, is not a sound one. Don't see why not, it holds up for your two examples as well. Wake currently has a penalty (do not replace 'til your untap) and an advantage (free). FA has a penalty (burn a blood if you don't block) and an advantage (replace immediately). If you give Wake an additional penalty for not blocking, you throw it out of balance. If you remove the do-not-replace, you also remove FA's advantage and things are still out of balance for the Dread Gazers. I just don't see what's wrong with the way things currently are. Wake is still popular. FA is still popular. Nothing is broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 02:40:44 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><691E4EFCB00C7B44.FC11480B...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:39:54 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> >> wrote: >> >> >How about an Errata for Wake that says >> >'If this vampire fails to block or play a reaction card then <insert >> >appropriate penalty>' >> >> Been suggested. Forced Awakening becomes preferable at this point, >> since you can replace it and it only requires you to burn a blood. >> Still permits all-Wake/Deflect decks to function normally. > >So what's wrong with allowing Wake/Deflect decks to function normally? If Wake costs me a blood if I fail to block, and FA costs me a blood if I fail to block, why do we have two different cards? I would much rather have the hand size reduction than a possible penalty for a speculative block. It's part of the reason I use Wake instead of FA in my light-intercept decks - because I know I won't be able to block every action, but I want to have the OPTION. It certainly removes the utility of Telepathic Misdirection, which is light intercept OR a bounce, depending on what you need it to be. I use FA in my heavy-intercept decks because I'm pretty damn sure I can block anything, so I'm not worried about the blood. >> Do you know anyone who would actually play Wake in his deck if a >> surprise Alacrity would cause your vampire to go to torpor? Stealth >> is plenty powerful now as it is... let's not make it even MORE of a >> good thing to have stealth lurking about. (One extra Cloak could >> torporise my prey's vampire!) >> >Actually, it'd be pretty easy to avoid. Just chuck in some Elder >Interventions, or Pack Tactics. And those are no good against votes, which is not uncommon to see a Toreador Alacrity deck doing. Actually, they're no good against anything BUT bleeds, and there are lots of things besides just vote and bleed I'd like to block... say, that Assault Rifle equip action. What if my intercept is something like the Rumor Mill or a Sport Bike? Should I be penalized for using only light intercept? I'd like to take a poll on who would even TRY to play Wake for a normal block attempt if failing to block caused your vamp to go to torpor. Anyone? (listens to the crickets) >At the least, Wake would be more useful for playing reaction cards... Not especially. If you Wake/Deflect, you already had Deflect in hand. If you are at the point where you must FA and draw up to hope to get a Deflection, you are in trouble anyway and it's not likely to matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Sorrow wrote: > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, > > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which > > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > > So, "Channelling the Beast" is just "Lucky Blow" with a different > 'penalty' -- > it costs. > And "Ambush" is just "Bum's Rush" with a different 'penalty' -- you have > to target a tapped minion only. Indeed they are. However, WwEF has never been FA with a different penalty. The cards you cite are and were intended to be, clearly. Making the changes suggested moves WwEF from being a clearly different card to FA to being one of the above category. This shifts the balance of reaction cards in a manner which, I feel, is not wanted or warranted. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Raille wrote: > > > > Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, > > > > otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. > > > > > > What if I want to play it to play, say, Dread Gaze? > > > > Then I would have to say that is you waked the Dread Gazed you would > > not replace until the start of your next untap phase. uhm. let me try better english. You WWeF, do not replace the WWeF until your next untap phase, play the Dread Gaze, replace as normal. > But that seems to negate the fundamental difference between WwEF and > FA. > > FA encourages blocks, with a penalty if you don't e.g. you play a reaction > card. > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D Raile

In article <f7a45.2026$Qb1.1...@monger.newsread.com>, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, > > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which > > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > > So, "Channelling the Beast" is just "Lucky Blow" with a different > 'penalty' -- > it costs. > And "Ambush" is just "Bum's Rush" with a different 'penalty' -- you have > to target a tapped minion only. > > The above argument, James, is not a sound one. I believe the jist of his arguement was that the above mentioned fix( Play WWEF if a reaction card is played then do not replace the reaction card until your next untap) in reality is not a fix at all, but rather a method of turning Forced Awakening into wallpaper. If I am going to play reaction cards, I will use Wake, and if am planning on blocking, I will use Wake. It does not solve the inherent problem with WWEF 'unerrataed' in that you could dump massive amounts of cards during your prey's turn. Comment Welcome Norman S, Brown Jr. X_Zealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: <snip> > Wake currently has a penalty (do not replace 'til your untap) and an > advantage (free). FA has a penalty (burn a blood if you don't block) > and an advantage (replace immediately). If you give Wake an > additional penalty for not blocking, you throw it out of balance. If > you remove the do-not-replace, you also remove FA's advantage and > things are still out of balance for the Dread Gazers. > The reason for the suggestion was to see what would be thought if WwEF was made to be in line with the FA. As it was demonstrated in an earlier thread in another discussion - [if block is not successful] WwEF - Do not replace this card until your next Untap Phase FA - Minion burns 1 point of blood The "effect" of each card carries a price for failure to blocking the action. [if block is successful] WwEF - Do not replace this card until your next Untap Phase or in essense "No effect" FA - "No effect" The "effect" for FA is nothing while the effect of having a reduced hand size is still operating. I am not, however, trying to make FA wallpaper. WwEF - Allowing card replacement after combat which resulted from a successful block. FA - "No effect" > I just don't see what's wrong with the way things currently are. Wake > is still popular. FA is still popular. Nothing is broken. > Probably nothing is wrong with the current way the game is played. However, as WwEF is the most prevalent card available for tapped minions to use in response to actions other players attempt, I believe the card moves against the intercepter more now than it ever did prior to the errata. Yes, people who play intercept (casual or otherwise) can use FAs, but how many are available in comparison to WwEF? Can the intercepter's adjust their play style to overcome the WwEF effect of card loss until their next untap phase? Yes, they can. But it is always at the cost of a card until their next Untap Phase. Michael -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.000621...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Raille wrote: > > > > Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, > > > > otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase. > > > > > > What if I want to play it to play, say, Dread Gaze? > > > > Then I would have to say that is you waked the Dread Gazed you would > > not replace until the start of your next untap phase. > > But that seems to negate the fundamental difference between WwEF and > FA. > > FA encourages blocks, with a penalty if you don't e.g. you play a reaction > card. > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This option, > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - which > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > Yes, it does. > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > to the errata. Yes, people who play intercept (casual or otherwise) > can use FAs, but how many are available in comparison to WwEF? Can the More with the Sabbat War expansion, assuming the card is kept. And I can see no justification for dropping it myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This > option, > > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - > which > > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > > > Yes, it does. Which it isn't currently. Fundamentally changing how the card works re: another card, such that it effectively becomes a clone, seems pointless in the extreme. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > More with the Sabbat War expansion, assuming the card [Forced > Awakening is kept. And I can see no justification for dropping > it myself. Neither do I. I use Forced Awakening _far_ more often in decks than I use WWEF. After the errata, it's even more prevalent. Card flow is an important facet of my deck building and WWEF disrupts that. Noal -- "What you cannot enforce, do not command." -- Socrates [ quoted text not captured ]

>>> WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. >>> This option, however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade >>> reaction cards - which just makes it into FA with a different >>> penalty. >> >> Yes, it does. > > Which it isn't currently. Fundamentally changing how the card > works re: another card, such that it effectively becomes a clone, > seems pointless in the extreme. I agree with James 100% (Mark it on your calendar!) As it stands, Forced Awakening is the card of choice when you plan to block a vampire and WWEF is the card of choice if you plan on playing other reaction cards like Delaying Tactics or Deflection. Any sensible modification of WWEF's current errata _must_ preserve that to get any amount of solid support. Since FA does not result in a cost if you succesfully block, WWEF should _not_ result in no cost for a successful block. What would be appropriate would be a lesser cost (i.e., replacing after the action resolves, the end of the current turn, etc.) if you successfully modify the action with a reaction card. My concern there is that the wording that would communicate that could be difficult to put in such a way that doesn't open it up for abuse. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:06:19 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: > > > >The above argument, James, is not a sound one. > > Don't see why not, it holds up for your two examples as well. > > Wake currently has a penalty (do not replace 'til your untap) and an > advantage (free). Again, i don't think so: the penalty (cost) until the next untap is too much. Why not until the end of turn? Regards Emiliano, Prince of ROme >FA has a penalty (burn a blood if you don't block) > and an advantage (replace immediately). If you give Wake an > additional penalty for not blocking, you throw it out of balance. If > you remove the do-not-replace, you also remove FA's advantage and > things are still out of balance for the Dread Gazers. > > I just don't see what's wrong with the way things currently are. Wake > is still popular. FA is still popular. Nothing is broken. > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:41:48 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article ><222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> Wake currently has a penalty (do not replace 'til your untap) and an >> advantage (free). > >Again, i don't think so: the penalty (cost) until the next untap is too >much. ...but you don't give any reasons why... >Why not until the end of turn? Because GOOD free cards are a very dangerous thing to have floating around. Cryptic Mission would be lethal if it did damage instead of merely remove blood - you could torporize vampires at +1 stealth. Aid from Bats is one of the most underrated cards in the game - at *inferior*. Restoration is extremely powerful. Flash. Theft of Vitae. Undead Strength. Immortal Grapple. Grave Robbing. Flesh of Marble. Majesty/Earth Meld. The list goes on for quite some time. All of these cards are free. All of them perform extremely good effects. All of them are limited as well, by requiring a vampire with a specific discipline. Meaning that if you want to use Grave Robbing, you need to build a deck with Dominate, and then you need to be able to put vampires in torpor. If you don't have a vampire with Dominate, you can't use Grave Robbing. If your vampires with Dominate can't put people in torpor, you may not be able to Grave Rob anyone useful. Wake is free, performs an extremely good effect, and has no discipline limitations. It could fit in every deck. Therefore, it needs SOME limitation, and the current one is "replace on your untap". If it were only "replace at the end of this turn", there is no significant cost to Waking. More importantly, there's nothing keeping you from putting 15 or so in your deck at minimal cost to yourself - if you have too many in hand, play them off at the end of your grandpredator's turn, and play the rest off at the end of your predator's turn. Then you have a nice hand full of offensive cards, and with 15 Wakes you know you'll be running into more soon. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Again, i don't think so: the penalty (cost) until the next untap is too > much. Based on? Why are people who have access to both FA and WwEF using both if there is such a problem with it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ijpdk$l54$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006181316450.6087- 100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > > > Yes. The Judith and Mark Jyhad page has a nice line on its > > > trigonmetric > > > > (to borrow the term used) effect. > > > > > > > > > > Could you direct me to that page? I looked on the Judith and Mark > Jyhad > > > Page, but couldn't find anything on Wake. > > > > http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html > > > > It forms part of an article on the costs of deck building. There are > some > > issues I might make with the article but, in general, it's quite > good. > > > > Nice article. I'm inclined to agree that Wake needed to be modified > from its original wording to prevent free cycling. However, I also > think that it should be possible to come up with a fix that is much > less annoying to players. > Although, even with the free cycling, isn't Wake available to all players? I mean it's a good card and all, but is that enough of a reason to make an errata? Our playgroup never had a problem with Wake before the errata, and I think the most Wakes I saw in a deck was 8. It tended to be self- limiting because every Wake that you put in your deck displaced another card. I'm sure that someone can enlighten me... Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > Although, even with the free cycling, isn't Wake available to all > players? I mean it's a good card and all, but is that enough of a > reason to make an errata? The idea is that it is *too* good. There have been many arguments in favour of that over the years. > Our playgroup never had a problem with Wake before the errata, Unfortunately, 1 play group is not a representative sample. > and I > think the most Wakes I saw in a deck was 8. It tended to be self- > limiting because every Wake that you put in your deck displaced another > card. That can be said of any card, due to the 90 card deck limit. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006230111250.16808- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > Although, even with the free cycling, isn't Wake available to all > > players? I mean it's a good card and all, but is that enough of a > > reason to make an errata? > > The idea is that it is *too* good. There have been many arguments in > favour of that over the years. > But does it unbalance the game? > > Our playgroup never had a problem with Wake before the errata, > > Unfortunately, 1 play group is not a representative sample. Would you mind giving some examples of how Wake was problematic? It just seems strange that our group didn't encounter any problems given that Wake is such a widely available card. Cheers, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > The idea is that it is *too* good. There have been many arguments in > > favour of that over the years. > > But does it unbalance the game? Unbalancing the game is not the only reason errata is issued. However, there have been arguments that yes, it does. > > > Our playgroup never had a problem with Wake before the errata, > > > > Unfortunately, 1 play group is not a representative sample. > > Would you mind giving some examples of how Wake was problematic? You will find the posts of those people who have argued against it over the years to be far more instructive than anything I can write, since they can provide the solid examples from their group to work with, whereas I can only provide my solid examples from my groups. In my experience, Wake rarely proved to be a problem, simply because a lot of people didn't use it, and the game never evolved in that way in my group. However, I can see exactly how and why it is a problem, even if it's not one I regularly had to deal with. Lots of us didn't play RtoI, regarding it as cheese. Doesn't mean it isn't a problem, however..... Also, this thread has contained a number of arguments and examples as to why it is bad. If you have missed them, your news-reader software probably has the option to collect all posts from a certain date, or the last X number of posts. This may be useful to you. > It just seems strange that our group didn't encounter any problems > given that Wake is such a widely available card. Your group clearly did not evolve in such a fashion that that became a problem. If you have read any of the arguments over broken cards, errata, overpowered cards, underpowered cards etc. before, you will see that what happens in one group happens in one group. What happens in another happens in another. Two groups are not the same, nor would you expect them to be. For instance, did your group still find problems with the Sabbat replacement rule of vote cards (at the end of your turn, not this action)? Some did, some didn't. How about Return to Innocence? Again, I've seen plenty of people argue that it's not a problem for *them*, yet I would still argue it is a problem card even if your group hasn't exploited it yet. [ quoted text not captured ]

at 6/22/2000 6:17pm EST James Coupe provides an even-handed and cordial response in the midst of heated debate. Are you mellowing out on us, buddy...? Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver BTW, an eloquent post :-)

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, R. David Zopf wrote: > James Coupe provides an even-handed and cordial response in the midst of > heated debate. Are you mellowing out on us, buddy...? Heh... no, just slightly relaxed after doing well in a mock exam. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006221634480.25547- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > > WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. This > > option, > > > however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade reaction cards - > > which > > > just makes it into FA with a different penalty. > > > > > Yes, it does. > > Which it isn't currently. Fundamentally changing how the card works > re: another card, such that it effectively becomes a clone, seems > pointless in the extreme. > Heck James, Isn't that what we did with WwEF the current errata? We went from one extreme to the other. From free card cycling to no card cycling until your next turn. If it were only usable against your Predator, then I would say fine but it isn't. It carries a penalty effect/cost just for it's use. As for the clone aspect... yes it would be duplicating FA in usage but the penalty effects for failure of stopping the action is different. So it becomes your choice of either chancing a blood or a card penalty. Michael Eichler -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8iti41$cmt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >>> WwEF allows reaction cards and blocks with the same penalty. > >>> This option, however, makes it encourage blocking and dissuade > >>> reaction cards - which just makes it into FA with a different > >>> penalty. > >> > >> Yes, it does. > > > > Which it isn't currently. Fundamentally changing how the card > > works re: another card, such that it effectively becomes a clone, > > seems pointless in the extreme. > > I agree with James 100% (Mark it on your calendar!) > > As it stands, Forced Awakening is the card of choice when you plan to > block a vampire and WWEF is the card of choice if you plan on playing > other reaction cards like Delaying Tactics or Deflection. > > Any sensible modification of WWEF's current errata _must_ preserve that > to get any amount of solid support. Since FA does not result in a cost > if you succesfully block, WWEF should _not_ result in no cost for a > successful block. > > What would be appropriate would be a lesser cost (i.e., replacing after > the action resolves, the end of the current turn, etc.) if you > successfully modify the action with a reaction card. My concern there is > that the wording that would communicate that could be difficult to put > in such a way that doesn't open it up for abuse. > Noal, what are you talking about? I stated the following change, "Replace this card at the end of combat after a successful block, otherwise at the beginning of your next untap phase". I wouldn't suggest the card to just replacable with the fact that you used a reaction card to modify/deflect/reduce an action sent in your direction. I suggested it be replaceable after combat from a successful block of the action, otherwise it would be replaced at the beginning of your next Untap phase (which is in-line with it's current use now.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006221630440.25547- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > > to the errata. Yes, people who play intercept (casual or otherwise) > > can use FAs, but how many are available in comparison to WwEF? Can the > > More with the Sabbat War expansion, assuming the card is kept. And I can > see no justification for dropping it myself. Neither would I. But the numbers of current available cards between WwEF and FA is something that may take a while to balance out, even with the Sabbat War. After all, you have the old Jyhad print that is still available along with the V:TES print. Michael [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ith9c$c67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > More with the Sabbat War expansion, assuming the card [Forced > > Awakening is kept. And I can see no justification for dropping > > it myself. > > Neither do I. I use Forced Awakening _far_ more often in decks than I > use WWEF. After the errata, it's even more prevalent. Card flow is an > important facet of my deck building and WWEF disrupts that. Noal, That is one of the reasons for my suggestion, to give back WwEF to intercepters who don't have access to a large quantity of FAs. Within my group alone, I am the only one with access to them. And I only have enough for 2 decks (this goes beyond the 4-5 cards per deck... more akin to 7-8 cards). Card cycling is just as important to me as it is for you, and that is another reason for my suggestion. Michael Eichler [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > Isn't that what we did with WwEF the current errata? No. The penalty was made more severe. It did not change the functionality of the card re: FA however. FA encourages blocks, with a penalty if not. Wake allows both, with a penalty either way. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > Neither would I. But the numbers of current available cards between > WwEF and FA is something that may take a while to balance out, Is that necessary? You don't need the numbers to balance out, just people to get sufficient FAs to play with. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:21:32 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <8ith9c$c67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> > More with the Sabbat War expansion, assuming the card [Forced >> > Awakening is kept. And I can see no justification for dropping >> > it myself. >> >> Neither do I. I use Forced Awakening _far_ more often in decks than I >> use WWEF. After the errata, it's even more prevalent. Card flow is an >> important facet of my deck building and WWEF disrupts that. > >Noal, > >That is one of the reasons for my suggestion, to give back WwEF to >intercepters who don't have access to a large quantity of FAs. Within Errata should never, EVER be based on card rarity. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006222249360.26468- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Again, i don't think so: the penalty (cost) until the next untap is too > > much. > > Based on? > > Why are people who have access to both FA and WwEF using both if there is > such a problem with it? > Again, because they are the ONLY disciplineless card giving their own unique defensive effect(s). The only cards that give you some defense (as long as you got some FA aor WwEF in hand) against the Sleeping mind decks. Again, about WwEF/FA cost, i list here a good point made on this thread: After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood After Vamp X succesfully blocks, WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap FA - no cost or penalty Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much Your thought? Emiliano, Prince of Rome > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7F7B62E534F0995E.E12F3ACD...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:41:48 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >In article > ><222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, > > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > >> Wake currently has a penalty (do not replace 'til your untap) and an > >> advantage (free). > > > >Again, i don't think so: the penalty (cost) until the next untap is too > >much. > > ...but you don't give any reasons why... Reasons (a good point already pointed on this thread): After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, with WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood After Vamp X succesfully blocks, WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap FA - no cost or penalty Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much Your thought? Emiliano, Prince of Rome > [ quoted text not captured ] > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8j0i5p$jhf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, with > WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood > After Vamp X succesfully blocks, > WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > FA - no cost or penalty > Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, > or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. > So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much > Your thought? > Emiliano, Prince of Rome I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that FA is a better card than WwEF if (and pay attention to this part) you intend to block the acting vampire. If the Methuselah does _not_ intend to block, FA is worse: After Vamp X plays a non-blocking reaction card, with WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood Since the canonical non-blocking reaction card (Deflection) costs blood, using FA to enable Deflection doubles Deflection's cost. In many decks, WwEF's penalty is strongly preferable to FA's. With free reaction cards (Telepathic Counter, Obedience), the cost is upped from 0 to 1, still a significant drain on a resource that's not exactly trivial to replenish: hunting actions, Hunting Grounds, Blood Dolls...all these things cost resources (minion actions, master phase actions, pool), and in many decks waiting a turn or two to redraw the WwEF is the lesser cost. Or, to restate what's been said before: WwEF is a better choice if you're not blocking often (and are instead Deflecting, Obediencing, Fast Reacting, or what have you). FA is a better choice if you're blocking often _and are pretty sure you'll block successfully_. gomi [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Again, because they are the ONLY disciplineless card giving their own > unique defensive effect(s). Entirely untrue. Similar effects - take an action, and block one - can be generated via other means. Also, if one is vastly inferior to the other, only one would be seen. Both are regularly seen. > Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, Perhaps. But does that overcost lead to underpowered? It is possible for something to be more expensive than something else, and still be perfectly usable, because of its different facet. For instance, a card which was 1 blood and (D) Bleed at +2 would be fine (e.g. Govern the Unaligned). How about a card that was 3 blood, (D) bleed at +3? There might be times when such wsa the much better option, and perfectly playable. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:43:41 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> >In article >> ><222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, >> > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: >> ...but you don't give any reasons why... > >Reasons (a good point already pointed on this thread): > >After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, with >WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap >FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood > >After Vamp X succesfully blocks, >WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap >FA - no cost or penalty This is an excellent breakdown of the difference between WWEF and Forced Awakening, but nothing more. >Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, >or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. >So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much But you still don't explain WHY you think it's overcosted. Just saying "it is!" won't fly, and i'm afraid that's really all you're saying with this message. The existing relationship that we all want to maintain is as follows: Wake is preferable when you're playing reaction cards. Forced Awakening is preferable when you're blocking. If you are attempting to block, a replaceable card is a Good Thing, because you may be fishing for intercept from your deck or wanting to draw up a cool combat card AFTER you intercept them. But either way, since you're going to combat, you're going to be playing more cards, so a full hand is good. FA works great here. Wake causes you to be down a hand slot, which makes combat tricky, but functional. It's worth noting that Bum's Rush ALSO causes you to be down a hand slot, although only until the end of combat - so 6-card combat is clearly workable and Wake does not cause any problems (the first time you Wake, anyway). But combat is also guaranteed with Bum's Rush, since a block results in combat. (Obedience is an exception, yes.) No combat is guaranteed by Waking, so just an end-of-combat replace is insufficient because of the card cycling problems mentioned earlier - Wake becomes a free card. If you are attempting to play a reaction card, be it Delaying Tactics, Dread Gaze, Deflection, Telepathic Counter, or whatever, FA costs you an extra blood. Most people agree that this is pretty annoying, but a good cost for the card. Wake merely drops you a hand slot, which is largely irrelevant since I can't think of any two-reaction-card combinations off the top of my head. So you play two cards from your hand, the Wake and the Deflection, and then you replace your Deflection. You're down a hand slot, but you didn't have to go to combat, so it's just not a problem since you only had to play one extra card. It's ALSO worth noting that most reaction card plays are going to happen on your predator's turn - Deflection and Telepathic Counter 100%, Dread Gaze and Delaying Tactics not quite 100% but easily above 75%. So the "end of current turn" errata proposed by many really doesn't affect Wake at all in its current form - people who are going to wake-and-intercept their prey are going to use FA anyway, and your prey doesn't do too many things that you'll need to react to in a fashion OTHER than blocking. In fact, let me pull a list of all the reaction cards, and see which ones would conceivably apply to your prey WITHOUT blocking. OK, out of 41 reaction cards, 19 are non-intercept and could possibly be played during your prey's (or another vamp's) turn. Quick list: Cardinal Sin, Failure of Mission Cardinal Sin, Insubordination Conflict of Interests Deadliest Sin Delaying Tactics Dread Gaze Elder Kindred Network Eyes of the Dead Foul Blood Ignis Fatuus Immaculate Vitae Kindred Coercion Legacy of Power Malkavian Rider Clause Mistaken Identity Political Backlash Pulling Strings Surprise Influence Treachery All the other cards gain intercept in some form or specify "your predator" as the target; for example, Tainted Vitae is only usable when your predator's vampire hunts. I also removed Forced Awakening, Wake, and 2nd Tradition from the list, though they're reaction cards - for obvious reasons. Going through that list, a number of cards can be found that are EXTREMELY rare to be seen at all, either due to overly restrictive playing conditions (Mistaken Identity) or just plain suck-o-rama (Eyes of the Dead). If we remove both Cardinal Sins, Conflict of Interests, Eyes of the Dead, Immaculate Vitae, Legacy of Power, and Mistaken Identity, we have only 12 cards left. Of those 12 cards, 10 are related to votes. Deadliest Sin is an anti-diablerie card, and Foul Blood is an anti-hunt card. Only one card is dependent on you playing a vote deck yourself - Malkavian Rider Clause. All the others depend on another deck calling votes somewhere on the table for you to affect, which is not guaranteed at all. If it's not your prey (very likely), it may not be to your advantage to even PLAY the cards. So most of the time, the reaction cards you include in your deck are going to be either intercept, or defense against your predator. With this in mind, the suggested errata "replace at end of current turn" really begins to make no sense at all. In fact, it makes no sense to alter the current form of the card, since there should be a LARGE cost to tapping to take an action against your prey, and then Waking to affect his actions as well - this should oust your prey VERY quickly. The suggested errata of "burn a blood if you fail to block or play a reaction card" makes the card too much like Forced Awakening, which is not good. Some decks include light intercept to use against their prey's or predator's actions, and Deflections/TMs to use against their predator's bleeds. Currently, you would want to play a Wake in this deck since you don't know if you're going to need to untap for your prey or predator. For the flexibility of tapping out taking actions, stopping some of your prey's critical actions, AND defending against your predator all at the same time, you have a greater and appropriate cost - don't replace until your untap. Again, it comes down to choices, and tapping all your vamps out should NOT be the default choice just because "they can always Wake". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:01:36 GMT, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: >How about an errata that says: > >When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players >before you place it in your hand. I'd get used to Forced Awakening and paying 2 blood to Deflect, in that case. My hand secrecy is worth MUCH more than an extra card slot - that's why cards like Revelations, Aura Reading, Pulse of the Canaille and the like are limited to Auspex. (well, Owl Companion, but he takes some work to get.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006190858130.14703- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > from its original wording to prevent free cycling. However, I also > > think that it should be possible to come up with a fix that is much > > less annoying to players. > > True, of course. The current errata is not necessarily the best possible > errata - nor would anyone tout it as such, IMO. There are better options > out there. However, you have to balance off simple errata, annoying to > players and balance, in order to try and come up with something useful. > How about an errata that says: When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players before you place it in your hand. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hmm, so I may think that disarm is vastly inferior to other potence cards, just becouse no one play it in my group? Same goes for FA, all of the people I play with seem to play more WWEF. But that's because they don't have FA. > Perhaps. But does that overcost lead to underpowered? It is possible for > something to be more expensive than something else, and still be perfectly > usable, because of its different facet. > If you intend to block action - FA clearly better If you intend to play reactions - FA or WWEF depends on the situation But if WWEF would look like "if you fail to block and play at least one reaction card, replace at the end of turn, otherwise in next untap" then WWEF would be the card of choice when playing reactions. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8j0ou4$od1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Hashi Lebwohl <ha...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <8j0i5p$jhf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, with > > WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > > FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood > > > After Vamp X succesfully blocks, > > WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > > FA - no cost or penalty > > > Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, > > or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. > > So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much > > > Your thought? > > Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > I don't think you'll find anyone disputing that FA is a better > card than WwEF if (and pay attention to this part) you intend to > block the acting vampire. If the Methuselah does _not_ intend > to block, FA is worse: > > After Vamp X plays a non-blocking reaction card, with > WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood > > Since the canonical non-blocking reaction card (Deflection) costs > blood, using FA to enable Deflection doubles Deflection's cost. > In many decks, WwEF's penalty is strongly preferable to FA's. I see your point. However it should be noted that the inherent blood cost of FA doesn't apply if you react with a vamp with 0 blood. This advantage is even more notable if you keep a 0 blood vamp reacting with FA and Obedience and/or Tel Counters or, worse, with Redirections (free reactions, as you correctly say below). So FA advantages are too much in front of WwEF: FA has no cost with a 0 blood vamp WwEF still reduces your hand until next untap(with a 0 blood vamp). Just my thought. Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > With free reaction cards (Telepathic Counter, Obedience), the cost > is upped from 0 to 1, still a significant drain on a resource > that's not exactly trivial to replenish: hunting actions, Hunting > Grounds, Blood Dolls...all these things cost resources (minion actions, > master phase actions, pool), and in many decks waiting a turn or two to > redraw the WwEF is the lesser cost. > > Or, to restate what's been said before: > > WwEF is a better choice if you're not blocking often (and are instead > Deflecting, Obediencing, Fast Reacting, or what have you). > FA is a better choice if you're blocking often _and are pretty sure > you'll block successfully_. > > gomi > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > How about an errata that says: > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > before you place it in your hand. Entirely possible. However, it does somewhat shift the penalty of the card which, as I see it, was initially designed to stifle card flow but, due to it being created before all of the facets were even partially explored, failed to do so. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > good cost for the card. Wake merely drops you a hand slot, which is > largely irrelevant since I can't think of any two-reaction-card > combinations off the top of my head. So you play two cards from your Dread Gaze/Surprise Influence (useful, I find, for having a lot of votes to vote something down, in a manner which most people aren't expecting at all, and useful for the Ventrue with EKN) Telepathic Counter/Ignis Fatuus (unlikely, but possible) Multiple different bounce cards, if someone plays ping-pong with a bounced bleed [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 murlo...@my-deja.com wrote: > Hmm, so I may think that disarm is vastly inferior to other potence > cards, just becouse no one play it in my group? This, unfortunately, is the reasoning that some people apply. It isn't a problem for them, or it isn't very good for them - therefore, it cannot be a problem or very good etc. Errata, rulings, and tournament rules have to take into account as many possibilities as they can. > Same goes for FA, all > of the people I play with seem to play more WWEF. But that's because > they don't have FA. True, if you don't have FA than you have to play WwEF. However, I have access to both - lots of Wakes, due to having bought a lot of Jyhad/V:TES, and a sufficiency of Forced Awakening - at least the 6 or 8 you might want to put into a deck. I find both cards eminently useful, and in many instances will choose to play Wake, rather than FA - simply because the sort of decks I tend to play are a little more blood intensive than I would like, and do not wish to have the possibility of burning another blood. In these instances, I value my blood over my hand size. *Clearly*, there are decks where people will value hand size over blood, and at that point, FA becomes better. I just don't tend to play those decks so much. > If you intend to block action - FA clearly better If you also believe yourself to have a good chance at blocking, yes. > If you intend to play reactions - FA or WWEF depends on the situation Certainly. > But if WWEF would look like > > "if you fail to block and play at least one reaction card, replace at > the end of turn, otherwise in next untap" > > then WWEF would be the card of choice when playing reactions. It would. However, if you value your blood (which you may not do - this depends on your deck), WwEF is certainly the card of choice now, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: <Examples of situations where Wake would be preferable> > I see your point. > However it should be noted that the inherent blood cost of FA doesn't > apply if you react with a vamp with 0 blood. Oh, certainly. But this does require you to have your vampires on 0 blood. In most circumstances, I would not wish to do this, because it means they have to "waste" actions hunting, and are much more likely to go to torpor if rushed. > This advantage is even more notable if you keep a 0 blood vamp reacting > with FA and Obedience and/or Tel Counters or, worse, with Redirections > (free reactions, as you correctly say below). > So FA advantages are too much in front of WwEF: > FA has no cost with a 0 blood vamp But there is a cost associated with having a 0 blood vamp anyway. > WwEF still reduces your hand until next untap(with a 0 blood vamp). Indeed. Yet WwEF is still commonly played. It seems that the players do not agree with this theory of overcosting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <A54CC9B130508C8B.DCE17B29...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:43:41 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >> >In article > >> ><222E8B2DF25CE192.428BD3C7...@lp.airnews.net>, > >> > lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > >> ...but you don't give any reasons why... > > > >Reasons (a good point already pointed on this thread): > > > >After Vamp X unsuccesfully blocks, with > >WwEF- (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > >FA- (costs) vamp X burns 1 blood > > > >After Vamp X succesfully blocks, > >WwEF - (costs) hand reduction until controller's next untap > >FA - no cost or penalty > > This is an excellent breakdown of the difference between WWEF and > Forced Awakening, but nothing more. > > >Therefore, WwEF is overcosted in front of FA, > >or FA is overpowered in front of WwEF. > >So, the cost/penalty assigned to WwEF is too much > > But you still don't explain WHY you think it's overcosted. Just > saying "it is!" won't fly, and i'm afraid that's really all you're > saying with this message. Not really. What i'm trying to say is that WwEF is an all defensive card (like FA), and that with it no one is going to hurt any players at the table. So, though it must have a cost, i find the actual Hand Reduction an overcost for such card; And since the reasoning explained above (in my previous thread) is quite good, i think, to demonstrate the inherent undercost FA has in front of WwEF, i think that should be not a terrible thing to find a different, and slight less cost for WwEF. Suggestions are still welcome. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > The existing relationship that we all want to maintain is as follows: > > Wake is preferable when you're playing reaction cards. > Forced Awakening is preferable when you're blocking. > > If you are attempting to block, a replaceable card is a Good Thing, > because you may be fishing for intercept from your deck or wanting to > draw up a cool combat card AFTER you intercept them. But either way, > since you're going to combat, you're going to be playing more cards, > so a full hand is good. FA works great here. Wake causes you to be > down a hand slot, which makes combat tricky, but functional. > > It's worth noting that Bum's Rush ALSO causes you to be down a hand > slot, although only until the end of combat - so 6-card combat is > clearly workable and Wake does not cause any problems (the first time > you Wake, anyway). > > But combat is also guaranteed with Bum's Rush, since a block results > in combat. (Obedience is an exception, yes.) No combat is guaranteed > by Waking, so just an end-of-combat replace is insufficient because of > the card cycling problems mentioned earlier - Wake becomes a free > card. > > If you are attempting to play a reaction card, be it Delaying Tactics, > Dread Gaze, Deflection, Telepathic Counter, or whatever, FA costs you > an extra blood. Most people agree that this is pretty annoying, but a > good cost for the card. Wake merely drops you a hand slot, which is > largely irrelevant since I can't think of any two-reaction-card > combinations off the top of my head. (On pol actions) WwEF- elder kindred network- dread gaze- political backlash, just an example, many other are possible). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 07:17:54 +1000, shawn stanley <sta...@alphalink.com.au> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> >> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: >> > How about an errata that says: >> > >> > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players >> > before you place it in your hand. >> >> Entirely possible. However, it does somewhat shift the penalty of the >> card which, as I see it, was initially designed to stifle card flow > >but if Derek's reply was right then this sort of penalty would be a good >one. It stifles card flow becuase showing your card to other people is No, it would be a BAD one because nobody would ever play the card. Actually, that's not totally true. Decks with a totally obvious strategy wouldn't give a damn (weenie bleed, s&b, etc.), and so they'd just casually replace as needed to cycle to more cards. Those decks that value their secrecy would be weakened as a result. This would be a bad thing. Someone valuing secrecy would play Forced Awakening instead, and that would reduce the utility of Deflection and other non-blocking reaction cards. Very few decks can function without SOME means of untapping - specifically, if you intend to Deflect, you need to be able to Wake. Just leaving vampires untapped is not the best defense in the world, considering the prevalence of cards like Misdirection in tournament play. >not something you would want to do. Therefore you'd only use them when >you need them, and you don't have the situation which you have at the Therefore, I wouldn't put them in my deck in the first place. >moment where people instinctively go to replace the card at the end of >combat - something that gets a little annoying with people having to >reshuffle decks and so on. Granted, all of us in this playgroup are familiar with the errata, but I don't see people accidentally replacing their Wakes at all... >And since there is already a precedent with other cards having to be >shown around, then we're not really introducing a new rule concept I assume you're talking about Recruitment, which I haven't seen played yet. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > > How about an errata that says: > > > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > > before you place it in your hand. > > Entirely possible. However, it does somewhat shift the penalty of the > card which, as I see it, was initially designed to stifle card flow but if Derek's reply was right then this sort of penalty would be a good one. It stifles card flow becuase showing your card to other people is not something you would want to do. Therefore you'd only use them when you need them, and you don't have the situation which you have at the moment where people instinctively go to replace the card at the end of combat - something that gets a little annoying with people having to reshuffle decks and so on. And since there is already a precedent with other cards having to be shown around, then we're not really introducing a new rule concept here. I think this might be a better fix for the card than the existing one.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > What i'm trying to say is that WwEF is an all defensive card (like FA), True. > and that with it no one is going to hurt any players at the table. Also true. That is not why it was errate-ed, of course. > So, though it must have a cost, i find the actual Hand Reduction an > overcost for such card; And here is the bugberar. > And since the reasoning explained above (in my previous thread) is > quite good, i think, to demonstrate the inherent > undercost FA has in front of WwEF, You've given no reasoning, though. All you've given so far is a description of what is going on - and a very good one. Consider two candiates for president, senator, prime minister or whatever. Now, there is some common theme between them - say, we're debating their stance on taxes. But the two candidates are slightly different. Say, Bob wants to put up income tax by 1% on all people, and Christina wants to add 1% to VAT (like sales tax, in America). So, both of them want to take more money from you but in different ways. Now, we could draw up a nice little table like yours, and show what happens in different circumstances. That, in and of itself, wouldn't be reasoning though. It wouldn't show you that one of the candidates was definitely better than one of the others. For that, you'd have to have a debate about what they were doing with the money, what it would do to the average man on the street, whether it was worth it, whether you thought they should take more of your money etc. Just showing what they did isn't the same as showing what the different candidates are worth. So, in V:TES, let's just say I invented another discipline bleed card, to go alongside Computer Hacking. How about: James Coupe's Ridiculously OverCosted, Patented Bleed Card (tm): Disciplineless (D) Bleed your prey at +2 bleed. When you announce this action, you must tap three minions you control, burn 5 pool, and place three pieces of equipment you control on a vampire controlled by your predator. If you cannot do all of these things, the action fizzles. Now, I could draw up a table showing what happened in each situation, and what didn't, comparing it with Computer Hacking, showing my equipment, turns needed to pull it off, blood, pool etc. However, at the end of the day, having theat table proves nothinng. You need to able to then work with that table and the facts to explain why what is going on in that table makes something over-costed. > i think that should be not a > terrible thing to find a different, and slight less cost for WwEF. Indeed. But I can find a smaller cost for Govern the Unaligned. However, to get it through, I'd need to prove it was warranted first. You have excellently showed exactly what happens when Wake is played and when FA is played. However, you have done nothing to accurately try and compare the relative costs of each. You have merely presented the costs and expected people to, from that, suddenly see that Wake is overcosted. Take your table and then go through it, and comparitve cards, and explain *why* you think that the cost is too much. Thus far, all you have done is shown what the cost itself is. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, shawn stanley wrote: > > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > > > before you place it in your hand. > > > > Entirely possible. However, it does somewhat shift the penalty of the > > card which, as I see it, was initially designed to stifle card flow > > but if Derek's reply was right then this sort of penalty would be a good > one. It stifles card flow becuase showing your card to other people is > not something you would want to do. Oh, indeed. But the original idea was clearly just to stifle cardflow, not to give other players information. I would favour a 'penalty' that stifled card flow - and just that. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >And since there is already a precedent with other cards having to be > >shown around, then we're not really introducing a new rule concept > > I assume you're talking about Recruitment, which I haven't seen played > yet. The Betrayer deck does, for instance. Also, Summon the Serpent deos the same thing - a card which I have played, once or twice. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00062...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > What i'm trying to say is that WwEF is an all defensive card (like FA), > > True. > > > and that with it no one is going to hurt any players at the table. > > Also true. That is not why it was errate-ed, of course. > > > So, though it must have a cost, i find the actual Hand Reduction an > > overcost for such card; > And here is the bugberar. > > > And since the reasoning explained above (in my previous thread) is > > quite good, i think, to demonstrate the inherent > > undercost FA has in front of WwEF, > [ quoted text not captured ] > > i think that should be not a > > terrible thing to find a different, and slight less cost for WwEF. > > Indeed. But I can find a smaller cost for Govern the Unaligned. First, i'm not sure at the moment, as far as i can remember, Govern the Unligned was not rearranged in cost with any errata, is right? So, you example above don't fits with the real "problem" with WwEF. WwEF had a trivial cost and was later given a different (and too bad) one. So i contest the bad cost given later to WwEF. 90 of 100 i'll not question any undercost given in original text' cards. However, 90 of 100 i'm prone to discuss about bad cost assigned later to cards. I hope to be clear, my english isn't that good. Ok , actually, i find that cost, later-given, bad. However, > to get it through, I'd need to prove it was warranted first. > > You have excellently showed exactly what happens when Wake is played and > when FA is played. However, you have done nothing to accurately try and > compare the relative costs of each. You have merely presented the costs > and expected people to, from that, suddenly see that Wake is overcosted. > > Take your table and then go through it, and comparitve cards, and explain > *why* you think that the cost is too much. Thus far, all you have done is > shown what the cost itself is. A try for comparative is here. The Hand reduction is a powerful effect: actually two "offensive" cards, above all, give it: Aggressive tactics and the superior Raptor. Both of them have pretty notable cost: Aggressive tactics' cost is 2 pool, and can be burned as an action by any vampire (that is, not a very difficult thing to do). Raptor costs 2 blood from the employing vamp, gives a good + intercept, butthe empl vamp must have sup animalism to use the HR effect. Raptor has just 1 life, so is easy enough to kill it. You see, had be not a powerful effect, those cards never got they notable cost (and "weaknees") for "just" an hand reduction effect. Now, with the cost given to WwEF, you (the playing WweF) are reducing your hand size for "free" (in front of players at the table). And that without any subsequent "real" advantage, except for the "waking" effect of one of your vamp. True, that vamp may try to deflect, block or whatever the current action commits you to do. However is you, the controlling methuselah, who's paying the "active" cost for the WwEF. With an hand reduction until your next untap. This means that if you try to stop your prey from doing some very nasty things with his/her minions, you are "many" turns away from your real hand size and deck potential. But the cost, again, is too much for the card effect. WwEF simply allows a player to have another chanche (vampire) for defend itself. Nothing more. Sure, a given cost should prevent the inherent abuse of a card (WweF included, and that was the scope for changing his cost). However the cost should be well proportioned to the card (possible) effects. I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it gives in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than the actual one. And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between the "old" cost and the actual one. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > terrible thing to find a different, and slight less cost for WwEF. > > > > Indeed. But I can find a smaller cost for Govern the Unaligned. > > First, i'm not sure at the moment, as far as i can remember, Govern the > Unligned was not rearranged in cost with any errata, is right? No. But the fact that a lesser cost can be found for a card doesn't mean that it has to be found. In the xample of GtA, the card is costed well, and so doesn't need to be reduced. The null hypothesis in this situation is that Wake is also well costed (now) and so doesn't need to changed. You need to disprove that. > So, you example above don't fits with the real "problem" with WwEF. > WwEF had a trivial cost and was later given a different (and too bad) > one. You;re still merely asserting that it's bad. Please try and *explain* why. Make a reasoned argument. Give persuaive reasons *why* Wake is overcosted, not just the fact that it is. LSJ has stated before that it takes a reasoned argument to convince him. All you've done so far is said that the errata makes it cost too much. You haven't said *why* it makes it cost too much, or what more appropriate cost you would give it and why, or work with deciding how much each of these things costs (as has been done by Robert Goudie in similar situations before). Just how much is a hand slot worth, in compartitive terms? Look at t other cards that forced dicards, or reductions etc. Work with those to work out what the cost really is. Again, all you really do below is detail them. And you fail to take into account the voluntary nature of playing a Wake. Raptor and Aggressive Tactics aren't anything like the same, because you can't choose to have them played on you, as you can with a wake, when it comes to that part of it - sure, the hand loss is the same, but the timing is critical. <snip> > But the cost, again, is too much for the card effect. > WwEF simply allows a player to have another chanche (vampire) for > defend itself. Nothing more. And so basically gives them a free vampire. One they haven't had to payu for, or had to spend time bring out. They get to act and block, with the same vampire. Isn't that cost saving of X pool (where X is the size of the reacting vampire) worth a temporary loss? It could well be, in manh instances. > Sure, a given cost should prevent the inherent abuse of a card (WweF > included, and that was the scope for changing his cost). > However the cost should be well proportioned to the card (possible) > effects. If they were so out of proportion, those of us who *can* play FA, would be playing it by the truck load. This simply isn't happening. [ quoted text not captured ]

actually I think that the fact that there have been two postings of over 100 msgs each identifies that there is a problem within the community with this card. While I understand that seeing it all for a second time maybe hard to swallow maybe the people that make the rulings need to take a harder look and "listen to the people" apparently there is a problem here. I also agree that no game is perfect on the first run, there does come a point when the masses are screaming foul, the erratas people need to maybe step up and say "oops, maybe we made a mistake (ie,like concealed weapon being disciplineless, but that's another thread) but this is just my contributiong, and fresh point of view In article <BA06FD8BDD1B94F9.7039B593...@lp.airnews.net>, lor...@yahoo.com (Derek Ray) wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:37 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> > wrote: > > >Need I remind you Derek, that this kind of attitude was one of the major > >reasons for the formation of the NJL? What's not welcome is your attempt > >to prevent someone from having a discussion. If you don't like it, > >tough. You can bugger off and ignore the thread. > > Except it involves rehashing all the same old crap that went over last > time? It's just going to end up being the same people posting to the > thread repeating the same arguments. And if we DON'T post once > someone starts in on it, then we get a lopsided thread with few > counterarguments from one side, that doesn't accurately reflect the > status of things, especially if one of the counterarguments doesn't > get re-said. > > He actually DID come up with a new twist on a fix, which is neat and > lovely and new twists are GOOD and SHOULD be posted, but his basic > premise that "Wake is overcosted and sucks now" needs to be proven > first, and it hasn't been, as a read through Dejanews will show. > Decks utilizing Wake and not FA continue to make it to the finals and > win tournaments. In good, solid fashion. It certainly isn't as > powerful as it was before, but it still works fine. So it ticks me > off to see a message reading (cutnpasted): > > "I'm wondering if there's a better solution to give another cost, > other than the actual one, to the (once good) Wake with the Evening > Freshness. As it is now, the WwEF's cost is too bad: the hand > reduction size until the player's next untap is definitively > too much for a defensive card." > > It's not "once-good", it's still good. It's not DEFINITIVELY too much > - that was what all the arguments from before were about. It just > doesn't do a damn bit of good to see all those arguments again, > because it was beaten to death the last time by everyone. If someone > can come up with a new argument, that's excellent. It doesn't do a > damn bit of good to speculate about "fixes" for it, though, when it > hasn't even been established that the card is broken. > > >In the meantime, those of us interested in looking for good compromises > >to possbily mend some fences will continue to have a (hopefully) > >productive conversation. > > That'd be lovely. But re-lawnmowing old arguments won't be, it'll > just piss everyone off (as it's already done by pissing me off to even > see it, which has pissed you off from my response to it, and it's > probably pissed some other people off who just haven't said anything > at all.) > > Granted, my tone was pretty poor and I should've phrased it "Please > look through dejanews for the reasons why Wake is the way it is - your > premise was argued to death on the newsgroup recently, and it'd be > good to establish some new reasons as to why it's broken as opposed to > tossing out fixes first." But I hadn't had my morning coffee yet. ;) > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 night...@my-deja.com wrote: > apparently there is a problem here. I also agree that no game is > perfect on the first run, there does come a point when the masses are > screaming foul, Seemingly, a large number of the masses are not screaming foul. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006252347170.20262- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > <snip> Hello again James, Ok... to help me understand just what you are stating, do you have a copy of the deciding message traffic that stated the reason(s) why WwEF was changed in the first place. That way we (anyone and everyone who is still interested in this thread :) can see what it takes to be a reasoned and convincing argument for implementing a card change. As you have stated, we all seem to be walking through a revolving door here and it would be nice to stop it sometime in the near future while everyone still has some measure of tact left in them. > LSJ has stated before that it takes a reasoned argument to convince > him. All you've done so far is said that the errata makes it cost too > much. You haven't said *why* it makes it cost too much, or what more > appropriate cost you would give it and why, or work with deciding how much > each of these things costs (as has been done by Robert Goudie in similar > situations before). Just how much is a hand slot worth, in compartitive > terms? Look at t other cards that forced dicards, or reductions etc. Work > with those to work out what the cost really is. Again, all you really do > below is detail them. And you fail to take into account the voluntary > nature of playing a Wake. Raptor and Aggressive Tactics aren't anything > like the same, because you can't choose to have them played on you, as you > can with a wake, when it comes to that part of it - sure, the hand loss is > the same, but the timing is critical. > > <snip> > > > But the cost, again, is too much for the card effect. > > WwEF simply allows a player to have another chanche (vampire) for > > defend itself. Nothing more. > And so does FA. What I see here is WwEF was the only card prior to Sabbat that allowed people to reuse tapped minions for blocking/reactive purposes. However, let us not confuse blocking/reactive purposes as being only defensive against the prey. It also provides the ability to act against the prey and others on the table. As Derek has pointed out in another branch of this thread, most WwEF and FAs are used against the predator. Is this a true statement? I can understand where deflections/misdirections and reductions are concerned, yes. Those particular cards are primarily used against your predator (or from a bleed action passed on by your predator). But for now, let's focus on the potential of blocking actions initiated by your prey only. Any discussion of changing WwEF against the predator will never get anywhere as it is your turn next and effect of a reduced hand size is hardly even noticed. Where the issue of possible change occurs with when the action to modified or stopped is being conducted by your prey, then the issue of reduced hand size comes into being. Now if everybody never blocked actions of their prey, then again this has no point, but not everyone does that. Which is the greater of two penalties? Reduction of hand size or 1 point of blood on a minion. It all depends upon situation of what your hand contains and what you have on the table at the time. One point of blood can be easily recovered via Master card, a HG, another minion performing the refill action, hunting, or a combat (with Taste of Vitae or Theft of Vitae - as examples). The blood loss normally does not affect play (and will not if the minion has no blood to burn while using the FA and failing to block the action. In which case you, you have just created a cycle-a- free-card similar to the old WwEF.) The reduction in hand size with WwEF does have an impact by preventing the cycling of a useable card for nothing until your next untap phase. Again, if it is used against the predator, then the impact is slight. If used against anyone else other than the predator, then the impact is larger. Especially if multiple uses of WwEF are utilized. Each use imposes a reduction that can not be overcome until after your predator has taken their turn. But then, who would want to stop a Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo, certain political actions, the rescue of a minion from torpor, or a hunt (with the potential of sending the hunter into torpor). And while it has been pointed out that FA is more geared toward blocking and WwEF is geared more toward reaction cards, available quantity does come into play. After all, do you have any FAs that you would like to sell? And while numbers of cards available to the general public may not be a valid debatable point, it could be something that might be examined. However, on a different note, just based upon your experience on the Portsmouth Tournaments - how many of the winning decks (or even the decks that make it to the finals) consist of minions that average above 7? I am just wondering if there is a connection between lower cost minions (leaning toward the weenie decks) and the costs/effects of larger minion decks being able to properly defend themselves while also being effective against their prey. > And so basically gives them a free vampire. One they haven't had to payu > for, or had to spend time bring out. They get to act and block, with the > same vampire. Isn't that cost saving of X pool (where X is the size of > the reacting vampire) worth a temporary loss? It could well be, in manh > instances. The use of a "free" vampire to block or react with is inherent to both cards. Only one has a cost/effect of 1 blood for failure to block while the other has the long term cost/effect of reducing your hand size until your untap phase. Depending upon when the card plays varies the degree of the cost/effect it has. The loss of 1 blood does not IMO have the same sliding cost/effect, whether it is played in response to something your prey, grandprey, grand predator, or predator does. Only WwEF has this effect. Why? > > > Sure, a given cost should prevent the inherent abuse of a card (WweF > > included, and that was the scope for changing his cost). > > However the cost should be well proportioned to the card (possible) > > effects. > > If they were so out of proportion, those of us who *can* play FA, would be > playing it by the truck load. This simply isn't happening. > Well, the proportion of FAs to WwEF distributed worldwide could have a bearing upon that. However, I have never taken that kind of statistical poll before. But then again, proactive decks tend to be the ones that win tournaments, while reactive decks do not. However, decks that can react to outside actions (whether to block or modify) seem to be the ones that make it to the finals (besides the all mighty speed bleed with either stealth or Misdirections). I seem to recall a posting by Rob T on the subject of intercept and how it seems to have fallen into disuse, especially at tournaments. Is it because decks that possess intercept don't make it into the finals because they are too reactive or is it because they have to pay cost/effects that seem to outweigh the use of a strategy built on disruption of opposing minion actions coupled with politics, combat, or bleed to take the table? Enough said... Michael -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:19:13 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >I can understand where deflections/misdirections and reductions are >concerned, yes. Those particular cards are primarily used against your >predator (or from a bleed action passed on by your predator). But for >now, let's focus on the potential of blocking actions initiated by your >prey only. Any discussion of changing WwEF against the predator will In other words, "aggressive intercept". We defined these terms awhile ago in Atlanta, mostly while trying to make a tourney-winner intercept deck. Passive intercept is stuff included in your deck such as KRCG, or a Sport Bike or two, or a few intercept cards, pretty much designed to hang around and stop anything you didn't think of or don't have a convenient defense against; often it's someone trying to sneak in an equip action with an Ivory Bow or Flamethrower. It's usually directed against your predator as a defense. Another word would be, in fact, "defensive intercept". Aggressive intercept is putting in a good chunk of intercept (often with Eagle's Sight included), such that instead of just hanging around and stopping occasional obnoxious actions, you intend to take every opportunity to stop your prey's deck from doing its thing as WELL as take actions on your own. A very hard-core intercept or intercept combat deck will usually leave several minions untapped -instead- of taking actions. That's not especially relevant at the moment. >never get anywhere as it is your turn next and effect of a reduced hand >size is hardly even noticed. Where the issue of possible change occurs Well, if you Wake 3 times you start noticing the reduced hand size very quickly. But you also got to surprise your predator 3 times and (most likely) totally halt his strategy, WHILE tapping out against your prey. >with when the action to modified or stopped is being conducted by your >prey, then the issue of reduced hand size comes into being. Now if >everybody never blocked actions of their prey, then again this has no >point, but not everyone does that. Which is the greater of two OK, now go back here a second. Not everyone does that, true - but don't you agree that it's a significant advantage for me to, say, take an action to equip the Ivory Bow, and then when you go to get a Flak Jacket, immediately Force Awake and send your first vampire to torpor? Or worse, play Eagle's Sight and step in front of your Govern + Condition that was "guaranteed" to get through because your prey hadn't brought out a vamp yet? By the abilities of one card, in this case Forced Awakening, I've put a -severe- hurting on you. Aggressive intercept is a powerful strategy. Fortunately, it is very difficult to do well - the amount of cards required to untap, guarantee the intercept, kill the interceptee, survive the combat, and then oust your prey eventually tends to be prohibitive, especially when faced with either multiple heavy stealth decks or any combat decks. Interestingly, the card of choice for aggressive intercept is Forced Awakening -- because you EXPECT to block, not Deflect. >penalties? Reduction of hand size or 1 point of blood on a minion. It >all depends upon situation of what your hand contains and what you have >on the table at the time. One point of blood can be easily recovered >via Master card, a HG, another minion performing the refill action, >hunting, or a combat (with Taste of Vitae or Theft of Vitae - as >examples). The blood loss normally does not affect play (and will not >if the minion has no blood to burn while using the FA and failing to >block the action. In which case you, you have just created a cycle-a- >free-card similar to the old WwEF.) The reduction in hand size with This is such a straw man. Using a vampire with one blood to Deflect or zero blood to "fail to block" is an extreme corner case, and in almost no situation would it actually be desirable to leave a vamp with zero blood -deliberately-. It's not much MORE desirable to leave a vamp with one blood to do the FA/Deflection, either. I wish everyone would back off of this particular bright idea - it's been stepped on numerous times now. >WwEF does have an impact by preventing the cycling of a useable card >for nothing until your next untap phase. Again, if it is used against >the predator, then the impact is slight. If used against anyone else The impact is, in fact, LESS than Forced Awakening, especially when you start Deflecting, Tel. Countering, etc. >other than the predator, then the impact is larger. Especially if >multiple uses of WwEF are utilized. Each use imposes a reduction that And again, how many times are you going to want to Wake and -not- block your prey? Everyone loves to quote the "wake, elder kindred network, kindred coercion" combo, but simply put, your prey has to be calling votes for this to be anything other than dead space in your deck. And you have to be playing big Ventrue or you can't use the KC properly. Wake/EKN/Dread Gaze works with little Ventrue, but to turn a vote passing into a vote failing means it's, on average, a bleed for 2, and you used 3 cards to do it. Yuck. In reality, the vote reaction cards don't see the light of day very much, because to defend against a voting predator OR prey it's easier to include +1/+2 intercept (which can also be used to stop other things). Reaction cards such as Dread Gaze alone won't stop a dedicated vote deck for very long because of the transient nature of DG - which you won't have very many of in your deck, as they'll be dead space against combat/bleed decks. So for vote decks, it turns out to be better to just use intercept - and that's why the vote reaction cards rarely get used. >can not be overcome until after your predator has taken their turn. >But then, who would want to stop a Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo, If you intend to block an action, use Forced Awakening. >certain political actions, the rescue of a minion from torpor, or a >hunt (with the potential of sending the hunter into torpor). And while If you intend to block an action, use Forced Awakening. Three of your four examples are "block" examples. Political actions were mentioned above. >it has been pointed out that FA is more geared toward blocking and WwEF >is geared more toward reaction cards, available quantity does come into >play. After all, do you have any FAs that you would like to sell? Available quantity and card rarity should never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER be a factor in determining errata! If that were so, then I have a complete list of cards that I don't have which I consider to be overpowered and I'd like to make errata that favors the cards I *do* have. Disarm comes to mind. I own none. I want a card that does the same for me as Disarm. Let's find a Potence card to errata! To use an ugly cliche, it's a slippery slope that you DON'T want to start down. Ever. Or you ruin the game. >And while numbers of cards available to the general public may not be a >valid debatable point, it could be something that might be examined. No, it couldn't. >However, on a different note, just based upon your experience on the >Portsmouth Tournaments - how many of the winning decks (or even the >decks that make it to the finals) consist of minions that average above >7? I am just wondering if there is a connection between lower cost Minion Tap/5th Tradition is not at ALL uncommon. It's better to evaluate the decks that make it to the finals, as opposed to the winning decks, as often seating position in the finals can determine a lot. >minions (leaning toward the weenie decks) and the costs/effects of >larger minion decks being able to properly defend themselves while also >being effective against their prey. Except that Wake isn't capacity-restricted, so the idea of unrestricting Wake in order to make big vamp decks more effective falls over to the fact that it just makes little vamp decks equally more effective. >The use of a "free" vampire to block or react with is inherent to both >cards. Only one has a cost/effect of 1 blood for failure to block >while the other has the long term cost/effect of reducing your hand >size until your untap phase. Depending upon when the card plays varies >the degree of the cost/effect it has. The loss of 1 blood does not IMO >have the same sliding cost/effect, whether it is played in response to >something your prey, grandprey, grand predator, or predator does. Only >WwEF has this effect. Why? Sure it does. WWEF "slides" along the scale of when in progress around the table you play it. FA "slides" along the scale of what you're going to DO with it when you play it. You're comparing the X and Y axes of a graph here, really. >> If they were so out of proportion, those of us who *can* play FA, >would be >> playing it by the truck load. This simply isn't happening. >> >Well, the proportion of FAs to WwEF distributed worldwide could have a >bearing upon that. However, I have never taken that kind of Un-bloody-likely. If my deck can't GUARANTEE a block, I'm not about to put FA's in it. Stealth is all over the place and very easy to get, and betting that a piddly little +1 intercept is usually going to succeed is a good way to lose. If the proportions were increased I'm sure you'd see the same reaction, especially after a few people put lots of FAs in their deflect-decks and ran out of actions to take because their vamps all had no blood. >statistical poll before. But then again, proactive decks tend to be >the ones that win tournaments, while reactive decks do not. However, >decks that can react to outside actions (whether to block or modify) >seem to be the ones that make it to the finals (besides the all mighty >speed bleed with either stealth or Misdirections). I seem to recall a >posting by Rob T on the subject of intercept and how it seems to have >fallen into disuse, especially at tournaments. Is it because decks >that possess intercept don't make it into the finals because they are >too reactive or is it because they have to pay cost/effects that seem >to outweigh the use of a strategy built on disruption of opposing >minion actions coupled with politics, combat, or bleed to take the >table? Intercept tends to fail because of several reasons. One, it's too reactive. Your prey will generally take a number of bleed actions during the game. Those actions cannot be blocked by you without Eagle's Sight. This puts a real cramp in your intercept deck, especially once your prey realizes that he's "safe" from you as long as he just keeps going forward - which makes him oust his own prey faster. Which means you oust him probably not at all. So a successful intercept deck MUST use superior Auspex and include a number of Eagle's Sight cards. Two, it requires a significant deck-space investment to be able to stop most actions. A good base number to shoot for is +3 intercept - this allows you to stop a Lost in Crowds + Cloak the Gathering, and will keep you out well ahead of most actions, except against a heavy-stealth deck. Unfortunately, it is easier to generate stealth than intercept, so intercept tends to lose. Three, you have the Dog and the Mail Truck problem - what do you do when you catch them? To oust your prey, you need to remove his resources, so you generally want to kill them. This means you need some sort of WAY to kill them, not something that Auspex clans outside the Tzimisce specialise in. Tremere combat is too card-intensive to mix with good intercept, and the Malks and Toreador have to rely on guns. Guns are expensive, putting another thorn in the interceptor's side - he now has to include enough blood gain to pay for his weaponry. Four, once you kill all your prey's vamps, how do you oust him? More deck space, and/or a bunch of small bleeds. Five, how do you do 1-4 without BEING ousted? More deck space and LOTS of untap cards since you'll be tapped out from blocking or bleeding your prey. Notice something? The untap (wake/FA) problem doesn't come into play until WAY down near the tail end... on your predator's turn. The real problems with intercept decks succeeding don't lie with the untaps at all - Guard Dogs/Rat's Warning are excellent cards, and Cat's Guidance at inferior is tailor-made for ANY intercept deck - why would you FA *or* Wake when you can CG on the action before? The problems are when you try to make a deck that can stop things, beat things up, and then bleed forward as well. It's three deck types combined into one, and it is very hard to make work - you usually end up having beat-things-up cards in hand instead of intercept when you need it. Or you have only lots of intercept and your vamp gets beat up instead of the other guy first time you stop something. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

> > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it gives > in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than the > actual one. > And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between > the "old" cost and the actual one. What do you think of my proposed fix? Errata: When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players before you place it in your hand. Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

> What do you think of my proposed fix? > > Errata: > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > before you place it in your hand. > > Justicar. > ahem... i sense a note of another thread best left buried.... In all reality i don't think it needs a fix (from the errata) before that it was darn annoying when an intercept deck could de-clog with one minion, who never sucessfully blocks the last action of anyone at the table, and then has six new cards next turn (this actually has happened to me before we found all the errata in my group) The new cost is expensive, lost hand size can cripple a deck, but again, I would state that any deck that it is prohibitivly expensive to, Aggressive intercept, straight combat [the only 2 i can see off the top of my head] would use FA anyway, because they block. Personally I use wakes in a deflect/bleed/vote deck, because i don;t like the restriction on 2nd Trad (must attempt to block) and usually only use this on my predator, and 2nd Trad in my brujah princely combat deck, because i like the non- auspex intercept. I don't have sabbat, but would use the FA's in an intercept deck without princes available. Sum it all up: Is WWEF expensive, yes. To expensive to use? NO, and i wouldn't replace it with FA's if i could, ditto an errata change. my two cents [take a penny, leave a penny] Cameron [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FD8B84E4B446984E.EEBB84FC...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > In other words, "aggressive intercept". > Sounds great, aggressive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping everything the prey attempts. passive intercept => deck able to stop +1 stealth actions upon occasion. defensive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping everything the predator attempts. I like the terms, however, how they are used once you stop the action is where your deck design can branch out. If I want to try and pound the "offender" into the dust then I need cards that will do so. If all I want to do is stall the other player, then just stopping the action is all that is required. If I have Presence, then I can just S:CE out. No damage to either party, but the action failed. Now going against a dedicated combat deck with this could be suicide, but I rarely see dedicated combat decks anymore. <snip> > > OK, now go back here a second. Not everyone does that, true - but > don't you agree that it's a significant advantage for me to, say, take > an action to equip the Ivory Bow, and then when you go to get a Flak > Jacket, immediately Force Awake and send your first vampire to torpor? > Or worse, play Eagle's Sight and step in front of your Govern + > Condition that was "guaranteed" to get through because your prey > hadn't brought out a vamp yet? By the abilities of one card, in this > case Forced Awakening, I've put a -severe- hurting on you. I agree with the above statement. If I had the cards to do so, then I would do it, with either FA or WwEF. > <snip> > I wish everyone would back off of this particular bright idea - it's > been stepped on numerous times now. Yes it has, hasn't it. But it does make an interesting case study. :) <snip>> > Available quantity and card rarity should never, ever, ever, ever, > ever, EVER be a factor in determining errata! If that were so, then I > have a complete list of cards that I don't have which I consider to be > overpowered and I'd like to make errata that favors the cards I *do* > have. Disarm comes to mind. I own none. I want a card that does the > same for me as Disarm. Let's find a Potence card to errata! > > To use an ugly cliche, it's a slippery slope that you DON'T want to > start down. Ever. Or you ruin the game. In all other areas, Derek, I would completely agree with you. However, I am talking about a card that already has been altered. In fact, to cut to the chase as this thread has already topped the Reveal Card thread (yeah!), what I am looking for now is the WHY and REASONING the card was changed to what it currently is. Why was WwEF changed 180 degrees from what it was? Why wasn't it toned down to instead? If FA opened the door to the change in WwEF, then why wasn't the card brought down to the same level as FA, but with a different effect. What I am see now is FA has a Pass/Fail cost effect while WwEF has a Fail/Fail cost effect. (From it's previous Pass/Pass effect). I have already looked to information that leads to this information and I can not find it. The short blurb on how it was too powerful of a card that allowed free cycling made the change necessary is great, but it doesn't provide the information that would help me (and possibly others) understand the reason it has been brought to it's current errata. Hence, the reason why I suggested bringing it down to the same level as FA but the cost/effect being different as FA appears to be the base line from which WwEF is modeled from. Help me understand or another way of putting it... teach me how to fish... <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FD8B84E4B446984E.EEBB84FC...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > In other words, "aggressive intercept". > Sounds great, aggressive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping everything the prey attempts. passive intercept => deck able to stop +1 stealth actions upon occasion. defensive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping everything the predator attempts. I like the terms, however, how they are used once you stop the action is where your deck design can branch out. If I want to try and pound the "offender" into the dust then I need cards that will do so. If all I want to do is stall the other player, then just stopping the action is all that is required. If I have Presence, then I can just S:CE out. No damage to either party, but the action failed. Now going against a dedicated combat deck with this could be suicide, but I rarely see dedicated combat decks anymore. <snip> > > OK, now go back here a second. Not everyone does that, true - but > don't you agree that it's a significant advantage for me to, say, take > an action to equip the Ivory Bow, and then when you go to get a Flak > Jacket, immediately Force Awake and send your first vampire to torpor? > Or worse, play Eagle's Sight and step in front of your Govern + > Condition that was "guaranteed" to get through because your prey > hadn't brought out a vamp yet? By the abilities of one card, in this > case Forced Awakening, I've put a -severe- hurting on you. I agree with the above statement. If I had the cards to do so, then I would do it, with either FA or WwEF. > <snip> > I wish everyone would back off of this particular bright idea - it's > been stepped on numerous times now. Yes it has, hasn't it. But it does make an interesting case study. :) <snip>> > Available quantity and card rarity should never, ever, ever, ever, > ever, EVER be a factor in determining errata! If that were so, then I > have a complete list of cards that I don't have which I consider to be > overpowered and I'd like to make errata that favors the cards I *do* > have. Disarm comes to mind. I own none. I want a card that does the > same for me as Disarm. Let's find a Potence card to errata! > > To use an ugly cliche, it's a slippery slope that you DON'T want to > start down. Ever. Or you ruin the game. In all other areas, Derek, I would completely agree with you. However, I am talking about a card that already has been altered. In fact, to cut to the chase as this thread is closing the gap in posts with the Reveal Card thread (yeah!). What I am looking for now is the WHY and REASONING the card was changed to what it currently is. Why was WwEF changed 180 degrees from what it was? Why wasn't it toned down instead? If FA opened the door to the change in WwEF, then why wasn't the card brought down to the same level as FA, but with a different effect? What I am seeing is FA has a Pass/Fail cost effect while WwEF has a Fail/Fail cost effect. (From it's previous limited Pass/Pass effect). I have already looked to information that leads to this information and I can not find it. The short blurb on it was too powerful of a card that allowed free cycling of cards made the change necessary is great, but it doesn't provide the information that would help me (and possibly others) understand the reason it has been brought to it's current errata. Hence, the reason why I suggested bringing it down to the same level as FA but the cost/effect being different as FA appears to be the base line from which WwEF is modeled from. Help me understand without sending me to some site. Post it for all to read, please. Either that or email it to me. Thanks <snip> [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8j8utd$a0t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it gives > > in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than the > > actual one. > > And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between > > the "old" cost and the actual one. > > What do you think of my proposed fix? > > Errata: > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > before you place it in your hand. > > Justicar. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > The idea is nice and original. However i think isn't enough as a cost, considering the actual is much more. Pheraps you mean that WwEF would be still a "do not replace until the end of (combat or, better, turn)" in addiction to the effect you say above. A good idea i think. The question is: how many people would agree with such change? Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

I don't usually post but... "Justicar" <just...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8j8utd$a0t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it gives > > in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than the > > actual one. > > And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between > > the "old" cost and the actual one. > > What do you think of my proposed fix? > > Errata: > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > before you place it in your hand. > > Justicar. Not bad or how about: replace this card during the next players untap phase. That way you can still use it to block your prey and still defend against your pred. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:21:20 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><FD8B84E4B446984E.EEBB84FC...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: ><snip> >> In other words, "aggressive intercept". >> >Sounds great, aggressive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping >everything the prey attempts. >passive intercept => deck able to stop +1 stealth actions upon occasion. >defensive intercept => deck dedicated to stopping everything the >predator attempts. > >I like the terms, however, how they are used once you stop the action >is where your deck design can branch out. If I want to try and pound >the "offender" into the dust then I need cards that will do so. If all >I want to do is stall the other player, then just stopping the action >is all that is required. If I have Presence, then I can just S:CE >out. No damage to either party, but the action failed. Now going >against a dedicated combat deck with this could be suicide, but I >rarely see dedicated combat decks anymore. There are a stinkin' lot of those decks 'round here. Majesty is a risky card to play if it's not in a fast deck. It's worth noting that "intercept-and-run-away" is not a real viable course of action for an aggressive intercept deck. Sure, you stop his actions, but you also make it no easier on yourself to oust him - much like spinning your own wheels. Defensive intercept can get away with doing this (in fact, probably SHOULD), but defensive intercept decks generally only gain the last 2 VPs at a table, which can be a losing proposition since their prey has probably swept and got the other 3. >Yes it has, hasn't it. But it does make an interesting case study. :) It's amusing to see that it's possible, yes. =) But actually being able to use it to your advantage in anything other than the occasional random situation, well.. *chuckle* >> Available quantity and card rarity should never, ever, ever, ever, >> ever, EVER be a factor in determining errata! If that were so, then I >> (snipped my own Disarm example) >> To use an ugly cliche, it's a slippery slope that you DON'T want to >> start down. Ever. Or you ruin the game. > >In all other areas, Derek, I would completely agree with you. However, >I am talking about a card that already has been altered. In fact, to Correct. But it was altered originally for reasons of balance, as opposed to reasons of rarity. If you alter a card because the other, "cool" card is too rare and not easily available, you sort of ruin the concept of rarity in the first place, ya know? Not a good thing for ANY CCG to do, as Magic discovered. >cut to the chase as this thread is closing the gap in posts with the >Reveal Card thread (yeah!). What I am looking for now is the WHY and >REASONING the card was changed to what it currently is. Why was WwEF >changed 180 degrees from what it was? Why wasn't it toned down It wasn't changed 180 degrees from what it was. It now has a cost, where before it didn't. >instead? If FA opened the door to the change in WwEF, then why wasn't FA didn't open the door to the change in WWEF. WWEF was changed because the card as it existed was overpowered. >the card brought down to the same level as FA, but with a different >effect? What I am seeing is FA has a Pass/Fail cost effect while WwEF >has a Fail/Fail cost effect. (From it's previous limited Pass/Pass Except WWEF does not have a Fail/Fail cost effect. As myself and many others have stated, FA is a blocking card. WwEF is a deflection (or other non-blocking reaction) card. When using WWEF to react against your predator, the disadvantage is so slight as to be almost nonexistent. It fits well in a passive intercept deck. You could even use it in a defensive intercept deck, provided you remembered to make the combat involved SMALL, and not like the Tremere's "trap/maneuver/theft/maneuver/walk". Now, FA has a purpose. WWEF has a purpose. They provide similar effects with different costs depending on what you plan to do. >effect). I have already looked to information that leads to this >information and I can not find it. The short blurb on it was too Somewhere back in this thread, James Coupe mentioned Judith and Mark's page. I'm going to point you there as soon as I find the link... (time passes) http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/Strategy/DeckBuilding.html Look under the heading marked "Wake with Evening's Freshness - an Exception to the Triangle Effect". It demonstrates quite well just why Wake was overpowered, and why it required errata. >powerful of a card that allowed free cycling of cards made the change >necessary is great, but it doesn't provide the information that would >help me (and possibly others) understand the reason it has been brought >to it's current errata. Hence, the reason why I suggested bringing it Because the Rules Team thought about it, debated it, and said "This seems appropriate"? We are not privy to Rules Team discussions. I can't answer for you exactly WHY they decided to pick this particular errata. You could ask LSJ if you want. What I can answer is, since then, under rigorous review (all of us playing with Wake and the new errata in various tournaments and locally, roughly ever since the 7/7 rulings), we've discovered that the new errata is NOT BROKEN. You can't just casually burn Wakes all over the damn place anymore and you can't just include a gazillion in your deck "just in case". The hand reduction just doesn't put as much of a crimp in deck style as y'all think it does. Nor does it screw you silly and make the card wallpaper. And we see a LOT of Wake in Atlanta - Forced Awakening only rears its little head in determined-intercept situations. >down to the same level as FA but the cost/effect being different as FA >appears to be the base line from which WwEF is modeled from. Help me FA was not, however, the baseline from which WWEF was modeled. It is a completely different card. It was created for Sabbat. It was most likely created to avoid reprinting WWEF, for any of a number of possible reasons. >understand without sending me to some site. Post it for all to read, >please. Either that or email it to me. Thanks It's common USENET practice, in fact, to provide links to sites where the discussion has already taken place, so that nobody has to go through it again, so I have. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? The question is: is the card currently broken? The answer is: No. Nobody has yet shown that it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > Seemingly, a large number of the masses are not screaming foul. > They are just foaming at the mouth from trying to explain the current rules to the screaming masses. Raille

>But then, who would want to stop a Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo, If you intend to block an action, use Forced Awakening. >certain political actions, the rescue of a minion from torpor, or a >hunt (with the potential of sending the hunter into torpor). And while If you intend to block an action, use Forced Awakening. Three of your four examples are "block" examples. Political actions were mentioned above. And the reason for always using FA to block an action is? Bonus point if you said it has a Zero Cost effect. WwEF is NOT used simply becuase there is a cost attributed to it, even beofre the current rulings. Once FA was printed, dedicated intercepts decks went to it and away from WwEF. At that point the play balance had already begun to swing to a more balanced point in the game play. Raille

>REASONING the card was changed to what it currently is. Why was WwEF >changed 180 degrees from what it was? Why wasn't it toned down It wasn't changed 180 degrees from what it was. It now has a cost, where before it didn't. Had to comment, but if a card has no cost and then is given a cost, I think that at least 180 degree change comment is acceptable usage. Raille

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? > > The question is: is the card currently broken? > > The answer is: No. > > Nobody has yet shown that it is. > > -- Derek and nobody will either. But the card is very damned annoying, to have to a compete passing of the table cycles. I quit using WwEf instead FA Rats, cats, 2nd Trad, and Attonement to avoid the Dread Loss on my hand. Raille

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:17:56 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >If you intend to block an action, use Forced Awakening. Three of your >four examples are "block" examples. Political actions were mentioned >above. > >And the reason for always using FA to block an action is? > >Bonus point if you said it has a Zero Cost effect. Minimal cost. If you fail to block, and lord knows there ARE plenty of heavy-stealth decks out there - Forgotten Labyrinth is a difficult card for dedicated intercept to deal with. It's tempting to go beat up those inferior-OBF Night Moves guys too, sometimes. There have been plenty of times where I've failed to "catch" someone with my intercept decks and FA before, causing me to have to burn a blood. The potential cost is there. WWEF's cost is also "potential". If you Wake on your prey's action, you potentially will be screwed on a card you might need on your predator's action. If you Wake on your predator's action, the potential is a lot less, but you could still be screwed on his very next action. But there is no cost if someone pulls +6 stealth out of their ass, either. >WwEF is NOT used simply becuase there is a cost attributed to it, even But WWEF is used plenty, as has been pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES NOW. Nobody seems to get it. You see wake-and-deflect, and FA-and-block decks, and sometimes even wake-and-block decks. Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? It seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. It's a simple question. What's wrong with it? >beofre the current rulings. Once FA was printed, dedicated intercepts >decks went to it and away from WwEF. At that point the play balance had >already begun to swing to a more balanced point in the game play. I'm not sure what play balance has to do with the whole topic, unless you're talking about WWEF being a freebie card. The point was NOT that dedicated intercept would screw up the game, it was that it was now a logical action to put 8 Wakes in -every single deck-, because you could always get rid of them quickly if you ended up having no use for them. A RUSH deck could put 8 wakes in, something that's pretty damn silly to do in a deck with no intercept. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:29:50 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >Derek Ray wrote: >> >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? >> The question is: is the card currently broken? >> The answer is: No. >> Nobody has yet shown that it is. > >and nobody will either. > >But the card is very damned annoying, to have to a compete passing of >the table cycles. Oh, don't get me wrong, Waking on your prey's actions can be very tricky to deal with. If you don't have a second Wake in hand, you could end up screwed. But FA works mostly the same way - there's never a guarantee of drawing up a new untap card. Mostly, I don't worry about it though. If you successfully Wake and stop your prey's action (see my Ivory Bow/Wake example somewhere else in this thread, to Ramsteiner), the benefit to you is normally significant. I'll gladly take a bleed against myself to turn one of my prey's useful vamps into a dead one. Especially if that happens to be his ONLY vampire and he's now defenseless. >I quit using WwEf instead FA Rats, cats, 2nd Trad, and Attonement to >avoid the Dread Loss on my hand. (shrug) Your choice. Misdirection/Sleeping Mind burns you on all of those except FA though. =) And weenie Dominate decks still haven't made it out of fashion yet, I'm afraid. *sigh* Also, how do you Deflect? Pay an extra blood? Ewww. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That's just the Guinness dribbling into my beard. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8j9r2j$tqf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <8j8utd$a0t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it > gives > > > in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than the > > > actual one. > > > And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between > > > the "old" cost and the actual one. > > > > What do you think of my proposed fix? > > > > Errata: > > > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > > before you place it in your hand. > > > > Justicar. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > > > > The idea is nice and original. > However i think isn't enough as a cost, considering > the actual is much more. > Pheraps you mean that WwEF would be still a "do not replace until the > end of (combat or, better, turn)" > in addiction to the effect you say above. Yeah, I actually meant that original card text would be retained, and the errata added on. That means you wouldn't replace the card until after combat, and then you'd have to show the replacement. > A good idea i think. > The question is: how many people would agree with such change? Who knows? I think the people who do want a change, all want different solutions... Justicar. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8jbmet$bvr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] that would go against the whole revealing cards thing (somehow..) how about... If you wish to replace the card at the end of your turn...pay 1 blood or pool, if not then replace at the next untap phase. this would keep it even across the board (for combat decks, and deflectors) and would also hold the cyclers down, or let them do it but then they are going to pay for it. night_mage [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3958C8...@mich.com>, rai...@mich.com wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? > > > > The question is: is the card currently broken? > > > > The answer is: No. > > > > Nobody has yet shown that it is. > > > > -- Derek > > and nobody will either. > > But the card is very damned annoying, to have to a compete passing of > the table cycles. > > I quit using WwEf instead FA Rats, cats, 2nd Trad, and Attonement to > avoid the Dread Loss on my hand. > > Raille > It almost looks odd that you favor the current errata, yet have denounced the use of the card. Then again, we don't know what types of decks you favor. Michael Eichler -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <537DC76CEF5D97CF.EB6B92B9...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? > > The question is: is the card currently broken? Actually Derek, the original question of this thread dealt with new possible rewritings of the WwEF card and suggestions were requested. > > The answer is: No. > My personal take on the WwEF card as it was originally printed was to view it as a tool to allow deflections and block attempts. I was guilty of using as a cycler a few times, but as I usually kept the number of Wakes within my decks low I normally didn't resort to the cycling aspect that often. I had seen it used as a cycling tool by other players, but never really felt it was abusive. I suppose we never saw anyone place 15+ Wakes within their decks. Then again we would have felt it kind of silly to do such a thing as you were limited by deck size and the Wakes were displacing other useful cards. My reaction to the WwEF errata, when I came back into the game after a dropping out due to work and moving, was quite negative. Yes, the card provided free, free, free; but the errata seemed excessive in it's correction. I still feel that way today. Rhen again, I haven't been too fond of some of the erratas that have pop out. Oh, I can see how some of the errata is designed to correct cards that have been abused or possess the potential of abuse when used in large numbers (No ammo cards with zip guns, alteration of the Tomb, etc.), but then we are not suppose to talk about numbers when it comes to cards. Is the card broke? No. Does the errata appear excessive? IMO, yes. And some other people feel the same way as well. Hence, the reason for this thread. > Nobody has yet shown that it is. Again, I don't think the card is broke, just excessive. I know, I know... FA for blocks and WwEF for other reaction cards... Now to break from all of this. I am curious about the use of 2nd Traditions. From the last I heard, it can be used by either a tapped or untapped Prince or Justicar based upon the wording of "Usable by a tapped vampire". However, one of the posts I seem to remember stated that you could use it on a tapped Prince/Justicar during a 0 stealth bleed action used against you. This doesn't sound right. It is a reaction +2 intercept card, is it not? And are you not limited to only using intercept only if stealth is applied after a block attempt is declared? What was the last you heard of this? Michael Eichler > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8jc38f$kq3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, night...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <8jbmet$bvr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > In article <8j9r2j$tqf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > In article <8j8utd$a0t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > > Justicar <just...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > I think, still, that WwEF, for its potential use and for what it > > > gives > > > > > in terms of deck strategy, should have a slightly less cost than > > the > > > > > actual one. > > > > > And i'm very looking for a good (compromise) solution, between > > > > > the "old" cost and the actual one. > > > > > > > > What do you think of my proposed fix? > > > > > > > > Errata: > > > > > > > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all > > players > > > > before you place it in your hand. > > > > > > > > Justicar. > > > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > > > Before you buy. > > > > > > > > > > The idea is nice and original. > > > However i think isn't enough as a cost, considering > > > the actual is much more. > > > Pheraps you mean that WwEF would be still a "do not replace until > the > > > end of (combat or, better, turn)" > > > in addiction to the effect you say above. > > > > Yeah, I actually meant that original card text would be retained, and > > the errata added on. That means you wouldn't replace the card until > > after combat, and then you'd have to show the replacement. > > > > > A good idea i think. > > > The question is: how many people would agree with such change? > > > > Who knows? I think the people who do want a change, all want different > > solutions... > > > > Justicar. > > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy. > > that would go against the whole revealing cards thing (somehow..) how > about... > If you wish to replace the card at the end of your turn...pay 1 blood > or pool, if not then replace at the next untap phase. > > this would keep it even across the board (for combat decks, and > deflectors) and would also hold the cyclers down, or let them do it but > then they are going to pay for it. > To give a cost ( pay 1 blood or pool to replace this card at the end of turn") to avoid paying another cost (...or replace the card on next untap), would really break WwEF in front of FA. Definitively, if a new solution will ever come out, then it should be on a "single cost" for WwEF. Anyway, thanks. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > night_mage [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > I am curious about the use of 2nd > Traditions. From the last I heard, it can be used by either a tapped > or untapped Prince or Justicar based upon the wording of "Usable by a > tapped vampire". However, one of the posts I seem to remember stated > that you could use it on a tapped Prince/Justicar during a 0 stealth > bleed action used against you. This doesn't sound right. It is a > reaction +2 intercept card, is it not? And are you not limited to only > using intercept only if stealth is applied after a block attempt is > declared? What was the last you heard of this? You must have need of either the untap effect (be tapped) or of the intercept in order to use the card, by the errata. From the web site's card list: Second Tradition: Domain, The Cardtype: Reaction Requires ready Prince or Justicar. {+2 intercept. Also usable by a tapped Prince or Justicar, even if intercept is not yet needed, to untap and attempt to block with +2 intercept}. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

> > tapped vampire". However, one of the posts I seem to remember stated > > that you could use it on a tapped Prince/Justicar during a 0 stealth > > bleed action used against you. This doesn't sound right. [snip] > You must have need of either the untap effect (be tapped) or of the > intercept in order to use the card, by the errata. From the web site's > card list: This is another thing that irks me. While I really like 2ndTrad now, there was a time when people complained about the card because it was very hard to use as you needed both a tapped prince *and* intercept to use. This restriction essentially made it wallpaper (although, not quite). Now, there it has been said many, many times by LSJ and people from the pro errata camp (such as James Coupe, Derek Ray, etc.) that errata is (or should) never be made to make wallpaper cards more powerful (in response to suggested errata to underpowered cards). But what happened here? This card did not need errata as it was not broken. There was no confusion as to how the card worked. So why? To make it more usable? To make it so that it was no longer wallpaper? If this is the case, then I don't think there is much of a leg to stand on for not changing the underpowered cards to be a little more usable. It would be very hypocritical to say that underpowered cards shouldn't be errata'd to be more usable if that is what happened here. Sorrow --- Dear God, don't know if you noticed, but... your name is on a lot of quotes in this book, and us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look, and all the people that you made in your image still believing that junk is true. Well I know it ain't, and so do you, dear God, I can't believe in I don't believe in...

Sorrow wrote: > > You must have need of either the untap effect (be tapped) or of the > > intercept in order to use the card, by the errata. > > This is another thing that irks me. While I really like 2ndTrad now, there > was a time when people complained about the card because it was very > hard to use as you needed both a tapped prince *and* intercept to use. > This restriction essentially made it wallpaper (although, not quite). Now, > there it has been said many, many times by LSJ and people from the pro > errata camp (such as James Coupe, Derek Ray, etc.) that errata is (or > should) never be made to make wallpaper cards more powerful (in > response to suggested errata to underpowered cards). But what happened > here? This card did not need errata as it was not broken. There was no > confusion as to how the card worked. So why? To make it more usable? > To make it so that it was no longer wallpaper? > If this is the case, then I don't think there is much of a leg to stand on > for > not changing the underpowered cards to be a little more usable. It would > be very hypocritical to say that underpowered cards shouldn't be errata'd > to be more usable if that is what happened here. There is no rule against making wallpaper cards more powerful. There is a rule against issuing errata for no purpose other than making a wallpaper card more powerful. 2ndTrad was errata'ed to undo the errata to the Jyhad card (adding the word "only") that got carried over to the V:TES printing. See also Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Since errata was to be issued anyhow, it was decided to make the errata a little stronger than just removing the V:TES change. If the card had been printed in V:TES so as to match the Jyhad text (without the errata), then the errata to boost it to be usable even if the intercept was not yet needed would not have been added. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:23:15 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><537DC76CEF5D97CF.EB6B92B9...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> >> >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? >> >> The question is: is the card currently broken? > >Actually Derek, the original question of this thread dealt with new >possible rewritings of the WwEF card and suggestions were requested. However, WWEF won't get rewritten unless it's demonstrated that the card is currently "broken" - and usually the definition of "broken" does NOT include underpowered, but for a card like WWEF it's appropriate to make an exception and include underpowered. There's been a policy from LSJ and the current Rules Team to make no errata that is unnecessary. The original errata was necessary, and most people will agree with that. Whether additional errata (confusing people even MORE) is necessary is still up for debate. To that extent I'd suggest *first* you need to convince everyone that the card even needs to be changed before you solicit suggestions. So the question still is... is the card currently broken? >> The answer is: No. >> >My personal take on the WwEF card as it was originally printed was to >view it as a tool to allow deflections and block attempts. I was It permits a vampire to take an action, and still react to an action, whether it be by deflecting, blocking, or whatever. The important bit is that it permits re-use of the same vampire for offense and defense. >guilty of using as a cycler a few times, but as I usually kept the >number of Wakes within my decks low I normally didn't resort to the >cycling aspect that often. I had seen it used as a cycling tool by >other players, but never really felt it was abusive. I suppose we >never saw anyone place 15+ Wakes within their decks. Then again we >would have felt it kind of silly to do such a thing as you were limited >by deck size and the Wakes were displacing other useful cards. When you have a 60-card deck to begin with, adding 20 Wakes is not really much of a displacement at all... especially when you can burn the Wakes like water. >My reaction to the WwEF errata, when I came back into the game after a >dropping out due to work and moving, was quite negative. Yes, the card >provided free, free, free; but the errata seemed excessive in it's >correction. I still feel that way today. Rhen again, I haven't been >too fond of some of the erratas that have pop out. Oh, I can see how >some of the errata is designed to correct cards that have been abused >or possess the potential of abuse when used in large numbers (No ammo >cards with zip guns, alteration of the Tomb, etc.), but then we are not >suppose to talk about numbers when it comes to cards. All you need are eight zip guns and eight Dragon's Breath Rounds. After the first few, people quit blocking you. That's not really large numbers. =) >Now to break from all of this. I am curious about the use of 2nd >Traditions. From the last I heard, it can be used by either a tapped >or untapped Prince or Justicar based upon the wording of "Usable by a >tapped vampire". However, one of the posts I seem to remember stated >that you could use it on a tapped Prince/Justicar during a 0 stealth >bleed action used against you. This doesn't sound right. It is a >reaction +2 intercept card, is it not? And are you not limited to only >using intercept only if stealth is applied after a block attempt is >declared? What was the last you heard of this? 2nd tradition, usable by a tapped vampire. This vampire untaps and attempts to block. +2 intercept. Usable by an untapped vampire, because cards are usually played by an untapped vampire anyway. I'm not sure the source of the current ruling. I suspect that it's because you get into the unblockable zero-stealth action paradox... your opponent can't add stealth because you can't attempt to block with a tapped vampire, so he has no need by the rules. But you can't add intercept by the rules since you don't need it, and so can't untap to attempt to block - so 2nd Trad becomes totally useless against ANY zero stealth action, and not worth putting in your decks anymore since bleeds and a number of other nasty actions are zero stealth by default. In fact, most of the NASTIEST actions are zero stealth by default. Rather than wallpaper the card, I suspect the ruling was made so that the primary function of the card was to "untap and block", and the +2 was a side effect. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Yet WwEF is still commonly played. It seems that the players do not agree > with this theory of overcosting. I've now heard this argument enough that I felt I had to respond. Just because a card continues to be played doesn't mean the errata on it is good or that that it couldn't be improved. All it means is that it hasn't been turned into wallpaper. It doesn't mean everyone using the card is nodding their heads and saying "Oh yes, this card is exactly appropriately costed now." For example, many people feel that the errata on Tomb of Ramses is overly harsh. You will, however, see it played on infrequent occasions. Tomb of Ramses got turned from an overly-good card into an extremely marginal card. Most people would have preferred to see it turned into a "just good but not overly good" card. The people arguing against the current Wake errata feel the card is excessively penalized, not that it has been turned into wallpaper. BTW, I don't even necessarily feel that the current errata is overly harsh. However, it is an awkward mechanic (typically requiring some kind of memory aid to avoid prematuring redrawing) and could in all probability be improved. --- Eric Pettersen pett "at" cgl "dot" ucsf "dot" edu (NeXTmail capable)

> > To give a cost ( pay 1 blood or pool to replace this card at the end of > turn") to avoid paying another cost (...or replace the card on next > untap), would really break WwEF in front of FA. > Definitively, if a new solution will ever come out, then it should be > on a "single cost" for WwEF. > Anyway, thanks. > Regards > Emiliano, Prince of Rome > just a thought, but really, I don't see the problem with the original text, if people want to go cycling 4 of them, fine, let them, that's 4 less they have when they really need them, and if they want to put 20 in a deck to make sure that they have them, then that's other cards they won't have (ie, combat, reaction, vote,etc) if your sole premise is to use them to cycle when you don't have the cards you need, great, cycle away, I'm pretty confident that it won't help the person in the long run. BTW, Has there ever been an erata that has been revoked? people do make mistakes.. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006252347170.20262- 100...@orange.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > terrible thing to find a different, and slight less cost for WwEF. > > > > > > Indeed. But I can find a smaller cost for Govern the Unaligned. > > > > First, i'm not sure at the moment, as far as i can remember, Govern the > > Unligned was not rearranged in cost with any errata, is right? > > No. But the fact that a lesser cost can be found for a card doesn't mean > that it has to be found. > > In the xample of GtA, the card is costed well, and so doesn't need to be > reduced. The null hypothesis in this situation is that Wake is also well > costed (now) and so doesn't need to changed. You need to disprove that. > > > So, you example above don't fits with the real "problem" with WwEF. > > WwEF had a trivial cost and was later given a different (and too bad) > > one. > > You;re still merely asserting that it's bad. > > Please try and *explain* why. Make a reasoned argument. Give persuaive > reasons *why* Wake is overcosted, not just the fact that it is. > > LSJ has stated before that it takes a reasoned argument to convince > him. All you've done so far is said that the errata makes it cost too > much. You haven't said *why* it makes it cost too much, or what more > appropriate cost you would give it and why, or work with deciding how much > each of these things costs (as has been done by Robert Goudie in similar > situations before). Just how much is a hand slot worth, in compartitive > terms? Look at t other cards that forced dicards, or reductions etc. Work > with those to work out what the cost really is. Again, all you really do > below is detail them. And you fail to take into account the voluntary > nature of playing a Wake. Raptor and Aggressive Tactics aren't anything > like the same, because you can't choose to have them played on you, as you > can with a wake, when it comes to that part of it - sure, the hand loss is > the same, but the timing is critical. > > <snip> > > > But the cost, again, is too much for the card effect. > > WwEF simply allows a player to have another chanche (vampire) for > > defend itself. Nothing more. > > And so basically gives them a free vampire. Don't agree. WwEF has a cost, therefore don't gives any "free" vampire, but an "as untapped vamp for current action " who costs you an hand slot for an entire cycle of turns. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome One they haven't had to payu > for, or had to spend time bring out. They get to act and block, with the > same vampire. Isn't that cost saving of X pool (where X is the size of > the reacting vampire) worth a temporary loss? It could well be, in manh > instances. > > > Sure, a given cost should prevent the inherent abuse of a card (WweF > > included, and that was the scope for changing his cost). > > However the cost should be well proportioned to the card (possible) > > effects. > > If they were so out of proportion, those of us who *can* play FA, would be > playing it by the truck load. This simply isn't happening. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > > "I know my ex-boyfriend lies. Oh, he does it every time. It's just his > permanent disguise, yeah, yeah, but he's drop dead gorgeous." [ quoted text not captured ]

Ramsteiner wrote: > > In article <3958C8...@mich.com>, > rai...@mich.com wrote: > > Derek Ray wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:10:52 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > > > > >The question is: how many people would agree with such change? > > > > > > The question is: is the card currently broken? > > > > > > The answer is: No. > > > > > > Nobody has yet shown that it is. > > > > > > -- Derek > > > > and nobody will either. > > > > But the card is very damned annoying, to have to a compete passing of > > the table cycles. > > > > I quit using WwEf instead FA Rats, cats, 2nd Trad, and Attonement to > > avoid the Dread Loss on my hand. > > > > Raille > > > It almost looks odd that you favor the current errata, yet have > denounced the use of the card. Then again, we don't know what types of > decks you favor. > > Michael Eichler Hey. Don't be putting words in my mouth please. <g> But, you don't know my decks and for the most part I use very little untap cards, so the current errata has no effect on me. Also I play with mostly the NJL group and they use the old version. Raille

> > It's a simple question. What's wrong with it? > The new errate prevents me from taking the proactive stand of intercepting/reacting to my preys actions as easily as I would like. If I try to use wakes now to intercept anyone other than my Predator, I get a huge penalty. Raille

> >They are just foaming at the mouth from trying to explain the current > >rules to the screaming masses. > > That's just the Guinness dribbling into my beard. =) > > -- Derek Now that was funny. Hope you didn't waste too much good beer. Uhm, Guinness good! Raille

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:59:43 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: >> >> It's a simple question. What's wrong with it? >> > >The new errate prevents me from taking the proactive stand of >intercepting/reacting to my preys actions as easily as I would like. The errata to RTI prevents me from ousting the piss out of someone on turn 4, too, and I can't sweep tables as easily as I would like. My life will continue, however. >If I try to use wakes now to intercept anyone other than my Predator, I >get a huge penalty. To quote the actual question from my previous post: ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:47:15 GMT, night...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >> >> To give a cost ( pay 1 blood or pool to replace this card at the end >of >> turn") to avoid paying another cost (...or replace the card on next >> untap), would really break WwEF in front of FA. >> Definitively, if a new solution will ever come out, then it should be >> on a "single cost" for WwEF. >> Anyway, thanks. >> Regards >> Emiliano, Prince of Rome >> >just a thought, but really, I don't see the problem with the original >text, if people want to go cycling 4 of them, fine, let them, that's 4 >less they have when they really need them, and if they want to put 20 >in a deck to make sure that they have them, then that's other cards >they won't have (ie, combat, reaction, vote,etc) if your sole premise people don't often run out of their libraries. >is to use them to cycle when you don't have the cards you need, great, >cycle away, I'm pretty confident that it won't help the person in the >long run. BTW, Has there ever been an erata that has been revoked? Been demonstrated, and people have testified to experience that yes, it -is- a significant advantage to put a ton of them in a deck when you can get rid of them at any point. Just build your deck to 60 cards' worth of effectiveness, and add 20 Wakes. Your 60-card deck can now untap anytime it might feel like it *and* do its original 60-card thing to begin with, which is pretty effective usually. Or build to 75 cards and add 15 Wakes. Take your pick. >people do make mistakes.. :) Yeah, but this wasn't one of 'em. [ quoted text not captured ]

> To quote the actual question from my previous post: > ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is > about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It > seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. > Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... Becasue it is *never* this simple. If all I am going to do is deflect, then yes, fine, wake is alright because you are going to replace it soon (although, you better hope your pred doesn't have alot of minions because it won't be soon enough). If someone is using casual intercept (which alot of decks do; FA is good only for dedicated intercept decks where the block is pretty much guaranteed) so they can block weenies trying to call a vote or the Ventrue/Toreador trying to call a vote or hunting, etc, then they would use the Wake. Now, if they use that Wake on their prey's turn, they just gave a pretty huge advantage to their predator. Now, if I'm going to be adding some sort of untap/intercept in my deck to try to block zero to low stealth actions conducted by either my pred or prey (and let me tell you how much it sucks to have your prey steal your HG with a Kine Dominance), I'm always going to use FA even if there is a chance that I can't block. Because losing 1 blood, which can be replaced so many very easy ways, is a far lesser cost than losing 1 card from your hand for a turn around the table. Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

In article <FAC5411FEEBEAACA.95EC51FF...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > To quote the actual question from my previous post: > > ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is > about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It > seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. > > Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... Hello Derek, I think it might be due to availability. It's a guess, but I see with the people within my group. Now I know numbers should not be a player as you stated before. But between us at Ramstein (6 players) we have 10 FAs but easily over 50 WwEF. So the trick comes down to who will get the FAs for any intercept decks (dedicated or permanent light)? Well, I would figure the owner of the most cards (me) would have starting rights, but that does leave everyone else in the hole. As it is right now, most of the decks are deflectors and bleeders. Interception? What the hell is that? I have been purchasing cards since 1994 and have the largest assortment, but the rest of my players are new recruits that have purchased their cards via E-bay. They now own more cards than I do combined and all they can muster up are 2 FAs. Maybe the new release will alter those numbers, but for now we are having to do without. Thus, the reason I made the suggestion of bringing WwEF into the same line as FA but with a different cost/effect. If combat occurred, cycle at the end of the turn, otherwise at next untap phase. This doesn't change non-intercepting reaction card cost/effect but did open up the hole for interceptors. As for why WwEF is still widely used? As one of my co-workers has stated, if all you have to eat is Spam and Hamburgers then that is all you get to choose from. Spam or Hamburgers. If you want steak, tough. Just my 2 pool on it. Michael Eichler -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3959FEBB...@white-wolf.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] Ok. I guess I am confused here. There is no rule against making wallpaper cards more powerful, but there is a rule against issuing errata for no purpose other than making wallpaper cards more powerful. So when does a situation arise where a wallpaper card receive errata to increase it's use? I am in the corner for Concealed Weapon being a non-disciplined card (as printed text formating appears to suggest), but that seems to make to more powerful (not to mention that it might help bring out other wallpaper cards down off the wall without any errata at all.) and so it is disqualified from any errata. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:18:21 GMT, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> To quote the actual question from my previous post: >> ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is >> about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It >> seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. >> Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... > >Becasue it is *never* this simple. If all I am going to do is deflect, >then yes, fine, wake is alright because you are going to replace it >soon (although, you better hope your pred doesn't have alot of >minions because it won't be soon enough). If your predator is a bleed deck with that many more minions than you, you are pretty much screwed anyway unless you start killing them. >If someone is using casual intercept (which alot of decks do; FA is >good only for dedicated intercept decks where the block is pretty >much guaranteed) so they can block weenies trying to call a vote >or the Ventrue/Toreador trying to call a vote or hunting, etc, then >they would use the Wake. Now, if they use that Wake on their >prey's turn, they just gave a pretty huge advantage to their predator. You don't HAVE to Wake and nuke your prey. If you look back and your predator is showing "screaming weenie horde", you would, in fact, be FOOLISH to do anything but figure out ways to kill weenies so you can live and oust your prey later. The opportunity to nuke your prey after having tapped out taking actions against them is ALSO a huge advantage. So you get a huge advantage, and as a cost, your predator also gets some advantage. I just don't see the problem here. If you have two Wakes in hand, you KNOW you won't be totally defenseless against your predator. If you have one Wake in hand, you damn well better decide whether to go offensive or defensive - even with FA you aren't guaranteed of drawing back up another one! >Now, if I'm going to be adding some sort of untap/intercept in my >deck to try to block zero to low stealth actions conducted by either >my pred or prey (and let me tell you how much it sucks to have >your prey steal your HG with a Kine Dominance), I'm always going >to use FA even if there is a chance that I can't block. Because >losing 1 blood, which can be replaced so many very easy ways, is >a far lesser cost than losing 1 card from your hand for a turn around >the table. Not necessarily 'far lesser', as i pointed out above. Besides, you know what? IF YOU'RE GOING TO BLOCK, FA IS GENERALLY BETTER. HOWEVER, if you use Wake, you always have the option to go Deflecting later. Or do your decks with light intercept not Deflect as well? I don't usually build a deck with light intercept and no bounce unless it's some sort of combat deck, in which case I -really- like the blood on my vampires and will be using Wake. Or it could be a blood-gain monstrosity, in which case my predator is irrelevant. I've seen a LOT of decks with light intercept -and- bounce, often in the same card. As I said before, being able to keep your options open, a greater benefit, warrants a greater risk. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:55:13 GMT, Ramsteiner <ramst...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article ><FAC5411FEEBEAACA.95EC51FF...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: ><snip> >> To quote the actual question from my previous post: >> >> ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is >> about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It >> seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. >> >> Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... > >Hello Derek, > >I think it might be due to availability. It's a guess, but I see with I'm pretty sure that for a lot of people, it IS due to availability, but I like to encourage people to state the REAL reason for the objection instead of wandering around the issue. =/ >the people within my group. Now I know numbers should not be a player >as you stated before. But between us at Ramstein (6 players) we have >10 FAs but easily over 50 WwEF. So the trick comes down to who will >get the FAs for any intercept decks (dedicated or permanent light)? >Well, I would figure the owner of the most cards (me) would have >starting rights, but that does leave everyone else in the hole. As it >is right now, most of the decks are deflectors and bleeders. Actually, most decks over here are also primarily deflectors. Dedicated intercept is extremely difficult to win with, because it tends to go backwards against your predator, not forwards against your prey. Deflection is always a better solution than intercept against bleed, because it's cheaper on card slots and damages your prey as well. Light interceptors discover that Wake really isn't that much of a problem - the card slot is a minor nuisance, but I can't remember the last time I blocked my prey, didn't draw up a Wake, got hosed by my predator, and found a Wake sitting right on top of the deck. The odds of drawing one specific card from a 90-card deck are ... well... *cough* unless you have 10-15... low. Was me getting hosed the fault of the card slot being missing? No, it was *my* fault for leaving myself defenseless without a guarantee that I would be able to deal with my predator. Calculated risk, and one I take a lot. But when I fail to draw into the next Wake, I NEVER see it sitting right on the top of the deck. >Interception? What the hell is that? Sounds like it's time to make a nice vote deck and smack people around. Intercept tends to show up quickly after that =) >I have been purchasing cards since 1994 and have the largest >assortment, but the rest of my players are new recruits that have >purchased their cards via E-bay. They now own more cards than I do >combined and all they can muster up are 2 FAs. Maybe the new release >will alter those numbers, but for now we are having to do without. I would expect Sabbat War to reprint both FA and a Wake with current errata text, actually. Neither card is suitable to leave out in favor of the other exclusively, and you NEED an untap card, so... you get both. >Thus, the reason I made the suggestion of bringing WwEF into the same >line as FA but with a different cost/effect. If combat occurred, cycle >at the end of the turn, otherwise at next untap phase. This doesn't >change non-intercepting reaction card cost/effect but did open up the >hole for interceptors. Yeah, but unfortunately, you just CAN'T use card rarity as a valid reason for errata. It sends your playerbase up in flames - see Magic: the Crack Habit for various examples. =) >As for why WwEF is still widely used? As one of my co-workers has >stated, if all you have to eat is Spam and Hamburgers then that is all >you get to choose from. Spam or Hamburgers. If you want steak, tough. Some groups don't have any FA, and of course they must use Wake. But the groups who DO have access to heavy FA -also- use a lot of Wake, and that's what I'm referring to. The lack of any way to get cards is a problem for everyone. I would love to have some Disarms, as I've stated before. I can't get any. Nobody is trading theirs, or not without some ridiculous counterbalance. There are not many boxes for me to go forth and purchase, and I won't buy a box above original retail because that was how Magic: the Wallet Rape got started, and I don't believe in screwing myself that way. It's just a game. Sabbat War will hopefully that will help a lot with the availability problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <FAC5411FEEBEAACA.95EC51FF...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:59:43 -0400, Raille <rai...@mich.com> wrote: > > >> > >> It's a simple question. What's wrong with it? > >> > > > >The new errate prevents me from taking the proactive stand of > >intercepting/reacting to my preys actions as easily as I would like. > > The errata to RTI prevents me from ousting the piss out of someone on > turn 4, too, and I can't sweep tables as easily as I would like. > > My life will continue, however. > > >If I try to use wakes now to intercept anyone other than my Predator, I > >get a huge penalty. > > To quote the actual question from my previous post: > > ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is > about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It > seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. Because if you Wake with WwEF and deflect an already deflected bleed (a bleed not from your predator), you still have to wait the entire cycle of turns to get back your full hand size and deck potential. Because if you have to face more than once,in a turns cycle, an opportunity to wake, with WwEF you'll definitively get your hand size reduced to five, or worse, to even less number. Always "until your next untap". Smile when you'll got a first tradition/anarch troublemaker/sleeping mind/faceless night/or anything else, bleed deck. Smile when you'll face a raptor/aggressive tactics deck. That's because we got the only card, as long with FA, undercosted before and overcosted after the actual errata. There are many other examples for this, but for sure, many counterexamples. What i'm trying to ask here: is so difficult to get a compromise between the previous WwEF cost and the actual one? Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > Now, if you'd like to answer the question I asked... > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 19:53:58 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article ><FAC5411FEEBEAACA.95EC51FF...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> ==> Nobody has YET answered James or I on just what the big deal is >> about having to pick "wake and deflect" or "FA and block"? <== It >> seems to send people into fits. But nobody answers it. > >Because if you Wake with WwEF and deflect an already deflected bleed (a >bleed not from your predator), you still have to wait the entire cycle >of turns to get back your full hand size and deck potential. It's often a good idea to bounce that bleed back to your predator, to keep him off you for awhile. Your deck potential is not altered - you have successfully deflected a bleed, which what your deck was designed to do. You only have so many Deflections. You only have so many Wakes. You could not control that an extra bleed would be coming. Bad luck for you. >Because if you have to face more than once,in a turns cycle, an >opportunity to wake, with WwEF you'll definitively get your hand size >reduced to five, or worse, to even less number. So you got to use tapped vampires twice or more and, while appearing defenseless, were able to defend yourself against multiple actions. Golly. Cost still balances, sorry - especially since most predators will go for it offensively after seeing one Wake played, which plays right into your hands if you're packing another one. You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to tap all your guys out and then use them for defense. It's supposed to be a BALANCE - some guys defend, some guys attack, not "everyone does both". >Always "until your next untap". >Smile when you'll got a first tradition/anarch troublemaker/sleeping >mind/faceless night/or anything else, bleed deck. First tradition decks don't care about Wake. Anarch Troublemaker is meaningless if you're tapped out. Sleeping Mind doesn't beat Wake or FA - see the rulings. Faceless Night only taps you if you were untapped, attempt to block and fail. If you were tapped out Faceless Night is irrelevant. I don't see a problem. >Smile when you'll face a raptor/aggressive tactics deck. Raptors require superior Animalism, an equip action, and blood. In experimentation, only one Raptor is actually a benefit - most people WANT to discard a card from their hand and get a new toy back after combat. No problem. Aggressive Tactics costs TWO POOL and is involuntary. Absolutely no relation to Wake. If your predator's playing it, bad luck for you. Sudden Reversal it or get rid of it with the (D) action on your turn - then it goes away. >That's because we got the only card, as long with FA, undercosted >before and overcosted after the actual errata. except nobody's shown that it's overcosted yet, AS USUAL. >There are many other examples for this, but for sure, many >counterexamples. >What i'm trying to ask here: is so difficult to get a compromise >between the previous WwEF cost and the actual one? Yes, because it involves EVEN MORE ERRATA, to a card which just simply isn't broken, isn't underpowered, and isn't wallpaper. If everyone would get off the hyperbole for a little while about how horrible it is and just LEARN to ADAPT, they might discover that the game is more balanced this way since tapping out is no longer automatically a good thing. If I can Wake all over the damn place, why SHOULDN'T I tap out? The Wake is my defense and it's always a surprise. I haven't even got into the fact that prey-intercept decks should just leave a guy or two untapped in the first place and then they don't have to worry about pissing around with Wake or FA. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Justicar wrote: > What do you think of my proposed fix? > > Errata: > > When you replace this card, show the card that you draw to all players > before you place it in your hand. It still adds a penalty entirely separate to that of card flow. As such, I would reject it, were that power mine (which, of course, not being LSJ, it isn't). [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > Yet WwEF is still commonly played. It seems that the players do not agree > > with this theory of overcosting. > > I've now heard this argument enough that I felt I had to respond. Just > because a card continues to be played doesn't mean the errata on it is > good or that that it couldn't be improved. Indeed not. It does,however, suggest that the card is not wallpaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Ramsteiner wrote: > Ok. I guess I am confused here. There is no rule against making > wallpaper cards more powerful, but there is a rule against issuing > errata for no purpose other than making wallpaper cards more powerful. > > So when does a situation arise where a wallpaper card receive errata to > increase it's use? Were you to find an ambiguity in the text which forced a ruling or errata, it is possible that the ruling would expand the text (thus making it less wallpaper-ish), rather than contracting it. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <D5DEDE64924C53BE.72E35C55...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not supposed to tap all of my minions. But, maybe, i want to Wake the only minion able to get a chanche to block or react the current action. Say, the only one with permanent intercept on it, or with the best possibilities to counter the acting minion etc. >It's supposed to be a BALANCE - some guys defend, > some guys attack, not "everyone does both". Those who attact didn't get their hands impaired until their next turn, however. Those who try to block/react, with WwEF, do. > > >Always "until your next untap". > >Smile when you'll got a first tradition/anarch troublemaker/sleeping > >mind/faceless night/or anything else, bleed deck. > > First tradition decks don't care about Wake. ?How? > Anarch Troublemaker is meaningless if you're tapped out. ?Why? > Sleeping Mind doesn't beat Wake or FA - see the rulings. I know the rulings. However WwEF (and FA) is the only defense for a tapped minion against the sleeping mind effect. So WwEF FA are not beaten, yes, but the acting sleeping Methuselah replace the SP card, the defending one does not (with Wake). So against the SP, it would be good to have another chanche to draw a new WwEF after you react with the first one. > Faceless Night only taps you if you were untapped, attempt to block > and fail. If you were tapped out Faceless Night is irrelevant. > > I don't see a problem. If i got an untapped minion, that minion is tapped by sup faceless night. After that, on the following actions against me, it would be good to have a chanche to draw at least one "wake card". With the actual WwEF that chanche is notably reduced. > > >Smile when you'll face a raptor/aggressive tactics deck. > > Raptors require superior Animalism, an equip action, and blood. In > experimentation, only one Raptor is actually a benefit - most people > WANT to discard a card from their hand and get a new toy back after > combat. > > No problem. Play against five at once, you'll see the problem with even a less slot in hand from WwEF. > > Aggressive Tactics costs TWO POOL and is involuntary. Absolutely no > relation to Wake. Aggressive tactics= -1 card slot until you burn AT. WwEF= -1 card slot until next untap. No relations? >If your predator's playing it, bad luck for you. I see. > Sudden Reversal it or get rid of it with the (D) action on your turn - > then it goes away. > > >That's because we got the only card, as long with FA, undercosted > >before and overcosted after the actual errata. > > except nobody's shown that it's overcosted yet, AS USUAL. > > >There are many other examples for this, but for sure, many > >counterexamples. > >What i'm trying to ask here: is so difficult to get a compromise > >between the previous WwEF cost and the actual one? > > Yes, because it involves EVEN MORE ERRATA, to a card which just simply > isn't broken, isn't underpowered, The card is underpowered, and this was demonstrated in this thread, in front of FA, the only other card that gives you the unique "...block/react as untapped" effect. >and isn't wallpaper. For sure, isn't. > If everyone > would get off the hyperbole for a little while about how horrible I'm not painting it as "horrible". I'm just looking for a compromise between the old cost and the actual one. it > is and just LEARN to ADAPT, they might discover that the game is more > balanced I play it, so i'm somewhat adapted. I'm not satisfacted, that's all. Regards Emiliano Prince of Rome "Am i not a jarring note in the heavenly simphony"? C. Baudelaire > this way since tapping out is no longer automatically a good > thing. If I can Wake all over the damn place, why SHOULDN'T I tap > out? The Wake is my defense and it's always a surprise. > > I haven't even got into the fact that prey-intercept decks should just > leave a guy or two untapped in the first place and then they don't > have to worry about pissing around with Wake or FA. > > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > The card is underpowered, and this was demonstrated in this thread, in > front of FA, the only other card that gives you the > unique "...block/react as untapped" effect. If it is underpowered, and FA is better, why are those of us who can play FA repeatedly not doing so? > >and isn't wallpaper. > > For sure, isn't. Then I fail to see where the problem is. The card is less powerful than it was and is not wallpaper. > I'm not painting it as "horrible". I'm just looking for a compromise > between the old cost and the actual one. But if the card is not horrible and is not wallpaper, and is still being played, why does that need to be done? That people are still regaulrly playing it in preference to FA (when they could pay either), that it is not, by your own admission, wallpaper, and that it is less powerful than it was, suggests that the errata is fine. If it really is so bad, people would just play FA and take the much cheaper burn a blood penalty (assuming that they believed that burning a blood was much cheaper than the hand slot). -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:24:20 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >In article ><D5DEDE64924C53BE.72E35C55...@lp.airnews.net>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to tap all your guys out and then use >> them for defense. > >I'm not supposed to tap all of my minions. >But, maybe, i want to Wake the only minion able to get a chanche to >block or react the current action. >Say, the only one with permanent intercept on it, or with the best >possibilities to counter the acting minion etc. The guy with permanent intercept shouldn't be taking that many offensive actions anyway - he's much more valuable as an untapped threat. The one with the best possibilities to counter the acting minion is something that you yourself generally know when you're picking which minions act - so leave him untapped. >>It's supposed to be a BALANCE - some guys defend, >> some guys attack, not "everyone does both". > >Those who attact didn't get their hands impaired until their next turn, >however. Those who try to block/react, with WwEF, do. This is to encourage people to oust their prey and gain VPs, instead of oust their predator. Also, if you are tapped, then you have most likely just taken an action against your prey, or an action to PREPARE to attack your prey (hunting to gain blood to pay for the cards), or whatever. If you try to block your prey by leaving vamps untapped, you get no penalty. It's when you try to do lots at once that a cost comes in. >> First tradition decks don't care about Wake. > >?How? First Tradition causes you to skip your turn or pay two pool. The only way I can see this related to Wake is if your predator can afford to pay the pool to untap and take actions against you, and you can't, so you don't ever have an untap to replace Wake on. Then you're hosed. But if you can't afford two pool when being faced with a probable loss of MORE than two pool, then you're hosed anyway. >> Anarch Troublemaker is meaningless if you're tapped out. > >?Why? Because it taps two vampires, and if you're already tapped, the Anarch Troublemaker is useless. In fact, if I were very sneaky (which I am sometimes), I would leave one vampire untapped CONSTANTLY to attempt to provoke my predator into using the Troublemaker and giving it to me. Well, OK, he could burn some of my equipment. Not the most common use of AT. >> Sleeping Mind doesn't beat Wake or FA - see the rulings. > >I know the rulings. >However WwEF (and FA) is the only defense for a tapped minion against >the sleeping mind effect. So WwEF FA are not beaten, yes, but the >acting sleeping Methuselah replace the SP card, the defending one does >not (with Wake). >So against the SP, it would be good to have another chanche to draw a >new WwEF after you react with the first one. I'm not sure how Sleeping Mind enters into this, since after you react with the first Wake, it would ALWAYS be good to have another chance. Sleeping Mind doesn't tap any minions, it just says "Minions can't untap." If you have an already-untapped minion, who cares? If you have a bunch of tapped minions and a Wake, who cares? Sleeping Mind is pointless in that situation. The decks that don't like Sleeping Mind use 2nd Tradition and the Animalism untap cards. Really puts a cramp in their style. But in any case, of course it'd be good - it's ALWAYS good to draw up a new card. It'd also make Wake overpowered, which is what we had before. There needs to be a suitable cost for acting and reacting with the same minion. >> Faceless Night only taps you if you were untapped, attempt to block >> and fail. If you were tapped out Faceless Night is irrelevant. >> >> I don't see a problem. > >If i got an untapped minion, that minion is tapped by sup faceless >night. After that, on the following actions against me, it would be good >to have a chanche to draw at least one "wake card". >With the actual WwEF that chanche is notably reduced. That minion is ALSO tapped by blocking, which you were attempting to do when Faceless Night tapped you. Why were you attempting to block if you didn't want to succeed? If you got what you wanted, you would have been tapped anyway. Faceless Night just makes sure of it. I don't see how this relates to Wake anyway, since you didn't have to play a Wake to attempt to block with the untapped minion, and therefore don't have a hand size reduction. >> Raptors require superior Animalism, an equip action, and blood. In >> experimentation, only one Raptor is actually a benefit - most people >> WANT to discard a card from their hand and get a new toy back after >> combat. >> >> No problem. > >Play against five at once, you'll see the problem with even a less slot >in hand from WwEF. Someone wants to construct that deck and pay to get five Raptors on ONE GUY, he deserves whatever hell he can give me. And my one-less slot from WWEF isn't going to matter a damn bit when there are FIVE Raptors hassling me - I'm basically screwed with one OR two cards. Several good deckbuilders have been trying for some time now to produce an effective multi-Raptor deck that actually gains VPs and wins. As far as I know, there hasn't been much of a breakthrough - Raptor is very difficult to make "go" in large multiples. And playing with just one is really a no-no. >> Aggressive Tactics costs TWO POOL and is involuntary. Absolutely no >> relation to Wake. > >Aggressive tactics= -1 card slot until you burn AT. >WwEF= -1 card slot until next untap. >No relations? Yes, no relation. AT's effect is MUCH bigger than Wake's. So is its cost. It's like comparing watermelons and grapes. Eat a grape, you have a seed to spit out. Annoying. Eat a watermelon, you have a MOUTHFUL. Wake is voluntary. You only got one Wake in hand, you better be sure blocking your prey is a smart move - you wouldn't be guaranteed to draw it back up ANYWAY. You don't HAVE to Wake just because you have it. Aggressive Tactics is an offensive, involuntary card played by your predator. It is high cost (two pool) and very fragile (burn with -d- action). You don't HAVE to go get rid of it, but most people will. >I'm not painting it as "horrible". I'm just looking for a compromise >between the old cost and the actual one. But since there's no need to fix it, there's no need to flounder around finding some tenuous compromise that would THEN have to be tested out and THEN possibly found to be not quite right and THEN errata'd again... ad infinitum. Where do you draw the line? answer: when the card is no longer broken. Current situation: card is no longer broken. Problem solved. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On 28 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > > James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > > Yet WwEF is still commonly played. It seems that the players do > > > not agree with this theory of overcosting. > > > > I've now heard this argument enough that I felt I had to respond. > > Just because a card continues to be played doesn't mean the errata on > > it is good or that that it couldn't be improved. > > Indeed not. It does,however, suggest that the card is not wallpaper. Which is pretty much what I said right after what you quoted. I'm glad you agree with me. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >and isn't wallpaper. > > > > For sure, isn't. > > Then I fail to see where the problem is. The card is less powerful than > it was and is not wallpaper. Is it your position that any errata that that doesn't result in the card becoming wallpaper is okay? I hope not. Your loyal opposition is arguing that the errata to Wake went beyond what was necessary to fix the problem (cycling) and excessively hobbled the card. It didn't become complete wallpaper, no. There is a whole spectrum of strengths between "overpowered" and "wallpaper" you know. I don't necessarily agree that unerrataed Wake was even overpowered. However, the free cycling was a problem in that it went against one of the basic design principles of the game (that the discard phase is a limited resource). I imagine this was also one of the motivations for the "no vote pushing" rule [rather than some alternative fix for weenie vote pushing]. People on the "other side" of this thread would typically like an errata that patches the 'free cycling' problem without adding additional penalties on the use of Wake. As I see it, the 3 main problems with the current errata are: 1) It is tedious to keep track of exactly what your hand size is over the course of several turns, particularly if you get in a frequent-card-drawing situation (e.g. combat). 2) Wake, without cycling, wasn't demonstrated to be overpowered. There was no justification for adding an additional penalty to the card beyond stopping cycling. 3) It makes some problematic cards, such as Misdirection, even worse. It is hard enough to fight weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed with unerrataed Wake. With no card redrawing until the next turn, it becomes very much harder. [ quoted text not captured ]

WARNING! poster is soused. poster has just come from Dragon*Con, where he has met multiple and numerous Methuselahs from all-bloody over this creation, and found that LO, they were cool people and stuff and drank lots along with him. including some goober who fed poster tequila, causing MUCH yappiness. Whee! More on Saturday when I .. hah.. sober up. On 30 Jun 2000 20:54:11 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> > >and isn't wallpaper. >> > >> > For sure, isn't. >> >> Then I fail to see where the problem is. The card is less powerful than >> it was and is not wallpaper. > >Is it your position that any errata that that doesn't result in the card >becoming wallpaper is okay? I hope not. Your loyal opposition is arguing >that the errata to Wake went beyond what was necessary to fix the problem >(cycling) and excessively hobbled the card. Card ain't hobbled. Played "Daffy Deck" tonight, a lovely little AUS/CEL monstrosity. It uses something like 12 Wakes in it. It blocks everything it doesn't like and then uses Celerity to run away and dodge and even end combat, and then it bleeds with Pulse. It gained 3 VPs off a 5-person table by ousting the first 3 guys it faced and then losing to its Tzimisce hideous-intercept predator, who kept killing me once i was out of cards. =( I ran myself down to THREE CARDS in hand once by using Wake. I still had a Wake left. I wasn't real happy about the thought of using it, but fortunately my predator believed me when I told him I still had one left. (Observe: play 4 Wakes, and contrary to common sense someone believes you when you tell then you actually have 5. And y'all say bluffing isn't critical? Never mind that I actually had it, NOBODY plays 4 Wakes and still has a 5th in hand. I'll bet against it consistently, and bet big.) Was the hand slot a penalty? Yep. Did it excessively stop the deck from doing what it was designed to do? Nope. Did it cripple me? Nope. (Did I probably get a lucky draw to pull the last Wake? Yep.) But by the same token, did I bleed my prey for 6 and still Wake and stop him from ousting his prey? Yep. Did my predator do only 1 pool damage to me that turn? Yep. Someone asked me "Why not FA?" afterwards. I told him "'cause they're in another deck, and Wake works fine for this since it also bounces with Tel. Misdirection." The card don't suck. Just plain not at ALL. >It didn't become complete wallpaper, no. There is a whole spectrum of >strengths between "overpowered" and "wallpaper" you know. I don't >necessarily agree that unerrataed Wake was even overpowered. However, If I could've had 7 cards in hand after all those Wakes I played in the situation above, I would've got 5 VPs instead of 3. Guaranteed. A deck that stops everything doesn't NEED that advantage. >People on the "other side" of this thread would typically like an errata >that patches the 'free cycling' problem without adding additional penalties >on the use of Wake. As I see it, the 3 main problems with the current >errata are: > > 1) It is tedious to keep track of exactly what your hand size is > over the course of several turns, particularly if you get in a > frequent-card-drawing situation (e.g. combat). This can be mildly tricky. We solve the problem locally by not putting Wake in the ash heap, but by putting it next to our library visibly. When redrawing, we see the Wake(s) and don't redraw up to the wrong point. On our untap, we drop the Wakes in the ashheap and draw some free cards. > 2) Wake, without cycling, wasn't demonstrated to be overpowered. It's a WAKE. Its whole purpose is to permit you to defend while acting, thereby cycling cards at a benefit to yourself. Wake assessed without cycling involved is, well, meaningless. Either you get no card back (no cycling) or you -do- get a card back (lots of cycling). > There was no justification for adding an additional penalty to > the card beyond stopping cycling. "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to your predator's actions. > 3) It makes some problematic cards, such as Misdirection, even > worse. It is hard enough to fight weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed > with unerrataed Wake. With no card redrawing until the next turn, > it becomes very much harder. Misdirection has a good, ugly cost for all those minions tapped - POOL. It's not that Misdirection is broken, it's that weenies are inherently more cost-effective. More actions = better deck. Wake helps that out. You can act, and then Wake to defend. It doesn't need to be perfect, or FA would never be used. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1C2E4159F4016B47.83297FCE...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > WARNING! poster is soused. > > poster has just come from Dragon*Con, where he has met multiple and > numerous Methuselahs from all-bloody over this creation, and found > that LO, they were cool people and stuff and drank lots along with > him. > > including some goober who fed poster tequila, causing MUCH yappiness. > > Whee! More on Saturday when I .. hah.. sober up. > > On 30 Jun 2000 20:54:11 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) > wrote: > > >James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> > >and isn't wallpaper. > >> > > >> > For sure, isn't. > >> [ quoted text not captured ] If your prey/grandpredator don't act at all, you get a couple of wakes in your hand. If your predator rushes you, with almost only wakes in your hand you won't be able to defend your minions (against rushing). Wake is always subordinated to an action, if there are not so many actions, say, lots of "sitting on defense" decks at the table, definitively you won't cycle (with WwEF) so many cards. Just my thought Emiliano, Prince of Rome > > > 3) It makes some problematic cards, such as Misdirection, even > > worse. It is hard enough to fight weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed > > with unerrataed Wake. With no card redrawing until the next turn, > > it becomes very much harder. > > Misdirection has a good, ugly cost for all those minions tapped - > POOL. It's not that Misdirection is broken, it's that weenies are > inherently more cost-effective. More actions = better deck. > > Wake helps that out. You can act, and then Wake to defend. It > doesn't need to be perfect, or FA would never be used. > [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:24:20 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >In article > ><D5DEDE64924C53BE.72E35C55...@lp.airnews.net>, > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> You aren't SUPPOSED to be able to tap all your guys out and then use > >> them for defense. > > > >I'm not supposed to tap all of my minions. > >But, maybe, i want to Wake the only minion able to get a chanche to > >block or react the current action. > >Say, the only one with permanent intercept on it, or with the best > >possibilities to counter the acting minion etc. > > The guy with permanent intercept shouldn't be taking that many > offensive actions anyway - he's much more valuable as an untapped > threat. The one with the best possibilities to counter the acting > minion is something that you yourself generally know when you're > picking which minions act - so leave him untapped. How i'm supposed to guess which minions shall take actions against me? > > >>It's supposed to be a BALANCE - some guys defend, > >> some guys attack, not "everyone does both". > > > >Those who attact didn't get their hands impaired until their next turn, > >however. Those who try to block/react, with WwEF, do. > > This is to encourage people to oust their prey and gain VPs, instead > of oust their predator. > > Also, if you are tapped, then you have most likely just taken an > action against your prey, or an action to PREPARE to attack your prey > (hunting to gain blood to pay for the cards), or whatever. Not really: Propaganda, Misdirections, Anarch Troublemaker, Disarming Presence and other cards tap your left-untapped minions, without that they were acting on your last turn. >If you try > to block your prey by leaving vamps untapped, you get no penalty. > It's when you try to do lots at once that a cost comes in. > > >> First tradition decks don't care about Wake. > > > >?How? > > First Tradition causes you to skip your turn or pay two pool. The > only way I can see this related to Wake is if your predator can afford > to pay the pool to untap and take actions against you, and you can't, > so you don't ever have an untap to replace Wake on. Then you're > hosed. But if you can't afford two pool when being faced with a > probable loss of MORE than two pool, then you're hosed anyway. No. First tradition makes the actual WwEF cost very nasty, whether you have lots of pool or not. Assuming i played WwEF, if i want my full hand size back, i must pay anyway the 2 pool, else..let's go waiting entire cycle(s) of turns for my full hand. So, with First Tradition around, i get a notable penalty from the actual WwEF cost: if i want to get my turn (untap) AND my full hand size from WwEF(s), then i need bad to pay the two pool. > > >> Anarch Troublemaker is meaningless if you're tapped out. > > > >?Why? > > Because it taps two vampires, and if you're already tapped, the Anarch > Troublemaker is useless. In fact, if I were very sneaky (which I am > sometimes), I would leave one vampire untapped CONSTANTLY to attempt > to provoke my predator into using the Troublemaker and giving it to > me. > > Well, OK, he could burn some of my equipment. Not the most common use > of AT. I don't get it. You got anyway your last (1-2) untapped minion(s) tapped. So you're in need of some Wake effect. Why AT should be meaningless in WwEF matter? > > >> Sleeping Mind doesn't beat Wake or FA - see the rulings. > > > >I know the rulings. > >However WwEF (and FA) is the only defense for a tapped minion against > >the sleeping mind effect. So WwEF FA are not beaten, yes, but the > >acting sleeping Methuselah replace the SP card, the defending one does > >not (with Wake). > >So against the SP, it would be good to have another chanche to draw a > >new WwEF after you react with the first one. > > I'm not sure how Sleeping Mind enters into this, since after you react > with the first Wake, it would ALWAYS be good to have another chance. > Sleeping Mind doesn't tap any minions, But SM in combo with Faceless Night does. [ quoted text not captured ] Why, then, Aggressive Tactics has a so high cost and is very fragile? Because the Hand Reduction is obviously deemed as a very powerful effect, by game designers. Reversing that reasoning, and giving tha Hand reduction as a cost to be assigned to cards, those cards, then, must have a very good effect in terms of game play. Then, with actual WwEF effect(s) and its hand reduction cost until next untap, the proportion card effect/cost is not well respected. Because the cost given to Forced Awakening (the only other card giving the same WwEF effect) is far less than the one later assigned to WwEF. For sure, is a good effect to have a tapped minion (and maybe my last turn acting) to react/block. But with FA, burning 1 blood from the failed blocking vamp (if the vamp blocks, with FA there's no cost at all), is far less than reducing the defending player's hand until next untap (WwEF). >You don't HAVE to go get rid of it, but most people will. > > >I'm not painting it as "horrible". I'm just looking for a compromise > >between the old cost and the actual one. > > But since there's no need to fix it, there's no need to flounder > around finding some tenuous compromise that would THEN have to be > tested out and THEN possibly found to be not quite right and THEN > errata'd again... ad infinitum. > > Where do you draw the line? answer: when the card is no longer > broken. Current situation: card is no longer broken. Problem > solved. > 150+ threads about WwEF cost mean that the problem is not solved for all the players, and this mean also that WwEF matter needs still some discussion. I draw the line from this. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > -- Derek > > Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. > It only stopped them hearing the distractions. > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 12:53:22 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" >> doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order >> to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to >> your predator's actions. > >If your prey/grandpredator don't act at all, >you get a couple of wakes in your hand. Yeah, and this is SO common for both of them not to take ANY actions at all. Now, let's talk REALISTICALLY. Everyone takes at least ONE action per turn, unless they're walling up from desperation, and you'll know that WELL ahead of time. >If your predator rushes you, with almost only wakes in your hand you >won't be able to defend your minions (against rushing). Wake and block with the minion you mind dying least? It's very common to see someone with a 2-cap vampire Wake and block the Rush action just to not have their valuable vampires die - 2-caps are generally expendable. >Wake is always subordinated to an action, if there are not so many >actions, say, lots of "sitting on defense" decks at the table, >definitively you won't cycle (with WwEF) so many cards. If you have a bunch of "sit on defense" decks, you gotta talk to your playgroup about the concept of "ousting your prey and gaining VPs", which means NOT "sitting on defense", and actually taking actions even if they're only a bleed for 1. If everyone just sits there, nobody wins - how is this fun? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 20:25:14 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:24:20 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: >> The guy with permanent intercept shouldn't be taking that many >> offensive actions anyway - he's much more valuable as an untapped >> threat. The one with the best possibilities to counter the acting >> minion is something that you yourself generally know when you're >> picking which minions act - so leave him untapped. > >How i'm supposed to guess which minions shall take actions against me? Uh... well, first, you assume that ALL of them will, and leave someone untapped appropriately? And frankly, it's usually painfully obvious which vampires are "offensive" and which vampires are "defensive" in someone's ready region. The guy with superior OBF and DOM is offensive. The guy with superior POT or PRO is offensive. The guy with the Sport Bike is defensive. The guy with the Leather Jacket is usually defensive. It's just a simple "read the table" thing. >> Also, if you are tapped, then you have most likely just taken an >> action against your prey, or an action to PREPARE to attack your prey >> (hunting to gain blood to pay for the cards), or whatever. > >Not really: Propaganda, Misdirections, Anarch Troublemaker, Disarming >Presence and other cards tap your left-untapped minions, without that >they were acting on your last turn. Propaganda does not tap until the action successfully resolves - its 'tap' effect is useless. Disarming Presence is never seen in actual play. Anarch Troublemaker is already on the table, so you KNOW your minion might be tapped and you can play accordingly. The only real bad one is Misdirection, and if you -must- leave minions untapped against your predator, you are normally in the kind of trouble that Wake isn't going to save you for. IN ADDITION, All four cards you mentioned will be played on you by your predator. Waking against your predator is an extremely minimal cost. Waking against your PREY is the difficult one. >> First Tradition causes you to skip your turn or pay two pool. The >> only way I can see this related to Wake is if your predator can afford >> to pay the pool to untap and take actions against you, and you can't, >> so you don't ever have an untap to replace Wake on. Then you're >> hosed. But if you can't afford two pool when being faced with a >> probable loss of MORE than two pool, then you're hosed anyway. > >No. First tradition makes the actual WwEF cost very nasty, whether you >have lots of pool or not. >Assuming i played WwEF, if i want my full hand size back, i must pay >anyway the 2 pool, else..let's go waiting entire cycle(s) of turns for >my full hand. If you can't afford two pool when you're faced with probably losing more than two pool, you have been BEATEN. You are not automatically granted a guaranteed win if you play properly - you are just given a chance. Sometimes, your predator can just KICK YOUR ASS. Playing First Tradition when you can't afford to spend 2 pool to get your Wakes back is considered "KICKING YOUR ASS". It's not Wake's fault and Wake really isn't related to it. >So, with First Tradition around, i get a notable penalty from the actual >WwEF cost: if i want to get my turn (untap) AND my full hand size from >WwEF(s), then i need bad to pay the two pool. That's because your predator took an offensive action against you that you didn't block - he put a First Tradition in play. Your fault for not stopping the 1st Tradition, NOT Wake's fault for not saving your ass even though you didn't. >> Because it taps two vampires, and if you're already tapped, the Anarch >> Troublemaker is useless. In fact, if I were very sneaky (which I am >> sometimes), I would leave one vampire untapped CONSTANTLY to attempt >> to provoke my predator into using the Troublemaker and giving it to >> me. >> >> Well, OK, he could burn some of my equipment. Not the most common use >> of AT. > >I don't get it. You got anyway >your last (1-2) untapped minion(s) tapped. >So you're in need of some Wake effect. >Why AT should be meaningless in WwEF matter? If you see an Anarch Troublemaker on the table, why are you leaving ANY vampires untapped? You know perfectly well that he can tap 2 of them at any time. There are only three possible strategies with AT.... 1) Leave more than 2 minions untapped. (Clumsy, and you can't oust your prey this way) 2) Leave NO minions untapped - take nothing but actions against your prey. (The usual response - deny them the opportunity) 3) Leave one minion untapped to provoke your predator. (My preferred response - I like having the AT.) If you have Wake in hand, why leave very many minions untapped at all? The surprise value of Wake is often worth more than an untapped minion. >> I'm not sure how Sleeping Mind enters into this, since after you react >> with the first Wake, it would ALWAYS be good to have another chance. >> Sleeping Mind doesn't tap any minions, > >But SM in combo with Faceless Night does. Faceless Night again. Why were you trying to block if you didn't intend to, thereby TAPPING YOURSELF? I answered all the Faceless Nigh stuff previously. >> Yes, no relation. AT's effect is MUCH bigger than Wake's. So is its >> cost. It's like comparing watermelons and grapes. Eat a grape, you >> have a seed to spit out. Annoying. Eat a watermelon, you have a >> MOUTHFUL. >> >> Wake is voluntary. You only got one Wake in hand, you better be sure >> blocking your prey is a smart move - you wouldn't be guaranteed to >> draw it back up ANYWAY. You don't HAVE to Wake just because you have >> it. >> >> Aggressive Tactics is an offensive, involuntary card played by your >> predator. It is high cost (two pool) and very fragile (burn with -d- >> action). > >Why, then, Aggressive Tactics has a so high cost and is very fragile? >Because the Hand Reduction is obviously deemed as a very powerful >effect, by game designers. The INVOLUNTARY hand reduction is the basis of the cost! Involuntary as opposed to voluntary is an ENORMOUS difference - take, for example, the involuntary reduction of your pool by someone playing a Govern the Unaligned, as opposed to you transferring 3 pool to a vampire that doesn't come out yet. Same effect - are they related? >Reversing that reasoning, and giving tha Hand reduction as a cost >to be assigned to cards, those cards, then, must have a very good >effect in terms of game play. Absolutely - you don't have a CHOICE, you just have to discard and leave it gone! >Then, with actual WwEF effect(s) and its hand reduction cost until next >untap, the proportion card effect/cost is not well respected. However, it is voluntary, meaning you don't HAVE to reduce your hand. Huge advantage since if you're screwed you can always avoid it. And again, you generally Wake to your predator anyway. See my previously posted analysis. >Because the cost given to Forced Awakening (the only other card giving >the same WwEF effect) is far less than the one later assigned to WwEF. Again, you haven't shown it. >For sure, is a good effect to have a tapped minion (and maybe my last >turn acting) to react/block. Damn right. And the cost for that good effect is no-replace-til-untap, meaning that you can't make a "nuthin' but Wake and Smiling Jack" deck that actually works. You have to bring out a couple minions and support them. >> Where do you draw the line? answer: when the card is no longer >> broken. Current situation: card is no longer broken. Problem >> solved. >> > >150+ threads about WwEF cost mean that the problem is not solved for >all the players, and this mean also that WwEF matter needs still some >discussion. No, frankly, it doesn't. It doesn't have to be perfect for everyone. Someone will ALWAYS be unhappy. Sometimes, the unahppy person has to be you. It's time to move on. Pure democracies fail. The process of arriving at a decision is much too long. Discussing things perfectly takes way too much time. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <866246082F20A9CC.061DA60F...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 12:53:22 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >> "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" > >> doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order > >> to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to > >> your predator's actions. > > > >If your prey/grandpredator don't act at all, > >you get a couple of wakes in your hand. > > Yeah, and this is SO common for both of them not to take ANY actions > at all. Now, let's talk REALISTICALLY. Everyone takes at least ONE > action per turn, unless they're walling up from desperation, and > you'll know that WELL ahead of time. > > >If your predator rushes you, with almost only wakes in your hand you > >won't be able to defend your minions (against rushing). > > Wake and block with the minion you mind dying least? It's very common > to see someone with a 2-cap vampire Wake and block the Rush action > just to not have their valuable vampires die - 2-caps are generally > expendable. > > >Wake is always subordinated to an action, if there are not so many > >actions, say, lots of "sitting on defense" decks at the table, > >definitively you won't cycle (with WwEF) so many cards. > > If you have a bunch of "sit on defense" decks, you gotta talk to your > playgroup about the concept of "ousting your prey and gaining VPs", > which means NOT "sitting on defense", and actually taking actions even > if they're only a bleed for 1. If everyone just sits there, nobody > wins - how is this fun? Life boon decks are, usually, "sitting on defense" decks. They may win, you know, as other deck type do. Deck all-intercept are, usually, "sitting on defense" decks. Many players play with them, and many players have fun just with "blocking" other's action at the table. Make not mistake: i'm not among those players. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <866246082F20A9CC.061DA60F...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 12:53:22 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > >> "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" > >> doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order > >> to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to > >> your predator's actions. > > > >If your prey/grandpredator don't act at all, > >you get a couple of wakes in your hand. > > Yeah, and this is SO common for both of them not to take ANY actions > at all. Now, let's talk REALISTICALLY. Everyone takes at least ONE > action per turn, unless they're walling up from desperation, and > you'll know that WELL ahead of time. > > >If your predator rushes you, with almost only wakes in your hand you > >won't be able to defend your minions (against rushing). > > Wake and block with the minion you mind dying least? It's very common > to see someone with a 2-cap vampire Wake and block the Rush action > just to not have their valuable vampires die - 2-caps are generally > expendable. > > >Wake is always subordinated to an action, if there are not so many > >actions, say, lots of "sitting on defense" decks at the table, > >definitively you won't cycle (with WwEF) so many cards. > > If you have a bunch of "sit on defense" decks, you gotta talk to your > playgroup about the concept of "ousting your prey and gaining VPs", > which means NOT "sitting on defense", and actually taking actions even > if they're only a bleed for 1. If everyone just sits there, nobody > wins - how is this fun? Life boon decks are, usually, "sitting on defense" decks. They may win, you know, as other deck type do. Deck all-intercept are, usually, "sitting on defense" decks. Many players play with them, and many players have fun just with "blocking" other's action at the table. Make not mistake: i'm not among those players. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <16148AD8317C95E7.67281B2E...@lp.airnews.net>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 20:25:14 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 22:24:20 GMT, tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > >> The guy with permanent intercept shouldn't be taking that many > >> offensive actions anyway - he's much more valuable as an untapped > >> threat. The one with the best possibilities to counter the acting > >> minion is something that you yourself generally know when you're > >> picking which minions act - so leave him untapped. > > > >How i'm supposed to guess which minions shall take actions against me? > > Uh... well, first, you assume that ALL of them will, and leave someone > untapped appropriately? > > And frankly, it's usually painfully obvious which vampires are > "offensive" and which vampires are "defensive" in someone's ready > region. The guy with superior OBF and DOM is offensive. The guy with > superior POT or PRO is offensive. The guy with the Sport Bike is > defensive. The guy with the Leather Jacket is usually defensive. > > It's just a simple "read the table" thing. > Ok. > >> Also, if you are tapped, then you have most likely just taken an > >> action against your prey, or an action to PREPARE to attack your prey > >> (hunting to gain blood to pay for the cards), or whatever. > > > >Not really: Propaganda, Misdirections, Anarch Troublemaker, Disarming > >Presence and other cards tap your left-untapped minions, without that > >they were acting on your last turn. > > Propaganda does not tap until the action successfully resolves - its > 'tap' effect is useless. I'm not sure at the moment, however i remember that Propaganda makes you to tap one of your minion "as it is played", and that minion remains tapped if the Propaganda action is succesful. > Disarming Presence is never seen in actual > play. Anarch Troublemaker is already on the table, so you KNOW your > minion might be tapped and you can play accordingly. The only real > bad one is Misdirection, and if you -must- leave minions untapped > against your predator, you are normally in the kind of trouble that > Wake isn't going to save you for. Definitively, i can't see well your line of reasonig. It seems me that you don't give any value to the waking effect other than the "cycling" aspect of WwEF. Any tapping effect i listed makes no sense for you, in front of WwEF. In a logical reasoning, a card that has a tap effect is anyway to be put in relation with a card that makes you to untap. But, you say, WwEF in front of Misdirection - no, don't matters, WwEF won't be useful. And so on. If WwEF don't makes any difference in all of these "tapping situations", that are, where WwEF would come in play, why, then, assign it another cost? Just to prevent cycling... It seems that you see only the "cycling" overpow of WwEF. Wiped out the cycling, nothing else matters... [ quoted text not captured ] Why? If my prey is playing first tradition-misdirection, then he/she will likely taps as many as he can of both his prey's and his predator (me) minions. [ quoted text not captured ] Again, "my predator". Why not my grandpredator or my prey? How many time it happens that you must defend yourself from actions not from your predator? See my previously > posted analysis. > > >Because the cost given to Forced Awakening (the only other card giving > >the same WwEF effect) is far less than the one later assigned to WwEF. > > Again, you haven't shown it. WwEF cost: is paid my the Methuselah (in hand size). FA cost: is paid by the vamp (burning 1 blood if he don't block or blocks unsuccesfully) 80 of 100, a cost paid by a Methuselah (WweF) is always worse than a card's cost paid by a minion (FA). FA cost/effect: if reacting minion has 0 blood, FA is free. If minion succesfully blocks, FA is free. WwEF cost/effect: no matter the case, the Methuselah pays WwEF cost, not replacing it until his/her next untap. Still waiting to be persuaded of contrary. Regards Emiliano, Prince of Rome [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote in message >When you have a 60-card deck to begin with, adding 20 Wakes is not >really much of a displacement at all... especially when you can burn >the Wakes like water. > (Atom Weaver groans...) Burn like water, eh Derek? ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000 08:57:32 -0700, "R. David Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >Derek Ray wrote in message >>When you have a 60-card deck to begin with, adding 20 Wakes is not >>really much of a displacement at all... especially when you can burn >>the Wakes like water. >> > >(Atom Weaver groans...) Burn like water, eh Derek? ;-) You've obviously never tasted my cooking. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 30 Jun 2000, Eric Pettersen wrote: > > Then I fail to see where the problem is. The card is less powerful than > > it was and is not wallpaper. > > Is it your position that any errata that that doesn't result in the card > becoming wallpaper is okay? I hope not. Of course not. However, it is an influencing factor. People are still using it, people are still using it in preference to Forced Awakening, and it is still played. These are factors which suggest (but do not dictate) that the errata is fairly balanced. > Your loyal opposition is arguing > that the errata to Wake went beyond what was necessary to fix the problem > (cycling) and excessively hobbled the card. Clearly, I do not agree. I have stated, and will state again, that there are no circumstances under whcih I believe the 'perfect' errata will ever be found for any over-powered card. There are always different conflicting factors that all merge in on a piece of errata which no one errata can ever satisfy perfectly. For instance, the original intent is a factor, play balance in the current set and possibilities (these first two often conflict), simple to remember, a useful explanation (these last two can go hand in hand, if there is a 'story' behind the errata) and so on. Clearly, player reaction is an other factor to consider, but it is not the *only* factor - simply because you cannot guarantee how all or even a sizeable portion of players will react. Tehre have been errata which I expected to see many more complaints about, but didn't get, and vice versa. I can see that, to appease other factors, removing the errata will improve those other areas - but it will conflict in other areas, too. In this instance, the factor I believe is paramount is play-balance - and I believe the card is very balanced. If it was so overly expensive, Fored Awaekning would be all the rage amongst those players who can use it, or JOL. This does not seem to be the case. > > It didn't become complete wallpaper, no. There is a whole spectrum of > strengths between "overpowered" and "wallpaper" you know. Of course. I believe that Wake originally occupied the position of "overly useful, and overly cheap". I believe it now occupies "balanced". > I don't > necessarily agree that unerrataed Wake was even overpowered. However, > the free cycling was a problem in that it went against one of the basic > design principles of the game (that the discard phase is a limited resource). > I imagine this was also one of the motivations for the "no vote pushing" > rule [rather than some alternative fix for weenie vote pushing]. IMO, that (violating basic principles) would move towards fulfilling, in my mind, one possible definition of overpowered (since there will be different definitions for different situations). Again, it wouldn't be the only factor - but it is a factor, I feel. > 1) It is tedious to keep track of exactly what your hand size is > over the course of several turns, particularly if you get in a > frequent-card-drawing situation (e.g. combat). I find that simply keeping the Wake in my other hand, or placing it (as with other Do Not Reaplce cards) on the table in front of me, removes such tedium. > > 2) Wake, without cycling, wasn't demonstrated to be overpowered. > There was no justification for adding an additional penalty to > the card beyond stopping cycling. This errata does stop card cycling. Note that some of the alternatives put forward do other things - like showing other people the cards - or simply speed up the time (under some cirucmstances) in which the card is replaced (e.g. if you successfully block etc.) > > 3) It makes some problematic cards, such as Misdirection, even > worse. It is hard enough to fight weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed > with unerrataed Wake. With no card redrawing until the next turn, > it becomes very much harder. If Misdirection is considered problematic, perhaps looking at Misdirection would be the best option. This, of course, assumes you consider Misidirection a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: Re: act against who is goign to act against you. > How i'm supposed to guess which minions shall take actions against me? clearly, you cannot know - and if you act against them, that will change. However, work on the principle of "Who is it most beneficial for me to kill?" IS someing screwing your votes, or likely to be able to pull off a big bleed? So, if I'm playing a rush combat deck, and I see a tap and bleed deck come my way, hit the one with the DOM, or Arika, or whoever. > I don't get it. You got anyway > your last (1-2) untapped minion(s) tapped. > So you're in need of some Wake effect. > Why AT should be meaningless in WwEF matter? You have had a turn of warning. (It is a master used in the untap phase.) At least, for the first player, and if it *is* used, the second player could already have guessed it was going to be used. So, you have had a turn to cycle around for Wakes, discard cards, elave vampires (excessive numbers) untapped etc. This extra warning is somewhat more important. > > I'm not sure how Sleeping Mind enters into this, since after you react > > with the first Wake, it would ALWAYS be good to have another chance. > > Sleeping Mind doesn't tap any minions, > > But SM in combo with Faceless Night does. That's DOM/OBF, however. If you want an unblockable action, go to FOR or PRO instead. > > Aggressive Tactics is an offensive, involuntary card played by your > > predator. It is high cost (two pool) and very fragile (burn with -d- > > action). > > Why, then, Aggressive Tactics has a so high cost and is very fragile? > Because the Hand Reduction is obviously deemed as a very powerful > effect, by game designers. You fail to take into account that it is involuntary card reduction. > 150+ threads posts, not threads. > about WwEF cost mean that the problem is not solved for > all the players, and this mean also that WwEF matter needs still some > discussion. > I draw the line from this. I th9ink the phrase "draw the line" has passed you by, being an English idiom. To draw the line is a term meaning "where do you stop". [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 tetragr...@my-deja.com wrote: > Life boon decks are, usually, "sitting on defense" decks. Irrelevant. See the Life Boon errata. Please learn to snip your posts. They are becoming unreadably large based on the fact that you will not cut anything previous posters are writing, even when you are choosing not to dispute it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > WARNING! poster is soused. If you're going to post when soused, can't you at least throw me a few incoherent arguments that I can kick through the goalposts? Your arguments have frightening lucidity, considering. > > poster has just come from Dragon*Con, where he has met multiple and > numerous Methuselahs from all-bloody over this creation, and found > that LO, they were cool people and stuff and drank lots along with > him. > > including some goober who fed poster tequila, causing MUCH yappiness. goober revealed later in thread. > >Your loyal opposition is arguing that the errata to Wake went beyond > >what was necessary to fix the problem (cycling) and excessively hobbled > >the card. > > Card ain't hobbled. Played "Daffy Deck" tonight, a lovely little > AUS/CEL monstrosity. It uses something like 12 Wakes in it. It > blocks everything it doesn't like and then uses Celerity to run away > and dodge and even end combat, and then it bleeds with Pulse. It > gained 3 VPs off a 5-person table by ousting the first 3 guys it faced > and then losing to its Tzimisce hideous-intercept predator, who kept > killing me once i was out of cards. =( > [snip further affirmation of Wake's non-suckiness] > > The card don't suck. Just plain not at ALL. Well, if you've been keeping score at home, I've never claimed it sucked, before or after errata. It is still useful. The most I think I've said is that there was no justification for putting penalties on the card beyond stopping cycling. > If I could've had 7 cards in hand after all those Wakes I played in > the situation above, I would've got 5 VPs instead of 3. Guaranteed. > A deck that stops everything doesn't NEED that advantage. So, you're claiming that without the replacement penalty, Daffy Deck would be classified as "broken"? Um, I'm sorry but that makes me all grins. My definition of a broken deck is one that consistently wins a Jyhad unless confronted with a deck _specifically designed_ to beat it. I.e. "general purpose" decks will mostly lose to the broken deck. Daffy Deck, while good, would seem to be on an even footing with a Rush combat deck, and in trouble against most types of weenie predators (since Daffy is intercept-and-run-away and doesn't put any permanent hurt on opposing vamps). I don't think Daffy Deck is broken even if Wake is replace-after-combat. > > 1) It is tedious to keep track of exactly what your hand size is > > over the course of several turns, particularly if you get in a > > frequent-card-drawing situation (e.g. combat). > > This can be mildly tricky. We solve the problem locally by not putting > Wake in the ash heap, but by putting it next to our library visibly. > When redrawing, we see the Wake(s) and don't redraw up to the wrong > point. On our untap, we drop the Wakes in the ashheap and draw some > free cards. Mostly what we do. We put the Wakes face up right on top of the library. Nonetheless, this is a unique card mechanic and rather awkward. > > > 2) Wake, without cycling, wasn't demonstrated to be overpowered. > > It's a WAKE. Its whole purpose is to permit you to defend while acting, > thereby cycling cards at a benefit to yourself. Wake assessed without > cycling involved is, well, meaningless. Either you get no card back > (no cycling) or you -do- get a card back (lots of cycling). "cycling" == playing Wake with no effect -- no block, no gain of intercept, and no further play of reaction cards. Maybe you could rephrase your point. My point is that the errata did more than just stop the cycling (as I just defined cycling), it added another penalty. There is no reason to believe that an errata that simply stopped empty cycling isn't sufficient. I don't think anyone would object to errata that simply stopped empty cycling. > > > There was no justification for adding an additional penalty to > > the card beyond stopping cycling. > > "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" > doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order > to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to > your predator's actions. See the definition of cycling I gave. An errata to stop cycling should stop this behavior without tacking on additional penalties that haven't be justified. > > > 3) It makes some problematic cards, such as Misdirection, even > > worse. It is hard enough to fight weenie Dominate tap-and-bleed > > with unerrataed Wake. With no card redrawing until the next turn, > > it becomes very much harder. > > Misdirection has a good, ugly cost for all those minions tapped - > POOL. It's not that Misdirection is broken, it's that weenies are > inherently more cost-effective. More actions = better deck. As you're well aware, that cost is rarely more than 2. Whereas for every Wake you fail to draw against weenie Dominate due to the errata, the cost is typically at least 2 and frequently 5 or more. > > Wake helps that out. You can act, and then Wake to defend. It > doesn't need to be perfect, or FA would never be used. I don't think I'm asking for it to be perfect (it's still no replace until after combat no matter what), but that's a matter of opinion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 4 Jul 2000 00:57:51 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> WARNING! poster is soused. > >If you're going to post when soused, can't you at least throw me a few >incoherent arguments that I can kick through the goalposts? Your arguments >have frightening lucidity, considering. And if you'd seen me that night, "considering" ought to be in all caps. I'll kick a couple of my own, though, looking through this. >Well, if you've been keeping score at home, I've never claimed it sucked, >before or after errata. It is still useful. The most I think I've said >is that there was no justification for putting penalties on the card beyond >stopping cycling. True, but the point was mostly to toss out for the rest of the people who claim that Wake is overcosted currently, and for some of the others who say "Man, it SUCKS now! I play nothing but FA." Granted, Daffy probably should be using FA itself, but the fact that it doesn't and is still effective says something about the card not being overcosted. As another thread is going through, it's not very easy to stop Wake-cycling while avoiding the "burn a blood!" thing. Making Wake burn a blood means you have an either/or situation with no general-purpose card available - I wouldn't want to Wake and block, ever, nor would I want to FA and Deflect. Difficult if you have a deck that does both. >> A deck that stops everything doesn't NEED that advantage. > >So, you're claiming that without the replacement penalty, Daffy Deck would >be classified as "broken"? Um, I'm sorry but that makes me all grins. Oh, HELL no. First flaw is those +1 stealth actions to get the Pulse tend to be intercepted, and Alacrity blows when you're Pulsing already. (five blood? AIEEE) Second flaw is that vampires who -are- Pulsed tend to have a big bullseye on their foreheads. The point was more what it reads as - Wake is plenty powerful as it is. Permitting the replacement makes it possible to make decks that -are- that powerful. =) Not that that one is. >purpose" decks will mostly lose to the broken deck. Daffy Deck, while >good, would seem to be on an even footing with a Rush combat deck, and in From personal experience, it beats close-range Potence by packing way too many maneuvers to be caught. It loses to flung-stuff Potence because it can't dodge additional strikes. (It also loses to retainer damage or DotB.) It's not perfect, but it's fun. >trouble against most types of weenie predators (since Daffy is >intercept-and-run-away and doesn't put any permanent hurt on opposing >vamps). Daffy can punch for one and Sideslip, or if Dancin' Dana is out, can punch for 2 and Sideslip =) But mostly those end up being used as Dodges. Daffy also tends to get five minions out fairly fast, so weenie predators don't have -such- an easy time of it. >I don't think Daffy Deck is broken even if Wake is replace-after-combat. Nope, but it would make it a *lot* better. That's the significance of the difference between current-and-then. >> > 2) Wake, without cycling, wasn't demonstrated to be overpowered. >> >> It's a WAKE. Its whole purpose is to permit you to defend while acting, >> thereby cycling cards at a benefit to yourself. Wake assessed without >> cycling involved is, well, meaningless. Either you get no card back >> (no cycling) or you -do- get a card back (lots of cycling). > >"cycling" == playing Wake with no effect -- no block, no gain of intercept, >and no further play of reaction cards. Maybe you could rephrase your >point. I think this would be one of those incoherent drunk things you were looking for. *I* don't even understand what I'm saying here, and supposedly I posted it. I'm sure I made sense, but I'm not sure how. >My point is that the errata did more than just stop the cycling (as I just >defined cycling), it added another penalty. There is no reason to believe >that an errata that simply stopped empty cycling isn't sufficient. I don't >think anyone would object to errata that simply stopped empty cycling. The negligible cost of the card, and the total lack of opportunity cost for the card, is also part of the problem - it requires one tapped vampire, a plentiful resource taking no additional cards to create. So let's assume that somehow a functional errata is produced that totally stops "Wake and watch". Now Wake is STILL extremely powerful, since with no errata it's to your benefit to include eight in every deck unless you ABSOLUTELY don't have the room - and even then you ought to MAKE room. The basic action of "bleed for 1" becomes a total crapshoot since every deck is playing with Wake, and is likely to block zero-stealth actions, making stealth&bleed the premier option if you're going to bleed at all. It also encourages people to sit on their butts more and not risk being ousted even though their prey visibly is tapped out - you KNOW there's a Wake in their hand. Blah. Wake needed an actual cost, which it got. "replace after combat" is still no good for a deck that intends to Deflect everything. =/ >> > There was no justification for adding an additional penalty to >> > the card beyond stopping cycling. >> >> "Replace on untap" stops random cycling. "Replace on end of turn" >> doesn't since you just Wake to your grand-predator's actions in order >> to get excess Wake out of your hand, and then Wake as appropriate to >> your predator's actions. > >See the definition of cycling I gave. An errata to stop cycling should >stop this behavior without tacking on additional penalties that haven't >be justified. ...with the difficulty of wording the errata properly. +1 stealth actions are all over the damned place, as Peter said. =/ >> Misdirection has a good, ugly cost for all those minions tapped - >> POOL. It's not that Misdirection is broken, it's that weenies are >> inherently more cost-effective. More actions = better deck. > >As you're well aware, that cost is rarely more than 2. Whereas for every >Wake you fail to draw against weenie Dominate due to the errata, the cost >is typically at least 2 and frequently 5 or more. it's only as low as 2 if it's the first prey. The next guy down usually has 4 or more minions out (from having no predator), and against Misdirection, if it's me, I'll leave them ALL untapped and force him to spend like hell - hoping his predator will nail him while I wall up. And the problem is still the weenies and not the Misdirection. Minions like Royce, Samson, Christine, Brooke, and Cameron being printed didn't help matters any - there was already plenty of weenie Dominate from Jyhad, and duplicating the vamps in the Sabbat really made matters worse. I'm not sure the designers had a choice about Brooke and Cameron, but Royce and Samson should never have existed. Neither should Mustafa Rahman from Ancient Hearts. Don't even LOOK at the Presence weenies. Yowtch. >> Wake helps that out. You can act, and then Wake to defend. It >> doesn't need to be perfect, or FA would never be used. > >I don't think I'm asking for it to be perfect (it's still no replace until >after combat no matter what), but that's a matter of opinion. Bum's Rush is no-replace 'til after combat, and Rush decks don't suffer MUCH of a penalty with only 6 cards in hand. Wake decks don't need to use the mob of combat cards that Rush decks do, so they REALLY benefit from the noncost. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 4 Jul 2000 00:57:51 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) > As another thread is going through, it's not very easy to stop > Wake-cycling while avoiding the "burn a blood!" thing. Making Wake > burn a blood means you have an either/or situation with no > general-purpose card available - I wouldn't want to Wake and block, > ever, nor would I want to FA and Deflect. Difficult if you have a > deck that does both. I think the concept is easy to explain to someone ("you can't Wake to no effect"), but clumsy to phrase precisely as errata -- largely because there is no concise game term for "blocking with sufficient intercept to match the action's current stealth". As I see it, to stop empty cycling (only), you would append to Wake's printed card text: "If at the end of combat this vampire has not played a non-Wake/FA reaction card, has not attempted to block the action with intercept sufficient to match the action's stealth, nor has added any intercept, then do not replace until your next untap." > >My point is that the errata did more than just stop the cycling (as I > >just defined cycling), it added another penalty. There is no reason > >to believe that an errata that simply stopped empty cycling isn't > >sufficient. I don't think anyone would object to errata that simply > >stopped empty cycling. > > The negligible cost of the card, and the total lack of opportunity > cost for the card, is also part of the problem - it requires one > tapped vampire, a plentiful resource taking no additional cards to > create. So let's assume that somehow a functional errata is produced > that totally stops "Wake and watch". Now Wake is STILL extremely > powerful, since with no errata it's to your benefit to include eight > in every deck unless you ABSOLUTELY don't have the room - and even > then you ought to MAKE room. The basic action of "bleed for 1" > becomes a total crapshoot since every deck is playing with Wake, and > is likely to block zero-stealth actions, making stealth&bleed the > premier option if you're going to bleed at all. It also encourages > people to sit on their butts more and not risk being ousted even > though their prey visibly is tapped out - you KNOW there's a Wake in > their hand. Blah. Um, all your arguments above apply to FA too, and I don't see it getting errata. > > Wake needed an actual cost, which it got. "replace after combat" is > still no good for a deck that intends to Deflect everything. =/ FA has no cost for a deck that intends to block everything. >And the problem is still the weenies and not the Misdirection. Minions >like Royce, Samson, Christine, Brooke, and Cameron being printed didn't >help matters any - there was already plenty of weenie Dominate from Jyhad, >and duplicating the vamps in the Sabbat really made matters worse. I'm >not sure the designers had a choice about Brooke and Cameron, but Royce >and Samson should never have existed. Neither should Mustafa Rahman from >Ancient Hearts. > >Don't even LOOK at the Presence weenies. Yowtch. I can't imagine errata on all the weenies happening in this universe, so your point is fairly moot. A more quickly replaceable Wake would help quite a bit against these type of decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Jul 2000 00:38:43 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) wrote: >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 4 Jul 2000 00:57:51 GMT, pe...@address.is.in.sig (Eric Pettersen) > >I think the concept is easy to explain to someone ("you can't Wake to no >effect"), but clumsy to phrase precisely as errata -- largely because Because it's very difficult to phrase precisely AND concisely without leaving a loophole somewhere - the "attempt to block" loophole. >there is no concise game term for "blocking with sufficient intercept to >match the action's current stealth". As I see it, to stop empty cycling >(only), you would append to Wake's printed card text: "If at the end of >combat this vampire has not played a non-Wake/FA reaction card, has not >attempted to block the action with intercept sufficient to match the >action's stealth, nor has added any intercept, then do not replace until >your next untap." And you obviously see the problems with making that fit that on a card in a readable, understandable, non-loophole-laden format. >> The negligible cost of the card, and the total lack of opportunity >> cost for the card, is also part of the problem - it requires one >> tapped vampire, a plentiful resource taking no additional cards to >> create. So let's assume that somehow a functional errata is produced >> that totally stops "Wake and watch". Now Wake is STILL extremely >> powerful, since with no errata it's to your benefit to include eight >> in every deck unless you ABSOLUTELY don't have the room - and even (slight snip) > >Um, all your arguments above apply to FA too, and I don't see it getting >errata. Not True. It is far from "always" to your benefit to include eight FA's in every single deck you build, since there is a nasty cost associated with chucking FA around like an idiot - burning a blood when someone drops casual +1 stealth on you, or just wasting it to get it out of your hand when there's nothing you want to block. Even with the six-line errata above, it would still be to your benefit to drop 8 Wakes in every deck as the only problem you'd run into is when you couldn't find any zero-stealth actions to attempt to block legitimately - not especially common, as a lot of actions start OUT at zero stealth. >> Wake needed an actual cost, which it got. "replace after combat" is >> still no good for a deck that intends to Deflect everything. =/ > >FA has no cost for a deck that intends to block everything. A deck that intends to block everything has plenty of cost involved -already-, what with having to generate enough intercept consistently (harder than you think) *and* survive the combat afterwards. A deck that just Wakes and bounces has no cost other than that of the cards AND that their predator must bleed them. I've not seen a deck in a long time that didn't bleed every so often, and if you're playing Telepathic Misdirection you don't even have to worry about the opportunity cost - it's good against vote *and* bleed decks. Wake without errata is significantly more powerful than FA without errata. If Wake were currently replace-after-combat, I would NEVER play FA - why risk losing blood to Forgotten Labyrinth? >>And the problem is still the weenies and not the Misdirection. Minions (snip) >>Don't even LOOK at the Presence weenies. Yowtch. > >I can't imagine errata on all the weenies happening in this universe, so >your point is fairly moot. A more quickly replaceable Wake would help >quite a bit against these type of decks. My point is stated in the lines above. Why is it "moot" that the weenies are the problem, not the Misdirection? Neither Wake nor FA will save you if all your guys are tapped, errata or not - you might have one in hand and be able to draw up to another one by playing some cards, but the other 6 weenies are going to get through unless you've put 15-20 Wakes in your deck. The only difference without Misdirection is that he has to throw a couple weenies away against your untapped blockers first. Does Misdirection help the weenie deck? Yep. But is it the problem? Nope. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8kb5uj$31ts$1...@cgl.ucsf.edu>, Eric Pettersen <pe...@address.is.in.sig> writes >I can't imagine errata on all the weenies happening in this universe, so >your point is fairly moot. A more quickly replaceable Wake would help >quite a bit against these type of decks. Again, another thing that *might* (I have no idea, I am not privy to this information) make it into the Sabbat War. A number of people have asked for ways to make older vampires more playable. One way of doing that would be some more potential mechanisms to slow down weenie decks. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.zephyr.org.uk

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:Y9WFXsAB...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > A number of people have asked for ways to make older vampires more > playable. One way of doing that would be some more potential mechanisms > to slow down weenie decks. > Errr... James, not to be contentious, but it seems to me that older vampires are already the best answer to weenies... Deflection, Obedience, Elder Intervention, inherent votes for Ancilla Empowerments, superior PRE or ANI and the 2nd Trad, MT/Fifth bloat... all perfectly viable anti-weenie provided you can survive the first few rounds... It seems to me that big vamps have a superior alternative to Wake already in the form of 2nd Trad (for P/Js) and all the flexibility that comes with a bigger discipline selection. Just because a good weenie deck is _easy_ doesn't mean a good big-vamp deck is _impossible_. Mark Shanewood Ancilla of Minneapolis (and repeated victim of Princely intercept walls, aka "ANOTHER 2nd Trad?!? ... it's a friggin' RARE!")

In article <396aa653$0$8314$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, "Mark & Kathy ShaneWood" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote: > > James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message > news:Y9WFXsAB...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > > > A number of people have asked for ways to make older vampires more > > playable. One way of doing that would be some more potential mechanisms > > to slow down weenie decks. > > > > Errr... James, not to be contentious, but it seems to me that older vampires > are already the best answer to weenies... Deflection, Obedience, Elder > Intervention, inherent votes for Ancilla Empowerments, superior PRE or ANI > and the 2nd Trad, MT/Fifth bloat... all perfectly viable anti-weenie > provided you can survive the first few rounds... > > It seems to me that big vamps have a superior alternative to Wake already in > the form of 2nd Trad (for P/Js) and all the flexibility that comes with a > bigger discipline selection. > > Just because a good weenie deck is _easy_ doesn't mean a good big- vamp deck > is _impossible_. > Yes, _some_ big vampires are able to deal with weenie hordes if they have the preparation time. (as you stated, you must survive a few rounds) Unless you are playing dedicated anti-weenie I don't see it happening with a high rate of success. Plus, having all the intercept is great, but what about forward movement? Now you have an identified shortfall between the Camarilla, Independent clans and the Sabbat. The use of Obedience is great, but you first have to stop the pesky weenies first to use it. Deflection is great, but it really sucks if all you are getting bled for is 1 point per weenie. (Additionally, you tend to drain your minion right quick.) Elder Intervention is a fine non- disciple card but like Deflection will drain your minion right quick. (Even with the use of Obedience.) 2nd Tradition is only useable with the Camarilla, the Independent clans and the Sabbat are just out there in this area. Minion Tap/5th Tradition is again only useable with the Camarilla. Both the Independents and the Sabbat have nothing that even comes close to this "Water Bomb" of blood gain the Camarilla possess. Building a deck that can stop a weenie horde deck can be made, but can one be made that also moves forward? How much power does it have in the forward drive mode? Weak, moderate, or strong? I am guessing it would have a weak to weak/moderate forward capability as most of your deck space is geared toward stopping the Hordes. :) Michael Eichler Prince of Ramstein > Mark Shanewood > Ancilla of Minneapolis > (and repeated victim of Princely intercept walls, aka "ANOTHER 2nd Trad?!? > ... it's a friggin' RARE!") > > -- Worry comes from the belief you are powerless. (So get in there and kick some butt!) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <396aa653$0$8314$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, Mark & Kathy ShaneWood <shan...@tcinternet.net> writes >Just because a good weenie deck is _easy_ doesn't mean a good big-vamp deck >is _impossible_. Not at all. But providing options for the vampires who aren't Princes (etc.) and don't have the capacity for bleed bounce (the major options) would be really much better. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ve...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:M1SAVFBT...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In article <396aa653$0$8314$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, Mark & Kathy > ShaneWood <shan...@tcinternet.net> writes > >Just because a good weenie deck is _easy_ doesn't mean a good big-vamp deck > >is _impossible_. > > Not at all. But providing options for the vampires who aren't Princes > (etc.) and don't have the capacity for bleed bounce (the major options) > would be really much better. > Oh, I agree there... I just felt that with all the focus on the Evil Of Weenies the things big vamps do well -- see the Flexibility thread down a ways from here -- tend to get overlooked. Balancing the weenies out will be a pretty tricky balancing act. Look at some of the attempts in AH -- ToR3, RTI -- to make big vamps more appealing. Anything that helps big vamps tends to be synergistic with their already high capacity and flexibility, and we don't want the big fellas to run away with the metagame either. Frankly, I'm fairly happy with the current state of affairs and would rather see a lot of other areas adjusted before a tricky and (IMO) questionable rebalancing of big vamps is attempted. I _do_ agree that we ought to see some nice utility cards like the Traditions for titled Sabbat vampires sooner or later, although as we see more vampires for Sabbat calns, some of the existing Sabbat Cardinal/AB cards will look a lot better than they do now. Blood Feast/Tribute To The Master, anyone? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <396be836$0$8320$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, Mark & Kathy ShaneWood <shan...@tcinternet.net> writes >Oh, I agree there... I just felt that with all the focus on the Evil Of >Weenies the things big vamps do well -- see the Flexibility thread down a >ways from here -- tend to get overlooked. Well, some of the big vampires have great abilities, and so I'd pick them for that. For instance, Wynn is quite a popular vampire, because of his rush ability. And there are a number like that, that people base decks around, or use quit extensively. Beast, say, is very good. (*cranks up Lotus Approach*) I can't remember the last time I saw Ethan Locke come out, or Matteus (Flesh Sculptor), say. Something needs to be done to make them more attractive. I think we can all agree, even if not on the specifics necessarily, that a lot of the big vampires who just have a lot of disciplines and no really cool and useful special abilities are just overlooked. >Balancing the weenies out will be >a pretty tricky balancing act. Look at some of the attempts in AH -- ToR3, >RTI -- to make big vamps more appealing. Well, there were ways to go about it. I've seen some mechanisms that are excellently done, but which were very different from Tomb. Of course, Return to Innocence is another matter. Giving the ability for a 12 point bleed so easily was always a Bad Thing. However, Bleed is not the only way to go, nor necessarily the best one. Making the big vamps more playable isn't *just* about giving them more powerful things to do. One potential mechanism is that of Nosferatu Performance Art - giving a capacity based benefit. Now, on NPA, it's fairly minor. It doesn't *have* to be. Votes also have some potential. A card with a mechanism to give older vampires more votes (I can think of a number of ways of performing such) would help slow down the weenie vote deck, who's just called half a dozen praxis seizures. Say, one shot cards that give bigger vampires a few more votes, or master cards (perhaps with a tap mechanism, to limit it), or something like that. And the thing with votes is that *if* there was a Return to Innocence style card, getting +X votes isn't *such* a big deal (though that wouldn't be a card I'd *want* to see), since you are only going to be able to get a maximum of 5 points of damage done. >Anything that helps big vamps >tends to be synergistic with their already high capacity and flexibility, >and we don't want the big fellas to run away with the metagame either. Oh, clearly, no. I think it would be hard to completely nullify the weenies, anyway - not that I'd want to. The ability to play Misdirection and then have 6 vampires bleed with Computer Hacking, having one, maybe two blocked, by a Wake or two, is always scary. >Frankly, I'm fairly happy with the current state of affairs and would rather >see a lot of other areas adjusted before a tricky and (IMO) questionable >rebalancing of big vamps is attempted. Tricky, certainly, but I think that a number of big vamps are under- represented. The big vampires without cool specials or good titles seem to have a much harder time working into a deck than any others. *Those* are the ones I'd like to see beefed up. I don't want to see Wynn made super-vampiric. I'd like to see, say, something to make Lucretia seem like a useful deal. > >I _do_ agree that we ought to see some nice utility cards like the >Traditions for titled Sabbat vampires sooner or later, Yup, certainly. A more brutal version of 2nd Tradition would be nice. The scene in the War Council in Clannovel Lasombra, when not only is a Sabbat weenie stopped, but he has his head somewhat mangled, would be a nice inspiration for something along the lines of 2nd, but different to it. >although as we see >more vampires for Sabbat calns, some of the existing Sabbat Cardinal/AB >cards will look a lot better than they do now. Blood Feast/Tribute To The >Master, anyone? Bad man. The only problem with it now is lack of vampires, as you say. [ quoted text not captured ]

<myrm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kj19p$c4q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > >I can't remember the last time I saw Ethan Locke come out, or Matteus > >(Flesh Sculptor), say. Something needs to be done to make them more > >attractive. I think we can all agree, even if not on the specifics > >necessarily, that a lot of the big vampires who just have a lot of > >disciplines and no really cool and useful special abilities are just > >overlooked. > > Absolutely. I think Arika, Alexandra and Leandro are the only Inner > Circle members I've ever seen played. That group should all be > powerhouses (although not over-powered powerhouses, of course). > I've seen a Stanislava deck do nasty things. And Etrius is marginally useful in a Cryptic Mission deck. Gwendolyn is barely sustainable (POT FOR is hard to come by, but nasty). But Harrod is just sad. [snipp] > >However, Bleed is not the only way to go, nor necessarily the best > >one. > >Making the big vamps more playable isn't *just* about giving them more > >powerful things to do. > > Right. Simply adding the potential to do the same things the weenies > can do, only better, would be a tremendous boost. > The best thing about weenies is that they're disposable. I can't see big vamps as disposable short of the Redeem The Lost Soul deck (*giggle*). The second best thing about weenies is they come out fast and in quantity. Fast, TOR3 handles. In quantity? Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, other things that allow a big vamp untappy fun sure help, but are costful and very specialized. Maybe I'm not clear on your meaning ? > >One potential mechanism is that of Nosferatu Performance Art - giving a > >capacity based benefit. Now, on NPA, it's fairly minor. It doesn't > >*have* to be. > > Hmmm... cards with the equivalent of inferior and superior effects dependent on age? How would that interact with disciplines, I wonder? [snippity snipp] > > >I _do_ agree that we ought to see some nice utility cards like the > > >Traditions for titled Sabbat vampires sooner or later, > > > >Yup, certainly. A more brutal version of 2nd Tradition would be nice. > >The scene in the War Council in Clannovel Lasombra, when not only is a > >Sabbat weenie stopped, but he has his head somewhat mangled, would be > >a nice inspiration for something along the lines of 2nd, but different > >to it. > I envision a reverse Dawn Op. Reaction card that allows the acting vamp to choose whether to complete the action and go to torpor/take damage/??? or abort the action. > Good idea. So what kind of card for Giovanni that could relate to that > first scene in Clan Novel: Giovanni, where she... disturbs the remains? > Hey now! The kids are still awake. Necromancy needs cards like that, though... > *snip* > > > >although as we see more vampires for Sabbat calns, some of the > > >existing Sabbat Cardinal/AB cards will look a lot better than they > > >do now. Blood Feast/Tribute To The Master, anyone? > > > >Bad man. The only problem with it now is lack of vampires, as you > >say. > > I wonder if it'll ever be worth it to try a BF/TttM + 5th > Tradition/Minion Tap deck, assuming all the vamps are properly titled > (and will probably all share Dominate). Probably too many cards to try > to hinge the deck on; better to just pick one or the other. The BF/TttM deck I've tried out was a Lasombra breeder deck with Gratiano and lots of Creation Rites. Fragile at first, but evil once it gets going. I am, as James says, a bad man. [ quoted text not captured ]

>I can't remember the last time I saw Ethan Locke come out, or Matteus >(Flesh Sculptor), say. Something needs to be done to make them more >attractive. I think we can all agree, even if not on the specifics >necessarily, that a lot of the big vampires who just have a lot of >disciplines and no really cool and useful special abilities are just >overlooked. Absolutely. I think Arika, Alexandra and Leandro are the only Inner Circle members I've ever seen played. That group should all be powerhouses (although not over-powered powerhouses, of course). > >Balancing the weenies out will be > >a pretty tricky balancing act. Look at some of the attempts in AH -- > >ToR3, RTI -- to make big vamps more appealing. > >Well, there were ways to go about it. I've seen some mechanisms that >are excellently done, but which were very different from Tomb. Of >course, Return to Innocence is another matter. Giving the ability >for a 12 point bleed so easily was always a Bad Thing. Amen! *speaks in tongues* >However, Bleed is not the only way to go, nor necessarily the best >one. >Making the big vamps more playable isn't *just* about giving them more >powerful things to do. Right. Simply adding the potential to do the same things the weenies can do, only better, would be a tremendous boost. >One potential mechanism is that of Nosferatu Performance Art - giving a >capacity based benefit. Now, on NPA, it's fairly minor. It doesn't >*have* to be. > >Votes also have some potential. A card with a mechanism to give older >vampires more votes (I can think of a number of ways of performing >such) would help slow down the weenie vote deck, who's just called >half a dozen praxis seizures. Say, one shot cards that give bigger >vampires a few more votes, or master cards (perhaps with a tap >mechanism, to limit it), or something like that. And the thing with >votes is that *if* there was a Return to Innocence style card, getting >+X votes isn't *such* a big deal (though that wouldn't be a card I'd >*want* to see), since you are only going to be able to get a maximum >of 5 points of damage done. Yep. Right now about the only advantage the biggies have is a larger blood supply from which to pay blood costs (which could lead to more votes, yes, but usually just leads to them being low on blood and the horde across the way drooling in anticipation of ending your 8-cap vampiro). > >Anything that helps big vamps tends to be synergistic with their > >already high capacity and flexibility, and we don't want the big > >fellas to run away with the metagame either. > > Oh, clearly, no. I think it would be hard to completely nullify the > weenies, anyway - not that I'd want to. The ability to play > Misdirection and then have 6 vampires bleed with Computer Hacking, > having one, maybe two blocked, by a Wake or two, is always scary. Agreed. Even worse, you still have those weenie bleeders with Presence/Dominate. > >Frankly, I'm fairly happy with the current state of affairs and > >would rather see a lot of other areas adjusted before a tricky and > >(IMO) questionable rebalancing of big vamps is attempted. > >Tricky, certainly, but I think that a number of big vamps are under- >represented. The big vampires without cool specials or good titles >seem to have a much harder time working into a deck than any others. >*Those* are the ones I'd like to see beefed up. I don't want to see >Wynn made super-vampiric. I'd like to see, say, something to make >Lucretia seem like a useful deal. Yessir. I'm rooting for Don Cruez, myself. In my early days of Jyhad, with all those disciplines, he was nasty. We just had decks with everything in them, and we had to just hope to get a vampire out of the crypt that could use the cards. That was before my first tournament and I saw the concentrated deckstyle that was/is common. Those big guys just haven't had a place outside huge vote/bleed, IMO. > >I _do_ agree that we ought to see some nice utility cards like the > >Traditions for titled Sabbat vampires sooner or later, > >Yup, certainly. A more brutal version of 2nd Tradition would be nice. >The scene in the War Council in Clannovel Lasombra, when not only is a >Sabbat weenie stopped, but he has his head somewhat mangled, would be >a nice inspiration for something along the lines of 2nd, but different >to it. Good idea. So what kind of card for Giovanni that could relate to that first scene in Clan Novel: Giovanni, where she... disturbs the remains? *snip* > >although as we see more vampires for Sabbat calns, some of the > >existing Sabbat Cardinal/AB cards will look a lot better than they > >do now. Blood Feast/Tribute To The Master, anyone? > >Bad man. The only problem with it now is lack of vampires, as you >say. I wonder if it'll ever be worth it to try a BF/TttM + 5th Tradition/Minion Tap deck, assuming all the vamps are properly titled (and will probably all share Dominate). Probably too many cards to try to hinge the deck on; better to just pick one or the other. p. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:12:38 -0500, "Mark & Kathy ShaneWood" <shan...@tcinternet.net> wrote: ><myrm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kj19p$c4q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... >> >I've seen a Stanislava deck do nasty things. And Etrius is marginally >useful in a Cryptic Mission deck. Gwendolyn is barely sustainable (POT FOR >is hard to come by, but nasty). But Harrod is just sad. Etrius can be a bad, bad man - his disciplines lend themselves to that sort of thing (AUS/DOM/OBF is nothing to sneeze at, and if he feels like fighting, he does have THA). Gwendolyn's POT/FOR is great if you minion tap her, since she can Taste back a bunch of blood very quickly - but she has no Dominate. Leandro is only good because of his special - the Dominate problem again. Alexandra shows up for her "free action" special, so even though she's short on Dominate it doesn't hurt much. Harrod's problem (and to some degree, most ICs' problems) is that his disciplines (POT OBF CEL ANI aus pre) are all eclipsed by other IC members *or* by plain old cheap vampires. POT/CEL/PRE comes on Gwendolyn and a lot of Brujah, so scrap those discipline combos right there. OBF/XXX is neat but you can get it much more cheaply, and three other IC members have it. POT/ANI is found on Nigel and others. Why you'd want OBF/ANI I'm not sure but it's definitely out there lots cheaper. CEL/ANI is on Stanislava and Alexandra. POT/AUS is on Sheldon. And on top of it all, Harrod has no Dominate. I beat on the Dominate angle so much because that's a strong way for IC members to pay for themselves without having access to 5th Tradition - they can use Govern to pull out every other member of your crypt on the cheap. And sure enough, the guys with DOM are the ones you see most - Arika and Stanislava. >The best thing about weenies is that they're disposable. I can't see big >vamps as disposable short of the Redeem The Lost Soul deck (*giggle*). The >second best thing about weenies is they come out fast and in quantity. >Fast, TOR3 handles. In quantity? Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, other things >that allow a big vamp untappy fun sure help, but are costful and very >specialized. The *best* thing about weenies is that they provide lots of actions. Compare: I have Arika out. I drop two cards and bleed for 8, and drop a third to do it at +2 stealth. If I don't Freak Drive (fourth card), I can do nothing else that turn, and if I want to do something else instead, I can't bleed for 8. Now, I have four weenies out. I play a Misdirection to tap you, and drop four Computer Hackings to bleed for 8. Two extra cards, so the big vampire's mondo discipline barrage is more efficient. But I have all kinds of flexibility with the weenies. I can bleed for 6 and send a weenie to steal the Rack. I can bleed for 4, get a Rack, and diablerize someone's 10-cap. I can do this with Arika too, but I need two Freak Drives and it starts to cost me a good chunk of blood (govern + condition + 2 freak drives = 4 blood spent this turn, as opposed to the weenies who have spent nothing). I also need to be sure that I can pass the bloodhunt vote, since losing Arika to diablerie would be a real pisser. Losing a weenie is worth it to fry a 10-cap, usually. When it comes down to it, four actions per turn will do better than one action per turn. Freak Drive helps this for big vamps, and it's not surprising that the common ICs, Stanislava and Arika, just happen to have FOR - and the only other IC with FOR is Gwendolyn. Alexandra shows up a lot because she has a built-in Freak Drive (usable on others). We aren't even going to go into defense - drop Hostile Takeover, Pentex Subversion or Sensory Deprivation on Arika, and poof - kiss your deck goodbye. Try that on a weenie deck sometime and see what happens - the Pentex goes away on the first turn, and the SD vamp turns into the primary choice for wake/suicide defense, or wake/deflect. Hostile Takeover is GREAT for a weenie deck - pool gain for a used vampire! Meanwhile, the weenie deck has barely been slowed down. And god forbid Arika get caught without Obedience by weenie Rush - Grapple, Undead Strength, Disarm, and the next weenie diablerizes. Poof! (Although with FOR she ought to be preventing if she's not Obediencing, but we're all familiar with "deck screw" and having none in hand and 10 in the library.) Any cards that are to help big vampires are going to HAVE to address the multiple-action issue first, or it will be pointless. RtI tried, but all that did was create the "Hot Potato of Death" deck as people discovered new and exciting ways to include 12 Deflections. Kindred Coercion is good, but it's rare, requires Dominate, and is a defense, not an offense. There are maybe a couple others, but they come up against the same problem - how do you compare to all four actions? The only other possible solution is to make a big vampire's actions more effective than a 2-cap with a skill card's, and that involves printing a bunch of age-related cards, and it might just be easier to find ways to give big guys more actions. Maybe a disciplineless variant of Freak Drive, only usable by a vampire of 9 capacity or higher. But that makes some ugly 5th Tradition combos possible with the huge Princes - Minion Tap, 5th, Freak Drive, take offensive action with suddenly-free vampire. That's already powerful, I don't know that we need to give it to the non-FOR guys. =) >Hmmm... cards with the equivalent of inferior and superior effects dependent >on age? How would that interact with disciplines, I wonder? -shrug- Put a Dominate symbol on the card. Card text: "Bleed at +1 stealth. If the acting vampire is capacity 9 or greater, this action is also for +2 bleed." Obviously, this card would be a terrible, TERRIBLE new addition, but it serves its purpose as a quick example of how it could work. =) Several discipline cards already have no inferior/superior versions - Army of Rats, Horrific Countenance, etc. Or maybe an action modifier that provided the effects like Camarilla Exemplary - "Any younger vampire must burn 2 blood when attempting to block this action." Or a free OBF card like Forgotten Labyrinth, but that was tied to capacity instead of inferior/superior. Or Or Or... you get the picture. It'd be possible to go through the disciplines, find a "good" card for each, and rewrite it slightly to be average-weak for weenies, but better than the "good" card for 9-caps and up. Protean could have free claws. Celerity could get "Maneuver. (9) Maneuver, with an additional strike this round." Auspex could have "+1 intercept. (9) +3 intercept." The possibilities become quite varied. =)

> > Absolutely. I think Arika, Alexandra and Leandro are the only Inner > > Circle members I've ever seen played. That group should all be > > powerhouses (although not over-powered powerhouses, of course). > > I've seen a Stanislava deck do nasty things. And Etrius is marginally > useful in a Cryptic Mission deck. Gwendolyn is barely sustainable > (POT FOR is hard to come by, but nasty). But Harrod is just sad. Now that you mention it, I think I have seen Stanislava in action. But it was a Stanislava deck that didn't do well. Gwendolyn (and maybe Harrod too, for that matter) should have +2 hand damage. Evil. > > Right. Simply adding the potential to do the same things the > > weenies can do, only better, would be a tremendous boost. > > The best thing about weenies is that they're disposable. I can't see > big vamps as disposable short of the Redeem The Lost Soul deck > (*giggle*). The second best thing about weenies is they come out > fast and in quantity. Fast, TOR3 handles. In quantity? Freak Drive, > Rutor's Hand, other things that allow a big vamp untappy fun sure > help, but are costful and very specialized. > > Maybe I'm not clear on your meaning ? I agree with you here. My meaning is that, although you can Freak Drive/Rutor's Hand/Homunculus/etc. with the larger vampires, once you do it once or twice (along with the actions/reactions you've allowed by doing so) you've basically lowered their blood supply down to weenie level. So now you have a vampire almost as vulnerable as any weenie vamp (they do still have more disciplines to choose from, but the more cards you add for each of those disciplines, the less likely you are to actually have it when you need it). And to top that off, you just paid about 8 times the pool while waiting (and getting beaten on) to get that behemoth into your controlled region. > > >One potential mechanism is that of Nosferatu Performance Art - > > >giving a capacity based benefit. Now, on NPA, it's fairly minor. > > >It doesn't *have* to be. > > Hmmm... cards with the equivalent of inferior and superior effects > dependent on age? How would that interact with disciplines, I wonder? > [snippity snipp] > > > >I _do_ agree that we ought to see some nice utility cards like > > > >the Traditions for titled Sabbat vampires sooner or later, > > >Yup, certainly. A more brutal version of 2nd Tradition would be > > >nice. > > >The scene in the War Council in Clannovel Lasombra, when not only > > >is a Sabbat weenie stopped, but he has his head somewhat mangled, > > >would be a nice inspiration for something along the lines of 2nd, > > >but different to it. > > I envision a reverse Dawn Op. Reaction card that allows the acting > vamp to choose whether to complete the action and go to torpor/take > damage/??? or abort the action. > > > Good idea. So what kind of card for Giovanni that could relate to > > that first scene in Clan Novel: Giovanni, where she... disturbs the > > remains? > > Hey now! The kids are still awake. Necromancy needs cards like that, > though... Heh... Necromancy needs cards. Any useful cards. p. *snip* [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <396d40dc$0$8318$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>, Mark & Kathy ShaneWood <shan...@tcinternet.net> writes >> Absolutely. I think Arika, Alexandra and Leandro are the only Inner >> Circle members I've ever seen played. That group should all be >> powerhouses (although not over-powered powerhouses, of course). >> >I've seen a Stanislava deck do nasty things. And Etrius is marginally >useful in a Cryptic Mission deck. Gwendolyn is barely sustainable (POT FOR >is hard to come by, but nasty). But Harrod is just sad. Rob Treasure has also done evil things with Stansylvania. She *can* be a good vampire, but really needs a deck built around her. I've used Harrod once or twice in a version of David Tatu's Ugly Bloated Princes. He was mostly there just for variety at the top end, and also for the votes. I hate having more than two copies of a vampire in a crypt, when I can avoid it (unless playing something like Wynn-Wynn) simply because getting 3 of one vampire in my uncontrolled region is an absolute arse. >> Right. Simply adding the potential to do the same things the weenies >> can do, only better, would be a tremendous boost. >> >The best thing about weenies is that they're disposable. Right. A greater reward for a greater risk would be nice. The weenie reward:risk ratio is much higher than the same ratio for big vampires. >I can't see big >vamps as disposable short of the Redeem The Lost Soul deck (*giggle*). If I had enough of them, doing sick things with Chris Berger's idea of throwing vampires into the ash-heap with Might of the Camarilla and fetching them back with Possession would be fun. Being able to throw in Redeem The Lost Soul for the odd bit of pool gain now and then (along with Golconda: Inner Peace) would be a nice bit of flexibility - if later on, my Possessions were to get blocked, being able to use the vampires who were in the ash-heap already would be nice.... > The >second best thing about weenies is they come out fast and in quantity. >Fast, TOR3 handles. Though adding *slightly* to the problems with disposable, of course. A good combat deck really shouldn't care what you have by way of blood, but that extra bit of blood is always nice.... >In quantity? Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, other things >that allow a big vamp untappy fun sure help, but are costful and very >specialized. Yup. :( >> >One potential mechanism is that of Nosferatu Performance Art - giving a >> >capacity based benefit. Now, on NPA, it's fairly minor. It doesn't >> >*have* to be. >> > >Hmmm... cards with the equivalent of inferior and superior effects dependent >on age? How would that interact with disciplines, I wonder? That would be for the Design Team to decide. :) However, if it were done as clan based cards, that wouldn't come in, of course. >> Good idea. So what kind of card for Giovanni that could relate to that >> first scene in Clan Novel: Giovanni, where she... disturbs the remains? >> >Hey now! The kids are still awake. Necromancy needs cards like that, >though... Necromancy needs good cards, fullstop. It's difficult to make a *good* Giovanni deck that utilises Necromancy well. >The BF/TttM deck I've tried out was a Lasombra breeder deck with Gratiano >and lots of Creation Rites. Fragile at first, but evil once it gets going. How to guarantee Gratiano is the killer. Perhaps two copies each of Gratiano, Alvaro, Antonio and Angelica, with 4 weenies. Or maybe fewer, but with a copy of Recruitment handy... Still, I'd prefer Gratiano because: 1) He's just so damn brilliant 2) The votes 3) He has +1 bleed. Whilst Alvaro also does, he only has dom, whereas Gratiano has DOM. Both have OBT, though, for stealth. Throw in some Obtenebration (for stealth) and Dominate (for bleed) master cards and all your weenies from Creation Rites will be at least 2 capacity. Then, then can procreate with The Embrace and you can refill them (and their progeny) at the end of the turn with Blood Feast. >I am, as James says, a bad man. Damn right! [ quoted text not captured ]