Tournament Report - Blood Siege 2007

Here is the long awaited tournament report for Blood Siege - The Western Canadian Qualifier for the North American Championship - that was held in St. Albert, Alberta, Canada, on Aug. 25. Enjoy. The story so far . . . Dawn's first light streamed with the river beneath the Low Level Bridge in Edmonton. Wedged precariously among the beams above the water, Jennie Orne said a quiet prayer. Night had surrendered its hold over the city to the day again, and none to soon for her cramped arms and legs. Signs of the monster, the one who called himself 'Vignes', had vanished along with it, but he would be back. If she knew anything about the monster that had stalked her amidst the violence of the fading night, it was this: he would not relinquish the power that he had held over the City of Champions so easily. This time the Champions had caught him off guard, in no small part due to the distraction from the south. Routing Vignes and his kind would not be so easy next time. Nostoket allowed himself a slight smile as news from the battlefield filtered in. Preliminary reports suggested the Tzimisce's ghouls had caught the Brujah and their pathetic Nosferatu spies napping in their crypts during the initial assault. And the Ahrimanes had done an admirable job of blocking the escape routes and mopping up pockets of resistance in their wake. It was only a matter of time before the Sword wrested control of the city away from the cowardly Ventrue. It may very well have succeeded this time, if not for the mortals . . . . Nostoket smiled again. No doubt howls of anger and disbelief would erupt from the Camarilla once news of the mortals' stake in the city spread. No matter: the Sabbat could fight two enemies as easily as it could one. More concerning were disturbing rumors about the re- emergence of the "Lords of the Night." The Sword of Caine would need to tread cautiously . . . The rumors are true . . . Twenty-one Methuselah's from Edmonton and Red Deer gathered at Thunderground Comics on Aug. 25 for Blood Siege 2007. In addition to battling for one of six spots at the North American Championships later this month, the players vied for a chance to have their names engraved for posterity on the Blood Siege trophy, featuring the original artwork for the Sabbat War card of the same name. I'd like to thank Roy Kim of Thunderground for doing such a great job (as always) as host; Oscar Garza, for supplying shirts and promos between moving offices and leaving for Gen Con; Jason Switner, Prince of Edmonton, for all his help organizing the tournament and providing additional prize support; and William O'Connor, for hunting through his warehouse for the original art for Blood Siege. Photographs of the trophy, which wil be displayed at Thunderground, as well as the event are available, if anyone is interested in seeing them. I would also like to take a moment to say how proud I am of the four players from Red Deer who attended this year's qualifier. A year ago, there was only one person from Red Deer who made the trip up to Edmonton (that would be me). Now there are eight Methuselah's who regularly play VTES in Red Deer on Thursday nights, and three of them qualified for the NAC. I'm hopeful Red Deer will continue to build on its success. Way to go, boys and girls! On to the tournament, which featured a wide variety of decks based on the Camarilla, Sabbat, Independents, Laibon and Bloodlines. However, five decks clearly dominated the field heading into the final: Bob Eckert (War Ghouls - 2 GW 7 VPs) bleeding Shawn Zinyk (Massasi Rush - 1 GW 4 VPs) bleeding Michael Holmbert (Imbued - 2 GW 8 VPs) bleeding Thomas Solway (Ventrue Dom Bleed - 2 GW 9 VPs) bleeding Nick Fraser (Ahrimane Wall - 2 GW 7 VPs) The final was over almost before it started. Despite building a nearly impenetrable wall during the first two rounds, Nick jammed on combat in the final. Thomas seized the initiative, ousting Nick and Bob. Unfortunately for him, Massassi's rush limitation allowed Michael to tool up the imbued virtually unimpeded. Once the imbued were set up, it was only a matter of time before Michael ousted Thomas and Shawn for the game win and the tournament victory After close to seven hours of battle, the City of Champions fell to the Imbued. The final standings: 1. Michael Holmberg (2/8/3/120) 2. Thomas Solway (2/9/2/120) 3. Nick Fraser (2/7/0/120) 4. Bob Eckert (2/7/0/120) 5. Shawn Zinyk (1/4/0/78) 6. Carmen Ball (1/3/-/84) 7. Jason Switner (0/1/-/78) 8. Jonathan Puckrin (0/1/-/76) 9. Cory Hrushka (0/1/-/76) 10. Kourch Chan (0/1/-/66) 11. Troy Weiss (0/0/-/58) 12. Jason Campbell (0/0/-/58) 13. Aaron Jefferey (0/0/-/58) 14. Dave Berkes (0/0/-/56) 15. Danny Gagon (0/0/-/56) 16. Travis Flaman (0/0/-/56) 17. Ken Lalonde (0/0/-/52) 18. John Spivak (0/0/-/46 19. Kelly LaRiviere ((0/0/-/46) 20. Lilian Dew (0/0/-/46) 21. Chad Fraser (0/0/-/42) Michael Holmberg, Thomas Solway, Nick Fraser, Bob Eckert, Shawn Zinyk, Carmen Ball and Cameron Kennedy (tournament organizer) are qualified for the North American Championship. The finalists will also have their names engraved on the Blood Siege trophy. For those who are interested, here is Michael's deck. I've taken the liberty of naming it, considering that Michael neglected to as he wrote it while driving to the tournament: CITY OF CHAMPIONS By Michael Holmberg CRYPT (12) 3x Jennie "Cassie247" Orne 3x Francois "Warder" Loehr 3x Jack "Hannibal137" Harmon 3x Xian "DziDzati55" Quan LIBRARY (60) MASTER (7) 3x Angel of Berlin 1x Church of Vindicated Faith 2x Memories of Mortality 1x Unity CONVICTIONS (30) 5x React with Conviction 15x Second Sight 10x Strike with Conviction EQUIPMENT (4) 3x .44 Magnum 1x Crusader Sword EVENTS (3) 1x Anthelios, The Red Star 1x Edge Explosion 1x The Unmasking POWER (16) 3x Champion 3x Discern 3x Inspire 3x Rejuvenate 4x Vigilance Thanks for reading. I look forward to seeing you in LA. Cameron Kennedy Prince of Red Deer

And the winner is.... The Imbued. Again. nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerf

> And the winner is.... > > The Imbued. > > Again. > > nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfner­fnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfne­rfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfn­erfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerf­nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfner­fnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfne­rfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfn­erfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerf­nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfner­fnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfne­rfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerf Seriously, the problem is the players, not the imbued. They can be shut down, and they can be shut down effectively and quickly. People just are intimidated by them and don't understand their weaknesses. After spending a couple hundred dollars, if they are nerfed (not that they would be, but if they were), I'd leave the hobby. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

> CRYPT (12) > 3x Jennie "Cassie247" Orne > 3x Francois "Warder" Loehr > 3x Jack "Hannibal137" Harmon > 3x Xian "DziDzati55" Quan Interesting, no Travis. > LIBRARY (60) > > MASTER (7) > 3x Angel of Berlin > 1x Church of Vindicated Faith Which means that this lone location is his only pool gain (other than his prey). > 3x Inspire Well, and these 3 Inspire... still. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Sep., 10:10, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > And the winner is.... > > > The Imbued. > > > Again. > > > nerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfnerfner­­ > > Seriously, the problem is the players, not the imbued. They can be > shut down, and they can be shut down effectively and quickly. People > just are intimidated by them and don't understand their weaknesses. > After spending a couple hundred dollars, if they are nerfed (not that > they would be, but if they were), I'd leave the hobby. So you would have said that not RTI was the problem, but the players? Using anti-x to combat x is not a viable solution. (Just like you could bounce with RTI didn't make it any less broken.) I still think the problem lies with the imbued. Recent major tournament wins point in this direction, as the players there are assumed to be top-players.

> So you would have said that not RTI was the problem, but the players? > Using anti-x to combat x is not a viable solution. (Just like you > could bounce with RTI didn't make it any less broken.) > I still think the problem lies with the imbued. Recent major > tournament wins point in this direction, as the players there are > assumed to be top-players. I completly disagree that the problem is the imbued. MoM is indeed too powerful, but this deck packed 2 of them, no Parthenon and only 7 masters to use with Anthelios (which was probably used more as a gateway event for EE). Players just don't understand Imbued. They freak when they hit the table. I used to be one of those players, it was all too much, so I went out and bought them because we only had 1 imbued player in my playgroup. After using them, I had a much greater understanding of their strenghts and weaknesses and what cards did what and how they interacted with the game mechanics. Until I owned and played them I didn't get this - I was intimidated as a player when they hit the table. There are still a lot of players who just don't get it. This deck isn't that scary. So what, it's got champions and loads of disciplines. It's only got 3 .44's and no other maneuvers. They can be hurt, even by light combat. And I mean really hurt. They don't have any stealth other than Second Sight, which only gives them effectively 2 stealth on any of their actions. They can be thefted, crowed, or just bashed. If they've got 1 Champion, then you send 2 guys. They can't handle vote, they don't have much pool gain outside of Travis (and even then - he gets blocked). The players might not have the perfect deck for dealing with them, but there are basic strategies that work against them. People just don't want to or don't know how to deal with them. Imbued in my playgroup don't win very often. Sure they might get a couple VP, but when they do win it's rare. And that's because we can deal with them. If everyone is playing Big Cap stealth bleed and can only get 1 or 2 guys out and then get shut down - well that's a bad deck design that they've made. It could get shut down by Deflection. So yes, the problem lies with the Players on the table, not the imbued. [ quoted text not captured ]

This deck is the proof that the probleme with imbued is dos not come from: Memories of Mortality: Only 2 of them in this deck Travis: No travis Lot's of power: there is not a lot of power in the deck. So as i thought the probleme with imbued is that not a lot of player no how to agress them and make them loose. Sometimes when I play Imbued my prey will ask: - How many time can you block? - Non all my imbued are tap. - Yes but with play cards how many time can you block? - I now but I won't tell you. - How much intercept can you have? - do I have to anser? - I meen with what there is on the table how much can you have? - It's on the table help yourself. - Ok I see 2 is there card giving intercept to imbued... Just try to imagine that without imbued. - I bleed you with vampire A. - How much can you bleed with him? - It's a blled for one. - Yes but how much can you do? - depend... - Can you stop me from using defection? -??? - How much stealth can you have... I'm not shur it's worth trying to block. My point is you will often loose againste deck you do not understand... and don't aspect the player to explain you were to hurt him.

On 11 Sep., 11:08, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > So you would have said that not RTI was the problem, but the players? > > Using anti-x to combat x is not a viable solution. (Just like you > > could bounce with RTI didn't make it any less broken.) > > I still think the problem lies with the imbued. Recent major > > tournament wins point in this direction, as the players there are > > assumed to be top-players. > > I completly disagree that the problem is the imbued. MoM is indeed > too powerful, but this deck packed 2 of them, no Parthenon and only 7 > masters to use with Anthelios (which was probably used more as a > gateway event for EE). MoM is in existance since AH. That's 11 years. It has never been a big problem, at best it was annoying in some decks. I once played a weenie/ garou deck with MoM. The card had not a huge impact, but it was nice to know that my garous could "safely" enter combat. Again - MoM on itself is not the problem. It begins to be unbalanced in combination with the Imbued. There lies the problem. > Players just don't understand Imbued. They > freak when they hit the table. I used to be one of those players, it > was all too much, so I went out and bought them because we only had 1 > imbued player in my playgroup. After using them, I had a much greater > understanding of their strenghts and weaknesses and what cards did > what and how they interacted with the game mechanics. Until I owned > and played them I didn't get this - I was intimidated as a player when > they hit the table. I have played the Imbued extensively and I still don't like them. I strongly believe they are overpowered (not necessarely broken). I know their weaknesses, and they are *very* hard to exploit by a deck that is not built against them. > > There are still a lot of players who just don't get it. This deck > isn't that scary. So what, it's got champions and loads of > disciplines. It's only got 3 .44's and no other maneuvers. They can > be hurt, even by light combat. And I mean really hurt. They don't > have any stealth other than Second Sight, which only gives them > effectively 2 stealth on any of their actions. They can be thefted, > crowed, or just bashed. If they've got 1 Champion, then you send 2 > guys. They can't handle vote, they don't have much pool gain outside > of Travis (and even then - he gets blocked). > I have to respectfully disagree. They can get pool just like any other deck with non-vampire-dependant stuff (Powerbases, Brothers Grimm, etc.). It works. > The players might not have the perfect deck for dealing with them, but > there are basic strategies that work against them. People just don't > want to or don't know how to deal with them. Requiring to designate a non-significant portion of your deck to counter Imbued in case they show up is not a good deck-building strategy. Far too specialised. Sorry. > So yes, the problem lies with the Players on the table, not the > imbued. RTI was no problem. It was the players. They didn't pack enough bounce. Sure. Imbued - get out of "torpor" without an action - get permanent intercept easily (Unmasking) - recycle the important stuff (Conviction) - untap after putting powers in play - are not affected by cards like Decapitate and similar - are weenies - can equip via a Master OOT - have wake-potential - can stop any action (Champion) - can cancel any action card (Determine) - have acces to bounce - can seldom be stolen/burned with actions - can hose vampires without hurting themselves (Gehenna Events). I think that's pretty tough.

[ quoted text not captured ] In my opinion, the biggest problem, or definitely the most annoying one, is their lack of interaction with too many staple cards. Mostly there is not even a good "roleplaying" reason for it, just some designer in the past didn't feel there is any important difference between "minion" and "vampire" (actually, there really wasn't till NoR) why you can't Taste off them, Disarm them, Thugee them, Fame them etc etc etc, I could find many examples. I specifically remember that the most criticised aspect of Anson Revolt was always this - lack of interaction. If you had, say, intercept deck, all your reaction cards were wasted, because Anson never made an action. Similarly, say a POT rush deck (btw archetype already hosed by a hundred things) has one- third of his deck completely unusable when facing Imbued. This is IMO much, much more frustrating than all the Determines and Champions and such - you have a hand full of cards which don't work AT ALL - feels like you accidentally brought a deck from a different game.

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with you for a few cards like Disarm Teast of vitae Kiss of Ra (not shur)

On Sep 11, 6:39 am, preache...@gmx.at wrote: > On 11 Sep., 11:08, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > So yes, the problem lies with the Players on the table, not the > > imbued. > > RTI was no problem. It was the players. They didn't pack enough > bounce. Sure. Imbued don't bleed at +11 bleed. > Imbued > > - get out of "torpor" without an action > - get permanent intercept easily (Unmasking) > - recycle the important stuff (Conviction) > - untap after putting powers in play > - are not affected by cards like Decapitate and similar > - are weenies > - can equip via a Master OOT > - have wake-potential > - can stop any action (Champion) > - can cancel any action card (Determine) > - have acces to bounce > - can seldom be stolen/burned with actions > - can hose vampires without hurting themselves (Gehenna Events). > > I think that's pretty tough. I was going to make a list of all the tough shit that vampires can do, just to do some comparison, but then I realized that it would take all day just to type it. witness1

noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > And the winner is.... > > The Imbued. > > Again. > > nerf Yes. It's become clear that the imbued need to be nerfed. Otherwise, they might change the tournament scene (GASP!). This would cause players to have to create new decktypes and strategies to adapt to a new environment, rather than being able to continue to rely on decade-old technology. And, clearly, this is unacceptable. John Eno

> Sometimes when I play Imbued my prey will ask: > > - How many time can you block? > - Non all my imbued are tap. > - Yes but with play cards how many time can you block? > - I now but I won't tell you. > - How much intercept can you have? > - do I have to anser? > - I meen with what there is on the table how much can you have? > - It's on the table help yourself. > - Ok I see 2 is there card giving intercept to imbued... Ok dude - this isn't on. I've seen the way you played at the EC, your ready region is very messy. If someone asks you how much intercept you have, tell them. Be a good sport. I was your prey in one game on day 2 and I could hardly work out all the crap you had going on because it was all over the place. It doesn't hurt you to tell someone what you've got on the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

> - get out of "torpor" without an action Can be burnt in torpor with little fear of recrimination (ie no blood hunt) > - get permanent intercept easily (Unmasking) I'd hate to say that this isn't that easy.. how many unmasking will you play in a deck. Anyway, Gehenna (and events in general) have been around for a while now, and there are a lot of very annoying ones, not just Unmasking. They can be destroyed with Black Hand Ritual, Not to Be, Emergency Preparations, and now Uncoiling. And then, lets not forget about Break the Code. I stick one in plenty of decks.... it doesn't hurt card flow, but can be very useful. If you aren't building decks that are taking Gehenna into account than that's your problem - not mine. > - recycle the important stuff (Conviction) So? If they couldn't recycle the convictions they'd be dead. > - untap after putting powers in play This is the only real gripe I have with their mechanics, and I'll agree with you on this. They should be limited to 1 power a turn (like Political Actions), or 1 untap per turn after getting a Power. > - are not affected by cards like Decapitate and similar That is a problem with the cards, not with the Imbued. > - are weenies I'd hesitate to say that they aren't really weenies. For mine, weenies are 1-3 caps. 4-6 (which most Imbued are), is getting into the realms of midcaps. > - can equip via a Master OOT And then they dont' get a master phase, or get to use Angel to untap. > - have wake-potential So do vampires, your point? This is really clutching at straws. Their wake is either an OOT Master (yey), or a card that they can only use once per minion between untaps, and then they don't untap as per normal. That is hardly something to write home about. Vampires have access to: Special Report Second Tradition Guard Dogs Rats Warning Black Sunrise Wake with Evening's Freshness Forced Awakening Read the Winds Forced Vigiliance On the Qui Vive (the only one that Allies can use) and those are just the ones off the top of my head. > - can stop any action (Champion) Can stop a D action, and then still get bashed. It costs 2 conviction, of which they only get 1 back in their untap. Logistics says they will run out. And if you actually try to run them out, you will. Too many people stop trying to act against them once a Champion hits the table... wtf? How dumb are people? > - can cancel any action card (Determine) Taken by their predator, which taps the minion stopping them using that Reaction again, unless they wake with the OOT master or On the Qui Vive which they can only use once and not untap. And Determine costs them a conviction. > - have acces to bounce And? They don't get to direct where it goes. It again, costs them a conviction and taps them. They have very limited wake potential. > - can seldom be stolen/burned with actions They are completely and I mean completely hosed when Sebastion Goulet is merged. Granted this is just 1 vampire, but it shuts them down. I don't see many vampire decks that are shut down when 1 minion hits the table. And lets look at it anyway, they have to burn the React with Conviction. Try the action twice. As to burning them, man what are you smoking. * Blood to Water * Liquefy the Mortal Coil * Entombment * Basilk's Touch * Mercy for Seth are all combat cards that burn them outright. Who cares about damage prevention or MoM, none of these do. And yes, I have decks that pack 3 of these cards. Why, well it's because I'm adapting to the game environment and not stagnating. What can burn a vampire with an action? Not many unless you include diablerie, which is the same action as pillowfacing, without as I mentioned earlier, the harsh recriminations that a blood hunt entails. > - can hose vampires without hurting themselves (Gehenna Events). I can do likewise with a non-discipline deck, I've got one. I'm sure everyone has tried one just for shits and giggles. but this again is Event card related, not Imbued. And lets not forget Break the Code which can destroy Imbued. > I think that's pretty tough. I think your arguments are pretty lame. You've listed nothing really that makes them powerful, and just again highlighted player ignorance. [ quoted text not captured ]

> This deck is the proof that the probleme with imbued is dos not come > from: > Memories of Mortality: Only 2 of them in this deck 2 that could conceivably be recycled another 5 times IF they get burned. > Lot's of power: there is not a lot of power in the deck. There are 16 powers. That's a QUARTER of the deck. What are you smoking?

> Otherwise, they might change the tournament scene (GASP!). This would > cause players to have to create new decktypes and strategies to adapt > to a new environment, To paraphrase "This forces deck designers to include dedicated anti- ally tech in addition to their anti-vote, anti-bleed and anti-combat defense modules, or simply consigning themselves to losing when an Imbued player sits down at their table" Sounds awesome.

> To paraphrase "This forces deck designers to include dedicated anti- > ally tech in addition to their anti-vote, anti-bleed and anti-combat > defense modules, or simply consigning themselves to losing when an > Imbued player sits down at their table" > > Sounds awesome. You're too good a player to think that Jason. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I'd hate to say that this isn't that easy.. how many unmasking will > you play in a deck. An Imbued/Ally deck will play enough to get in on the table early. 60-70 card decks will pack two and maybe a FL, 80+ decks will pack 3. The card is vital, and immensely strong. > Anyway, Gehenna (and events in general) have been around for a while > now, and there are a lot of very annoying ones, not just Unmasking. > They can be destroyed with Black Hand Ritual, Not to Be, Emergency > Preparations, and now Uncoiling. Realistically, how many of these cards see regular play? Personally, i've only seen the Uncoiling at a tourney. An imbued deck is going to be usually packing multiple Events, so you're only killing the Unmasking with the luck of a dice roll, and then the Imbued/Ally player pays to pool to burn the Uncoiling at his first opportunity. I payed 5 pool to get rid of it in Tasmania. > And then, lets not forget about Break the Code. I stick one in plenty > of decks.... it doesn't hurt card flow, but can be very useful. If > you aren't building decks that are taking Gehenna into account than > that's your problem - not mine. BoC is excellent, yes. > This is the only real gripe I have with their mechanics, and I'll > agree with you on this. They should be limited to 1 power a turn > (like Political Actions), or 1 untap per turn after getting a Power. Agreed. > That is a problem with the cards, not with the Imbued. Agreed. Yet there seems to be extreme reluctance on the part of the Devs to ammend this problem, in spite of continuing Imbued tourney wins. Why? > Can stop a D action, and then still get bashed. Bashed by what? They fight pretty well, using the standard concealed Magnum, or worse yet, Flash Grenade. Champion just HOSES stealth bleed, dude. Utterly ruins it. people tend to stop bleeding when champion hits the table because they are forced to start wondering "how am i going to deal with that Flash Grenade in the face and being tapped next turn?" > Taken by their predator, which taps the minion stopping them using > that Reaction again, unless they wake with the OOT master or On the > Qui Vive which they can only use once and not untap. And Determine > costs them a conviction. It's still a very strong ability. Just to be able to say "no". This is in addition to DI, which many Imbued decks pack also, effectively doubling their "veto your actions" power. > They are completely and I mean completely hosed when Sebastion Goulet > is merged. Granted this is just 1 vampire, but it shuts them down. I > don't see many vampire decks that are shut down when 1 minion hits the > table. And lets look at it anyway, they have to burn the React with > Conviction. Try the action twice. Goulet hoses them how? They just burn RwC, and recycle it next turn? Or better yet, they just block the action? > As to burning them, man what are you smoking. > > * Blood to Water > * Liquefy the Mortal Coil > * Entombment > * Basilk's Touch > * Mercy for Seth That's great for the Lasombra and Tremere. But those are, you know, 5 cards out of several thousand. And a couple of them are pretty crappy cards under normal circumstances. > I think your arguments are pretty lame. You've listed nothing really > that makes them powerful, and just again highlighted player ignorance. None of the individual abilities listed make the imbued overly powerful. It is the **combination** of all of them that take the Imbued over the power curve imo. Their ability, not simply to deal with a multitude of decktypes with the same compact defense module, but to utterly nullify entire strategies simply by being Allies that makes them problematic. They are extraordinarily adaptable, very resilient, and are given multiple offense and defense options by the same few cards, powered by an infinitely renewable and free source. *Power untap needs to be limited to one per turn. *Cards such as Taste of Vitae need to be errata'ed so they work against Imbued *Memories of Mortality needs to be limited, either to 1 per Methuselah, or by giving it other target restrictions *Jennie Orne needs a nerf, maybe making her power only work in her controller's untap would be feasible Pretty simple changes, still leaving the imbued very strong, and very playable.

> > They are completely and I mean completely hosed when Sebastion Goulet > > is merged. Granted this is just 1 vampire, but it shuts them down. I > > don't see many vampire decks that are shut down when 1 minion hits the > > table. And lets look at it anyway, they have to burn the React with > > Conviction. Try the action twice. > > Goulet hoses them how? They just burn RwC, and recycle it next turn? > Or better yet, they just block the action? I'll just reply to this one, because otherwise we're going round in circles. When Goulet announces his action to steal the imbued, the imbued player can burn RwC which cancels the action and it untaps the acting vampire, Goulet. As the action was canceled it was not resolved, so Goulet can attempt the same action again. Non-resolved actions are not covered by NRA. So the imbued player can burn another RwC, untapping Goulet and allowing him to do it again. Eventually the Imbued player runs out of RwC and they are stolen. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That's not what I wrote, at all. You don't need anti-ally tech to stop the imbued. You just need a handful of intercept and/or some offensive combat. Really. Local experience has shown this to be the case. John Eno

> You don't need anti-ally tech to stop the imbued. You just need a > handful of intercept and/or some offensive combat. Really. Local > experience has shown this to be the case. It doesn't even really need to be a lot of either. People pack DT to stop votes like PTO etc, why not pack a little bit of intercept or light hitback. Maybe people should stop ignoring combat, it is afterall an integral part of the game. It doesn't mean combat decks, just decks that do more in combat than S:CE. Bring back the old Sawed-Off Shotgun. That'd make Imbued run for the hills. Or light combat modules that do damage to the opposing minion. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] yeah, it's a good fun around here as well. We like to say during each combat with Imbued (in a Mortal Kombat voice) "Mortal versuuus... MONSTER!" and then, when Imbued dies horribly (which is almost always) - "Monster WINS!" :)) you know, but all of this fun ends when they adapt by using 10 Concealeds and 10 Flash Grenades. ahem. you could use Grapples then. but they will start hitting you for 2. and they still rescue each other without an action and almost for free. and you can't Taste them. combat is not a long term solution. Around here, Imbued fortunately do not dominate, but still so boring and annoying, and killing them still requires so many resources, that if they are your initial prey, that 1VP is usually your last. Yes, if you have a very speedy stealthbleed or powerbleed deck, you might sweep over them quickly, but that's true for every deck. I guess this is the best achievable result with current Imbued power level. And that's bad. btw I don't whine and I DO try to adapt. currently I am trying an ANI/PRO deck. You have decent ANI intercept to stop their crucial actions, Carrion Crows can hit them even with MoM and Form of Mist serves both as a dodge, neutralising Flash Grenade, and "continue action" to draw out their limited untap options. The only trouble is, that to be effective even against vampires, I have to pack aggro and rotschrecks as well, and those are completely dead slots against Imbued. I still believe that the "dead slots" problem is the biggest trouble.

On 11 sep, 10:10, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Seriously, the problem is the players, not the imbued. They can be > shut down, and they can be shut down effectively and quickly. People > just are intimidated by them and don't understand their weaknesses. Nope. You can keep saying that to yourself, it doesn't make it true. They are too strong and they need to be nerfed. If everyone needs to add anti-tech against imbued (ie not a basic winning strategy like bleed, vote, intercept or combat, but a single deck with only so much variation), there is something wrong. And that's what you are basically saying: imbued are not too strong, people don't play anti- imbued. Which is bull. > After spending a couple hundred dollars, if they are nerfed (not that > they would be, but if they were), I'd leave the hobby. who was whining again?

[ quoted text not captured ] And your point again, boils down too: play anti-imbued tech or die? Again: bad for the game. VERY bad for the game.

[ quoted text not captured ] Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The whole metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince meat out of everything.

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't know him, but he's 100% correct.

> When Goulet announces his action to steal the imbued, the imbued > player can burn RwC which cancels the action and it untaps the acting > vampire, Goulet. As the action was canceled it was not resolved, so > Goulet can attempt the same action again. Non-resolved actions are > not covered by NRA. So the imbued player can burn another RwC, > untapping Goulet and allowing him to do it again. Eventually the > Imbued player runs out of RwC and they are stolen. Hmm, funky. I would have thought it would be covered by NRA. Is there an official ruling on that? But yeah, Goulet is one vampire in a thousand. Hardly problematic for the imbued.

On Sep 12, 10:10 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > When Goulet announces his action to steal the imbued, the imbued > > player can burn RwC which cancels the action and it untaps the acting > > vampire, Goulet. As the action was canceled it was not resolved, so > > Goulet can attempt the same action again. Non-resolved actions are > > not covered by NRA. So the imbued player can burn another RwC, > > untapping Goulet and allowing him to do it again. Eventually the > > Imbued player runs out of RwC and they are stolen. > > Hmm, funky. I would have thought it would be covered by NRA. Is there > an official ruling on that? this "funky" ruling has been always (or as far as I could remember) true for all "cancel action" effects including DI. this is really a matter of your ignorance. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And your point again, boils down too: play anti-imbued tech or die? > Again: bad for the game. VERY bad for the game.- Hide quoted text - Light intercept and combat is all that is required. If you choose not to have anything of that ilk in your deck, that is your problem and your decision when deck building. And it's not anti-imbued tech, it works against all decks not just imbued. If you can't comprehend that, it's your problem I suggest you deal with it. Nerfing an entire set because you aren't good enough to play against them is to put it bluntly, stupid. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Nope. You can keep saying that to yourself, it doesn't make it true. You keep whining because you can't beat Imbued, doesn't mean that they are overpowered. > > After spending a couple hundred dollars, if they are nerfed (not that > > they would be, but if they were), I'd leave the hobby. > > who was whining again? I choose to play this game rather than Magic because when I purchase something it's still valid years later. This isn't whinning, this is fact. I wouldn't waste my time playing a game where they might decide to nerf something again. It's not worth my time or my money. Nerfed Imbued equals all my cards on ebay and a hobby where the company respects their customers better. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't necesarily mean wallpapering. 2. Light intercept does nothing against most stealthy decks, it even helps them cycle. Therefore it is actually anti-imbued tech. 3. light combat does nothing against combat decks not against s:ce decks. Therefore it is for all intends and purposes anti ally tech. What was your point again?

nood...@iprimus.com.au wrote: >> When Goulet announces his action to steal the imbued, the imbued >> player can burn RwC which cancels the action and it untaps the acting >> vampire, Goulet. As the action was canceled it was not resolved, so >> Goulet can attempt the same action again. Non-resolved actions are >> not covered by NRA. So the imbued player can burn another RwC, >> untapping Goulet and allowing him to do it again. Eventually the >> Imbued player runs out of RwC and they are stolen. > > Hmm, funky. I would have thought it would be covered by NRA. Is there > an official ruling on that? RwC (React with Conviction) cancels the action as it is announced. So the would-be acting minion isn't restricted by NRA (since the action didn't reach resolution).

> 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't > necesarily mean wallpapering. Most people I know of that mean Nerf mean to get rid of, or render unplayable. Normally the former. > 2. Light intercept does nothing against most stealthy decks, it even > helps them cycle. Therefore it is actually anti-imbued tech. Light intercept is great to stop that vote Alexandra that could oust you. To catch the person rescuing from torpor or hunting after it. Getting an Anima Gathering etc etc. Not every deck is Stealth Bleed. Not every deck is going to be packing stealth, but every deck will take at least a couple actions at stealth that you might want to stop. > 3. light combat does nothing against combat decks not against s:ce > decks. Therefore it is for all intends and purposes anti ally tech. Not every deck is packing heaps of hitback, and the amount of S:CE in decks these days at tournaments is becoming laughable. One of the decks that made the finals of the EC was a big cap vote deck, played by one of the guys from Hungary, and it packed 4 Majesty in 90 cards. 4 Majesty! That was it. Light combat would have been excellent against decks like that. I had a successful Aus Nats last year and I packed 3 Staredown and 3 Gemini's Mirror as my only combat cards in a 75 card deck. Combat defense is becoming less and less necessary as people believe that combat is less and less viable. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com > [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 sep, 13:29, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't > > necesarily mean wallpapering. > > Most people I know of that mean Nerf mean to get rid of, or render > unplayable. Normally the former. I don't think that is what's meant here. Powering down is what most people want, not outright wallpaper them. > > > 2. Light intercept does nothing against most stealthy decks, it even > > helps them cycle. Therefore it is actually anti-imbued tech. > > Light intercept is great to stop that vote Alexandra that could oust > you. To catch the person rescuing from torpor or hunting after it. > Getting an Anima Gathering etc etc. Not every deck is Stealth Bleed. > Not every deck is going to be packing stealth, but every deck will > take at least a couple actions at stealth that you might want to stop. You must be playing a different game than me. Alexandra mostly doesn't vote unless with a grand ball over here. Everyone is packing stealth or some other delivery system. (tapping, block denial, etc....) that isn't hosed by light intercept (weenie decks excluded). > > > 3. light combat does nothing against combat decks not against s:ce > > decks. Therefore it is for all intends and purposes anti ally tech. > > Not every deck is packing heaps of hitback, and the amount of S:CE in > decks these days at tournaments is becoming laughable. Because everyone avoids combat, as seen above. So hitback doesn't help. I you don't block them and they don't block you: what is hitback going to accomplish? Only rush decks and intercept combat decks can throw a wrench in those ways of playing. >One of the > decks that made the finals of the EC was a big cap vote deck, played > by one of the guys from Hungary, and it packed 4 Majesty in 90 cards. > 4 Majesty! That was it. Light combat would have been excellent > against decks like that. Only if he blocks or gets blocked. I don't know the deck. Did he have change of target or somesuch? Enough Beauties are also a good delivery system. Even with your light intercept you get hurt. > I had a successful Aus Nats last year and I packed 3 Staredown and 3 > Gemini's Mirror as my only combat cards in a 75 card deck. Combat > defense is becoming less and less necessary as people believe that > combat is less and less viable. not really. Most combat ends has different uses. Majesty in a tap and bleed deck fr.ex. Form of Mist in any deck. Earth Meld in a wall deck.... If what you were saying was true, combat decks should start winning more often. And they don't. Especially not the big tournies, which are the ones where the least of s:ce is played.

On Sep 12, 5:33 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 sep, 11:20, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > And your point again, boils down too: play anti-imbued tech or die? > > > Again: bad for the game. VERY bad for the game.- Hide quoted text - > > > Light intercept and combat is all that is required. If you choose not > > to have anything of that ilk in your deck, that is your problem and > > your decision when deck building. And it's not anti-imbued tech, it > > works against all decks not just imbued. If you can't comprehend > > that, it's your problem I suggest you deal with it. Nerfing an entire > > set because you aren't good enough to play against them is to put it > > bluntly, stupid. > > 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't > necesarily mean wallpapering. > 2. Light intercept does nothing against most stealthy decks, it even > helps them cycle. Therefore it is actually anti-imbued tech. Because nobody ever hunts or rescues with their non-stealthy decks? Nobody ever plays Law Firm decks? > 3. light combat does nothing against combat decks not against s:ce > decks. Therefore it is for all intends and purposes anti ally tech. There are only 3 deck types in the game? Allies, combat, and S:CE? > What was your point again? What universe do you play in? witness1

On 12 sep, 14:49, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Sep 12, 5:33 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 12 sep, 11:20, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > And your point again, boils down too: play anti-imbued tech or die? > > > > Again: bad for the game. VERY bad for the game.- Hide quoted text - > > > > Light intercept and combat is all that is required. If you choose not > > > to have anything of that ilk in your deck, that is your problem and > > > your decision when deck building. And it's not anti-imbued tech, it > > > works against all decks not just imbued. If you can't comprehend > > > that, it's your problem I suggest you deal with it. Nerfing an entire > > > set because you aren't good enough to play against them is to put it > > > bluntly, stupid. > > > 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't > > necesarily mean wallpapering. > > 2. Light intercept does nothing against most stealthy decks, it even > > helps them cycle. Therefore it is actually anti-imbued tech. > > Because nobody ever hunts or rescues with their non-stealthy decks? > Nobody ever plays Law Firm decks? not enough to add light intercept in a deck no. and law firms use majesty as a delivery mechanism, so if you block the rescue the majesty and do it again. And they mostly don't hunt, what with voter cap and HG and such. > > > 3. light combat does nothing against combat decks not against s:ce > > decks. Therefore it is for all intends and purposes anti ally tech. > > There are only 3 deck types in the game? Allies, combat, and S:CE? sorted by ousting mechanism: bleed, vote, combat. that's indeed 3. 2 of them stay out of combat mosty. > > > What was your point again? > > What universe do you play in? The one where nothing is included in decks unless it makes a deck better. you could add light int and light combat to every deck, but that's just basically diluting your deck. And mostly for no real gain whatsoever. Most decks become better when not diluted.

On 12 Sep, 10:24, J <grai...@hotmail.com> > Nerfed > Imbued equals all my cards on ebay and a hobby where the company > respects their customers better. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. > > --> J Surely your over reacting here, seems to me that many folk believe the imbued are bad for the game as they currently stand and want them to be tweaked (nerfed, whatever..). No one, well maybe some people... Most people dont want to blow imbued out of the game and make them unplayable - just a few tweaks to bring them in line. Be they are right or wrong, you would seriously quit the game if they were nerfed? Very extreem dude :O)

[ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like a misunderstanding of the term 'nerf'. In J's reply upthread he indicated that he thought of 'nerf' as being a ban or wallpaperization. Which is a perfectly fine reason to quit. I don't suspect anyone would quit over 'Power' being added to the NRA list alongside 'Political Action' and 'Bleed'. witness1

On Sep 11, 8:28 pm, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > To paraphrase "This forces deck designers to include dedicated anti- > ally tech in addition to their anti-vote, anti-bleed and anti-combat > defense modules, or simply consigning themselves to losing when an > Imbued player sits down at their table" > > Sounds awesome. Let's kick off my posting career with a lot of words, laced with snark: So is your actual problem the need for anti-*Imbued* tech, or is it just because it's the 4th "anti" tech you would in theory need? Why not kvetch about any of the other anti-tech that you have listed, since they are all obviously contributing to your anger at needing to pack reactionary strategies? I'll try to make this brief. You aren't forced to do anything with your deck, tech-wise. You, according to the dictates of whim, metagame, style, or Cthulu put whatever you want in your deck, and pay the price for it when you sit at a table. No "anti-tech" is strictly necessary. You just choose to employ it. Either you are worried about Imbued enough to pack anti-imbued tech or you are not. Either S&B bothers you enough to pack bounce, or it doesn't. Your choice. Maybe it was a good idea this game. Maybe not. Such is life. VTES is about figuring out the cost vs usefulness of many strategies (defensive ones especially), and then deciding whether you wish to employ that strategy. Imbued to not turn this need on its head, they are just another part of the cost/benefit analysis. The importance of any factor is for you to decide. Accept the consequences of your decision. Also, resigning yourself to loss if something you are unprepared for hits the table is a great way to lose a lot of games. Try a little tenacity. >From where I sit the raw firmament is still firmly attached to the heavens and does not hit us in the head. I've played Imbued, played against Imbued and been frustrated by Imbued quite a bit, but feel no particular urge to give them a wholesale kick in the balls. MoM can certainly be tweaked. NRA's on Powers similar to NRA on Political Actions would be fine (I would keep the untap for equipping a power, though). The mechanic for Imbued leaving incapacitated may need to be revisited. But, so many things contribute to the success or failure of a deck (players, decks, skill, seating order, etc.) that just saying "oh noez, Imbued can has a TWD! nerfzorz." is just getting tiresome and dumb. I'd like to think VTES in a nuanced game and that one thing does not contribute decisively to a win for any particular player. Because if we want to just say Quality X is represented a lot in tournament winning decks and therefore is a problem...then why stop with imbued? I can think of a host of other Qualities that have lots of TWD that we could nerf while we're at it: Ben Peal (I'm thinking a blindfold.) Dominate (I hear it's really strong!) Princes (Second Tradition, I think you should burn in hell.) You get the idea. Posting like it's 1999, baby. -D

On Sep 12, 4:01 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The whole > metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince meat > out of everything.- Hide quoted text - Fortunately, one deck isn't making mincemeat out of everything. Hence my deployment of the same kind of hyperbole that people use when making a case to, say, ban NoR for several months. But now for a serious question: in a hypothetical world in which one deck *is* making mincemeat out of every other deck, why is that so terrible? It's not as though the metagame is shifting much otherwise. John Eno

On 12 sep, 20:10, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 12, 4:01 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The whole > > metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince meat > > out of everything.- Hide quoted text - > > Fortunately, one deck isn't making mincemeat out of everything. Hence > my deployment of the same kind of hyperbole that people use when > making a case to, say, ban NoR for several months. Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? > > But now for a serious question: in a hypothetical world in which one > deck *is* making mincemeat out of every other deck, why is that so > terrible? It's not as though the metagame is shifting much otherwise. Because you end up in the same situation as before the RtI change. You had to defend against it. result: only 4 or 5 decks were still playable in a tournament environment. You think that's good? Play X or anti-X, otherwise become irrelevant?

On 12 sep, 18:33, seirh...@yahoo.com wrote: > Because if we want to just say Quality X is represented a lot in > tournament winning decks and therefore is a problem...then why stop > with imbued? I can think of a host of other Qualities that have lots > of TWD that we could nerf while we're at it: good idea. not original in any case. Yes, I know YOU are kidding, but I'm not. > Ben Peal (I'm thinking a blindfold.) alcohol might do the trick here. > Dominate (I hear it's really strong!) is indeed to strong. > Princes (Second Tradition, I think you should burn in hell.) Has been depowered. get with the times. > You get the idea. Yes, but not the one your trying to make.

On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 sep, 20:10, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 4:01 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The whole > > > metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince meat > > > out of everything.- Hide quoted text - > > > Fortunately, one deck isn't making mincemeat out of everything. Hence > > my deployment of the same kind of hyperbole that people use when > > making a case to, say, ban NoR for several months. > > Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? Enervate who? witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Everyone who is yelling that they are overpowered.

[ quoted text not captured ] You seem plenty energized now. witness1

"witness1" <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> schreef in bericht news:1189628015.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] ***OOPS, i seem to have emailed my response to you instead of posting.**** Too much cafeine :-) Enervate doesn't mean what I though it meant. In Dutch it means 'getting on the nerves of' Apparently in english it means: 1. weaken mentally or morally 2. disturb the composure of [syn: faze] So, enervate is now my English word of the day.

I hear all this talk about Imbued being so powerful, but they are not. They are just different. I have a couple very successful Imbued decks and I win with them 95% of the time only because people fear them and don't know how to deal with Imbued. Hint to beating them - PRESSURE. Wow, the secret. You just need to keep pressure on them. They need convictions to use most powers, to jump back from sleep, to add intercept/bleed/etc and they usually only get 1 conviction a turn. If you make them burn their convictions you will own them. I've had people sit and wait to make a move, then when I get 3-5 convictions and have a few powers on each guy, the game is pretty much over for my prey. It also depends on the type of imbued deck and table dynamics. All people need to put real hurt on imbued is pressure as in bleed, vote, combat, etc. Doesn't matter if it is successful or not, just make them burn their convictions. So what if he has champion.. it costs 2 convictions which means he can't use if for another 2 turns. Most imbued decks are not very good at any 1 aspect except for speed. Also another easy tip, try to block those powers. lol. Let him burn a conviction for extra -1 intercept, even if he has 2 guys stacked with powers, block the ones that he is still trying to build up. It is never too late and never give up. Anyways that is my 2cents.

On Sep 12, 4:34 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> schreef in berichtnews:1189628015.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 3:59 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12 sep, 21:48, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> > On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On 12 sep, 20:10, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > On Sep 12, 4:01 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The > >> > > > > whole > >> > > > > metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince > >> > > > > meat > >> > > > > out of everything.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > Fortunately, one deck isn't making mincemeat out of everything. > >> > > > Hence > >> > > > my deployment of the same kind of hyperbole that people use when > >> > > > making a case to, say, ban NoR for several months. > > >> > > Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? > > >> > Enervate who? > > >> Everyone who is yelling that they are overpowered. > > > You seem plenty energized now. > > ***OOPS, i seem to have emailed my response to you instead of posting.**** > > Too much cafeine :-) > > Enervate doesn't mean what I though it meant. In Dutch it means 'getting on > the nerves of' You may have meant 'aggravate'. > Apparently in english it means: > 1. weaken mentally or morally > 2. disturb the composure of [syn: faze] > > So, enervate is now my English word of the day. dictionary.com lists it first as: 1. to deprive of force or strength; destroy the vigor of; weaken. which I've always thought of as the most common usage. witness1

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:33:17 GMT, LSJ wrote: >> Hmm, funky. I would have thought it would be covered by NRA. Is there >> an official ruling on that? >RwC (React with Conviction) cancels the action as it is announced. So the >would-be acting minion isn't restricted by NRA (since the action didn't reach >resolution). Its in the FAQ. http://vtes-hunter-net.tripod.com/FAQ.htm

In article <1189567575....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > You don't need anti-ally tech to stop the imbued. You just need a > handful of intercept and/or some offensive combat. Really. Local > experience has shown this to be the case. I dunno, man--all my experiences with offensive combat vs the imbued have ended in abject failure. I mean, like, yeah, there are lot of things that foil the Imbued. But offensive combat isn't really one of the good ones, due to many, many reasons that are well known (Memories; instant, cheap unhospitalization due to Jen; a great deal of important combat tools don't work against the Imbued like Haven, Taste, Disarm, Fame; incredibly easy access to aggrivated damage weapons; etc.) I'm solidly in the camp that the Imbued need some sort of tweak down--not an elaborate killing, but some rules need adjusting to make them more appropriate. And while I do accept that a lot of problems with the Imbued can be dealt with via deck adjustment and play adjustment. But most of these don't really help offensive combat do ok vs the Imbued (and other strategies at the same time). Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

In article <1189588827....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Light intercept and combat is all that is required. Yeah, but see, that isn't actually true. Light intercept doesn't do much unless you also can save yourself from the Flash Grenades. And combat doesn't actually hurt the Imbued so much. [ quoted text not captured ]

witness1 wrote: > On Sep 12, 4:34 pm, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> >> So, enervate is now my English word of the day. > > dictionary.com lists it first as: > 1. to deprive of force or strength; destroy the vigor of; weaken. > > which I've always thought of as the most common usage. Like AK-47 is the most common Assault Rifle, eh?

> > So, enervate is now my English word of the day. > > dictionary.com lists it first as: > 1. to deprive of force or strength; destroy the vigor of; weaken. > > which I've always thought of as the most common usage. In DnD, Enervation is a ripper 4th level spell. :-D [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sounds like a misunderstanding of the term 'nerf'. In J's reply > upthread he indicated that he thought of 'nerf' as being a ban or > wallpaperization. Which is a perfectly fine reason to quit. > > I don't suspect anyone would quit over 'Power' being added to the NRA > list alongside 'Political Action' and 'Bleed'. > Indeed, in one of my first responses I agreed that multiple powers a turn was wrong, and that they should either be limited to 1, ala Political Actions, or only get 1 untap per turn from Powers. That is the only real problem I see with the Imbued mechanics, everything else is just people being fearful and intimidated by them IMO. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Yeah, but see, that isn't actually true. Light intercept doesn't do much > unless you also can save yourself from the Flash Grenades. And combat > doesn't actually hurt the Imbued so much. Light intercept stops them getting Champion, Surge whatever the Power is that you don't like. As for combat not hurting the Imbued, it screws them - big time. They have to burn Convictions to come out of Incapacitated, and they've only got 1 life, which means they are likely to go back in, and unlikely to be able to build up to the point where people cannot deal with them. As a combat munchkin, I would have thought that you'd have more appreciation for how combat can screw them over. They get bashed on a semi-regular basis in our gaming group, MoM or no. [ quoted text not captured ]

> this "funky" ruling has been always (or as far as I could remember) > true for all "cancel action" effects including DI. > this is really a matter of your ignorance. Aww, stop it you're going to make me cry.

> Light intercept stops them getting Champion, Surge whatever the Power > is that you don't like. You need +2 intercept to stop them reliably. That is moving beyond the realm of "light intercept". More than likely, you're going to need two card to stop their one. > As for combat not hurting the Imbued, it screws them - big time. I'm guessing you've never played against a deck with 6 MoMs and 15 Flash Grenades. The few Imbued you do manage to bin come out in the next Untap phase because of Jennie. It's extraordinarily demoralising.

> You need +2 intercept to stop them reliably. That is moving beyond the > realm of "light intercept". More than likely, you're going to need two > card to stop their one. Enhanced Senses, Quickened Sight, Anima Gathering, Bowl of Convergence, Second Tradition, Ministry, A couple permanent intercepts... Sure, they many require Auspex - but with Anima Gathering, I've chucked a few AUS weenies in decks just to play Anima Gathering as my only intercept. And Permacept is always strong, especially intercept that can be given to other players. It's not that hard to really get 2 intercept if you want to. If decks aren't packing intercept than that's a design flaw that the built into the deck. If you want to focus and not toolbox up a bit, than that is a risk you take. People include DT and DI for things like Parity Shifts, Alastors, PTO, Block Denial etc, well maybe a bit of light intercept should be used to stop things like Champion? If you adjust your thinking and metagame for things like the above, then why not for the Imbued? > I'm guessing you've never played against a deck with 6 MoMs and 15 > Flash Grenades. The few Imbued you do manage to bin come out in the > next Untap phase because of Jennie. It's extraordinarily > demoralising. Light combat will force them to burn those Flash Grenades. Will force them to burn those conviction to come back out from being Incapacitated. Without their convictions they are very very fragile, coz as you are no doubt aware - they need the convictions to do just about everything they can do. So burn them off. And if they've got just 1 life, then it's easier to put them back to incapacitated, hell h1 will do it. If everyone just sits there and says, well - he's got Jennie and playing with Flash Grenades, so we'll never be able to do anythign, so why try - then of course the Imbued player will win. If you say well, my Prey's got Jennie and Flash Grenades, so I'll try and burn through his Grenades and his Conviction, then you'll find pretty quickly that the Imbued player will not win. Imbued dominate more because people let them than because they are overpowered. Lets look at the deck that made you quote nerf a gazillion times. 2 MoM, no Parthenon, but Anthelios. So it can lay down only 1 a turn. Can get it back through the Red Star a total of 5 times, but then it loses out on it's pool gain and it's wake. It can't play it the turn it gets it back. Zero flash grenades. The vicious combat in this deck was, hit for 2 or 3 agg with the Crusader sword and get pummeled into the ground, or go long with a .44 and shoot for 2. Brutal! No Surge, No Glancing Blow, No Flak Jacket, No Leather Jacket. So, light intercept and light combat would have torn this deck to absolute pieces. Sure it's got Jennie, but it can't do anything if it's minions are constantly doing the Hospital yoyo. And then there is the option to Pillowface them once you've smacked them down. Sure, they can come out in any meth's untap phase for 2 convictions, but he can only put convictions on them in his untap phase. Quite quickly he will either run out of convictions on his guys and get stuck in hospital waiting for that Vampire Nurse to turn off the life support, or he will be forced to sit a couple turns and do nothing whilst he builds up his conviction stack on his minions and gets their life back with Rejuvenate. But you've blocked Rejuvenate with your light intercept - so he is boned. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1189639026.0...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Light intercept stops them getting Champion, Surge whatever the Power > is that you don't like. While I'm totally in understanding of the power (ahem) that is Champion, most of the Imbued decks I have seen that do well have not that many powers. And generally don't rely on them. So being able to stop them is great and all, but it doesn't actually hinder them that much in practice. > As for combat not hurting the Imbued, it screws them - big time. They > have to burn Convictions to come out of Incapacitated, and they've > only got 1 life, which means they are likely to go back in, and > unlikely to be able to build up to the point where people cannot deal > with them. As a combat munchkin, I would have thought that you'd have > more appreciation for how combat can screw them over. My experience from playing brutally effective combat in tournaments against the Imbued is that, well, you certainly slow them down. But you also never oust them. So the combat can hurt the Imbued, but the combat doesn't make you oust the Imbued. You just, ya know, get ousted after slowing down the Imbued. Which isn't really helping you against the Imbued. The Imbued are immune to a huge number of the common and important cards that make combat decks functional. And Memories in multiples (not out of the realm of reason) really slows down combat. Mix in Jenne Orne (as who doesn't, really), and an Imbued prey is an endless horrible game of whack-a-mole. So you end up making very little headway against your imbued prey, and when you inevitably start having to go backwards to avoid getting ousted, the imbued recover quickly. So you hit them again to slow them down. And then you get killed. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:20:27 -0700, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> And your point again, boils down too: play anti-imbued tech or die? >> Again: bad for the game. VERY bad for the game.- Hide quoted text - > > Light intercept and combat is all that is required. If you choose not > to have anything of that ilk in your deck, that is your problem and > your decision when deck building. And it's not anti-imbued tech, it > works against all decks not just imbued. If you can't comprehend > that, it's your problem I suggest you deal with it. Nerfing an entire > set because you aren't good enough to play against them is to put it > bluntly, stupid. All you need to deal with Return to Innocence is the ability to block it. It is a zero-stealth action. You can also bounce it. Or play Direct Intervention. If you can't deal with it you are stoopid and should stop playing the game and go hang yourself. I insist we remove the ban from RtI. It's not broken, all you need to thwart it is one block of a 0-stealth action. Plus, no card can be broken, as DI exists; everybody knows this and who doesn't is stoopid and should stop playing the game and go hang themselves. -- Regards, Daneel

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:07:03 -0700, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > When Goulet announces his action to steal the imbued, the imbued > player can burn RwC which cancels the action and it untaps the acting > vampire, Goulet. As the action was canceled it was not resolved, so > Goulet can attempt the same action again. Non-resolved actions are > not covered by NRA. So the imbued player can burn another RwC, > untapping Goulet and allowing him to do it again. Eventually the > Imbued player runs out of RwC and they are stolen. Of course, the smart Imbued player doesn't waste convictions like this, and uses one of his Champions to stop the action and laugh Gouled in the face. -- Regards, Daneel

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:23:49 -0700, Jeroen <joen...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 sep, 13:29, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > 1. I think you misunderstand what's meant by nerfing. It doesn't >> > necesarily mean wallpapering. >> >> Most people I know of that mean Nerf mean to get rid of, or render >> unplayable. Normally the former. > > I don't think that is what's meant here. Powering down is what most > people want, not outright wallpaper them. Actually, I wouldn't mind banning. Or using a time machine and never releasing them the first place. The way I see it, Imbued are the #1 barrier to old players re-entering the game. The stuff they do are completely unintuitive to an old timer. They have recurring resources. They do stuff that isn't even mentioned in the rulebooks - you need to buy them to be able to read their rules. If you are a Jyhad player and see an Ahrimanes for the first time at a tournament, your cross-table allies can brief you on Spiritus in about 2-3 sentences. If you see the Imbued for the first time on a tournament, you lose, or spend the 2-hour round listening to someone briefing you how their mini-game works (and then simply not win = lose). -- Regards, Daneel

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:29:05 -0700, J <gra...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Not every deck is packing heaps of hitback, and the amount of S:CE in > decks these days at tournaments is becoming laughable. One of the > decks that made the finals of the EC was a big cap vote deck, played > by one of the guys from Hungary, and it packed 4 Majesty in 90 cards. > 4 Majesty! That was it. Light combat would have been excellent > against decks like that. ...except that a deck with light combat usually doesn't encounter any of the minions that deck plays. Unless you mean by light combat a single Disarm on a +1 strength minion with built-in rush, for example. If you mean the occasional Walking Stick as added bruise element or a compliment to casual or light Intercept, then you wouldn't be able to use it, because the deck doesn't normally block and doesn't normally get blocked. Basically the only reliable way to get into combat with it is to rush it. Not to mention that even doing 3-5 damage to a 9-11-cap isn't going to achieve much. You hit lightly, and get voted heavily in return. Oh, that and strawman. -- Regards, Daneel

> If decks aren't packing intercept than that's a design flaw that the > built into the deck. If you want to focus and not toolbox up a bit, > than that is a risk you take. I guess you and I interpret the words "light intercept" differently. Having to play Auspex, or being forced to bolt on a aus weenie/anima module is not what I'd call light. Light is a Sports Bike, or a dozen Eyes of the Night. > People include DT and DI for things like Parity Shifts, Alastors, PTO, > Block Denial etc, well maybe a bit of light intercept should be used > to stop things like Champion? If you adjust your thinking and > metagame for things like the above, then why not for the Imbued? Because DI/DT is one card. DI in particular slots into pretty much ANY deck and will prove useful at some point during the game. You're talking about altering crypts and decks fundamentally [or having to play auspex] to be able to deal with Imbued Powers. You're also basically saying that any clan who can't muster +2 intercept needs to start playing with mutliple Radio Stations and Sports Bikes, or might as well resign itself to sitting there watching a monster build up and being unable to stop it. > Light combat will force them to burn those Flash Grenades. Will force > them to burn those conviction to come back out from being > Incapacitated. Firstly, it's very difficult to get them incapped, because your light combat deck gets a Flash Grenade in the face every time it pokes an Imbued. If you're the Imbued's predator, you're now having to deal with minions who don't untap to defend, which then slows your offense next round or gives your predator a nice easy run over your tapped out minions. If you're it's prey, you don't have blockers when the imbued come knocking next turn, so pray you've got some wakes. And oh look, you blocked and got another Flash Grenade in the face. Or worse, you can't block at all because your vamps have MoMs. > so I'll try and > burn through his Grenades and his Conviction, then you'll find pretty > quickly that the Imbued player will not win. Yeah. The problem is the amount of resources you will expend achieving this means neither will you. Burning through Grenades and convictions means eating those grenades more often than not, leaving you tapped out to your predator, or easing off to defend allowing the imbued time to recover their infinitely renewable Convictions. Play against this kind of deck. Seriously. It's about as much fun as a funeral. > 2 MoM, no Parthenon, but Anthelios. So it can lay down only 1 a > turn. Can get it back through the Red Star a total of 5 times, but > then it loses out on it's pool gain and it's wake. It can't play it > the turn it gets it back. > Zero flash grenades. The vicious combat in this deck was, hit for 2 > or 3 agg with the Crusader sword and get pummeled into the ground, or > go long with a .44 and shoot for 2. Brutal! No Surge, No Glancing > Blow, No Flak Jacket, No Leather Jacket. Get pummelled into the ground by what? You've got to hit these suckers for 4 to take them out. What kind of light combat module regularly doles out 4 dmg? You're not talking about light combat, you're talking about dedicated combat. You're talking about big potence hits, guns with additional strikes/presses, etc, all of which is nullified by MoM. So now you're talking about having to play a deck that can reliably block with +2 intercept and reliably hit for 4 damage in combat. Doesn't sound like that leaves a whole lot of room for creativity in deck design, does it?

On 13 Sep, 02:53, Mavrix <mich...@mholmberg.com> wrote: > I hear all this talk about Imbued being so powerful, but they are not. > I have a couple very successful Imbued decks > and I win with them 95% of the time. I know I'm shamelessly snipping your post for dramatic effect, but WOW! don't those two sentances look great next to each other :O) Ant

[ quoted text not captured ] Ah, yeah, you are right. I once had a RtI deck with a couple of Inner Cirlces and Day Operations. It won 95% of the games. It wasn't really that strong... People need to be more creative and aggressive to kill me. Right. *nods*

> So now you're talking about having to play a deck that can reliably > block with +2 intercept and reliably hit for 4 damage in combat. > Doesn't sound like that leaves a whole lot of room for creativity in > deck design, does it? No, you don't have to hit for 4. You can block the important actions - Champion, Rejuvenate etc. Then a .44 (which everyone seems to be packing these days - have they come back in vogue?), will knock them down by half. Next time they are in the hospital. You don't have to bash them with a single combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189678648.0...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Again: that's not light intercept anymore. Reliably getting +2 intercept isn't light intercept. And without stealth, you need disguised weapons too. The list keeps on growing: - medium intercept that is not on 1 minion (because of MoM) - light combat with either stealth or disguised weapons. - lots of untap because of the Flash Grenades. Only a small minority of decks pack a combination of these. So, yes, it keeps falling under 'add anti-imbued tech' or die.

> Again: that's not light intercept anymore. Reliably getting +2 intercept > isn't light intercept. 2nd Trad Enhanced Senses Ministry Quicken Sight are all cards that give +2 intercept with 1 card. Channel 10 Divine Sign Psychic Projection Steal the Mind Bloodstone Anima Gathering are less common/useful but also give the intercept with a single card. If I can get +2 intercept with 1 card, then I call that light. If you don't include any intercept in your decks, don't cry to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] You list 4 cards in the game, with very specific requirments - the list of stuff you are saying we should be playing, restrictions on the decks we should be playing is getting longer and longer, and your argument is getting more and more ridiculous. Your statement that light combat is a good counter to imbued is particularily insane IMO. Do you really think that we (those saying imbued are a bit of a problem atm) are all barking up the wrong tree and just don't get it?

> You list 4 cards in the game, with very specific requirments - the > list of stuff you are saying we should be playing, restrictions on the > decks we should be playing is getting longer and longer, and your > argument is getting more and more ridiculous. > > Your statement that light combat is a good counter to imbued is > particularily insane IMO. > > Do you really think that we (those saying imbued are a bit of a > problem atm) are all barking up the wrong tree and just don't get it?- Hide quoted text - I think many of you are just being sooks to be honest. It's not Imbued or their mechanics. It comes down to MoM and the fact that some cards don't interact with them when they should. I've agreed with those sentiments, but that is an issue with those cards, not an issue with the Imbued. If people can't seperate Imbued mechanics with non-Imbued card text, that's not my problem. The only mechanic that Imbued have that should be neutered is the multiple powers a turn, which I have agreed with again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 13 Sep., 13:17, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Again: that's not light intercept anymore. Reliably getting +2 intercept > > isn't light intercept. > > 2nd Trad Prince or Justicar > Enhanced Senses AUS > Ministry Black Hand and additional conditions > Quicken Sight AUS *and* CEL > > are all cards that give +2 intercept with 1 card. > Quite limiting in deck-building, I'd say. > Channel 10 Imbued simply takes Power-action as first action his turn. > Divine Sign This is a joke, yes? > Psychic Projection Do you really see a lot of people playing that card? > Steal the Mind Should do what exactly? > Bloodstone Do you really see a lot of people playing that card? > Anima Gathering Haven't seen it in action yet, so can't say if it's worth the card slot. But: requires an additional vampire to use. > > are less common/useful but also give the intercept with a single card. And require substantial set-up. > > If I can get +2 intercept with 1 card, then I call that light. If you > don't include any intercept in your decks, don't cry to me. Getting reliably +2 intercept with 1 card is not easy and requires some modicum of setup. Imbued can start getting powers without setup, and in most cases will have a lower capacity than vampires your proposed cards are using. You need some dedicated intercept to battle Imbued with it. Casual or *reliable light* intercept won't do it. And you seem to forget that foiling the Imbued does not much in furthering your own goal of ousting your prey. Even if the Imbued player is your prey, it's not that useful to block his hunters actions (if you are able to) - you are spending considerable resources in not taking actions to cause him pool loss. But on the other hand, if you do try to hurt him, at some point he has tooled up enough that you get stuck. I'd say that is not exactly a win-win situation for you. Carl

On 13 Sep, 13:12, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > You list 4 cards in the game, with very specific requirments - the > > list of stuff you are saying we should be playing, restrictions on the > > decks we should be playing is getting longer and longer, and your > > argument is getting more and more ridiculous. > > > Your statement that light combat is a good counter to imbued is > > particularily insane IMO. > > > Do you really think that we (those saying imbued are a bit of a > > problem atm) are all barking up the wrong tree and just don't get it?- Hide quoted text - > > I think many of you are just being sooks to be honest. I dont know what that measn but I guess its not 'Really Great Guys' ;O) > It's not Imbued or their mechanics. It comes down to MoM and the fact > that some cards don't interact with them when they should. I've > agreed with those sentiments, but that is an issue with those cards, > not an issue with the Imbued. If people can't seperate Imbued > mechanics with non-Imbued card text, that's not my problem. Well, I kinda agree with you - my problems with imbued are lack of interecation through stepping outside of the basic principls of vtes. They dont need actions for a lot of their stuff. Convictions, leave hospital, Angel of Berlin etc - all ignore the most basic of principle - actions to get/do stuff followed by reactions/action modifiers. They even gain stuff from the ashheap with no cards or actions needed... That is a problem with the imbued, not specific cards (although some like Jennie make it worse) Then as you say some cards dont work with imbued when mechanics wise they probably should - granted thats a problem with the cards in question. Mostly its combat that gets fucked (lucky old combat) - and cards combat decks rely on (Peter has detailed these). > The only mechanic that Imbued have that should be neutered is the > multiple powers a turn, which I have agreed with again. Disagree, but I guess thats already apparant :) Ant

[ quoted text not captured ] So, the resounding response I'm seeming to get from the "Imbued aren't broken at all" camp is this: Play more intercept and combat, in most of your decks. Which is a nice concept in theory, but more difficult in practice without severely limiting my choices in vampires. Should we be diluting our decks with combat/intercept modules to deal with imbued? Should we shift our metagame towards playing decks with wall-ish components, meaning block and kung fu instead of block and flee (defensive intercept, e.g. 2nd Trad+Majesty)? That seems to be the advice given, but i don't think i like the connotations: If you want to beat the imbued (or if you are going to metagame against them anyway), play a more reactive game. I suppose that philosophy begs for a more "interactive" game (in a "you can't just ignore the people at the table and play myopically" way), so maybe it's a good thing, but i'm not sure. Without crying "the sky is falling" is there a way to deal with Imbued _without_ a block/kung fu aspect to the deck? Bloat for eight per turn (outruning strike/second sight recursion, Darby Dance notwithstanding)? Ally block-fails cards? -Merlin

On Sep 13, 1:35 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Because he'll always have a Champion set up before Goulet gets merged, of course. And will also not run out of Convictions before Goulet runs out of Earth Meld. Seriously, do you have any idea how embarassing it is to lose to a puppeteer deck? witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Are puppeteers now decent splash options for Giovanni decks? Because I have like 4 of them and they're gathering dust. It would be cool to use those suckas. -Merlin

On Sep 13, 8:55 am, Merlin <hallofhadesco...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Sep 13, 7:17 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Again: that's not light intercept anymore. Reliably getting +2 intercept > > > isn't light intercept. > > > 2nd Trad > > Enhanced Senses > > Ministry > > Quicken Sight > > > are all cards that give +2 intercept with 1 card. > > > Channel 10 > > Divine Sign > > Psychic Projection > > Steal the Mind > > Bloodstone > > Anima Gathering > > > are less common/useful but also give the intercept with a single card. > > > If I can get +2 intercept with 1 card, then I call that light. If you > > don't include any intercept in your decks, don't cry to me. > > > --> J > > grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com > > So, the resounding response I'm seeming to get from the "Imbued aren't > broken at all" camp is this: > > Play more intercept and combat, in most of your decks. I have said nothing of the sort. My metagame was already filled with light intercept and combat long before the imbued came out, and it seems to work, but I've been ousted by quite a few other strategies (stealth bleed, majesty multi-act) in my time. > Which is a nice > concept in theory, but more difficult in practice without severely > limiting my choices in vampires. Should we be diluting our decks with > combat/intercept modules to deal with imbued? Should we shift our > metagame towards playing decks with wall-ish components, meaning block > and kung fu instead of block and flee (defensive intercept, e.g. 2nd > Trad+Majesty)? No. Actually, if you're my predator, the Majesty multi-acting thing will probably do you better than the intercept/combat option, assuming you have enough different actions to take. > That seems to be the advice given, but i don't think i like the > connotations: If you want to beat the imbued (or if you are going to > metagame against them anyway), play a more reactive game. I suppose > that philosophy begs for a more "interactive" game (in a "you can't > just ignore the people at the table and play myopically" way), so > maybe it's a good thing, but i'm not sure. Without crying "the sky is > falling" is there a way to deal with Imbued _without_ a block/kung fu > aspect to the deck? Bloat for eight per turn (outruning strike/second > sight recursion, Darby Dance notwithstanding)? Ally block-fails > cards? There are plenty of ways to "deal with" an imbued deck, depending upon what you mean by "deal with". If your goal is to defend yourself against the imbued, you do it the same way you do against vampires: block, bounce, bloat, or backrush. Backrushing can be a fair bit more difficult against imbued than against vampires, but it can still work depending on your deck (it actually works *better* if your deck is not dedicated combat but more of a toolboxy/multiact deck with Break the Code to provide the rush actions and some Freak Drives to follow-up with an immediate pillowface). If your goal is to *oust* the imbued player, that's a bit trickier. I'm loathe to share all my secrets because, well, holding them close helps keep me from getting ousted. But of the strategies I've played against, only combat seems to require major tweaking to the deck itself (and it's the kind of tweaking that's overall probably not worth it). So I'll just say that the first key to ousting an imbued player is to mind their untaps. They only get one real wake per turn (Angel of Berlin), and that only if they don't play another out-of-turn master like DI or Sudden. They can potentially save a Vigilance or two for your turn as well, so keep an eye out for that. On the Qui Vive might make an appearance, but only half of the last ten recorded Imbued tournament wins used *any* OtQV in the deck. The key to my own success as an imbued player is to always leave enough untapped minions to (potentially) block every minion my predator controls (there are exceptions, of course). So you need to be able either avoid their blocks (stealth/block fails), hurt them in combat (and survive their hitback) when they block (guns and/or jackets other are good here), or take more actions than they expect you to (Majesty/Freak Drive). The second key to ousting an imbued player is to stop assuming that all imbued decks are the same. People rant and rave about Champion this and Determine that, but not every minion can play those cards. Keep an eye on what minions and which virtues your prey is playing with, and learn what type of deck he's playing: -OtQV is significantly more likely to appear alongside imbued with Vision, because it enables them to play Determine more often, either bouncing your bleeds or canceling your action cards. -If a bunch of minions with Judgment come up, it's probably a Darby Dance deck (or at least a Vigilance deck). This kind of multiaction can be brutal. Using Not to Be or The Uncoiling to kill Edge Explosion or NRA PAC could be pretty effective. Alternatively, target that laptop for destruction/pillowfacing. -If the deck is playing Defense, and you're relying on stealthy (D) actions, do whatever it takes to stop that Champion, either by DIing it, blocking it, beating the minion up in combat (yes, this means that stealth bleed decks should probably start including a couple of guns - Champion can't stop that equip action and you've got plenty of stealth to get by the Unmasking and whatnot, so Concealed/disguised is not necessary). Alternatively, if you're not relying on stealth-bleeds, that Champion is probably useless against you; block the Rejuvenate instead. Do keep in mind that using Champion doesn't tap the imbued, so it can be used as an expensive way to generate extra blocks. -If you see a bunch of guys with different virtues and a methuselah proudly announcing their special text every time he influences a new one into play, he could be playing a "powerless" Flash Grenade/Wooden Stake deck. Warning: this deck may not actually be powerless. Champion is a common include, as is Discern. However, there probably won't be very many copies, so if you can block/DI the one or two that _are_ in there, you'll only have to deal with Unmasking/Second Sight getting in the way of your actions. -Break the Code is a really strong, low-opportunity cost anti-imbued card. The -1 intercept is universally painful, particularly if you can play it before The Unmasking hits the table, but the universal uncovering of imbued havens is also pretty useful. Another thing to keep in mind is that the imbued are a lot easier to manage when you keep up the pressure. Backing off for even a moment can enable them to get a much better setup against you. In "normal" games of VtES, being too agressive early can garner table hate and open you up to your predator. The latter part is still true when you're preying on the imbued, but (depending on circumstance) you ought to be able to use all this to your advantage assuming you can deflect the table hate to your imbued prey. Keep in mind that while the imbued can bounce, Determine is only usable as bounce when your predator is acting - they can't bounce a bounced bleed. Creating the illusion of an opening to provoke your predator into bleeding you heavily so you can bounce it into your prey can help you get past their defenses. Okay, that's enough spewing for now. Take the lessons or don't, your metagame may vary, etc. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] It probably depends on how common weenies and/or imbued are in your area. But they can do the same "Sebastian Goulet" thing against the imbued (only borrowing the guy for a turn, but still not defendable with RwC). And their action isn't at stealth, though they do hit for 1 when blocked. witness1

On Sep 13, 9:53 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > If your goal is to *oust* the imbued player, that's a bit trickier. Yeah, see, that is the main trick, now isn't it. Light intercept and combat don't *oust* the imbued. They slow them down and make someone else win. Yeah, it is, in fact, pretty easy to make decks that will shut down the Imbued ("I'm playing a permacept Entombment wall deck! Suck on *that* Imbued!"). But you need to be able to deal with the Imbued *and* actually, ya know, have a chance at winning the game as well, and "shutting down the Imbued" does not necessarily interact well with "winning the game". Yes. You can make every deck to include reliable +2 intercept and the ability to always do 4 damage. And ya know how often that deck is going to win? Probably not that often. Combat, which keeps being brought up as a way to deal with the Imbued, will slow down the Imbued, sure. But at the same time, the Imbued are virtually impossible to oust with combat--you can't Fame or Haven them, you can't Taste them. Tension doesn't really help against them. Frontal assault doesn't work so well against them. They get out of the hospital really easily. They have built in hitback defense (i.e. thay always can hit you for 2 just 'cause they showed up). You can pillowface them (if you don't get blocked...) but then you take more damage--which is bad if you are a weenie Rush deck, which are the most viable combat decks--from residual convictions. Memories of Mortality totally foils combat and flows freely in Imbued decks (or at least should). You can beat them up easily, sure, but they recover quickly and foil agressive combat left and right. You can beat them up. But ousting them at the same time is really difficult. Which is, ya know, the trick. -Peter

On Sep 13, 9:53 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Fair enough. > My metagame was already filled with > light intercept and combat long before the imbued came out, and it > seems to work, but I've been ousted by quite a few other strategies > (stealth bleed, majesty multi-act) in my time. > Cool. > > Which is a nice > > concept in theory, but more difficult in practice without severely > > limiting my choices in vampires. Should we be diluting our decks with > > combat/intercept modules to deal with imbued? Should we shift our > > metagame towards playing decks with wall-ish components, meaning block > > and kung fu instead of block and flee (defensive intercept, e.g. 2nd > > Trad+Majesty)? > > No. Actually, if you're my predator, the Majesty multi-acting thing > will probably do you better than the intercept/combat option, assuming > you have enough different actions to take. > Turns out extra actions are strong. That Darby Dance thing seems like it's shit-hot, but it isn't necessarily limited to imbued. I suppose an argument could be made for it's strength with Imbued because it's based on permanents like Vigilance, but the Guruhi and Samedi (and whoever else wantsa) can Dance too. > > That seems to be the advice given, but i don't think i like the > > connotations: If you want to beat the imbued (or if you are going to > > metagame against them anyway), play a more reactive game. I suppose > > that philosophy begs for a more "interactive" game (in a "you can't > > just ignore the people at the table and play myopically" way), so > > maybe it's a good thing, but i'm not sure. Without crying "the sky is > > falling" is there a way to deal with Imbued _without_ a block/kung fu > > aspect to the deck? Bloat for eight per turn (outruning strike/second > > sight recursion, Darby Dance notwithstanding)? Ally block-fails > > cards? > > There are plenty of ways to "deal with" an imbued deck, depending upon > what you mean by "deal with". If your goal is to defend yourself > against the imbued, you do it the same way you do against vampires: > block, bounce, bloat, or backrush. Backrushing can be a fair bit more Yeah, I'm a rush combat sort of dude. Rush combat requires some tweaking if you expect the Imbued. Break the Wind seems like the way to go for most of that. > difficult against imbued than against vampires, but it can still work > depending on your deck (it actually works *better* if your deck is not > dedicated combat but more of a toolboxy/multiact deck with Break the > Code to provide the rush actions and some Freak Drives to follow-up > with an immediate pillowface). > > If your goal is to *oust* the imbued player, that's a bit trickier. > I'm loathe to share all my secrets because, well, holding them close > helps keep me from getting ousted. But of the strategies I've played > against, only combat seems to require major tweaking to the deck > itself (and it's the kind of tweaking that's overall probably not > worth it). > > So I'll just say that the first key to ousting an imbued player is to > mind their untaps. They only get one real wake per turn (Angel of > Berlin), and that only if they don't play another out-of-turn master > like DI or Sudden. They can potentially save a Vigilance or two for > your turn as well, so keep an eye out for that. On the Qui Vive might > make an appearance, but only half of the last ten recorded Imbued > tournament wins used *any* OtQV in the deck. The key to my own success > as an imbued player is to always leave enough untapped minions to > (potentially) block every minion my predator controls (there are > exceptions, of course). So you need to be able either avoid their > blocks (stealth/block fails), hurt them in combat (and survive their > hitback) when they block (guns and/or jackets other are good here), or > take more actions than they expect you to (Majesty/Freak Drive). > I've found that some of the more sidelined block fails cards do terrible things to imbued. The Sleeping Mind kills Angel of Berlin (OtQV is another matter) without being a wasted slot against vampires (unlike Command) and Recurring Contemplation at TEM can screw an untapped Champion. > The second key to ousting an imbued player is to stop assuming that > all imbued decks are the same. People rant and rave about Champion > this and Determine that, but not every minion can play those cards. > Keep an eye on what minions and which virtues your prey is playing > with, and learn what type of deck he's playing: I have only seen Champion played. Never Determine. Is it word? I don't like the cards that cost conviction for the most part (Champion being the exception). [ quoted text not captured ] Agreed. Maybe auto-include this one in Rush-combat decks. It's worth two card slots and won't clog the hand. Ousting imbued with Rush- combat is really tough, however. > card. The -1 intercept is universally painful, particularly if you can > play it before The Unmasking hits the table, but the universal > uncovering of imbued havens is also pretty useful. > > Another thing to keep in mind is that the imbued are a lot easier to > manage when you keep up the pressure. Backing off for even a moment > can enable them to get a much better setup against you. In "normal" > games of VtES, being too agressive early can garner table hate and > open you up to your predator. The latter part is still true when > you're preying on the imbued, but (depending on circumstance) you > ought to be able to use all this to your advantage assuming you can > deflect the table hate to your imbued prey. Keep in mind that while > the imbued can bounce, Determine is only usable as bounce when your > predator is acting - they can't bounce a bounced bleed. Creating the > illusion of an opening to provoke your predator into bleeding you > heavily so you can bounce it into your prey can help you get past > their defenses. That seems like good play at any time. So your advice is to play well? I guess that's good advice. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 13, 10:52 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Sep 13, 9:53 am, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > If your goal is to *oust* the imbued player, that's a bit trickier. > > Yeah, see, that is the main trick, now isn't it. Light intercept and > combat don't *oust* the imbued. They slow them down and make someone > else win. This is why I haven't advocated the "light intercept and some combat" like so many others. > Yeah, it is, in fact, pretty easy to make decks that will shut down > the Imbued ("I'm playing a permacept Entombment wall deck! Suck on > *that* Imbued!"). But you need to be able to deal with the Imbued > *and* actually, ya know, have a chance at winning the game as well, > and "shutting down the Imbued" does not necessarily interact well with > "winning the game". Entombment is going to do you reasonably well in combat with vampires, too. And Lasombra have Dominate, which I hear is great for ousting your prey. > Yes. You can make every deck to include reliable +2 intercept and the > ability to always do 4 damage. And ya know how often that deck is > going to win? Probably not that often. You should come play in Atlanta. Also, you only need to do 4 damage the first time. Or spread out over two or more times. After that, it's hands-for-one. > Combat, which keeps being brought up as a way to deal with the Imbued, > will slow down the Imbued, sure. But at the same time, the Imbued are > virtually impossible to oust with combat--you can't Fame or Haven > them, you can't Taste them. Tension doesn't really help against them. > Frontal assault doesn't work so well against them. They get out of the > hospital really easily. They have built in hitback defense (i.e. thay > always can hit you for 2 just 'cause they showed up). You can > pillowface them (if you don't get blocked...) but then you take more > damage--which is bad if you are a weenie Rush deck, which are the most > viable combat decks--from residual convictions. Memories of Mortality > totally foils combat and flows freely in Imbued decks (or at least > should). You can beat them up easily, sure, but they recover quickly > and foil agressive combat left and right. You can beat them up. But > ousting them at the same time is really difficult. Which is, ya know, > the trick. I disagree with none of the above, except the "they can always hitback for 2". If they're always hitting back for 2, coming out of the hospital will become more difficult. And while you can't play Haven Uncovered on them, you can play "super-duper unremovable Haven Uncovered on every imbued" or, rather, Break the Code. But none of that really helps you move use your Fames and Tastes and Tension and such. Which is (presumably) why light combat is favored against the imbued over brutal-death combat. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] i found that OBT DOM bleed kills them really fast. just include some Tenebrous forms :D

[ quoted text not captured ] The true strength of Darby Dance is in the NRA PAC/Leather Jacket. Bleeding for 3 at 1 stealth repeatedly, while solid and permanent, is something that can quickly be outclassed by the transient (or even permanent) bleeds of vampires. The ability to move forward with every minion and still be untapped at the end of the turn is hot shit. [ quoted text not captured ] Sounds like it. Of course, now people will come in wailing that these cards are somehow 'necessary' to beat the imbued. In my (current) opinion, the truth is more that there's some R-P-S action going on. A lot of previously sidelined decks are really strong against the imbued. The imbued are really strong against some of the existing top- tier strategies (stealth-bleed in particular). So a lot of people see all the success against top-tier decks and think "broken!", but in reality a lot of "lower-tier" strategies can stomp the imbued around pretty well. People don't see that aspect as much, I think. > > The second key to ousting an imbued player is to stop assuming that > > all imbued decks are the same. People rant and rave about Champion > > this and Determine that, but not every minion can play those cards. > > Keep an eye on what minions and which virtues your prey is playing > > with, and learn what type of deck he's playing: > > I have only seen Champion played. Never Determine. Is it word? I don't > like the cards that cost conviction for the most part (Champion being > the exception). Determine is okay. Some people seem to think it's the Second Coming or the Devil Incarnate, but I strongly disagree with those camps. It's a good idea to be able to bounce bleeds (even in the wrong direction, and even limited to your predator's bleeds), and cancelling Ancient Influence or Reins of Power without having to use a M:OOT is good, but otherwise the card's kinda meh. Agree with you about conviction costs - overall, the effects tend to be not worth the costs. [ quoted text not captured ] Indeed. > > card. The -1 intercept is universally painful, particularly if you can > > play it before The Unmasking hits the table, but the universal > > uncovering of imbued havens is also pretty useful. > > > Another thing to keep in mind is that the imbued are a lot easier to > > manage when you keep up the pressure. Backing off for even a moment > > can enable them to get a much better setup against you. In "normal" > > games of VtES, being too agressive early can garner table hate and > > open you up to your predator. The latter part is still true when > > you're preying on the imbued, but (depending on circumstance) you > > ought to be able to use all this to your advantage assuming you can > > deflect the table hate to your imbued prey. Keep in mind that while > > the imbued can bounce, Determine is only usable as bounce when your > > predator is acting - they can't bounce a bounced bleed. Creating the > > illusion of an opening to provoke your predator into bleeding you > > heavily so you can bounce it into your prey can help you get past > > their defenses. > > That seems like good play at any time. So your advice is to play well? > I guess that's good advice. You could sum it up that way I suppose. The real advice is to take nothing for granted. Yeah, in deck design it's helpful to think of the imbued as always having +2 intercept (Unmasking + Second Sight), +1 hands, +1 bleed, and so forth, so that you can think "Can my deck handle +1 intercept all the time and frequent +2?" "Can my deck handle frequent hitback for 2?" "What happens if I get hit with a bunch of Flash Grenades?" and either alter your deck or not depending your analysis. This kind of thing doesn't just help against imbued either - it helps against any deck that frequently generates moderate intercept (Second Tradition? Raven Spies? Channel 10?), moderate hitback (Weighted Walking Stick? .44 Magnum?), or moderate bleed (Computer Hacking? Laptops and Bleed retainers? Most decks in existence?). But in actual play, it pays to keep track of what your opponent can do _right now_ and what they've indicated their particular deck is capable of (check the ash heap). Most of the general arguments about imbued brokenness tend to ignore this aspect. Everything turns into "but if you pack X, it'll be countered by Y!" "If that happens, do Z." "Then they'll play Q and all my plans will be ruined!" "Try A, B, or C." "But then they do P, R and S, and I don't *want* to put A, B, C, X, and Z all into my deck! The imbued are broken if you need all that to defend against them" all the while ignoring the fact that the imbued decks can't fit Y, Q, P, R, and S all into their decks either, nor guarantee that they'll be available when needed. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't forget the Arms of the Abyss + Entombment. witness1

> Ah, yeah, you are right. > I once had a RtI deck with a couple of Inner Cirlces and Day > Operations. It won 95% of the games. > It wasn't really that strong... > People need to be more creative and aggressive to kill me. Right. > *nods* I only mentioned it won most of the time because people are ignorant on how to beat them. Without pressure they will win, like most desks. If you add pressure to a deck, it will have a hard time. People know how to add pressure to normal "vampire" decks but with the "mortals" people are very ignorant. They are not hard to beat, if you know how. I just told the amazing secret, PRESSURE. Maybe it's just the games I play, but when Imbued are on the table... the game changes and people play differently. I say don't, by doing so you give the imbued an advantage to win. Stop whining and learn how to play the "new" part of the game.

witness1 wrote: [ 158 lines of unused quoted material snipped ] >> i found that OBT DOM bleed kills them really fast. just include some >> Tenebrous forms :D > > Don't forget the Arms of the Abyss + Entombment. And don't forget to snip quoted material as appropriate.

[ quoted text not captured ] Apologies. Somehow I missed that. I blame Google Groups. witness1

On Sep 12, 6:42 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I dunno, man--all my experiences with offensive combat vs the imbued > have ended in abject failure. I mean, like, yeah, there are lot of > things that foil the Imbued. But offensive combat isn't really one of > the good ones, due to many, many reasons that are well known (Memories; > instant, cheap unhospitalization due to Jen; a great deal of important > combat tools don't work against the Imbued like Haven, Taste, Disarm, > Fame; incredibly easy access to aggrivated damage weapons; etc.) Hey, maybe I'm totally wrong. But here is the list of reasons I made that statement: 1) Imbued decks are apparently tearing up the tournament scene. 2) Imbued decks usually get squashed where I play. 3) A larger amount of casual intercept and combat than is present in the metagame at large seems to be the greatest difference between my local group and the metagame at large. So you can see how I arrived at the conclusion that squashing the imbued just requires casual intercept and combat. > I'm solidly in the camp that the Imbued need some sort of tweak > down--not an elaborate killing, but some rules need adjusting to make > them more appropriate. And while I do accept that a lot of problems with > the Imbued can be dealt with via deck adjustment and play adjustment. > But most of these don't really help offensive combat do ok vs the Imbued > (and other strategies at the same time). I've been in support of nerfing Memories since Mr. Cherryholmes pointed out on the Path of Blood forums what an ass card it is, years before the imbued were introduced. I've been in favor of having many/ most/all of the cards that only work on vampires work on imbued since NoR was released. Aside from that, they don't need any depowering. John Eno

On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? I think that if you'd really like to see the imbued depowered - and I'm not clear on why you care, since you don't play the game any more - using hyperbole to support your arguments is shooting yourself in the foot. > Because you end up in the same situation as before the RtI change. You > had to defend against it. result: only 4 or 5 decks were still > playable in a tournament environment. You think that's good? Play X or > anti-X, otherwise become irrelevant? I should have phrased my question more carefully. Why is it bad if a new decktype, which exploits the weaknesses of decks currently in vogue in the metagame, but which is easily defeated by decks which are currently not in vogue in the metagame, is introduced to the game? John Eno

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:00:49 -0700, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > Because he'll always have a Champion set up before Goulet gets merged, > of course. And will also not run out of Convictions before Goulet runs > out of Earth Meld. You will have your favourite imbued like Paul or Travis out on turn 1, latest turn 2. That means that on turn 2 or 3 you can reasonably have Champion and 2 Convictions. Goulet is an 8-cap, which is turn 2 in best case scenario, turn 3 otherwise. To have the merged one is usually an additional turn (barring Epiphamy). Anyway, he won't likely be doing any acting before turn 4 or so. By which time the Imbued can quite well have the Champion. Oh, and Goulet has inferior Protean. And even if he had superior, he would still be subject to the NRA (Champion = action fails) > Seriously, do you have any idea how embarassing it is to lose to a > puppeteer deck? No, not really. The only time I lost to a deck that used Puppeteers was when I lent said deck to a friend... :) Anyway, it's kinda like saying, "do you know how embarrassing it is to lose to a Mercy for Seth deck"? Which is kinda saying, yeah, I play a deck that is very susceptible to a fringe card nobody ever plays because nothing else is really susceptible to it and it isn't really good enough to win except when my deck is its prey. But then again, I might just be wrong. -- Regards, Daneel

On Sep 13, 2:38 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:00:49 -0700, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > Because he'll always have a Champion set up before Goulet gets merged, > > of course. And will also not run out of Convictions before Goulet runs > > out of Earth Meld. > > You will have your favourite imbued like Paul or Travis out on turn 1, > latest turn 2. That means that on turn 2 or 3 you can reasonably have > Champion and 2 Convictions. It amazes me that people think this actually happens. I mean, I've *had* Champions in play that early, but to think of it as being so common as to be a given blows my mind. > Goulet is an 8-cap, which is turn 2 in best case scenario, turn 3 > otherwise. To have the merged one is usually an additional turn (barring > Epiphamy). Anyway, he won't likely be doing any acting before turn 4 or > so. By which time the Imbued can quite well have the Champion. > > Oh, and Goulet has inferior Protean. And even if he had superior, he > would still be subject to the NRA (Champion = action fails) In which case, the imbued still lose out in the long term by spending 2 convictions on Champion and only regaining 1 each turn. Also, not being able to use that Champion on any other action. > > Seriously, do you have any idea how embarassing it is to lose to a > > puppeteer deck? > > No, not really. The only time I lost to a deck that used Puppeteers was > when I lent said deck to a friend... :) Anyway, it's kinda like saying, > "do you know how embarrassing it is to lose to a Mercy for Seth deck"? > Which is kinda saying, yeah, I play a deck that is very susceptible to > a fringe card nobody ever plays because nothing else is really > susceptible to it and it isn't really good enough to win except when > my deck is its prey. Meh. Mercy For Seth, meet Flash Grenade. Or even Dodge. I mean, it's great when you can pull it off, sure. And totally likely to hose someone who thinks that Memories makes him invulnerable. But not something that is nearly an auto-lose like Puppeteers or Goulet. > But then again, I might just be wrong. Well, Norm might have something to say about your contention that Mercy For Seth is something that "nothing else is really susceptible to" but whatever. > -- > Regards, > > Daneel witness1

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Plus, no card can be broken, as DI exists; everybody knows this > and who doesn't is stoopid and should stop playing the game and > go hang themselves. Misstatements and misdefinitions from known liars are not to be trusted. Perhaps you are getting ready to kick the chair out from under you? Kevin M. "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <1189705581.3...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey, maybe I'm totally wrong. But here is the list of reasons I made > that statement: > > 1) Imbued decks are apparently tearing up the tournament scene. > 2) Imbued decks usually get squashed where I play. > 3) A larger amount of casual intercept and combat than is present in > the metagame at large seems to be the greatest difference between my > local group and the metagame at large. That could be the case--it is totally possible that if you sit down at a table that is a bunch of otherwise totally functional decks with reasonable intercept and reasonable combat with an Imbued deck, the Imbued deck is going to get squashed. But then, there are lots of situations where the Imbued are going to get squashed. And yet, they keep tearing up the tournament scene... > I've been in support of nerfing Memories since Mr. Cherryholmes > pointed out on the Path of Blood forums what an ass card it is, years > before the imbued were introduced. I've been in favor of having many/ > most/all of the cards that only work on vampires work on imbued since > NoR was released. Aside from that, they don't need any depowering. Oh, sure--I suspect that if Memories was whacked some and, like, 10-15 cards that say "vampire" instead of "minion" got fixed to say "minion" instead of "vampire", then the Imbued would be totally fine. But it is unlikely that those 10-15 cards are going to get changed such that they say "minion" instead of "vampire" (and really, a lot of them can't get changed that easily--making, say, Disarm and Decapitate work on the Imbued somehow would take considerably more verbiage tweaking than a simple change like that), something else needs to be done. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

In article <1189696941....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > But none of > that really helps you move use your Fames and Tastes and Tension and > such. Which is (presumably) why light combat is favored against the > imbued over brutal-death combat. At which point, you are building your deck specifically to deal with the Imbued. Light combat is good against the Imbued, but not so useful against the not imbued (or simply less so). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 13, 4:01 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1189696941.158837.91...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > But none of > > that really helps you move use your Fames and Tastes and Tension and > > such. Which is (presumably) why light combat is favored against the > > imbued over brutal-death combat. > > At which point, you are building your deck specifically to deal with the > Imbued. Light combat is good against the Imbued, but not so useful > against the not imbued (or simply less so). Again, you should come play in Atlanta. Light combat's been common here for years, well before the imbued came out. (Light combat generally meaning Crows + Bats, a couple of guns, or something else small and efficient, possibly permanent). witness1

Peter D Bakija wrote: > That could be the case--it is totally possible that if you sit down at a > table that is a bunch of otherwise totally functional decks with > reasonable intercept and reasonable combat with an Imbued deck, the > Imbued deck is going to get squashed. But then, there are lots of > situations where the Imbued are going to get squashed. And yet, they > keep tearing up the tournament scene... And, in a roundabout way, this is exactly the point I've been trying to make in this thread. Why is it that we have so many threads calling for the nerfing of imbued, and so few (are there any?) discussing tactics to use against them? It's not that the imbued are more powerful than vampires in a vacuum. They're not. It's just that, given the current tournament metagame, they *seem* more powerful because their strengths play to that metagame, and the elements that make imbued easy to handle are absent from that metagame. So why are people calling for nerfs rather than simply adapting to the metagame, as they have in the past? Part of my reaction to people complaining about the imbued is that it's much more interesting to me to see what solutions people come up with, rather than have them look to a central authority to "fix" the situation. Part of it is that, so far as I can recall, this hasn't happened in the past - rather than looking to LSJ to fix their problems, people just adapted to and thereby altered the metagame by deck choice, playstyle, tactics, etc. So why do the imbued warrant a special case? These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way. I'm really interested in why this is happening. John Eno

On Sep 14, 9:34 am, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why is it that we have so many threads calling for the nerfing of > imbued, and so few (are there any?) discussing tactics to use against > them? witness' post seemed pretty good I thought (not that I see imbued at all) and I will remember it for future reference. > So why are people calling for nerfs rather than simply adapting to the > metagame, as they have in the past? Interesting question - I wouldn't mind knowing myself. > Part of my reaction to people complaining about the imbued is that > it's much more interesting to me to see what solutions people come up > with, rather than have them look to a central authority to "fix" the > situation. Part of it is that, so far as I can recall, this hasn't > happened in the past - rather than looking to LSJ to fix their > problems, people just adapted to and thereby altered the metagame by > deck choice, playstyle, tactics, etc. So why do the imbued warrant a > special case? Well put and I'm totally with you here. A bit more thinking about how to deal with them specifically and a bit less just nerf them would go a long way. However I agree with Peter that combat decks get the short end of the stick so to speak when it comes to imbued as their common oust strategies don't work. I'm not really sure what the answer to that is though. Simon

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:36:31 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> Plus, no card can be broken, as DI exists; everybody knows this >> and who doesn't is stoopid and should stop playing the game and >> go hang themselves. > > Misstatements and misdefinitions from known liars are not to be trusted. > > Perhaps you are getting ready to kick the chair out from under you? ...not to be ruining the sweet scent of flaming intent, but you do spot an overly sarcastic post when you see one, right? Just checking. -- Regards, Daneel

> So, the resounding response I'm seeming to get from the "Imbued aren't > broken at all" camp is this: > > Play more intercept and combat, in most of your decks. Which is a nice > concept in theory, but more difficult in practice without severely > limiting my choices in vampires. There are a few major components of the game. 1. Acting 2. Blocking 3. Combat Acting may or may not involve stealth. Blocking may or may not involve intercept Combat occurs when B meets A. Not every deck is going to pack stealth or intercept granted - but that is a choice that you make when you build the deck. They are fundamental aspects of the game. If you choose to build a deck that concentrates on one aspect to the detriment of others, than you must be prepared for the risks that entails. I build these decks myself, all the time. When I am boned, i shrug and say "should have played the other deck". It happens, but you've got to take the good with the bad. If because you choose to limit your deck creation to the tigh rather than the adaptable, you cannot blame deck mechanics. Imbued, by their mechanics are by default adaptable, but they then can struggle to be focused, which can be their downfall. They have to take the good with the bad when it comes to this. Imbued can't be effected by cards like Disarm, Decpatitate and Taste - which we all agree they should. MoM is broken when used with Imbued, but this is a problem with those cards not with the Imbued themselves. But conversely, Imbued cannot play cards such as Delaying Tactics and Disengage as these cost a blood, which Imbued as allies do not have to spend. Their power card, Champion, cannot stop Political Actions, and they have very few ways of gaining votes shy of Mamam Boumba, Rose Foundation and Surprise Influence. They cannot go Anarch to stop dying to Anarch Revolts, and they cannot remove Smiling Jack. There are plenty of cards to steal them, and combat cards that can burn them - far far more common than there are to steal or burn vampires. So, whilst there are cards that they don't interact with which is a bonus to them, there are some that they don't interact with which can screw them royally. Their are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. I advocate intercept and combat both in light terms as ways to deal with Imbued. Their are others, one of which is constant pressure. People have to learn to adapt to the metagame as Witness has said. People have learnt to adapt to other metagame shifts, but seem reluctant to try and move with Imbued. I now include more Sudden Reversal/Wash in block decks than I did in the past. But this isn't just anti-imbued tech to stop MoM, it is also useful as pseudo forward motion. Having limited go forward, every blood doll or Minion Tap that i can stop my prey getting is a faux-bleed that I've done, so I look for options that are going to be useful against both Imbued and Vampire crypt decks. I've found myself slotting more and more options for combat into decks rather than the simple maneuvers/dodge and S:CE that seem prevalent in many tournamnet decks. As i said above, sometimes i go with the tight deck, and it can pay off or it can't. At the EC day 2, it definately did not pay off for me, when I went obf/PRE heavy stealth bleed, and had wall decks as a prey in all 3 games. I was sitting there thinking, meh, could have played the combat deck like I thought about doing and I'd be ripping these fella's apart. But that was a decision I went with and it didn't pay off. At other events, I've gone with the tight deck and it has worked wonders. Again, these are decisions that you make when you build and play a deck. When my mate pulls out his corrupt deck and I'm playing weenies, it can be very annoying, but shit happens. I just have to turn around and bash him, or hope that I can oust my prey before he steals all my guys. So in short, suck it up and stop blaming mechanics for poor planning or bad luck. --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

> Let's kick off my posting career with a lot of words, laced with > snark: <snip patronising crappola> > but feel no particular urge to give them a wholesale kick in the balls. At no point have I asked for this. To repeat myself, I am asking for: *Powers to be covered by NRA ruling *MoM nerfed to one per Methuselah or some other reasonable neutering that avoids wallpapering *Card such as Haven, Decapitate, Temptation, etc to be reworded to work against Imbued *Jennie Orne might, MIGHT need her ovaries kicked QUICK, CALL THE POLICE

> Because if we want to just say Quality X is represented a lot in > tournament winning decks and therefore is a problem...then why stop > with imbued? I can think of a host of other Qualities that have lots > of TWD that we could nerf while we're at it: > Ben Peal (I'm thinking a blindfold.) This won't work. He plays by sense of smell. > Dominate (I hear it's really strong!) But how am I going to win with Gangrel if you get rid of Dominate? > Princes (Second Tradition, I think you should burn in hell.) Those guys promote the game alot. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

LSJ wrote: > witness1 wrote: [snipped a few lines...how many imbued died?] >> Don't forget the Arms of the Abyss + Entombment. > > And don't forget to snip quoted material as appropriate. That kills Imbued, too? Neat! -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Sep 14, 3:17 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > > Let's kick off my posting career with a lot of words, laced with > > snark: > > <snip patronising crappola> > My initial queries were sincere. Is it because it's the *Imbued* you have to counter, or you already feel busy countering a bunch of other stuff? You've both discarded the whole of my points as "crappola" and failed entirely to answer my question. Are you just angry at Imbued for being Imbued, or just tired of having to consider another type of defensive tech? J has just stated similar points to the ones I was trying to make earlier (With more Zen, less sarcasm. Thank you J.) We're not saying that you are forced to use anti-Whatever tech to get along, we're just saying you can, or can't, at your desire. Some anti-hunter tech effective against certain vampiric strategies. However, nothing is required to have a functioning deck. My Ravnos do just peachy without a speck of bounce. You can survive (and maybe even thrive) without specific anti-whosawhatsits tech, but you will pay the price for it in certain games, and must accept that. There is no element of "force" in deck design, and your (perhaps patronizing?) paraphrasing of someone else's statement to the effect that "So it's anti-Imbued tech or die. Thanks!" is both an oversimplification and a way of looking at the problem that won't help you win games. When I said try a little tenacity, I was both being snarky and sincere. The mere presence of Imbued on the table and no imbued-hoser in your hand or deck is not a recipe for instant loss. The fact that you jibe that it is doesn't help you in the slightest. VTES, like many games, has a psychological component and resigning yourself to loss brings a certain self-fulfilling prophecy effect to the table. > > but feel no particular urge to give them a wholesale kick in the balls. > > At no point have I asked for this. To repeat myself, I am asking for: > Wasn't accusing you personally, I believed other critics of the imbued were, to varying degrees. I will be sure to point out the targets of my commentary in the future, if that is needed. > *Powers to be covered by NRA ruling > *MoM nerfed to one per Methuselah or some other reasonable neutering > that avoids wallpapering > *Card such as Haven, Decapitate, Temptation, etc to be reworded to > work against Imbued Some of these things I said right after the ball-kicking statement of mine you have quoted above. > *Jennie Orne might, MIGHT need her ovaries kicked Jennie gets her ovaries kicked many times I see her hit the table, if the players at the table are able to do so.. Maybe you get lucky and slap a Secure haven on her first...maybe not. I feel witness1 has the right of it...2 Convictions to leave is to little, 3 is far too expensive. Jennie shouldn't have to be required. I should just channel Mr. Gupta and say...Play. The. Game. Sugar, spice, occasionally nice. -D

On Sep 14, 3:24 am, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > Ben Peal (I'm thinking a blindfold.) > > This won't work. He plays by sense of smell. So some sort of stink bomb in his card collection, obviously. > > Dominate (I hear it's really strong!) > > But how am I going to win with Gangrel if you get rid of Dominate? Dementation obviously. Crazy wabbits! > > Princes (Second Tradition, I think you should burn in hell.) > > Those guys promote the game alot. I guess we can keep them then. But they'd better behave! A Partner in Sarcasm -D

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189752746.1...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > So in short, suck it up and stop blaming mechanics for poor planning > or bad luck. OK. I want RtI back. if you don't include enough bounce: bad luck for you.

"Seirhune" <seir...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1189775248.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 14, 3:17 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: > J has just stated similar points to the ones I was trying to make > earlier (With more Zen, less sarcasm. Thank you J.) We're not saying > that you are forced to use anti-Whatever tech to get along, we're just > saying you can, or can't, at your desire. No. Both of you keep making the point that a deck must have anti-ally tech that makes it less good against other decks. Therefore, yes, it is specific anti-ally tech. And that brings us close to the Necropotence problem they had in Magic so many years ago.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189719259.2...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> That could be the case--it is totally possible that if you sit down at a >> table that is a bunch of otherwise totally functional decks with >> reasonable intercept and reasonable combat with an Imbued deck, the >> Imbued deck is going to get squashed. But then, there are lots of >> situations where the Imbued are going to get squashed. And yet, they >> keep tearing up the tournament scene... > > And, in a roundabout way, this is exactly the point I've been trying > to make in this thread. > > Why is it that we have so many threads calling for the nerfing of > imbued, and so few (are there any?) discussing tactics to use against > them? There have been lots. But they are always turning into shout fests about how the imbued don't need to be nerfed. > > It's not that the imbued are more powerful than vampires in a vacuum. > They're not. It's just that, given the current tournament metagame, > they *seem* more powerful because their strengths play to that > metagame, and the elements that make imbued easy to handle are absent > from that metagame. > > So why are people calling for nerfs rather than simply adapting to the > metagame, as they have in the past? Because addapting to the imbued makes your deck worse against non-imbued (as in: it either makes you play a certain decktype or makes you dilute your deck with cards that are no good to you if you're not facing the imbued.) And we end up close to a X vs anti-X metagame, which is boring, because it makes all non X decks unplayable and makes the outcome of a game almost solely dependent on seating at the beginning. We had something like that at the time with Return to Innocence. I, for one, wouldn't like to go back to that situation. Also, purely logically, 'because you can't defend against something it can't be overpowered' is fuzzy logic, at the least. That would mean no card can ever be overpowerd, because of SR, DI and Not to Be exist.) And for me personally: because the metagame was already defensive enough without adding another wall decktype to it.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189705779.6...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? > > I think that if you'd really like to see the imbued depowered - and > I'm not clear on why you care, since you don't play the game any more > - using hyperbole to support your arguments is shooting yourself in > the foot. First of all: I'm not buying cards anymore. Not the same as not playing. > >> Because you end up in the same situation as before the RtI change. You >> had to defend against it. result: only 4 or 5 decks were still >> playable in a tournament environment. You think that's good? Play X or >> anti-X, otherwise become irrelevant? > > I should have phrased my question more carefully. > > Why is it bad if a new decktype, which exploits the weaknesses of > decks currently in vogue in the metagame, but which is easily defeated > by decks which are currently not in vogue in the metagame, is > introduced to the game? See my other answer.

"Mavrix" <mic...@mholmberg.com> schreef in bericht news:1189700152.7...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > >> Ah, yeah, you are right. >> I once had a RtI deck with a couple of Inner Cirlces and Day >> Operations. It won 95% of the games. >> It wasn't really that strong... >> People need to be more creative and aggressive to kill me. Right. >> *nods* > > I only mentioned it won most of the time because people are ignorant > on how to beat them. Without pressure they will win, like most desks. > If you add pressure to a deck, it will have a hard time. People know > how to add pressure to normal "vampire" decks but with the "mortals" > people are very ignorant. They are not hard to beat, if you know how. > I just told the amazing secret, PRESSURE. Maybe it's just the games I > play, but when Imbued are on the table... the game changes and people > play differently. I say don't, by doing so you give the imbued an > advantage to win. Stop whining and learn how to play the "new" part of > the game. Normally you don't pressure you prey? Strange.... And when having imbued as your prey, you don't have a predator?

On Sep 15, 8:02 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "Seirhune" <seirh...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:1189775248.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Actually, I feel I've been taking pains to NOT say that. I'm saying you don't HAVE to have anything in your deck. I'm saying you have a choice, and that even if you choose not to have *specifically* anti- imbued tech. Many techs can be useful against both vampires and imbued. (I know, radical concept, but it's totally true!) I'm just trying to figure out why you can't just slot anti-SB, anti- Vote, anti-Weenie, anti-etc tech into many of these complaints about "Arrrg, now I have to slot in anti-imbued tech"....which we could just as well rewrite as "Man, I wish I didn't have to keep slotting in bounce for all those S&B decks." or "Votes suck, now I have to pack all these DT's and PP's in my deck." We choose every time we build a deck, what we can fit in and what we can't. Our choices don't necessarily make our deck inviable. I have a deck with no bounce! NONE! It has performed admirably in many games. I made a choice to not try to stuff bounce in, that is a risk I take. Do I run around saying "Oh, but I'm *forced* by those mean old developers to put bounce in my deck, otherwise Malks/!Malks will eat my face when I sleep"? No...because it's not true! Was that clear this time? Choice, choice, decisions, cost/benefit, choice! No arm twisting, no gun to the head. No "Must Have or Die." I'm not saying the consequence of not having anti-ally tech is loss, but maybe it is a harder game. You make that choice for yourself, not the developers, not your opponent, not the metagame. You. Can you grasp that some strategies that work against the imbued might be just peachy keen versus vampires? Is this a hard concept? Do I have to list, at length, strategies that don't magically suck versus all vampire decks ever? Maybe I do. Mean things that target JUST imbued: Break the Code Some mean things that allies hate: Far mastery Lure of the serpent Sebastian Goulet Entrancement Some mean things that work against allies/imbued/vampires: Wall Decks: Block all that crap, everybody hates it when you block their crap, whether their minions have a pulse or not. Arms of the Abyss + Entombment: Imbued get burned, vampires get sent to torpor. Yay! Follow the Bouncing Bleed: Imbued really have to bleed to oust and vampires have other options, but bleed is still popular. Stealthy Votes: KRC works on everyone. Reins of Power and Ancient Influence, already strong, get a significant boost against the imbued. Champion useless! Animalism: Popular here in Atlanta. Pack Alpha! Raven Spies! Crowbat! It seems to work. Anarch Revolt: Can't go Anarch, Can't vote it away? Then just die. This is not a comprehensive list. This is a set of examples of strategies that are employed successfully against vampires that now happen to put some hurt to the imbued. Some of these may not work against every Imbued deck, just like they won't work against every vampire deck. It is a short list because I don't have all my life to sit an think of everything and list it. Go find your own, that's the joy of the game. Blinded with Science! -D

"Seirhune" <seir...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1189869762.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 15, 8:02 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> "Seirhune" <seirh...@yahoo.com> schreef in >> berichtnews:1189775248.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Sep 14, 3:17 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: >> > J has just stated similar points to the ones I was trying to make >> > earlier (With more Zen, less sarcasm. Thank you J.) We're not saying >> > that you are forced to use anti-Whatever tech to get along, we're just >> > saying you can, or can't, at your desire. >> >> No. Both of you keep making the point that a deck must have anti-ally >> tech >> that makes it less good against other decks. Therefore, yes, it is >> specific >> anti-ally tech. And that brings us close to the Necropotence problem they >> had in Magic so many years ago. > > Actually, I feel I've been taking pains to NOT say that. I'm saying > you don't HAVE to have anything in your deck. I'm saying you have a > choice, and that even if you choose not to have *specifically* anti- > imbued tech. Many techs can be useful against both vampires and > imbued. (I know, radical concept, but it's totally true!) Not enough. That's what we are saying. > I'm just trying to figure out why you can't just slot anti-SB, anti- > Vote, anti-Weenie, anti-etc tech into many of these complaints about > "Arrrg, now I have to slot in anti-imbued tech"....which we could just > as well rewrite as "Man, I wish I didn't have to keep slotting in > bounce for all those S&B decks." or "Votes suck, now I have to pack > all these DT's and PP's in my deck." I bet you haven't been reading my posts for the last 6 years. But i agree with those sentences, actually.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.r...@telenet.be> schreef in bericht news:SwTGi.106779$O95.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > > "Seirhune" <seir...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht > news:1189869762.1...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 15, 8:02 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> >> wrote: >>> "Seirhune" <seirh...@yahoo.com> schreef in >>> berichtnews:1189775248.5...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> > On Sep 14, 3:17 am, noodle...@iprimus.com.au wrote: >>> > J has just stated similar points to the ones I was trying to make >>> > earlier (With more Zen, less sarcasm. Thank you J.) We're not saying >>> > that you are forced to use anti-Whatever tech to get along, we're just >>> > saying you can, or can't, at your desire. >>> >>> No. Both of you keep making the point that a deck must have anti-ally >>> tech >>> that makes it less good against other decks. Therefore, yes, it is >>> specific >>> anti-ally tech. And that brings us close to the Necropotence problem >>> they >>> had in Magic so many years ago. >> >> Actually, I feel I've been taking pains to NOT say that. I'm saying >> you don't HAVE to have anything in your deck. I'm saying you have a >> choice, and that even if you choose not to have *specifically* anti- >> imbued tech. Many techs can be useful against both vampires and >> imbued. (I know, radical concept, but it's totally true!) > > Not enough. That's what we are saying. And to add: Do you want to turn the game into a 'get screwed simply because of seating' even more than it is at the moment? While that can work in duel games that play a 15 mintute game, it really sucks for a 2 hour game.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > I bet you haven't been reading my posts for the last 6 years. But i agree > with those sentences, actually. I've prodded the NG for a few while, read it more attentively in the past month. So I don't have a big library of all the stuff people say. I've just been following this Imbued thing (because it makes such big, fun, flamey threads). > And to add: Do you want to turn the game into a 'get screwed simply because > of seating' even more than it is at the moment? While that can work in duel > games that play a 15 mintute game, it really sucks for a 2 hour game. I've gotten both screwed and blessed by seating, that just seems to be part of the game. It seems like seating and what is at the table in general can matter as much as what your deck actually contains. There is that certain random, luck of the draw, element in many facets of VTES. Your hand, your crypt, everyone else's decks and how lucky they were, who pushes who where and all that crud. It's hard for me to see sometimes, the Atlanta crowd seems to know how to put down an Imbued deck when they have the urge. Sometimes Imbued run around the table stealing everyone's VPs, sometimes the table makes them sit down and cry. I've seen it enough to make me skeptical about the overall overpoweredness of the Imbued. Specific cards or rules I can take issue with (MoM, Incap/Jennie, Powers rules, etc), but just all around dislike I can't manage to muster. I've often tried to figure out how much of winning is the player, or the deck, or other people's decks, or where you sit in relation to other people's decks. All of it matters...but which matters most? Or does it shift about depending on everything else at the table? This does seem a game where so many things outside your ability to control can contribute to your downfall. Feeling Philosophical. -D

On Sep 15, 8:13 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > There have been lots. But they are always turning into shout fests about how > the imbued don't need to be nerfed. Fair enough. It's totally possible that the only imbued threads that I remember are the ones that strike me as ridiculous (ie, the "nerf imbued" threads.) > Because addapting to the imbued makes your deck worse against non-imbued (as > in: it either makes you play a certain decktype or makes you dilute your > deck with cards that are no good to you if you're not facing the imbued.) This is what we don't agree on. People in my playgroup were playing decks that were totally effective against vampires before the imbued were printed. After the imbued were printed, it just so happened that this environment wasn't particularly conducive to imbued wins - they win sometimes, sure, but no more than vampire decks do. Therefore, I can't help but conclude that "the imbued are running rampant!" is a metagame issue, rather than an issue with the imbued themselves. Why people are calling for rules changes centered on the imbued, when I have seen that they're not necessary, is what is confusing to me. Take that for what it's worth, I guess. > And we end up close to a X vs anti-X metagame, which is boring, because it > makes all non X decks unplayable and makes the outcome of a game almost > solely dependent on seating at the beginning. Nope. See above. > We had something like that at the time with Return to Innocence. I, for one, > wouldn't like to go back to that situation. Fortunately, there are way more counters to the imbued than there are to RTI. > Also, purely logically, 'because you can't defend against something it can't > be overpowered' is fuzzy logic, at the least. That would mean no card can > ever be overpowerd, because of SR, DI and Not to Be exist.) Sure. That's not an argument I've ever espoused, though. > And for me personally: because the metagame was already defensive enough > without adding another wall decktype to it. Sorry, but I don't really care about your personal preference. People should play whatever makes them happy. John Eno

> No. Both of you keep making the point that a deck must have anti-ally tech > that makes it less good against other decks. Therefore, yes, it is specific > anti-ally tech. And that brings us close to the Necropotence problem they > had in Magic so many years ago. You really aren't too bright are you? Nothing I've advocated is "anti-ally" tech. As you seem determined to ignore what I've said and just come out with banal comments like "anti- Imbued" and "anti-ally" I'm not going to bother responding to this thread again. I suggest you ignore anti-bleed, and anti-combat as well, as they are also actions that can be taken by imbued, and as such, using tech to stop these kind of activities are obviously only "anti-ally" as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"J" <gra...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189930277.9...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >> No. Both of you keep making the point that a deck must have anti-ally >> tech >> that makes it less good against other decks. Therefore, yes, it is >> specific >> anti-ally tech. And that brings us close to the Necropotence problem they >> had in Magic so many years ago. > > You really aren't too bright are you? Ha! Look again at your solutions and how many people agreed. > Nothing I've advocated is "anti-ally" tech. As you seem determined to > ignore what I've said and just come out with banal comments like "anti- > Imbued" and "anti-ally" I'm not going to bother responding to this > thread again. You obviously misunderstand me. I'm convinced that all the 'solutions' you came up with effectively are anti-ally tech for most decks (ie it makes them worse against non-ally decks). And judging by the responses you got to you list of 'solutions', i'm not the only one.

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht news:1189926394.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 15, 8:13 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: >> There have been lots. But they are always turning into shout fests about >> how >> the imbued don't need to be nerfed. > > Fair enough. It's totally possible that the only imbued threads that I > remember are the ones that strike me as ridiculous (ie, the "nerf > imbued" threads.) There's been at least 2 MoM threads in the last month. And another about Determine. Also, most people on this NG don't use 'nerf' as 'wallpaper'. It just means to power down. >> Because addapting to the imbued makes your deck worse against non-imbued >> (as >> in: it either makes you play a certain decktype or makes you dilute your >> deck with cards that are no good to you if you're not facing the imbued.) > > This is what we don't agree on. It is hyperbole, of course, some decks have anti-imbued stuff right in their basic set-up. It's about the number of those decks. Weenie animalism, most walls and a couple others don't need anything else to kill the imbued. But, a lot of decks have problems copeing without diluting their decks. > > People in my playgroup were playing decks that were totally effective > against vampires before the imbued were printed. After the imbued were > printed, it just so happened that this environment wasn't particularly > conducive to imbued wins - they win sometimes, sure, but no more than > vampire decks do. > > Therefore, I can't help but conclude that "the imbued are running > rampant!" is a metagame issue, rather than an issue with the imbued > themselves. Why people are calling for rules changes centered on the > imbued, when I have seen that they're not necessary, is what is > confusing to me. Take that for what it's worth, I guess. You're saying: in out local weekly friendly games the imbued didn't make an impression? If that's the case: of course not, they are exactly built to defend against those things seen in large tournements. Will that make the tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued sitting next to it? > >> And we end up close to a X vs anti-X metagame, which is boring, because >> it >> makes all non X decks unplayable and makes the outcome of a game almost >> solely dependent on seating at the beginning. > > Nope. See above. > >> We had something like that at the time with Return to Innocence. I, for >> one, >> wouldn't like to go back to that situation. > > Fortunately, there are way more counters to the imbued than there are > to RTI. Luckily. I'm using RtI as an example because everyone is convinced it was overpowered. >> Also, purely logically, 'because you can't defend against something it >> can't >> be overpowered' is fuzzy logic, at the least. That would mean no card can >> ever be overpowerd, because of SR, DI and Not to Be exist.) > > Sure. That's not an argument I've ever espoused, though. Depends: if you say: Decks A, B, C,... can kill the imbued, but decks E, F, G can't. It's basically the same. Only the numbers are different. > >> And for me personally: because the metagame was already defensive enough >> without adding another wall decktype to it. > > Sorry, but I don't really care about your personal preference. People > should play whatever makes them happy. That's why I added 'personnally' in front of it. It's still a game, fun is an important factor. Which is, again for me, diminished by the defensive metagame we've been seeing the last years. I realised I've been going to tournements because of the people there not because of the game in and of itself.

On 12 sep, 22:34, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > "witness1" <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> schreef in berichtnews:1189628015.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Sep 12, 3:59 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12 sep, 21:48, witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >> > On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On 12 sep, 20:10, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > On Sep 12, 4:01 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > > Snark all you want, but it doesn't make your points true. The > >> > > > > whole > >> > > > > metagame shouldn't shift because of 1 deck suddenly making mince > >> > > > > meat > >> > > > > out of everything.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > > > Fortunately, one deck isn't making mincemeat out of everything. > >> > > > Hence > >> > > > my deployment of the same kind of hyperbole that people use when > >> > > > making a case to, say, ban NoR for several months. > > >> > > Letting them enervate people is better for the game, you think? > > >> > Enervate who? > > >> Everyone who is yelling that they are overpowered. > > > You seem plenty energized now. > > ***OOPS, i seem to have emailed my response to you instead of posting.**** > > Too much cafeine :-) > > Enervate doesn't mean what I though it meant. In Dutch it means 'getting on > the nerves of' > > Apparently in english it means: > 1. weaken mentally or morally > 2. disturb the composure of [syn: faze] > > So, enervate is now my English word of the day. Actually, in contemporary dutch (yes, I know, gij flamish people are always a bit slow and archaic :P) Enerveren as a verb is no longer used, and Enerverend means exciting, tittilating. :P Cheers, B

"Bram Vink" <jja....@hccnet.nl> schreef in bericht news:1189934999....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] My Van Daele says: ener·ve·ren (ov.ww., ook abs.) 1 op de zenuwen werken => op iemands zenuwen werken no tag indicating archaism.... And at least we don't call a cow a 'he' :-)

"Seirhune" <seir...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht news:1189899268.6...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > >> I bet you haven't been reading my posts for the last 6 years. But i agree >> with those sentences, actually. > > I've prodded the NG for a few while, read it more attentively in the > past month. So I don't have a big library of all the stuff people > say. I've just been following this Imbued thing (because it makes > such big, fun, flamey threads). > >> And to add: Do you want to turn the game into a 'get screwed simply >> because >> of seating' even more than it is at the moment? While that can work in >> duel >> games that play a 15 mintute game, it really sucks for a 2 hour game. > > I've gotten both screwed and blessed by seating, that just seems to be > part of the game. Of course it is. But the question is: how much effect should luck and seating have. Being completely screwed by seating is bad, having a hard game to play but with at least a fighting chance is something completely different. > > It seems like seating and what is at the table in general can matter > as much as what your deck actually contains. There is that certain > random, luck of the draw, element in many facets of VTES. Your hand, > your crypt, everyone else's decks and how lucky they were, who pushes > who where and all that crud. Luck is, of course, part of a card game. That's obvious. > I've often tried to figure out how much of winning is the player, or > the deck, or other people's decks, or where you sit in relation to > other people's decks. All of it matters...but which matters most? Or > does it shift about depending on everything else at the table? This > does seem a game where so many things outside your ability to control > can contribute to your downfall. > > Feeling Philosophical. If we're getting philosophical, I'll tell you what I feel about this. First of all, let me say that I don't believe in the CCG system working in eternity. Bannings, set rotations, nerfings, etc. are needed to keep a CCG both fun and challenging. This is not happening in V:TES the last years. What we're getting is new mechanics and new rules. Most of them with only marginal impact on the game. Note: I'm not blaming the Rules Team, nor LSJ for this. It's a choice they in the past and they're sticking to it. Secondly, I feel that -in a hypothetical 'perfect' game - perfect defences shouldn't exist. Providing of course that attacks aren't as strong to need perfect defences. (fr.ex. If bleed decks weren't as powerfull as they are now, deflection didn't need to exist in its current form.) Thirdly, I believe that the fact that you are already playing with randomised cards, randomised seating and imperfect information about other decks, luck is already a big enough factor. Every way of dimishing the luck factor is good, imo. (fr.ex some way of keeping people from being bleed to death in turn 3, because their 'perfect weenie defence' wasn't in their first 10 cards.) What I' ve been seeing lately is the almost total predictability of games. If you know the decktypes, in 9 out of 10 cases you can predict what's going to happen (barring table deals, of course.) Purely based on seating and decktype. This is not much fun, IMO. It feels like going through the motions for 1-2 hours. Most of what determines succes is the ability to defend against the attacks of your predator and/ or prey, because a lot of defenses are, for all intends and purposes, perfect. Since the game keeps on adding new things to defend against (Events, strong ally decks and Imbued especially), most people keep on adding more defences, because if you don't, you can get completely screwed by seating/luck alone. And that makes the metagame get more defensive and more defensive. Which some people like, but I certainly don't. YMMV.

On Sep 16, 6:46 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > > Secondly, I feel that -in a hypothetical 'perfect' game - perfect defences > shouldn't exist. Providing of course that attacks aren't as strong to need > perfect defences. (fr.ex. If bleed decks weren't as powerfull as they are > now, deflection didn't need to exist in its current form.) I would think a card like Telepathic Counter is an "imperfect" defense, in that it doesn't totally nullify an action (if the bleed is large enough, at least). But I see your point in a lot of cases. However, defense can have 2 levels, the preventing the action from succeeding and the subsequent fight if a block has happened. The blocker may have perfectly blocked a massive bleed...but if he gets slapped about in the subsequent fight the defense as a whole may not be considered 'perfect'. Deflection is a pretty perfect form of defense because it is also doubles as an offense. In many games (CCG, RPG, etc) defense has trumped offense, and since we have a limited resource pool in VTES, we hold our "oust" in our hand, waiting for that perfect time to lunge. This may be part of the cause of the "timing out" complaints, on some level. > What I' ve been seeing lately is the almost total predictability of games. > If you know the decktypes, in 9 out of 10 cases you can predict what's going > to happen (barring table deals, of course.) Purely based on seating and > decktype. This is not much fun, IMO. It feels like going through the motions > for 1-2 hours. Most of what determines succes is the ability to defend > against the attacks of your predator and/ or prey, because a lot of defenses > are, for all intends and purposes, perfect. Since the game keeps on adding > new things to defend against (Events, strong ally decks and Imbued > especially), most people keep on adding more defences, because if you don't, > you can get completely screwed by seating/luck alone. And that makes the > metagame get more defensive and more defensive. Which some people like, but > I certainly don't. YMMV. I tend towards toolbox in deck approach if the deck itself allows it, but it is very hard to pick your defense. I rarely bother against Event defense, preferring to deal with that if I see something truly annoying. Most of my decks will have bounce if it is a plausible add on (only small odd dances to get dom/aus in a deck). Vote defense is never more than a splash of cards (2-4). I don't know if I've seen more defensive decks here, but I think I understand what you have been seeing. People don't want to get run over in 15 minutes, so if someone has a strong showing they are more likely to turtle up. Maybe this is just a metagame pendulum swinging. As more defense is stuffed in, less offense will be pack, leading to less of a need for defense and so on. Then the deck building paradigm will shift back to a more offense focused metagame. Defense is popular because no one likes that helpless feeling you get when your predator steamrolls you. And if your offense is too strong, too early then the table can turn against you. I often play slow build up decks just to prevent myself from a strong offense early on, finding that was a recipe for getting assaulted by everyone. Pre-Breakfast Rambling Brought to You By -D

On Sep 14, 2:52 am, J <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > So, the resounding response I'm seeming to get from the "Imbued aren't > > broken at all" camp is this: > > > Play more intercept and combat, in most of your decks. Which is a nice > > concept in theory, but more difficult in practice without severely > > limiting my choices in vampires. > > There are a few major components of the game. > > 1. Acting > 2. Blocking > 3. Combat > > Acting may or may not involve stealth. > Blocking may or may not involve intercept > Combat occurs when B meets A. > Uh. Thanks for that. Are we defining terms for a proof or something? If so it kinda falls flat after this. Thanks for the tutorial, tho. > Not every deck is going to pack stealth or intercept granted - but > that is a choice that you make when you build the deck. They are > fundamental aspects of the game. If you choose to build a deck that > concentrates on one aspect to the detriment of others, than you must > be prepared for the risks that entails. I build these decks myself, > all the time. When I am boned, i shrug and say "should have played > the other deck". It happens, but you've got to take the good with the > bad. > > If because you choose to limit your deck creation to the tigh rather > than the adaptable, you cannot blame deck mechanics. > Adaptable decks (unless they are ridiculously adaptable,say stealth and intercept in one [semi-permanent] card, like Second Sight) don't tend to win tournaments so much, however. So it's easy to think that the whole "water down your library" theory isn't such a good one. > Imbued, by their mechanics are by default adaptable, but they then can > struggle to be focused, which can be their downfall. They have to > take the good with the bad when it comes to this. Imbued can't be > effected by cards like Disarm, Decpatitate and Taste - which we all > agree they should. MoM is broken when used with Imbued, but this is a > problem with those cards not with the Imbued themselves. But > conversely, Imbued cannot play cards such as Delaying Tactics and > Disengage as these cost a blood, which Imbued as allies do not have to > spend. Their power card, Champion, cannot stop Political Actions, and > they have very few ways of gaining votes shy of Mamam Boumba, Rose > Foundation and Surprise Influence. They cannot go Anarch to stop > dying to Anarch Revolts, and they cannot remove Smiling Jack. There > are plenty of cards to steal them, and combat cards that can burn them > - far far more common than there are to steal or burn vampires. > Imbued can play Poison Pill, too. And it seems like they should. Stealing imbued is not so easy due to React with Conviction. Are you looking at the steal cards in a vacuum or something? I'm not at all suggesting that Imbued are broken because there aren't enough steal ally effects. But we're talking about watering down one's library, and stuffing piles of Far Mastery into one's deck is dumb as hell. How often do you see Shattering Blow played? Ever? > So, whilst there are cards that they don't interact with which is a > bonus to them, there are some that they don't interact with which can > screw them royally. > Thanks. This isn't unknown to the majority of us. I'm not sure how this shores up your argument to diversify our decks...? > Their are pros and cons to both sides of the argument. I advocate > intercept and combat both in light terms as ways to deal with Imbued. > Their are others, one of which is constant pressure. People have to > learn to adapt to the metagame as Witness has said. People have > learnt to adapt to other metagame shifts, but seem reluctant to try > and move with Imbued. > > I now include more Sudden Reversal/Wash in block decks than I did in > the past. But this isn't just anti-imbued tech to stop MoM, it is > also useful as pseudo forward motion. Having limited go forward, > every blood doll or Minion Tap that i can stop my prey getting is a > faux-bleed that I've done, so I look for options that are going to be > useful against both Imbued and Vampire crypt decks. > > I've found myself slotting more and more options for combat into decks > rather than the simple maneuvers/dodge and S:CE that seem prevalent in > many tournamnet decks. > But i thought we were talking about "tournament decks"? Are we not? Are these pointers for casual games? What the hell good are they then? > As i said above, sometimes i go with the tight deck, and it can pay > off or it can't. At the EC day 2, it definately did not pay off for > me, when I went obf/PRE heavy stealth bleed, and had wall decks as a > prey in all 3 games. I was sitting there thinking, meh, could have > played the combat deck like I thought about doing and I'd be ripping > these fella's apart. But that was a decision I went with and it > didn't pay off. At other events, I've gone with the tight deck and it > has worked wonders. > > Again, these are decisions that you make when you build and play a > deck. > Understood. This is given at any table at which we sit to play. The question was whether or not advocating a dilution of core deck concepts was really the best solution to the Imbued Question. I don't think that it is such a good idea. wtiness1 has been kind enough to offer more practical solutions, so let's try not to subvert his suggestions any longer with diatribes orthogonal to constructive advice to successfully metagame against the Imbued. Note that Rush Combat still has a difficult time with the imbued due to ousting problems. So it's not like the Imbued Question is shifting the metagame toward combat or anything. That doesn't hold water. > When my mate pulls out his corrupt deck and I'm playing weenies, it > can be very annoying, but shit happens. I just have to turn around > and bash him, or hope that I can oust my prey before he steals all my > guys. > > So in short, suck it up and stop blaming mechanics for poor planning > or bad luck. > Thanks. That can apply to any game of VTES, not just one involving the Imbued. So please don't minimize the impact that Imbued have as a force in VTES by saying that table seating and deck contruction or one of the hundred other variables present at any given table (did you eat today? Are you hungry? Did you have caffeine? Do you need a cigarette?) are the real issue. It's not. Their power is not insignificant. I'm not advocating a nerfing or any of that shit, i merely want useful advice, because the whole "light intercept and combat" isn't doing it for me. > --> J > grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com -Merlin

On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> wrote: > There's been at least 2 MoM threads in the last month. And another about > Determine. Those were the kinds of threads that I've been pointing out are not "how do we adapt to a new metagame" threads. Those are "design team, please errata/ban/nerf/whatever this card" threads. Ie, the ones that are much less interesting to me, because they inevitably come across as whiney. > It is hyperbole, of course, some decks have anti-imbued stuff right in their > basic set-up. It's about the number of those decks. Weenie animalism, most > walls and a couple others don't need anything else to kill the imbued. But, > a lot of decks have problems copeing without diluting their decks. A lot of decks have problems coping with a lot of other decks. No one seems to be asking the design team to nerf weenie Auspex, for instance, even though weenie Auspex can be hard to cope with for a lot of other decks. So, as an example of what I keep asking, why are people asking the design team to nerf imbued, but not to nerf weenie Auspex? > You're saying: in out local weekly friendly games the imbued didn't make an > impression? In both weekly games and tournament games, yes. > If that's the case: of course not, they are exactly built to > defend against those things seen in large tournements. That sounds a whole lot like weenie Auspex right there. See above. > Will that make the > tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only > tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued > sitting next to it? Sure; at least, it's as possible that such a deck will win regardless of whether it sits next to imbued or vampires. Like I've been saying, since lots of cards are effective against both vampires and imbued, there's no need to include specific anti-ally tech in decks to beat the imbued. > Depends: if you say: Decks A, B, C,... can kill the imbued, but decks E, F, > G can't. It's basically the same. Only the numbers are different. No, it's not. "You must include X in every deck you build, or you will be beaten by Y" is not even remotely similar to "Sometimtes, if you play X, you will be beaten by Y." RTI was a case of the first type of statement. Imbued are a case of the second. John Eno

On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > wrote: <snip> > That sounds a whole lot like weenie Auspex right there. See above. If you google you will probably find that I do think aus weenies are too strong. Secondly, while (sadly) most decks need to have dedicated bleed defence, vote defence and maybe combat defence. Those, at least, are deck types. There are milions of bleed decks, millions of vote decks and thousands of combat decks that are tier one. The imbued are only a deck with say 2-4 functional variants. And still they would need specific defences? Get real... some people have compared the imbued with a clan deck. I'd go further and say they are specific decks. Answer me this: if fr.ex tupdog decks would start winning tournement as much as the Imbued do, would you advocate adding anti-tupdog defence in every deck? > > Will that make the > > tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only > > tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued > > sitting next to it? > > Sure; at least, it's as possible that such a deck will win regardless > of whether it sits next to imbued or vampires. Like I've been saying, > since lots of cards are effective against both vampires and imbued, > there's no need to include specific anti-ally tech in decks to beat > the imbued. Prove it. IME most decks need at least moderate tweaking to be able to stand a chance to an Imbued deck. And most cards do not work against both, which is the problem for most. Hell, even most 'anti-ally' staples don't work against them. > > > Depends: if you say: Decks A, B, C,... can kill the imbued, but decks E, F, > > G can't. It's basically the same. Only the numbers are different. > > No, it's not. > > "You must include X in every deck you build, or you will be beaten by > Y" is not even remotely similar to "Sometimtes, if you play X, you > will be beaten by Y." No, it's a case of play x or be quite screwed by deck y, while for most decks playing x will diminish you chances against all non-deck y. > > RTI was a case of the first type of statement. Imbued are a case of > the second. Yes, it is different. But just as problematic, imo. The 'x' in the second case has more variety, but the non-deck y also has more variety.

On Sep 17, 12:55 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > wrote: > > <snip> > If you google you will probably find that I do think aus weenies are > too strong. > I bet if you wrote a list of what you think is too strong, it would probably be included in 50% or more of the decks in the TWDA. I agree with you about nerfing the Imbued (to some extent), but I think that if we nerfed even half the cards you suggest, then VTES would probably become very boring as it would become too simplistic, and one deck would be just as effective as another. Having some decks more effective than others, and having decks that can trumph yours is part of VTES in my book, as part of the strategy to the game is to try and read the meta-game before you play and select a deck that will do well in that metagame. Sometimes your guess is right, sometimes it's not, and you sit for an hour in one game before being ousted horribly. There just is no way of defending against every possible strategy. > Secondly, while (sadly) most decks need to have dedicated bleed > defence, vote defence and maybe combat defence. Those, at least, are > deck types. There are milions of bleed decks, millions of vote decks > and thousands of combat decks that are tier one. The imbued are only a > deck with say 2-4 functional variants. And still they would need > specific defences? Get real... I don't think it's the defences against imbued that's a problem either. People are generally not complaining that the Imbued oust people ridiculously easy. It's the Imbued defences that tend to be too good. Most people are complaining about their resilience, and how difficult it is to oust the imbued. Still, I think there are many strategies and cards that are around, and can be made, that effect imbued in the same way that they effect vampires, and are very effective strategies all round. For example, I'm still convinced that the imbued's biggest weakness is their lack of untap. Many people scream 'block champion'! I don't. Let the player have champion and burn those two convictions every time in my book. What you really want to block is vigilance. While it doesn't appear as powerful as the others, it give the imbued a way around their biggest weakness - staying untapped to block. Anything that keeps them tapped as a result of blocking your action gives you a better chance to oust them. Majesty, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, Faceless Night, Shadow Body, Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, Zillah's Tears, Clotho`s Gift, Helicopter, Mylan Horseed, Phantom Speaker, Shackles of Enkidu, Psychomachia and Red Herring. Also cards that tap minions like (no, not minion tap) misdirection, Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, bleed bounce (which you should be packing anyway), Propaganda and Remover. Yeah, there are a lot of rarely-played cards in there (to be added to things like Entombment, Blood to Water and Mercy for Seth) but there are also plenty of commonly seen cards, like freak drive, bleed bounce and majesty. > > some people have compared the imbued with a clan deck. I'd go further > and say they are specific decks. Answer me this: if fr.ex tupdog decks > would start winning tournement as much as the Imbued do, would you > advocate adding anti-tupdog defence in every deck? Yeah, I would, if it could be as useful to a host of other decks as well (for example, useful against all combat decks). > > > Will that make the > > > tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only > > > tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued > > > sitting next to it? > > > Sure; at least, it's as possible that such a deck will win regardless > > of whether it sits next to imbued or vampires. Like I've been saying, > > since lots of cards are effective against both vampires and imbued, > > there's no need to include specific anti-ally tech in decks to beat > > the imbued. > > Prove it. OK. There are many, many decks in the TWDA that prove this, just look at any deck that wins on a table with imbued that doesn't pack anti- imbued tech. > IME most decks need at least moderate tweaking to be able to stand a > chance to an Imbued deck. And most cards do not work against both, > which is the problem for most. Hell, even most 'anti-ally' staples > don't work against them. > There may not be loads of cards. There may not even be enough cards, but then they should include more that can be used against both effectively, and not necessarily nerf imbued cards, nor make silver bullet cards. > > > > Depends: if you say: Decks A, B, C,... can kill the imbued, but decks E, F, > > > G can't. It's basically the same. Only the numbers are different. > > > No, it's not. > > > "You must include X in every deck you build, or you will be beaten by > > Y" is not even remotely similar to "Sometimtes, if you play X, you > > will be beaten by Y." > > No, it's a case of play x or be quite screwed by deck y, while for > most decks playing x will diminish you chances against all non-deck y. For some strategies and decks, this is true, but then, this is true of many decks. For example, sitting down-stream of a Malk 94 deck, or a Daughters of Cacophony Hanging Fermata deck, or a ... well you get the point. All decks have their weaknesses, and sitting next to a deck that is your antithesis can ruin your game. Diluting your deck to try and protect yourself from a prominent weakness, like sneak-bleed, is part of the game. A weakness to allies and imbued has become a prominent weakness, as there are many playing them, and many will continue to play them unless people adapt to them and exploit there weaknesses where-ever possible. There are ways of doing this pro- actively that can be as useful against other prominent deck-types, like the cards I mentioned before - bounce, majesty et al. > > > RTI was a case of the first type of statement. Imbued are a case of > > the second. > > Yes, it is different. But just as problematic, imo. The 'x' in the > second case has more variety, but the non-deck y also has more variety. RTI is slightly different as it requires a strong defence to avoid. Imbued are not quite the same, as they simply require a strong offence (that works on them as well as vamps) to kill em. It is far easier to pro-actively destroy the imbued, than it is to pro-actively stop RTI. After all that, I agree with you that Imbued are probably too strong, as they are given (1) a bit too much versatility in cards like second sight and determine and (2) they avoid too many mechanics that are inherent to the game (like the way the come out of incapacitated and the way they gain conviction). IMO, as some have said, 2 convictions is too cheap, and 3 too expensive, I think that they should come out tapped, at least (although there are many options to play around with), and/or Jennie's text should only apply when she is ready (it's really stoopid that it doesn't in my book).

On Sep 17, 1:16 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > For example, I'm still convinced that the imbued's biggest weakness is > their lack of untap. Many people scream 'block champion'! I don't. Let > the player have champion and burn those two convictions every time in > my book. What you really want to block is vigilance. While it doesn't > appear as powerful as the others, it give the imbued a way around > their biggest weakness - staying untapped to block. Agreed. IMO, Vigilance is the strongest card available to the imbued. > > > RTI was a case of the first type of statement. Imbued are a case of > > > the second. > > > Yes, it is different. But just as problematic, imo. The 'x' in the > > second case has more variety, but the non-deck y also has more variety. > > RTI is slightly different as it requires a strong defence to avoid. > Imbued are not quite the same, as they simply require a strong offence > (that works on them as well as vamps) to kill em. It is far easier to > pro-actively destroy the imbued, than it is to pro-actively stop RTI. RTI is majorly different because it removes 11+ pool with one card play. The imbued have nothing even close to that capability. witness1

On 17 sep, 19:16, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Sep 17, 12:55 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > > wrote: > > > <snip> > > If you google you will probably find that I do think aus weenies are > > too strong. > > I bet if you wrote a list of what you think is too strong, it would > probably be included in 50% or more of the decks in the TWDA. duh. What do you think? That thinks that aren't in the TWDA are considered too strong? If you include DI and Bounce you probably have more than 50% >I agree > with you about nerfing the Imbued (to some extent), but I think that > if we nerfed even half the cards you suggest, then VTES would probably > become very boring as it would become too simplistic, and one deck > would be just as effective as another. Which is indeed the ideal balance wise, yes. You call that boring, I call that diversifying the metagame. > > Having some decks more effective than others, and having decks that > can trumph yours is part of VTES in my book, as part of the strategy > to the game is to try and read the meta-game before you play and > select a deck that will do well in that metagame. Sometimes your guess > is right, sometimes it's not, and you sit for an hour in one game > before being ousted horribly. There just is no way of defending > against every possible strategy. Well, i probably don't have the desire, nor the patience of going through the motions for an hour. And that includes being in the winning position of that trump. > > > Secondly, while (sadly) most decks need to have dedicated bleed > > defence, vote defence and maybe combat defence. Those, at least, are > > deck types. There are milions of bleed decks, millions of vote decks > > and thousands of combat decks that are tier one. The imbued are only a > > deck with say 2-4 functional variants. And still they would need > > specific defences? Get real... > > I don't think it's the defences against imbued that's a problem > either. People are generally not complaining that the Imbued oust > people ridiculously easy. It's the Imbued defences that tend to be too > good. Most people are complaining about their resilience, and how > difficult it is to oust the imbued. I know, imbued defence isn't the problem because they still need to bleed to oust. I mean of course anti imbued cards in general. Most of them offensive. >Still, I think there are many > strategies and cards that are around, and can be made, that effect > imbued in the same way that they effect vampires, and are very > effective strategies all round. > > For example, I'm still convinced that the imbued's biggest weakness is > their lack of untap. Many people scream 'block champion'! I don't. Let > the player have champion and burn those two convictions every time in > my book. What you really want to block is vigilance. While it doesn't > appear as powerful as the others, it give the imbued a way around > their biggest weakness - staying untapped to block. Anything that > keeps them tapped as a result of blocking your action gives you a > better chance to oust them. Majesty, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, > Faceless Night, Shadow Body, Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, Zillah's > Tears, Clotho`s Gift, Helicopter, Mylan Horseed, Phantom Speaker, > Shackles of Enkidu, Psychomachia and Red Herring. > > Also cards that tap minions like (no, not minion tap) misdirection, > Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, bleed bounce (which you should be packing > anyway), Propaganda and Remover. > > Yeah, there are a lot of rarely-played cards in there (to be added to > things like Entombment, Blood to Water and Mercy for Seth) but there > are also plenty of commonly seen cards, like freak drive, bleed bounce > and majesty. for dom and pre? yeah they need the boost, certainly. I never argued that tap and x doesn't work. Most decks however can't add that to a deck. > > > some people have compared the imbued with a clan deck. I'd go further > > and say they are specific decks. Answer me this: if fr.ex tupdog decks > > would start winning tournement as much as the Imbued do, would you > > advocate adding anti-tupdog defence in every deck? > > Yeah, I would, if it could be as useful to a host of other decks as > well (for example, useful against all combat decks). your missing the point on purpose, aren't you? The point is exactly that it would be only marginally good against other combat decks. > > > > > Will that make the > > > > tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only > > > > tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued > > > > sitting next to it? > > > > Sure; at least, it's as possible that such a deck will win regardless > > > of whether it sits next to imbued or vampires. Like I've been saying, > > > since lots of cards are effective against both vampires and imbued, > > > there's no need to include specific anti-ally tech in decks to beat > > > the imbued. > > > Prove it. > > OK. There are many, many decks in the TWDA that prove this, just look > at any deck that wins on a table with imbued that doesn't pack anti- > imbued tech. How? does the TWDA record losing finalists? since when? Where they hosed by anti-imbued cards? by their pred alone? > > > IME most decks need at least moderate tweaking to be able to stand a > > chance to an Imbued deck. And most cards do not work against both, > > which is the problem for most. Hell, even most 'anti-ally' staples > > don't work against them. > > There may not be loads of cards. There may not even be enough cards, > but then they should include more that can be used against both > effectively, and not necessarily nerf imbued cards, nor make silver > bullet cards. That's indeed my point, yes. > > > > > Depends: if you say: Decks A, B, C,... can kill the imbued, but decks E, F, > > > > G can't. It's basically the same. Only the numbers are different. > > > > No, it's not. > > > > "You must include X in every deck you build, or you will be beaten by > > > Y" is not even remotely similar to "Sometimtes, if you play X, you > > > will be beaten by Y." > > > No, it's a case of play x or be quite screwed by deck y, while for > > most decks playing x will diminish you chances against all non-deck y. > > For some strategies and decks, this is true, but then, this is true of > many decks. For example, sitting down-stream of a Malk 94 deck, or a > Daughters of Cacophony Hanging Fermata deck, or a ... well you get the > point. All decks have their weaknesses, and sitting next to a deck > that is your antithesis can ruin your game. which I believe is completely wrong, but was no problem until more and more parts of the game where added on the side. See my answer somewhere else in this thread. >Diluting your deck to try > and protect yourself from a prominent weakness, like sneak-bleed, is > part of the game. A weakness to allies and imbued has become a > prominent weakness, as there are many playing them, and many will > continue to play them unless people adapt to them and exploit there > weaknesses where-ever possible. There are ways of doing this pro- > actively that can be as useful against other prominent deck-types, > like the cards I mentioned before - bounce, majesty et al. I hate must-includes and perfect defences. In a balanced game they shouldn't exist. > > > > RTI was a case of the first type of statement. Imbued are a case of > > > the second. > > > Yes, it is different. But just as problematic, imo. The 'x' in the > > second case has more variety, but the non-deck y also has more variety. > > RTI is slightly different as it requires a strong defence to avoid. > Imbued are not quite the same, as they simply require a strong offence > (that works on them as well as vamps) to kill em. It is far easier to > pro-actively destroy the imbued, than it is to pro-actively stop RTI. True. RtI is just a good example of a broken card where everybody agrees that it was too strong, even if you could defend against it. > > After all that, I agree with you that Imbued are probably too strong, > as they are given (1) a bit too much versatility in cards like second > sight and determine and (2) they avoid too many mechanics that are > inherent to the game (like the way the come out of incapacitated and > the way they gain conviction). > > IMO, as some have said, 2 convictions is too cheap, and 3 too > expensive, I think that they should come out tapped, at least > (although there are many options to play around with), and/or Jennie's > text should only apply when she is ready (it's really stoopid that it > doesn't in my book). i never said I know the solution to the imbued probem either.

On Sep 17, 6:55 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > some people have compared the imbued with a clan deck. I'd go further > and say they are specific decks. Answer me this: if fr.ex tupdog decks > would start winning tournement as much as the Imbued do, would you > advocate adding anti-tupdog defence in every deck? If you believe this, it is no wonder you have so much trouble with the imbued. Treating every imbued deck as virtually the same is a death sentence. witness1

On Sep 17, 9:11 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 17 sep, 19:16, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Sep 17, 12:55 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > > > wrote: > > > > <snip> > >I agree > > with you about nerfing the Imbued (to some extent), but I think that > > if we nerfed even half the cards you suggest, then VTES would probably > > become very boring as it would become too simplistic, and one deck > > would be just as effective as another. > > Which is indeed the ideal balance wise, yes. You call that boring, I > call that diversifying the metagame. > At the end of the day, there inherently has to be some cards and strategies that work better than others, not only because it is a card game, but also because it is a collectible card game (which makes the disparity even greater). It would be impossible for the game to be perfectly balanced, especially since it is so complex, and then, if the cards were perfectly balanced by some impossible miracle, then the game would come down largely to luck of the draw. It would diversify in the name of the cards only - the strategy on the other hand, would not be diversified, because, as soon as you do that, then one strategy will be better than the other. What I'm trying to say is this, the moment you take the top cards/ strategies out of the game, new cards will immediately become the new power cards at the top of the power curve, then you would most likely complain about those, and the cycle would continue. I can understand complaining about cards when they are a huge leap from what else is available, like RTI was - nothing could do that much pool damage with one card (11 on an IC for example) and cause that much damage to any player. The closest to that (with one card) is about half that - 6 (an bleeding IC with a conditioning) - please correct me if I'm forgetting a card. That's a huge leap in the power curve for RTI to have - almost double what anything else offers. As much as you would like to convince me otherwise, I'm sorry, but the imbued are not that much a leap on the power curve - it's more like a limp up on the power curve. > > > Having some decks more effective than others, and having decks that > > can trumph yours is part of VTES in my book, as part of the strategy > > to the game is to try and read the meta-game before you play and > > select a deck that will do well in that metagame. Sometimes your guess > > is right, sometimes it's not, and you sit for an hour in one game > > before being ousted horribly. There just is no way of defending > > against every possible strategy. > > Well, i probably don't have the desire, nor the patience of going > through the motions for an hour. And that includes being in the > winning position of that trump. > Well then, the whole strategy of predicting what decks you are likely to see at a given tournament, and planning a deck that will be most effective in that meta-game will be completely lost on you. I always go into a tournament with a deck that I think will do well in that meta-game. I enjoy it because it becomes another element of strategy you need to account for. Sometimes you predict correctly, sometimes you don't. It's kind of like playing poker, and weighing out the odds that someone is trying to bluff you. Sometimes your skill at telling is spot-on and you win because of it, sometimes you are dead-wrong and lose half your stack in the process. Still, if you build your deck smartly, the chances of you facing a deck that trumps you is rather small. > [snip] > > > For example, I'm still convinced that the imbued's biggest weakness is > > their lack of untap. Many people scream 'block champion'! I don't. Let > > the player have champion and burn those two convictions every time in > > my book. What you really want to block is vigilance. While it doesn't > > appear as powerful as the others, it give the imbued a way around > > their biggest weakness - staying untapped to block. Anything that > > keeps them tapped as a result of blocking your action gives you a > > better chance to oust them. Majesty, Earth Meld, Form of Mist, > > Faceless Night, Shadow Body, Freak Drive, Rutor's Hand, Zillah's > > Tears, Clotho`s Gift, Helicopter, Mylan Horseed, Phantom Speaker, > > Shackles of Enkidu, Psychomachia and Red Herring. > > > Also cards that tap minions like (no, not minion tap) misdirection, > > Gran Madre di Dio, Italy, bleed bounce (which you should be packing > > anyway), Propaganda and Remover. > > > Yeah, there are a lot of rarely-played cards in there (to be added to > > things like Entombment, Blood to Water and Mercy for Seth) but there > > are also plenty of commonly seen cards, like freak drive, bleed bounce > > and majesty. > > for dom and pre? yeah they need the boost, certainly. I never argued > that tap and x doesn't work. Most decks however can't add that to a > deck. Most decks - such as??? for, dom and pre are in a large number of decks. aus also has bleed bounce, btw. How many mainstream clans don't have one of those disciplines or a card that I mentioned in my list available to them? Well, let's go through them then. Assamite - Faceless Night Brujah & !Brujah - Majesty Setites - Faceless Night and Majesty Gangrel & !Gangrel - Freak Drive, Form of Mist and Earth Meld Giovanni - Dom bounce bleed Lasombra - Tenebrous form, Shadow Body, Entombment, and dom bounce bleed Malk & !Malk - Faceless Night (they'll be stealthing all the way anyway) Nos & !Nos - again, faceless night Ravnos - Mirror Image, Red Herring Tor & !Tor - aus bounce bleed, Majesty Tre & !Tre - aus & dom bounce bleed, rutor's hand Tzi - aus bounce bleed Ventrue - dom bleed bounce, majesty and freak drive !Ventrue - dom & aus bleed bounce, freak drive Some have a harder time, like Assamites, Nossies and Tzimisce. It's mostly combat decks, in my book, that really need some help against the imbued. But you can always use the disciplineless stuff in those decks, like helicopter, zillah's tears, and Mylan horseed. > > > some people have compared the imbued with a clan deck. I'd go further > > > and say they are specific decks. Answer me this: if fr.ex tupdog decks > > > would start winning tournement as much as the Imbued do, would you > > > advocate adding anti-tupdog defence in every deck? > > > Yeah, I would, if it could be as useful to a host of other decks as > > well (for example, useful against all combat decks). > > your missing the point on purpose, aren't you? The point is exactly > that it would be only marginally good against other combat decks. > And my point is that there are cards that you can play that are good against other decks that are not imbued. Tapping out any minions is a good strategy in my book, whether or not they be vamps, werewolves, mages, or imbued. > > > > > > Will that make the > > > > > tier 2 decks played at those occasions (assuming you don't only play only > > > > > tier 1 decks, of course) win a table at a large tournement without imbued > > > > > sitting next to it? > > > > > Sure; at least, it's as possible that such a deck will win regardless > > > > of whether it sits next to imbued or vampires. Like I've been saying, > > > > since lots of cards are effective against both vampires and imbued, > > > > there's no need to include specific anti-ally tech in decks to beat > > > > the imbued. > > > > Prove it. > > > OK. There are many, many decks in the TWDA that prove this, just look > > at any deck that wins on a table with imbued that doesn't pack anti- > > imbued tech. > > How? does the TWDA record losing finalists? since when? > > Where they hosed by anti-imbued cards? by their pred alone? > Well, for example, you can look at the TWDA for recent wins, type it into your search engine for this forum (you do have access to this forum, don't you?) and then out pops a more complete report that tells you who was sitting on the table, how it went, etc. Maybe not for all tournaments, but enough to make it count as proof. For example on the TWDA there is a listed win for a Ahrimanes deck (and I got this on my second random pick) - the event name: Strange Day: Austin - so I pop it into my search engine here and out pops this lovely bit of info: "Winning the final was a bit of a fluke though I must admit; Imbued+Gehenna madness was threatening to sweep after ousting a really nasty '94 Malk deck and its prey who had 1 pool left. " In fact, it seems to have a whole story about the final table... Gee, and here I thought I was bad with computers. I mean, I'm an arts student who has never studied anything to do with computers and I can figure that one out. Stop looking for problems where there are none please. > > > > IME most decks need at least moderate tweaking to be able to stand a > > > chance to an Imbued deck. And most cards do not work against both, > > > which is the problem for most. Hell, even most 'anti-ally' staples > > > don't work against them. > > > There may not be loads of cards. There may not even be enough cards, > > but then they should include more that can be used against both > > effectively, and not necessarily nerf imbued cards, nor make silver > > bullet cards. > > That's indeed my point, yes. Glad to hear it. I think the difference then is probably a matter of quantity. I think only a few more cards/strategies need to be added. What do you think? [snip] > > > No, it's a case of play x or be quite screwed by deck y, while for > > > most decks playing x will diminish you chances against all non-deck y. > > > For some strategies and decks, this is true, but then, this is true of > > many decks. For example, sitting down-stream of a Malk 94 deck, or a > > Daughters of Cacophony Hanging Fermata deck, or a ... well you get the > > point. All decks have their weaknesses, and sitting next to a deck > > that is your antithesis can ruin your game. > > which I believe is completely wrong, but was no problem until more and > more parts of the game where added on the side. See my answer > somewhere else in this thread. > If a deck didn't have a weakness to exploit, then I think that would mark a sad day in V:TES. That would be the hallmark of a truly powerful deck that needs to be outright banned. I find it strange that in one breath you say that a deck should have no counter that can exploit it weaknesses and that no deck should have perfect defences. You can't have your cake and eat it, I'm afraid - either your deck has a weakness that can be exploited by someone else playing the right deck, or your deck has perfect defences. > >Diluting your deck to try > > and protect yourself from a prominent weakness, like sneak-bleed, is > > part of the game. A weakness to allies and imbued has become a > > prominent weakness, as there are many playing them, and many will > > continue to play them unless people adapt to them and exploit there > > weaknesses where-ever possible. There are ways of doing this pro- > > actively that can be as useful against other prominent deck-types, > > like the cards I mentioned before - bounce, majesty et al. > > I hate must-includes and perfect defences. In a balanced game they > shouldn't exist. > Ok, I lied, it's a little longer than one breath... If poker became a 'balanced' game, then every hand would be as good as the next. The fact that it's not makes the game playable, and in fact enjoyable, as it adds in strategy where there would be none. Perhaps you mean reasonable balanced? But then you are stuck with the question, by whose reasoning? Yours? Mine? I generally go with consensus, especially in a game, and in an issue like this. I think a little more needs to be given to help against Imbued, but not a complete overhaul as you seem to be suggesting - at least, that's seems to be the closest middle ground between everyone. [snip] > > i never said I know the solution to the imbued probem either.- Hide quoted text - > Then stop trying to poke holes. If you cannot find an alternative, then stop complaining. If you can find an alternative, then suggest it, and see if people on this forum can reach a consensus about it. Dogmatically portraying your view and solutions to be the way forward doesn't help either. Then you might as well complain to the wall and save us all from reading a hundred posts of fascism, and trying to enter into an enlightening discussion with you. I'm not saying that people's views aren't important, I'm just saying that you're not really people (",). (That's a joke, btw). > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

On 18 sep, 18:53, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Sep 17, 9:11 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 17 sep, 19:16, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > On Sep 17, 12:55 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > >I agree > > > with you about nerfing the Imbued (to some extent), but I think that > > > if we nerfed even half the cards you suggest, then VTES would probably > > > become very boring as it would become too simplistic, and one deck > > > would be just as effective as another. > > > Which is indeed the ideal balance wise, yes. You call that boring, I > > call that diversifying the metagame. > > At the end of the day, there inherently has to be some cards and > strategies that work better than others, not only because it is a card > game, but also because it is a collectible card game (which makes the > disparity even greater). It would be impossible for the game to be > perfectly balanced, especially since it is so complex, and then, if > the cards were perfectly balanced by some impossible miracle, Of course its impossible, but i can be a thing to strive for. >then the > game would come down largely to luck of the draw. It would diversify > in the name of the cards only and in the history of the game. It's still the same stategies that make appearances as it was 10 years ago. >- the strategy on the other hand, would > not be diversified, because, as soon as you do that, then one strategy > will be better than the other. I don' t have a lot of time right now, so I'll stick to the point. But I don't think you and I share the same concept of balanced. Balanced doesn't mean 'the same' nor does it mean 'without weaknesses' It just means that strategy A won't automatically beat strategy B. Which is, imo too often the case now and THAT's boring. Poker, for ex., is a completely balanced game right until everybody shows their hand. Regardless of strategy.

On Sep 18, 7:45 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 18 sep, 18:53, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 17, 9:11 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 17 sep, 19:16, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 17, 12:55 pm, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 16 sep, 20:58, Kushiel <invisibleking...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 4:43 am, "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen.rombou...@telenet.be> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > >then the > > game would come down largely to luck of the draw. It would diversify > > in the name of the cards only > > and in the history of the game. It's still the same stategies that > make appearances as it was 10 years ago. The basics methods of ousting has pretty much stayed the same, yes. But the way of delivering your payload, so to speak, has changed quite a bit, and that's the part that you are complaining about when you complain about the imbued. If this were to be perfectly balanced it would, as I said before, come to the luck of the draw, i.e. who drew their stealth and who drew their intercept, or whatever, and alot of strategy would be thrown out the window. > >- the strategy on the other hand, would > > not be diversified, because, as soon as you do that, then one strategy > > will be better than the other. > > I don' t have a lot of time right now, so I'll stick to the point. But > I don't think you and I share the same concept of balanced. Balanced > doesn't mean 'the same' nor does it mean 'without weaknesses' It just > means that strategy A won't automatically beat strategy B. Which is, > imo too often the case now and THAT's boring. Yes, I think you are actually saying the latter - as saying that strategy A automatically beats strategy B, is saying essentially the same thing as strategy B has a weakness for strategy A, except without the hyperbole. Mostly because it is very difficult to say that any strategy 'automatically beats' another strategy - especially in this instance. You'd be very hard pressed to tell me any imbued deck that can 'automatically beat' another deck that someone would actually consider playing at tournament level. Most likely those decks just have a big weakness against the Imbued. This being the case, your statement would, more correctly be that strategy A will very likely beat strategy B, which is saying exactly the same thing as strategy B has a weakness for strategy A. So 'balanced' does in fact mean 'without weaknesses' by your definition. And, yes, I do think combat decks (specifically rush combat) have some severe weaknesses against the imbued, and I've played enough against the imbued using a host of different combat decks to know that to be the case. Combat decks tend to be decently good at slowing down the imbued, and maybe even crippling them, but they just don't have the ousting mechanism to really put the deck down, unless they bolt on some bleed or vote. However, rush combat decks have never been a strong archetype in tournaments anyway (weenie rush is excluded from this because it also has mass-weenie bleed as an ousting mechanism). > Poker, for ex., is a completely balanced game right until everybody > shows their hand. Regardless of strategy And V:TES is also a completely balanced game right until people start playing their hands, regardless of strategy. What's your point here? Please remember that your complaint came from the amount of wins that the Imbued have been seeing - i.e. by looking at the result - which, by the way, is exactly when poker becomes unbalanced too. Not that I really believe your statement about poker for a second anyway having a rather avid poker player for a brother. One thing you learn very quickly is that poker is never a balanced game. If I were to play against him, for example, he would completely outclass me, almost every time. And, if I'm sitting with a King and Queen of Diamonds in my hand, and there is an Ace of Diamonds, a 10 of Diamonds and a Jack of Diamonds on the table, then regardless of what you do I will win. Isn't that an 'automatic beat'? Hence poker is unbalanced (by your definition of balanced). Every card game must be unbalanced in order to function - what is important, is what I have said, the power curve. Making it reasonably balanced is the key - in other words, having some way of justifying the position on the power curve. The imbued have *some* severe weaknesses, especially if they manage to bump into each other on the same table - which is just loads of laughs all round - these weaknesses include the inability to vote, generate large amounts of stealth or bleed, untap easily or bloat quickly. Thus I think their resilience is pretty well-balanced against their weaknesses. It's just a pity that combat had to be shafted again - and that's where the true imbalance lies in my opinion. Most combat decks are just too weak to play in tournaments, and the imbued only made matters worse for them.

On Sep 18, 4:29 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > And, yes, I do think combat decks (specifically rush combat) have some > severe weaknesses against the imbued, and I've played enough against > the imbued using a host of different combat decks to know that to be > the case. Combat decks tend to be decently good at slowing down the > imbued, and maybe even crippling them, but they just don't have the > ousting mechanism to really put the deck down, unless they bolt on > some bleed or vote. However, rush combat decks have never been a > strong archetype in tournaments anyway (weenie rush is excluded from > this because it also has mass-weenie bleed as an ousting mechanism). One suggestion (this goes for all the combat-monsters out there): If you get a chance, try building combat decks that use Anarch Revolts instead of Fame/Tension for ousting power (possibly with Yawp Court to discourage crosstable removal of the Revolts). There's no reason it shouldn't demolish imbued decks (without even having to play much else out of your deck), but it would be interesting to see if it worked reasonably well enough against vampire decks to warrant a more-or-less permanent metagame shift in that direction. witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] It wreaks a bit of havoc against crosstable vote decks. Where by "havoc", I mean "one of you will oust the other". -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

In article <1190148311.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > One suggestion (this goes for all the combat-monsters out there): If > you get a chance, try building combat decks that use Anarch Revolts > instead of Fame/Tension for ousting power (possibly with Yawp Court to > discourage crosstable removal of the Revolts). There's no reason it > shouldn't demolish imbued decks (without even having to play much else > out of your deck), but it would be interesting to see if it worked > reasonably well enough against vampire decks to warrant a more-or-less > permanent metagame shift in that direction. I was trying that for a while in my industry standard Rush decks--I think for a while I was using 2xFame/3xAnarch in a pretty straight forward weenie POT Rush deck. I'd make someone Anarch the hard way (i.e. I didn't have any "Go Anarch" tech at all) and then kill my prey's Anarchs. It worked ok--no better than more reliable Fame tech against vampires, sometimes it kind of bit me in the ass (when I accidentally got my Anarch sent to torpor somehow). Never played it like that against an Imbued deck, but isn't a bad idea as specific anti-Imbued tech. But really, I suspect it is not that good against vampires in the long run--again, if your Anarchs get killed, you loose pool too, and folks cross table can vote them off pretty easy if they see you doing to well. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On 18 sep, 22:29, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > >then the > > > game would come down largely to luck of the draw. It would diversify > > > in the name of the cards only > > > and in the history of the game. It's still the same stategies that > > make appearances as it was 10 years ago. > > The basics methods of ousting has pretty much stayed the same, yes. > But the way of delivering your payload, so to speak, has changed quite > a bit, and that's the part that you are complaining about when you > complain about the imbued. If this were to be perfectly balanced it > would, as I said before, come to the luck of the draw, i.e. who drew > their stealth and who drew their intercept, or whatever, and alot of > strategy would be thrown out the window. no. balanced does not mean having a defence against everything in your deck. Like the stealth intercept thing. > > > >- the strategy on the other hand, would > > > not be diversified, because, as soon as you do that, then one strategy > > > will be better than the other. > > > I don' t have a lot of time right now, so I'll stick to the point. But > > I don't think you and I share the same concept of balanced. Balanced > > doesn't mean 'the same' nor does it mean 'without weaknesses' It just > > means that strategy A won't automatically beat strategy B. Which is, > > imo too often the case now and THAT's boring. > > Yes, I think you are actually saying the latter - as saying that > strategy A automatically beats strategy B, is saying essentially the > same thing as strategy B has a weakness for strategy A, except without > the hyperbole. You misunderstand what I'm saying. Alas, the language barrier makes it difficult for me to explain further. It comes down to the 'weakness of the weakness.' Some weaknesses are gaping holes, others are difficult to see or exploit. It's not as binary as you are saying. It's quit balanced - between certain limits - to have a strong offensive strategy with defencive holes in it, for ex. or the reverse. The only thing we're arguing about is those limits, i guess. > Not that I really believe your statement about poker for a second > anyway having a rather avid poker player for a brother. One thing you > learn very quickly is that poker is never a balanced game. If I were > to play against him, for example, he would completely outclass me, > almost every time. Player skill is not something that you can balance with cards obviously. > Making it reasonably balanced is the key - in other words, having some > way of justifying the position on the power curve. The imbued have > *some* severe weaknesses, especially if they manage to bump into each > other on the same table - which is just loads of laughs all round - > these weaknesses include the inability to vote, generate large amounts > of stealth or bleed, untap easily or bloat quickly. Thus I think their > resilience is pretty well-balanced against their weaknesses. It's just > a pity that combat had to be shafted again - and that's where the true > imbalance lies in my opinion. Most combat decks are just too weak to > play in tournaments, and the imbued only made matters worse for them.- I'm mostly agreeing here.

On Sep 19, 12:24 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1190148311.500085.213...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > One suggestion (this goes for all the combat-monsters out there): If > > you get a chance, try building combat decks that use Anarch Revolts > > instead of Fame/Tension for ousting power (possibly with Yawp Court to > > discourage crosstable removal of the Revolts). There's no reason it > > shouldn't demolish imbued decks (without even having to play much else > > out of your deck), but it would be interesting to see if it worked > > reasonably well enough against vampire decks to warrant a more-or-less > > permanent metagame shift in that direction. > > I was trying that for a while in my industry standard Rush decks--I > think for a while I was using 2xFame/3xAnarch in a pretty straight > forward weenie POT Rush deck. I'd make someone Anarch the hard way (i.e. > I didn't have any "Go Anarch" tech at all) and then kill my prey's > Anarchs. It worked ok--no better than more reliable Fame tech against > vampires, sometimes it kind of bit me in the ass (when I accidentally > got my Anarch sent to torpor somehow). Never played it like that against > an Imbued deck, but isn't a bad idea as specific anti-Imbued tech. But > really, I suspect it is not that good against vampires in the long > run--again, if your Anarchs get killed, you loose pool too, and folks > cross table can vote them off pretty easy if they see you doing to well. > Yip, I've done the same thing with my weenie pot/dom combat deck. It used to have a few conditionings along with fame for ousting power, but I replaced that with Anarch Revolts. To be honest, I haven't play- tested it yet, but I agree almost completely with what Peter says - in that against vampires it is a weaker strategy than the fame et al. strategy. Mostly because weenie potence (and combat-focused decks in general) will most likely not have the vote defence or the intercept to be able to stop someone from getting rid of the anarch revolts, especially if you start doing even remotely well. And this is what Jereon complains about, having to swap one strategy for a notable inferior one in order to compensate for a small minority of decks which you are almost sure to come across. Still, I believe that it's combat that needs to be strengthened, not necessarily the imbued weakened. And this has been a popular complaint amongst many combat deck-style players. Combat improves ever so slowly, and then an expansion like the imbued just buries combat decks further into the ground.

On Sep 19, 10:18 am, Jeroen <joen_...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 18 sep, 22:29, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > [snip] > It comes down to the 'weakness of the weakness.' Some weaknesses are > gaping holes, others are difficult to see or exploit. It's not as > binary as you are saying. It's quit balanced - between certain limits > - to have a strong offensive strategy with defencive holes in it, for > ex. or the reverse. The only thing we're arguing about is those > limits, i guess. Perhaps. I think that the imbued don't really have a very strong offense or defense, as I have mentioned before. It's just that some players build their decks around vampire weaknesses, like aggravated damage or daring the dawn decks etc., and then fall flat against the imbued.

On Sep 18, 6:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I was trying that for a while in my industry standard Rush decks--I > think for a while I was using 2xFame/3xAnarch in a pretty straight > forward weenie POT Rush deck. I'd make someone Anarch the hard way (i.e. > I didn't have any "Go Anarch" tech at all) and then kill my prey's > Anarchs. I've done the anarch rush thing quite a bit. Specifically against the Imbued, I think you're not likely to have other vampires voting them off the table, although that does rely on the other players behaving OMGOBVIOUSLY!. As far as killing cross-table vote decks, that can come up too, but often they'll have some chumps who are non-titled, and thus anarch-fodder. Then there's the fact that you are a rush deck and, if it comes down to it, you do have the option of "persuading" people not to vote them off (admittedly the solutions are getting less and less optimal here, but the point I'm making is that there are a stack of ways it *can* work out, and probably one of them will stick in any given game). Then, worst case, it's the plain fact of AR: your prey *will* take at least one pool, and somebody has to blow an action and pass a vote to make them go away. Not a *terrible* RoI on your master phase action. As far as getting bitten by losing all of your own ready anarchs, I think that's much more of a concern for weenie rush decks; valid concern for some decks, but not so much for others. -- David Cherryholmes

On Sep 19, 10:01 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Yip, I've done the same thing with my weenie pot/dom combat deck. It > used to have a few conditionings along with fame for ousting power, > but I replaced that with Anarch Revolts. Yeah, it works ok--heck, if you Fame the Anarch, you dunk them and they lose 5 pool every time they go down. Which isn't bad. But really, with the AR in play, you are kind of asking for trouble, especially if you look like you are doing well--folks will kill the AR cross table just to spite you (and there is little you can do to foil that), and you can easily end up in torpor yourself if you run into reasonable combat opposition, at which point it all kinda falls apart. > Still, I believe that it's combat that needs to be strengthened, not > necessarily the imbued weakened. And this has been a popular complaint > amongst many combat deck-style players. Combat improves ever so > slowly, and then an expansion like the imbued just buries combat decks > further into the ground. Yeah, but really, the way combat needs to be strengthened against the Imbued is that the cards that say "vampire" need to say "minion" instead. Which is rough for cards like Fame (which could say "when this minion leaves the ready reigon, its controller burns 3 pool" and adjust accordingly, though.) and Disarm. But Taste and Haven Uncovered could easily just say "minion" instead of "vampire" -Peter

On Sep 19, 10:14 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > It's just that some > players build their decks around vampire weaknesses, like aggravated > damage or daring the dawn decks etc., and then fall flat against the > imbued. You say this as if the game *isn't* about, ya know, *vampires*... -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > You say this as if the game *isn't* about, ya know, *vampires*... The game is about Methuselahs, who are, ya know, *vampires*, and the eternal struggle they wage against each other (and the minions they use in prosecuting that war).

On Sep 19, 10:29 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 6:24 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > I was trying that for a while in my industry standard Rush decks--I > > think for a while I was using 2xFame/3xAnarch in a pretty straight > > forward weenie POT Rush deck. I'd make someone Anarch the hard way (i.e. > > I didn't have any "Go Anarch" tech at all) and then kill my prey's > > Anarchs. > > I've done the anarch rush thing quite a bit. Specifically against the > Imbued, I think you're not likely to have other vampires voting them > off the table, although that does rely on the other players behaving > OMGOBVIOUSLY!. As far as killing cross-table vote decks, that can > come up too, but often they'll have some chumps who are non-titled, > and thus anarch-fodder. Then there's the fact that you are a rush > deck and, if it comes down to it, you do have the option of > "persuading" people not to vote them off (admittedly the solutions are > getting less and less optimal here, but the point I'm making is that > there are a stack of ways it *can* work out, and probably one of them > will stick in any given game). That was actually one of the reasons I suggested Yawp Court to pre- emptively persuade off the removal. Sure, it means you have to leave a capable Sabbat (i.e., non-anarch) combatant untapped, but you only actually have to do that in games where you think the revolts are gonna get popped. And it also gives you some quasi-permanent "rush" against vote decks. I mean, I'll admit I'm pretty bad at rush combat. So this idea could be totally off-base and not great. Which is why I was putting the idea out for those who actually do the rush combat thing to try it out and see how well it works. witness1

On Sep 19, 10:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > The game is about Methuselahs, who are, ya know, *vampires*, and the eternal > struggle they wage against each other (and the minions they use in prosecuting > that war). I think you may have misfired your snark, here. I was reacting to the statement of "well, people plan on dealing with vampires and then get foiled when they end up fighting not vampires". Which is a statment that implies that it is unreasonable to expect to run into vampires. In a game that is about vampires. Which is kind of a funny statement. I'm not quite sure what you were reacting to, other than having some fun mocking the way I write. Which is fun and all, I'm sure, but I'm not quite sure what it is accomplishing. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Sep 19, 10:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> The game is about Methuselahs, who are, ya know, *vampires*, and the eternal >> struggle they wage against each other (and the minions they use in prosecuting >> that war). > > I think you may have misfired your snark, here. I was reacting to the > statement of "well, people plan on dealing with vampires and then get > foiled when they end up fighting not vampires". Which is a statment > that implies that it is unreasonable to expect to run into vampires. > In a game that is about vampires. Which is kind of a funny statement. No, it says nothing about the reasonableness of expecting to run into vampires. > I'm not quite sure what you were reacting to, other than having some > fun mocking the way I write. Which is fun and all, I'm sure, but I'm > not quite sure what it is accomplishing. I was responding to your quote with a quote-in-kind. Your quote implied, whether you intended it to or not, that the game is solely about minion-vampires and not about other minions, when in fact it is about Methuselahs (and all the minions and other tools they use). No mockery there. Simply using the same template to enforce the parallel. A similar parallel would be: A: "It's just that some players build their decks around bleed weaknesses, like bounce or AI etc., and then fall flat against politics" B: "You say this as if the game isn't about bleeding your prey." C: "The game is about achieving a plurality of VPs (by removing one's successive preys' pool)."

In article <1190212171.1...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've done the anarch rush thing quite a bit. Specifically against the > Imbued, I think you're not likely to have other vampires voting them > off the table, although that does rely on the other players behaving > OMGOBVIOUSLY!. Sure--if your prey is the Imbued, and everyone is like "Man. I hate the Imbued.", no one is going to vote the AR off the table. But if your prey isn't the Imbued, or when the Imbued go away, or if it looks like you are doing too well, the ARs vanish quickly. > Then, worst case, it's the plain fact > of AR: your prey *will* take at least one pool, and somebody has to > blow an action and pass a vote to make them go away. Not a *terrible* > RoI on your master phase action. Oh, I'd never say it was horrible--I played a deck like this for a while, and it was moderately effective. Did ok at a tournament. It was reasonably good tech. But in the end, the plain old Fame tech is still probably better in every situation *except* against the Imbued. And there are tons of options for decks if you want to take the path of "well, it isn't that good in general, but it *rocks* against the Imbued..." > As far as getting bitten by losing > all of your own ready anarchs, I think that's much more of a concern > for weenie rush decks; valid concern for some decks, but not so much > for others. You can always have an accident. Or get PTOed... [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <EfdIi.6023$FO2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No, it says nothing about the reasonableness of expecting to run into > vampires. Yeah, see, I read the original statement to specifically say something about the reasonableness of expecting to run into vampires. Which might not have been the intention of the statement. But how it came across. At least to me. So I made a snarky comment. Mostly in the name of comedy. > I was responding to your quote with a quote-in-kind. Your quote implied, > whether > you intended it to or not, that the game is solely about minion-vampires and > not > about other minions, I read my own implication to be "as the game is primarily about vampires, it is reasonable to plan on running into vampires". That is all. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sep 19, 7:46 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > On Sep 19, 10:42 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> The game is about Methuselahs, who are, ya know, *vampires*, and the eternal > >> struggle they wage against each other (and the minions they use in prosecuting > >> that war). > > > I think you may have misfired your snark, here. I was reacting to the > > statement of "well, people plan on dealing with vampires and then get > > foiled when they end up fighting not vampires". Which is a statment > > that implies that it is unreasonable to expect to run into vampires. > > In a game that is about vampires. Which is kind of a funny statement. > > No, it says nothing about the reasonableness of expecting to run into vampires. I never said it was unreasonable to expect to run into vampires, nor did I imply it. What I can say now is that with NoR out, it is reasonable to expect that you might come across a deck that has no vampires. I guess in a way, it would be unreasonable to expect that your prey will always have vampires in a game that is about vampires. After all, the imbued are vampire-hunters and so they are also about vampires. In fact, thinking about pop vampire culture, I could imagine a deck that runs with Werewolves (a creature often used as the nemesis of vampires). A game about vampires could be (and in this case is) about the enemies of vampires as much as the vampires themselves. Just as LSJ points out with the bleed strategy defense. It is also reasonable to expect that a deck might oust you without bleeding you once, although the opposite would certainly not be the case - i.e. thinking that it would be unreasonable to expect that someone would bleed you. Still, I get what you find funny, and, as an experienced player who got used to having vampires only in the crypt, it does sound strange sometimes to plan for things that aren't vampires.

In article <1190233759.1...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > I never said it was unreasonable to expect to run into vampires, nor > did I imply it. Well, it is kinda how the comment read, intentional or no. > What I can say now is that with NoR out, it is > reasonable to expect that you might come across a deck that has no > vampires. Yes, this is true. > I guess in a way, it would be unreasonable to expect that > your prey will always have vampires in a game that is about vampires. Until very recently (relatively speaking), it was completely reasonable to expect that your prey would always have vampires (as it was virtually impossible* to play a game of VTES without vampires in play). The Imbued turned that on its head, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (although many would argue otherwise, I'm sure), but still, it does seem reasonable to expect that, when you are playing a game of VTES, you'll run into vampires most of the time. * Weirdo Betrayer decks and Jake Washington recruits an army of, uh, Vagabond Mystic? decks be damned. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That's a really neat idea, and dovetails well with the ability of Leila Monroe to focus on a Sabbat cored decks that uses Anarch Revolt. Hmm, and I was just thinking of my old pre/cel/pot angry housewife deck that used Pursuits and Sewer Lids for combat and Anarch Revolts/Suprise Influence/Political Backlashes for +3 fun. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <EfdIi.6023$FO2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> No, it says nothing about the reasonableness of expecting to run into >> vampires. > > Yeah, see, I read the original statement to specifically say something > about the reasonableness of expecting to run into vampires. Which might > not have been the intention of the statement. But how it came across. At > least to me. So I made a snarky comment. Mostly in the name of comedy. > >> I was responding to your quote with a quote-in-kind. Your quote implied, >> whether >> you intended it to or not, that the game is solely about minion-vampires and >> not >> about other minions, > > I read my own implication to be "as the game is primarily about > vampires, it is reasonable to plan on running into vampires". That is > all. Again, reversing the statement. It is reasonable to expect vampires. But that is quite different than expecting to see nothing but vampires.

In article <ANgIi.9951$924....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > It is reasonable to expect vampires. > But that is quite different than expecting to see nothing but vampires. At what point did I indicate that I expect to see nothing but vampires? [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <ANgIi.9951$924....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> It is reasonable to expect vampires. >> But that is quite different than expecting to see nothing but vampires. > > At what point did I indicate that I expect to see nothing but vampires? That's the whole point, you keep switching to "reasonable to expect vampires" when that isn't the issue.

On Sep 19, 5:50 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <ANgIi.9951$924.7...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > > LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > It is reasonable to expect vampires. > > But that is quite different than expecting to see nothing but vampires. > > At what point did I indicate that I expect to see nothing but vampires? > When you filed your teeth to a point and put on your Sesame Street's The Count outfit. ..l.or am I jumping into this halfway through the conversation? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <HjiIi.9965$924....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > That's the whole point, you keep switching to "reasonable to expect vampires" > when that isn't the issue. Please, please explain to me what the issue is here. As I have zero idea, myself. I made a snarky comment about how I found it reasonable to expect vampires (more or less) in a game about vampires. Cause someone posted a comment about how it was a problem (in the context of the Imbued) that people built decks expecting to see vampires and run into trouble when they don't. And somehow it became an issue. That I don't even know what it is. But as you seem to, please feel free to explain what it is. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <HjiIi.9965$924....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> That's the whole point, you keep switching to "reasonable to expect vampires" >> when that isn't the issue. > > Please, please explain to me what the issue is here. As I have zero > idea, myself. > > I made a snarky comment about how I found it reasonable to expect > vampires (more or less) in a game about vampires. Cause someone posted a > comment about how it was a problem (in the context of the Imbued) that > people built decks expecting to see vampires and run into trouble when > they don't. And somehow it became an issue. That I don't even know what > it is. But as you seem to, please feel free to explain what it is. Not "a problem that people built decks expecting to see vampires" but "a problem that people built decks effective only against vampires". That is (the original quote): "decks [built] around vampire weaknesses". So, expecting to see only vampires (and tuning to capitalize on that), the deck has a vulnerable spot to non-vampires. The difference between "expect to see vampires" and "expect not to see non-vampires".

On Sep 19, 9:17 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > That is (the original quote): "decks [built] around vampire weaknesses". Virtually all rush decks are necessarily so. If rush was "intended" to be a viable strategy, then it has been put in a highly precarious position. With the popularity of Imbued, I'd have to assume that in a blind tournament I'll probably see them, which means I can't really play rush anymore. A whole leg of the triangle is endangered, simply because the Imbued exist. I don't imagine they are going anywhere, but I hope the magnitude of the problem is appreciated. At least a few of the new cards suggest it is, but I felt it was worth stating (or repeating) explicitly. -- David Cherryholmes

bluedevil wrote: > > I've done the anarch rush thing quite a bit. Specifically against the > Imbued, I think you're not likely to have other vampires voting them > off the table, although that does rely on the other players behaving > OMGOBVIOUSLY!. As far as killing cross-table vote decks, that can > "OMGOBVIOUSLY" I think is my new favorite word. I assume that all caps is the grammatically correct spelling in all situations that require that word. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] > aucti...@superfuncards.com Well when take in context it is very similar in emotive weight to WTFOMGCOWPOO. The other 2 more common variants being SNAFU & FUBAR. As well as their amalgamation SNAFUBAR.