Baali special request

pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase turn infernal from "pay one pool for each baali u want to keep untapped" to "pay one pool to keep all ur infernal minions (vampires ?) untapped" if u do so i'll send u a postcard :-) Mochuda

"Mochuda" <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> wrote in message news:3e53aa8c$0$25375$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net... [ quoted text not captured ] lol, That would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

>> pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase turn infernal from "pay one pool for each baali u >> want to keep untapped" to "pay one pool to keep all ur infernal minions >> (vampires ?) untapped" >> >> if u do so i'll send u a postcard :-) > >lol, That would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny. In order for that to be broken, wouldn't they have to be (tournament) competitive now?

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Just as you can add more intercept than you need to block, you can boost something's strength past what it needs to be balanced, sublimating it directly from the underpowered to the overpowered state. For instance, changing Eyes of the Dead to lessen the "when a vampire attempt to commit diablerie" restriction to "when a vampire attempts an action" would be broken, even though EotD isn't (tournament) competitive right now. The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the proposed rule is slightly stronger). Try adding that rule to any other not-yet-tournament-competitive clan and see if it is possible to move directly to the "broken" stage without stopping off at mere competitiveness first. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

>> In order for that to be broken, wouldn't they have to be (tournament) >> competitive now? > >No. > >Just as you can add more intercept than you need to block, you can boost >something's strength past what it needs to be balanced, sublimating it >directly from the underpowered to the overpowered state. > >For instance, changing Eyes of the Dead to lessen the "when a vampire >attempt to commit diablerie" restriction to "when a vampire attempts an >action" would be broken, even though EotD isn't (tournament) competitive >right now. > >The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 >pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the >proposed rule is slightly stronger). Try adding that rule to any other >not-yet-tournament-competitive clan and see if it is possible to move >directly to the "broken" stage without stopping off at mere >competitiveness first. This might be interesting. There aren't a lot of clans I consider noncompetitive. Thinking of two real losers - !Salubri and !Ventrue, such a rule would be cool. Let's see, what other clans don't I consider competitive? Assamites, !Brujah, !Gangrel, Gargoyles, Nagaraja, !Nos, Pander, Trujah. Would be interesting with the scarcies since it caps out low barring Clan Impersonation or making babies, both of which are out of spirit with the infernal change as infernal isn't strictly clan specific, and since it would help people build decks that tried harder to put multiple scarcies of a clan into play, like trying to build a Nagaraja (6+) deck. So, someone somewhere should try a rule along the lines of "choose clans you think aren't competitive, the chosen clans give each player X-1 pool during the player's untap for each printed* vampire of a particular clan that player controls" and see what happens. Right? Fun? * Printed meaning that the card is printed being that clan to better simulate the infernal effect and to prevent mass Embracing or whatever.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:06:11 -0500, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Curevei wrote: >>>>pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase turn infernal from "pay one pool for each baali u >>>>want to keep untapped" to "pay one pool to keep all ur infernal minions >>>>(vampires ?) untapped" >>>> >>>>if u do so i'll send u a postcard :-) >>> >>>lol, That would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny. >> >> >> In order for that to be broken, wouldn't they have to be (tournament) >> competitive now? > >No. <Snip> Scott's right, the infernal rule shoud stay as is. I'd just like to see some readily available cards that make them more than a stealth/bleed machine. Contagion and the Condemnation cards are interesting, assuming anyone aside from dealers had more than one or two copies to play with. I made some mock cards that give the Baali other stuff to do http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/Vcard_master.htm Don't go too crazy on me as I'm still cleaning up some of the cardtext, but really like the synergy of the Baali/Infernal cards I'd made. Ciao, Bernie BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<snip> > This might be interesting. There aren't a lot of clans I consider > noncompetitive. Thinking of two real losers - !Salubri and !Ventrue, such a > rule would be cool. Let's see, what other clans don't I consider competitive?</snip> !ventrue aren't noncompetetive. last tournament he played in someone from utrecht got in finals with 11 victory points out of a possible 13-15 (not 100% sure) with !ventrue and has been consistently winning friendly games with it as well. DOM AUS FOR isnt weak, and !ventrue dont have a lack of good vampires, especially with the new vampires from CE -Bram Vink

In article <3E53D5A3...@white-wolf.com>, vte...@white-wolf.com says... > For instance, changing Eyes of the Dead to lessen the "when a vampire > attempt to commit diablerie" restriction to "when a vampire attempts an > action" would be broken, even though EotD isn't (tournament) competitive > right now. I think that would make it possibly overpowered, but not broken. Broken historically has implied that the broken card or strategy must either be played or the specific countermeasure must be played to remain competitive. Giving necromancy a cheap intercept card would certainly change the discipline's overall power, but would it break the game? > The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 > pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the > proposed rule is slightly stronger). Try adding that rule to any other > not-yet-tournament-competitive clan and see if it is possible to move > directly to the "broken" stage without stopping off at mere > competitiveness first. Perhaps grinding the thread to a halt here... haven't the Baali won a tournament? -- -Snapcase

<snipped> > Scott's right, the infernal rule shoud stay as is. > > I'd just like to see some readily available cards that make them more > than a stealth/bleed machine. > > Contagion and the Condemnation cards are interesting, assuming anyone > aside from dealers had more than one or two copies to play with. > Damnans owns no less than 10 copies of each condemnation, and several contagions to put a copy or more in each of his baali decks (no less than 5 or 6 decks, by the way). Even 2 of those decks look competitive to me: giotto freakdriver and Sargon Summons Hell (63 card deck based on Herald of Topheth) Yes, some might think he is on crack with it. But it has been his favourite vampire clan as far as i can remember. When bloodlines came, he almost begged us to pass him all cards with the word "infernal" written on it or the baali symbol. This cards are great, and I must admit that the infernal cost is worth if you manage it properly. The cards available to them are extremely powerful in comparison to their "normal" versions, IF there is even a card with which you can compare some of them. Smiling Tom

Curevei wrote: > This might be interesting. There aren't a lot of clans I consider > noncompetitive. Thinking of two real losers - !Salubri and > !Ventrue, such a rule would be cool. Let's see, what other clans > don't I consider competitive? Assamites, !Brujah, !Gangrel, > Gargoyles, Nagaraja, !Nos, Pander, Trujah. !ventrue ? Consider yourself lucky if in your world you don't have to face Lazverinus, Quentin or Gustav... !nos ? As if Beast and Cailean weren't in your 'most annoying bozo' list... Trujah ? they are war machine =) when you take a good trujah deck as a predator, you really thank god they are only 2 of them in play at the same time...

In message <MPG.18be1c0b3...@news.optonline.net>, Snapcase <shotgu...@optonline.net> writes: >Giving necromancy a cheap intercept card would certainly >change the discipline's overall power, but would it break the game? It already has one: Spectral Divination. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

> This might be interesting. There aren't a lot of clans I consider > noncompetitive. Thinking of two real losers - !Salubri and !Ventrue, such a > rule would be cool. Let's see, what other clans don't I consider competitive? > Assamites, !Brujah, !Gangrel, Gargoyles, Nagaraja, !Nos, Pander, Trujah. Gargoyles weak? Bwahahaha I see you have never faced a Ublo with 4 permanent intercept against bleed, dealing 3 damage without playing cards and preventing 3 damage without playing cards... not to mention that aggravated damage does barely scratch her...

James Coupe wrote: > In message <MPG.18be1c0b3...@news.optonline.net>, Snapcase > <shotgu...@optonline.net> writes: >> Giving necromancy a cheap intercept card would certainly >> change the discipline's overall power, but would it break the game? > > It already has one: Spectral Divination. it's not exactly hat i call a cheap intercept card. Spectral divination costs one blood and requires superior necromancy. Okay, the inferior gives you versatility but still it's not a cheap intercept card, nor a cheap stealth card. =)

Snapcase <shotgu...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.18be1c0b3...@news.optonline.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Come on, you have to admit the Baali detriment makes the Baali suck ASS (much to my dismay). Simply changing it to 'pay 1 pool for each one you want to untap' (so untapped ones STAY untapped) would make them better. At the moment, every Baali is effectively 1 pool more expensive as their capacity indicates... Sargon may only cost 5 to bring out, but to actually use him next turn, you've gotta pay that one or he taps. It's made a promising Bloodline with some cool cards into a contender for worst bloodline of the set (even the !Salubri are more playable) :) Marty I love Baali too, I only wish they were better

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I made some mock cards that give the Baali other stuff to do > http://bernietime.mega.net.kg/vampire/Vcard_master.htm > > Don't go too crazy on me as I'm still cleaning up some of the cardtext, > but really like the synergy of the Baali/Infernal cards I'd made. I made the tough call and chose browsing your cards over plumbing the guts of sendmail more. Very enjoyable. Some players in my group are getting tired of the "poor grad student" effect and are considering scanning a bunch of cards in so that the proxies will at least look like the card they are standing in for. Maybe we'll run off some copies of your cards and I can give you some real feedback. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

Marty wrote: [...] > > Perhaps grinding the thread to a halt here... haven't the Baali won a > > tournament? > > Come on, you have to admit the Baali detriment makes the Baali suck > ASS (much to my dismay). No. The Baali drawback makes them balanced. The assumption that "Baali suck" comes from the extreme difficulty of building a deck almost completely based on this clan, which is usually a mistake and a lack of vision, since, if you have 3 or more Infernal Baali in play, the cost of Infernalism would be too high for your deck to be effective. The real power of the Baali dwells precisely on each of their vampires, individually. Baali work better when you combine just one or two of them with members of other clans. You just need a single Baali vampire to make the world know what fear means >:-) > Simply changing it to 'pay 1 pool for each > one you want to untap' (so untapped ones STAY untapped) would make > them better. At the moment, every Baali is effectively 1 pool more > expensive as their capacity indicates... Sargon may only cost 5 to > bring out, but to actually use him next turn, you've gotta pay that > one or he taps. Not entirely true, since there are cards (such as Derange, Precognizant Mobility, Blessing of the Name, etc.) that whether untap your Baali vampires or allow them to untap. Besides, there are several ways to effectively retrieve the pool loss for Infernalism, in case you had just one or two Baali in play. > It's made a promising Bloodline with some cool cards > into a contender for worst bloodline of the set (even the !Salubri are > more playable) :) I find your lack of faith disturbing. Maybe you should be expelled from the clan ;-) Greetings, Damnans

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3E53D5A3...@white-wolf.com... <snip> > The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 > pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the > proposed rule is slightly stronger). May I suggest that "not losing" is slightly different from "gaining". If it were, I would buy a car as I've not played loto for 25 years and not losing a few euros/bucks each week for 25 years should pay for it. It reminds me of the joke of the scottish man thundering his son because the poor child had run behind the bus instead of running behind a cab (he would have spared more money). I admit though that changing the rule as I proposed would turn out in a difference of (X-1 pool), not a gain sorry for just nit-picking... :-)

Mochuda wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message > news:3E53D5A3...@white-wolf.com... > > <snip> > >>The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 >>pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the >>proposed rule is slightly stronger). > > > May I suggest that "not losing" is slightly different from "gaining". If it > were, I would buy a car as I've not played loto for 25 years and not losing > a few euros/bucks each week for 25 years should pay for it. Look at it again. Losing and then gaining back is the same (net) as not losing (or, as noted above, slightly weaker, since you risk hitting a bad number, 0, in the process which would end your game prior to the gaining back). You propose reducing the loss (i.e., not losing). I assert that that is that same (slightly stronger) as recouping the loss at the same level as the proposed reduction instead. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Perhaps grinding the thread to a halt here... haven't the Baali won a >tournament? I have a higher standard for being competitive than fluke victories. That deck sucks. I know the designer; he's said as much.

"Mochuda" <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> wrote in message news:<3e53aa8c$0$25375$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Nooooooooooooo! However I wouldn't mind paying 1 blood to untap all my Fida'i. =] T

In message <3e54ee2a$0$2800$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net>, reyda <true_...@hotmail.com> writes: >> It already has one: Spectral Divination. > >it's not exactly hat i call a cheap intercept card. >Spectral divination costs one blood and requires superior necromancy. NEC comes on a 3, two 5s and two 6s. Unfortunately, that's NEC, aus dom NEC, DOM NEC pot, AUS for NEC and cel NEC obf. Urgle. (3 Giovanni, 1 Nagaraja, 1 Harbinger.) It's not that expensive, but they don't gel too well. On the other hand, Necromancy does come up on the Sargon Fragment, so it has its uses anyway. >Okay, the inferior gives you versatility but still it's not a cheap >intercept card, nor a cheap stealth card. =) For the Giovanni, it's not too bad. DOM only has some very conditional stealth (Bonding, Dominate Kine etc.) POT has no stealth. So Nec has a little. Given that a few of their actions are *really* nice - like Daemonic Possession - getting them through is rather useful. And you can Path of Bone it, along with any other Necromancy you're playing. Granted, this doesn't work so well for other Necromancers. The Nagaraja are tricky. Being scarce, just look at them in whatever deck they're in *anyway* and just forget the Path of Bone, I guess. The Harbingers, however, get AUS NEC FOR. Fortitude lets them get the action through, pretty much come what may - Day Op, Dawn Op etc. However, all five have NEC, so the expense of the superior becomes negligible in a Harbingers oriented deck. Useful for, say, helping to push through a Pulse of the Canailla or something. A Harbinger with Erebus Mask and a scattering of Spectral Divination could be surprisingly hard to stop for a clan without Obfuscate. The Samedi, of course, have that Obfuscate. So, for the Giovanni and the Harbingers, it's actually not an expensive stealth card at all - given that they can't access much stealth that easily. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Oh my. Vampires with those big special such Sargon and Mary the Black should cost "just" a pool for keeping *all* of them untapped? Then, we also should have an errata that makes anarch revolt to do no damage the its controller :D greets EMiliano btw: if you want to play with more infernals try these unofficial cards http://digilander.libero.it/vampirismus/biblioteca/infernalcorruption.jpg http://digilander.libero.it/vampirismus/master/infernalism.jpg

In article <icsdr8nD...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, ja...@zephyr.org.uk says... > >Giving necromancy a cheap intercept card would certainly > >change the discipline's overall power, but would it break the game? > > It already has one: Spectral Divination. Well, it has *an* intercept card in Spectral Divination. Perhaps it should have been phrased as "another, cheaper intercept card". The point is, I don't think making Eyes of the Dead into an Enhanced Senses clone would break the game. -- -Snapcase

In article <20030220142858...@mb-bd.aol.com>, cur...@aol.commetal says... [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, it did. But the potential's still there for it to be made into a good deck. The point is, someone's managed to win a tournament with the clan when (from the tourney reports I've read since BL came out) not many people are trying to win with them. -- -Snapcase

XZealot wrote: > > "Mochuda" <moc...@arfe.netNOSPAM> wrote in message > news:3e53aa8c$0$25375$79c1...@nan-newsreader-02.noos.net... > > pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase turn infernal from "pay one pool for each baali u > > want to keep untapped" to "pay one pool to keep all ur infernal minions > > (vampires ?) untapped" > > > > if u do so i'll send u a postcard :-) > > lol, That would be so broken it wouldn't even be funny. Oh, man, I'd love to know what Baali *you've* been playing. Or at least, list the really good Baali deck right now that would be become "so broken it wouldn't even be funny" under the proposed rule. And what all tournament's it's won, etc. My Baali do a *great* job of ousting...me! Fred

LSJ wrote: > > Curevei wrote: > > In order for that to be broken, wouldn't they have to be (tournament) > > competitive now? > > No. > > Just as you can add more intercept than you need to block, you can boost > something's strength past what it needs to be balanced, sublimating it > directly from the underpowered to the overpowered state. ... > The proposed change is equivalent to: during your master phase, gain X-1 > pool where X is the number of untapped Baali you control. (Actually, the > proposed rule is slightly stronger). Try adding that rule to any other > not-yet-tournament-competitive clan and see if it is possible to move > directly to the "broken" stage without stopping off at mere > competitiveness first. Not to dispute the concept that one can change a card or clan, etc. from wallpaper to broken with a single change (of course you can! - if the change is sufficiently advantageous), but your challenge to do this with other clans isn't relevant. I could put oodles of Pander in play, obviously - but five Baali. And the Baali are average 7.4 caps. I seriously doubt Baali would shoot up from being underpowered to broken with Mochuda's proposed rule change. In fact, I'm pretty sure they'd go from underpowered to not-quite-as-underpowered. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Another good point: people aren't even bothering to try to win with them. That tells you something by itself... Fred

In article <3E568018...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > > Yeah, it did. But the potential's still there for it to be made into a > > good deck. The point is, someone's managed to win a tournament with the > > clan when (from the tourney reports I've read since BL came out) not > > many people are trying to win with them. > > Another good point: people aren't even bothering to try to win with them. > That tells you something by itself... I guess. I haven't seen many True Brujah decks in tournament reports either, but they seem to be pretty well regarded as a good clan. -- -Snapcase

[ quoted text not captured ] There's a whole raft of apples-and-oranges comparisons that come up trying to compare a scarce clan with the Baali while considering a rule change that only affects decks attempting to recruit multiple Baali at the same time. Plus I'd really want look at numbers (how many tournament-winning decks containing how many True Brujah vs. how many t-w decks containing how many Baali) to get a feel for whether the two clans are both having the same degree of problems. Plus I don't know how valid it is to say the True Brujah are "well regarded". You can find neat things to do with members of both clans but what does that really mean? If the True Brujah aren't cracking the finals in tournaments very often, maybe they could use some help, too. Or it may be possible you're comparing a mediocre clan with a truly sad one: neither is going to get you to the finals very often but the latter _really_ needs help. I just know every time I try to use Baali, I don't come close to anything the works. (Though I'm trying again, as write this. Stupid me.) I'm still up for Norm or someone showing me a Baali deck that kicks ass. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] They did not find the way? :-P Greetings, Damnans

Frederick Scott wrote: [...] > I just know every time I try to use Baali, I don't come close to anything > the works. (Though I'm trying again, as write this. Stupid me.) I'm > still up for Norm or someone showing me a Baali deck that kicks ass. Well, I have just posted 2 Baali decks on this NG under the threads: [Baali deck] One Baali to rule them all [Baali deck] The Baali summon Hell Both decks work great at them moment. I have played 4 games with each, and I have won 2 games with each. You'll see that their concepts are quite different from each other, but they both have one thing in common: They just need ONE SINGLE Baali for them to be effective. For instance, yesterday I played with both decks. "One Baali to rule them all" got 2 VPs at a 5 player table, and was ousted by my lucky predator one turn before I could oust him :-P [TABLE: !Ventrue vote+bleed deck -> Brujah rush+bruise deck -> My deck -> Ventrue+!Ventrue bleed deck -> Samedi bleed+rush deck] On the other hand "The Baali summon Hell" got 3 VPs at a 5 player table. [TABLE: My deck -> Malkavian S&B deck -> Weenie Celerity+Guns rush deck -> Samedi bleed+rush deck -> Nosferatu Princes intercept+bruise deck] During that game, I had Sargon and Lolita in play, when my predator had Nikolaus Vermeulen equip with a Leather Jacket. Sargon played a Sense the Sin at inferior to get +1 intercept, and successfully blocked Nikolaus. Combat occurred and Nikolaus was sent into torpor via Conflagration. On my turn, Sargon recruited a Herald of Topheth and got the edge ;-p, so with no other votes on the table, Lolita diablerized Nikolaus. Not long afterwards something similar happened when my predator brought out Cock Robin. I tried to make a deal with him, but he refused, so I attacked Cock Robin with my Herald of Topheth. Cock played Carrion Crows and maneuvered at long range with an Aid from Bats. My Herald played a Conflagration at inferior, and Cock entered torpor. After that I rushed my prey's single vampire, Lucian, sent him to torpor and diablerized him. The Samedi ousted the Nosferatu (my predator), I ousted the Malkavian (my prey), the Weenie Celerity+Guns deck ousted the Samedi and I luckily ousted the weenie deck thanks to a successful block of a hunt action attempted by Parmenides (with a Fame). I must also say that Sargon had a Contagion and a Secure Haven >:-) for more than 4 o 5 turns. Greetings, Damnans

In article <3E5719C2...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > There's a whole raft of apples-and-oranges comparisons that come up trying > to compare a scarce clan with the Baali while considering a rule change > that only affects decks attempting to recruit multiple Baali at the same > time. Possibly. The Infernal cost isn't that different from Scarce in terms of limiting the number of multiple vamps from these clans you can reasonably put into play. > Plus I'd really want look at numbers (how many tournament-winning > decks containing how many True Brujah vs. how many t-w decks containing > how many Baali) to get a feel for whether the two clans are both having > the same degree of problems. Just from tournament report readings, most of the bloodlines are having somewhat similar problems. > Plus I don't know how valid it is to say > the True Brujah are "well regarded". You can find neat things to do > with members of both clans but what does that really mean? Beats me. There was a huge thread recently discussing various decks using Nu and the Eye of Hazimel, so I'm assuming people feel such an idea can win. At the very least Temporis seems well regarded/feared. > If the True Brujah aren't cracking the finals in tournaments very often, maybe they > could use some help, too. Or it may be possible you're comparing a > mediocre clan with a truly sad one: neither is going to get you to the > finals very often but the latter _really_ needs help. Maybe. I've been having some decent success with the True Brujah. Haven't dug into the Baali yet. My first guess is that they'd be decent support or in "lots of copies of vamp X" type of decks. The Giotto deck that was posted recently shows promise. They just suck when you get a bunch of Baali out. Mebbe it's by design, mebbe not. -- -Snapcase

Snapcase wrote: > > In article <3E5719C2...@removethis.com>, freds64 > _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > > > There's a whole raft of apples-and-oranges comparisons that come up trying > > to compare a scarce clan with the Baali while considering a rule change > > that only affects decks attempting to recruit multiple Baali at the same > > time. > > Possibly. The Infernal cost isn't that different from Scarce in terms > of limiting the number of multiple vamps from these clans you can > reasonably put into play. Actually, I find them to be a lot different. Scarce advantages: no cost at all for the first minion and a one time only cost for each one thereafter. Infernal advantages: no special penalty if an opponent brings out a different minion before yours and the costs of each minion increase constantly instead of ramping up. On balance, there's really very few scenarios that aren't a significant advantage for the scarce clans except ones that are so costly on both sides that you wouldn't want to get into them anyway. Fred

> This might be interesting. There aren't a lot of clans I consider > noncompetitive. Thinking of two real losers - !Salubri and !Ventrue, such a > rule would be cool. Let's see, what other clans don't I consider competitive? > Assamites, !Brujah, !Gangrel, Gargoyles, Nagaraja, !Nos, Pander, Trujah. > There are 4 tough gargoyle decks around. All of them have won some casual and even tournament games. Smiling jack permanent-blocker, rock cat disarm, tremere "fishing team" (10 create gargoyle deck), and vis-for bleed (masochism+armor of terra+restoration+force of will+daring the dawn)

In article <3E59AB5A...@removethis.com>, freds64 _at_cox_...@removethis.com says... > Actually, I find them to be a lot different. Scarce advantages: no cost > at all for the first minion and a one time only cost for each one thereafter. > Infernal advantages: no special penalty if an opponent brings out a > different minion before yours and the costs of each minion increase > constantly instead of ramping up. On balance, there's really very few > scenarios that aren't a significant advantage for the scarce clans except > ones that are so costly on both sides that you wouldn't want to get into > them anyway. Good points, although both are indeed deterrants from putting more than one of that type of vampire out. Scarce loses out hard when contesting too. Infernal also has the option to tap the vampire and not pay the pool... -- -Snapcase