Fun RTI

Here's some fun house errata for RTI which, in my opinion, balances the card and still makes it fun to play with. The idea is that the vampire becomes human at the beginning of the action rather than at the end. (D) bleed your prey with +X bleed where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. The acting vampire may not play cards requiring disciplines during this action. Remove this vampire from the game after the action's conclusion. Basically this idea increases the risk and greatly decreases the unblockability of RTI, and still lets it have a play combo by using the Concoction of Vitality. It only adds to the existing text and doesn't seem too complicated to me. It may stillrestrict the card too much and still make it wallpaper, but hey so does 7/7. please let me know what you all think about this. Does it create balance and continue to be powerful enough to have fun with? Is it too complicated? Does it wallpaper the card? I really would like to know.

[ quoted text not captured ] I was actually thinking about RTI a while ago, and came up with another fix for it. This wouldn't actually work, but I thought it might be intriguing.... Return To Innocence: Cost: 0 Disp/clan: Pander or Catiff Card Text: Unblockable. (D) Bleed for X+1. Return this vampire to your crypt after this action is completed. X is the capacity of vampire. No other modifiers can be played This retains the origional idea of RTI, although changed somewhat. It also allows you to have a viable Pander or Catiff deck, and it sorta fits the story line. Plus it is in no way broken since at most you will be bleeding for 3-4, which you can do easily with presence or Dominate. And if you want more, you have to slap disp. masters on your vamps, which will take you time and will most likely get them killed. Like I said, I was only thinking, but what do people think? Would it be at al viable? Ian

In article <N.080798....@clarityconnect.com>, Ian Cyr <IN...@baka.com> writes >This retains the origional idea of RTI, although changed somewhat. The original idea was big bleeds with big vampires. How does this retain the original idea? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <199808080413...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote: > >Here's some fun house errata for RTI which, in my opinion, balances the card > >and still makes it fun to play with. The idea is that the vampire becomes > >human at the beginning of the action rather than at the end. > > > >(D) bleed your prey with +X bleed where X is the capacity of the acting > >vampire. The acting vampire may not play cards requiring disciplines during > >this action. Remove this vampire from the game after the action's > >conclusion. This is a good start, but I would even go so far and say: "The acting vampire may not play any cards until the action is resolved." I think this makes RTI balanced. The only card that could make the bleed now unblockable would be Concoction of Vitality, and that's an equipment. With the above mentioned fix and my added "fix", does anybody still think it's unbalanced? And if so, why? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: : In article <199808080413...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, : fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote: : > >Here's some fun house errata for RTI which, in my opinion, balances the card : > >and still makes it fun to play with. The idea is that the vampire becomes : > >human at the beginning of the action rather than at the end. : > > : > >(D) bleed your prey with +X bleed where X is the capacity of the acting : > >vampire. The acting vampire may not play cards requiring disciplines during : > >this action. Remove this vampire from the game after the action's : > >conclusion. : This is a good start, but I would even go so far and say: "The acting vampire : may not play any cards until the action is resolved." : I think this makes RTI balanced. The only card that could make the bleed : now unblockable would be Concoction of Vitality, and that's an equipment. : With the above mentioned fix and my added "fix", does anybody still think : it's unbalanced? And if so, why? Well, yes, because Return to Innocence is an inherently unbalanced card concept. Therefore, anything that adheres to its design will tend to still be overpowered. Making it harder to make RtI unblockable certainly makes it *less* overpowered. But the huge pool loss that can be inflicted in a single action makes RtI too close to the hypothetical 'D Action: Oust your prey' card. (Even the 7/7 version of RtI isn't exactly fixed; again it's been weakened, but it still causes a very large pool loss from one action, if it succeeds.) I'm agreeable to adding 'this vampire can't play cards until the action has resolved' to RtI's original text, but I can't say that it actually goes far enough to make the card balanced. Nothing that says 'Bleed at +X, where X is the vamp's capacity' can be very effectively balanced as long as it says that. (As others have pointed out, there aren't even any bleed-discipline cards that give bonuses this large. So it seems unreasonable for a disciplineless card to be able to do it.) Part of the problem here, of course, is that I don't think RtI was ever 'fun to play with.' About as fun as Fireballing your opponent for 20, as far as I can see. Josh not a big fan of overpowered cards

On 11 Aug 1998, Joshua Duffin wrote: > : With the above mentioned fix and my added "fix", does anybody still think > : it's unbalanced? And if so, why? > > Well, yes, because Return to Innocence is an inherently unbalanced > card concept. Therefore, anything that adheres to its design will > tend to still be overpowered. One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once made between RTI and Golconda. Just add the following words, or something similar. "If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this action to fail." Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980811213357.686B-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > >One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once >made between RTI and Golconda. > >Just add the following words, or something similar. > >"If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this >action to fail." Interesting... but then you basically have a card that back bleeds for 2, but costs you a vampire. Sounds like wallpaper to me. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980811213357.686B-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > >One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once > >made between RTI and Golconda. > > > >Just add the following words, or something similar. > > > >"If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this > >action to fail." > > Interesting... but then you basically have a card that back bleeds for > 2, but costs you a vampire. Sounds like wallpaper to me. It will not cost you a vampire, because the action was not successful. Nor will you burn the 4 blood cost. However, you must still pay for any action modifiers, and Day Operation will still send you to torpor. The "backbleed" is at the discretion of your predator, based on what he decides is his best interest. When two players remain, then RTI is at best a bleed for two, unless your predator/prey decides its worth x pool to get rid of one of your vampires. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980812005133.3056B-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > >> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980811213357.686B-100000@amanda>, >> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >> > >> >One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once >> >made between RTI and Golconda. >> > >> >Just add the following words, or something similar. >> > >> >"If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this >> >action to fail." >> >> Interesting... but then you basically have a card that back bleeds for >> 2, but costs you a vampire. Sounds like wallpaper to me. > >It will not cost you a vampire, because the action was not successful. >Nor will you burn the 4 blood cost. > >However, you must still pay for any action modifiers, and Day Operation >will still send you to torpor. Good point. Still, it's just a card that back bleeds for 2, or gives your predator the option to oust your prey. Why would your predator ever want to oust your prey (giving you 6 pool, a VP, and really screwing himself)? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6qpfs7$m...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > : In article <199808080413...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, > : fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote: > : > >Here's some fun house errata for RTI which, in my opinion, balances the card > : > >and still makes it fun to play with. The idea is that the vampire becomes > : > >human at the beginning of the action rather than at the end. > : > > > : > >(D) bleed your prey with +X bleed where X is the capacity of the acting > : > >vampire. The acting vampire may not play cards requiring disciplines during > : > >this action. Remove this vampire from the game after the action's > : > >conclusion. > > : This is a good start, but I would even go so far and say: "The acting vampire > : may not play any cards until the action is resolved." > > : I think this makes RTI balanced. The only card that could make the bleed > : now unblockable would be Concoction of Vitality, and that's an equipment. > > : With the above mentioned fix and my added "fix", does anybody still think > : it's unbalanced? And if so, why? > > Well, yes, because Return to Innocence is an inherently unbalanced > card concept. Therefore, anything that adheres to its design will > tend to still be overpowered. > > Making it harder to make RtI unblockable certainly makes it *less* > overpowered. But the huge pool loss that can be inflicted in a single > action makes RtI too close to the hypothetical 'D Action: Oust your > prey' card. > > (Even the 7/7 version of RtI isn't exactly fixed; again it's been > weakened, but it still causes a very large pool loss from one action, > if it succeeds.) > > I'm agreeable to adding 'this vampire can't play cards until the action > has resolved' to RtI's original text, but I can't say that it actually > goes far enough to make the card balanced. Nothing that says > 'Bleed at +X, where X is the vamp's capacity' can be very effectively > balanced as long as it says that. (As others have pointed out, there > aren't even any bleed-discipline cards that give bonuses this large. > So it seems unreasonable for a disciplineless card to be able to > do it.) Then why isn't it fixed with "Bleed at +X, where X is the vamps's capacity halfed down, rounded up."? Sounds pretty simple to me if only the +X bleed concerns you. However, I don't think that the card is broken if no cards whatsoever can be played until the action is concluded. This means, the action is not unblockable, is not at stealth, and cannot be pushed by further bleed modifiers. If the action is successful the vamp is still burnt, but it wouldn't circumvent the costs for DayOp or Daring the Dawn! And if a player makes a tactical mistake and gets tapped out before his predator gets in for the kill with RtI, then it's that players fault, the card can't be blamed. It's really easy to defend against RtI if it is not at stealth or unblockable. I think the main concerns were the unblockable combos, the proposed fix would remove that abuse. Also, burning a stolen vamp with RtI is also a lot more difficult as the action is easily blocked. Additionally, the "fixed" RtI is also a valuable card for Bruise&Bleed decks (block me or it'll hurt!). > Part of the problem here, of course, is that I don't think RtI was > ever 'fun to play with.' About as fun as Fireballing your opponent > for 20, as far as I can see. > > Josh > > not a big fan of overpowered cards You may be right, that the card with it's original text is way to powerful. But with the fix proposed, it is by no means devastating. Simply block the action. That's what the fix is for. No more unblockable oust-combos. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980812005133.3056B-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > >On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > > > >> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980811213357.686B-100000@amanda>, > >> Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > >> > > >> >One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once > >> >made between RTI and Golconda. > >> > > >> >Just add the following words, or something similar. > >> > > >> >"If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this > >> >action to fail." > >> > >> Interesting... but then you basically have a card that back bleeds for > >> 2, but costs you a vampire. Sounds like wallpaper to me. > > > >It will not cost you a vampire, because the action was not successful. > >Nor will you burn the 4 blood cost. > > > >However, you must still pay for any action modifiers, and Day Operation > >will still send you to torpor. > > Good point. Still, it's just a card that back bleeds for 2, or gives your > predator the option to oust your prey. Why would your predator ever > want to oust your prey (giving you 6 pool, a VP, and really screwing himself)? Maybe my predator has only one pool left Or maybe my predator has only 5 pool left, and my prey has 24, and so feels that the RTI is a good thing that will weaken both his prey and his grand prey. Maybe I'm playing RTI with one of my smaller vampires, and my predator feels this is not worth 2 pool to stop. Or maybe he feels that when one vampire is gone, he will be able to torporize the other with his rush deck and so completely cripple me. Of course, he may not know what I have in my hand, but thats how the game is played. It is in the most "abusive" situations, (such as an ousting bleed for 17 with an IC member) that the predator is most likely to take the 2 pool burn option. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980812060356.4886A-100000@amanda>, [ quoted text not captured ] Well, I won't argue that it can't be usefull, but if it's only usefull in the situations you describe it still looks like wallpaper to me (the only really viable possibility being if your predator has <=2 pool. You may as well just ban the card. For my money, I think the best (and simplest) change is to simply add the text "Always blockable as if at 0 stealth by any minion". [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis (jbwh...@dorsai.org) wrote: : One possible fix to RTI was suggested to me once by a comparison LSJ once : made between RTI and Golconda. : Just add the following words, or something similar. : "If this action not blocked, your predator may burn 2 pool to cause this : action to fail." This is clever. I kinda like it. It would definitely lessen the abusability, although it still puts the RTI-victim at the mercy of someone else's interpretation of how the game should go. Josh mercy, pure and simple

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: : Then why isn't it fixed with "Bleed at +X, where X is the vamps's capacity : halfed down, rounded up."? Sounds pretty simple to me if only the +X bleed : concerns you. Well, that would certainly make it closer to balanced. With rounding up, it would only be 3 times as effective as Govern the Unaligned for an IC member (+6 bleed) and twice as effective for a 7/8-cap vamp (+4 bleed). : However, I don't think that the card is broken if no cards whatsoever can : be played until the action is concluded. This means, the action is not : unblockable, is not at stealth, and cannot be pushed by further bleed : modifiers. If the action is successful the vamp is still burnt, but it : wouldn't circumvent the costs for DayOp or Daring the Dawn! And if a player : makes a tactical mistake and gets tapped out before his predator gets in : for the kill with RtI, then it's that players fault, the card can't be : blamed. It's really easy to defend against RtI if it is not at stealth or : unblockable. Sure the card can be blamed. It's an action card requiring no disciplines, requiring no other cards to combo with it to produce its large game- swinging effect. Someone can pull out RtI as the only +bleed card in their deck, after spending the entire beginning of the game calling votes that you can't block (because you're not playing an intercept deck). It's hard to say it was a tactical mistake to be tapped out in such a case. : I think the main concerns were the unblockable combos, the proposed fix would : remove that abuse. Also, burning a stolen vamp with RtI is also a lot more : difficult as the action is easily blocked. : Additionally, the "fixed" RtI is also a valuable card for Bruise&Bleed : decks (block me or it'll hurt!). RtI has always been a more valuable card for decks that try to abuse it than 'normal' decks. A bruise&bleed deck usually wants to be able to keep taking actions with several vampires each turn. Burning a vamp for one large bleed is probably not as useful as keeping the vamp around to do several smaller bleeds, for a bruise&bleed deck. So, due to the high cost (especially the burning a vamp part) and huge effect of RtI, I think it's very dubious that it can ever be balanced while remaining anything close to faithful to its original text or intent. As it was written, the card demands to be abused, or else not used at all. : You may be right, that the card with it's original text is way to : powerful. But with the fix proposed, it is by no means devastating. : Simply block the action. That's what the fix is for. No more : unblockable oust-combos. Certainly the no-action-mods fix makes it *less* powerful. But nothing that allows such a massive bleed can avoid being *excessively* powerful. Consider Misdirection, RtI. To avoid that, you need to be playing a deck with Wakes (or Sudden Reversals). The problem is that RtI's bleed is just *too big*. As long as it's so large, it can't help being too close to "D: Oust your prey", as far as I'm concerned. Josh yeah, stubborn like a fox!

[ quoted text not captured ] >Then why isn't it fixed with "Bleed at +X, where X is the vamps's capacity >halfed down, rounded up."? Sounds pretty simple to me if only the +X bleed >concerns you. > >However, I don't think that the card is broken if no cards whatsoever can >be played until the action is concluded. This means, the action is not >unblockable, is not at stealth, and cannot be pushed by further bleed >modifiers. If the action is successful the vamp is still burnt, but it >wouldn't circumvent the costs for DayOp or Daring the Dawn! And if a player >makes a tactical mistake and gets tapped out before his predator gets in >for the kill with RtI, then it's that players fault, the card can't be >blamed. It's really easy to defend against RtI if it is not at stealth or >unblockable. > >I think the main concerns were the unblockable combos, the proposed fix would >remove that abuse. Also, burning a stolen vamp with RtI is also a lot more >difficult as the action is easily blocked. > >Additionally, the "fixed" RtI is also a valuable card for Bruise&Bleed >decks (block me or it'll hurt!). > >> Part of the problem here, of course, is that I don't think RtI was >> ever 'fun to play with.' About as fun as Fireballing your opponent >> for 20, as far as I can see. >> >> Josh >> >> not a big fan of overpowered cards > >You may be right, that the card with it's original text is way to >powerful. But with the fix proposed, it is by no means devastating. >Simply block the action. That's what the fix is for. No more >unblockable oust-combos. > >-Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum > > > > Actually the way my house rule works, Bruise and bleed decks would not be able to use it because the Vampire would not be able to use disciplines until the action's conclusion, (after combat). The only use for it would be concoction of vitality, Rebekka, or a prey that had NO bolocking capability

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: : In article <6qsol0$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, : du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: : > : > Well, that would certainly make it closer to balanced. With rounding : > up, it would only be 3 times as effective as Govern the Unaligned for : > an IC member (+6 bleed) and twice as effective for a 7/8-cap vamp (+4 : > bleed). : Okay, I got your point. Then let's round down. I wasn't really arguing agains the rounding up part; that's relatively unimportant. +5 bleed for IC (and +3 for 7-cap) isn't that big a change from +6/+4. And both are much better than +11/+7. What I'm trying to get at is that regardless of the 'toning down' done to RtI, it is still the biggest bleed card in the game, which makes it inherently suspect. [snip] : Sure, so we should ban the card? I don't think so. Perhaps we could : combine the +X/2 bleed _and_ "no action modifiers"? Though that is : a rather *big* change, I could live with that. ...All that said, I do think that +X/2 with no action modifiers would make RtI relatively hard to abuse. I wouldn't be wildly upset about seeing that as an actual rule. I would even consider it better than the current fix (the turn-delayed one). As for banning the card, yeah, I also prefer to fix cards rather than ban. I just think it's hard to fix this one properly while keeping at all close to its intent. : > RtI has always been a more valuable card for decks that try to abuse : > it than 'normal' decks. A bruise&bleed deck usually wants to be able : > to keep taking actions with several vampires each turn. Burning a : > vamp for one large bleed is probably not as useful as keeping the vamp : > around to do several smaller bleeds, for a bruise&bleed deck. : The idea is that your prey either blocks the RtI or is in deep trouble. : Most players rather block then get ousted. So you enter combat. And : if not, your prey is probably ousted and you got a well deserved VP. : Let's not forget: the acting vamp gets burned if Rti is successful. I know. That's part of the problem. The cost of RtI is so high that it seems to only be very useful if you can abuse it in some way. (As per the paragraph I wrote previously, below.) Note that with the +X/2 portion, most bruise-bleed decks wouldn't get more than +3 (or +4 at the most) bleed out of it - not really worth it compared to Govern the Unaligned or Legal Manipulations, which won't burn your vamp if you get through. : > So, due to the high cost (especially the burning a vamp part) and : > huge effect of RtI, I think it's very dubious that it can ever be : > balanced while remaining anything close to faithful to its original : > text or intent. As it was written, the card demands to be abused, : > or else not used at all. [this paragraph right here] That's why I think the only 'real' fixes are things like Lupus Australis' (I think it was him) proposal of 'The acting vampire's predator may burn 2 pool to cause this action to fail.' (The vampire is not burned and pays no blood.) [snip] : Bah, Misdirection is always a problem if you have no Wakes. A normal : bleed deck (like Tremere) tap you and bleed at will. You're out of the : game nonetheless. It just takes 2 vamps instead of one, and they are : still there after you are ousted. So what? : Sure the card IS useful, but it can be dealt with. Well, in my opinion, Misdirection is only a problem if there are actions that are overpowered. For many decks in many cases, Misdirection is relatively irrelevant because either they'll be tapping out every turn to take the actions that the deck is based on (Bum's Rush, Bleeds, Votes, whatever) or else it's a deck intended to block a lot, in which case it probably has substantial untaps. The only time Misdirection ends up hurting a lot is if the deck either relies on leaving minions untapped to block (a weenie deck without untaps, for example) or if the untappy-deck happens not to have untaps at the right time. My example of Misdirection here was intended just to point out that the 'there's always a defense if the action is always blockable, because you can just block' is not a very useful defense for a lot of decks. Decks that tap out every turn to take actions are fairly common in my experience. They don't necessarily want (in general) to leave vamps untapped for blocking, because the vamps will be less effective as blockers than as actors. If RtI makes it necessary for every deck to leave vamps untapped to block, because it'll still oust you if it gets through, even if it can't be made unblockable, it's still having an unacceptable impact on the game. (I think this is less likely to happen with RtI as +X/2 rather than +X. I just can't reiterate enough that the whole idea of a disciplineless card that produces the biggest bleed in the game is dubious at best.) Josh this perpetual motion machine is a joke! it just keeps going faster and faster!

Sigh, the RTI merry-go-round continues.... First, I apologize for snipping out all the comments that everyone has made so far. I generally think that the points you have all made are well thought out and easy to comprehend. Second, all of the suggestions I have read here on RTI fixes are far more intuitive and true to the original concept of the card than the 7/7 ruling. They also require far less errata. Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt with it. Fourth, I can somewhat see where others might view the card as a little overpowered. Hell, lots of people feel that way (judging by the posts in the NG). Fifth, I'm willing to compromise. The 'new card' below is the one that I would offer to my play group as a house rule if RTI ever became a big issue with us. OLD CARD Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood Requires a ready vampire. (D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. Burn this vampire if this action is successful. Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon NEW CARD Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood Requires a ready vampire. (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. The acting vampire cannot use, or receive the benefit of; equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration of this action. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the game if this action is successful. Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon (Assuming no skill cards on the IC in question) Inner Circle w/RTI: RTI + D.Ops Bleed = 11 = 11 Inner Circle w/DOM: GU + D.Ops + Cond. Bleed = 3+2+3 = 8 - keep vamp for next turn. - max. possible is 9? (using that other DOM action mod. card) Pro's: Far less abusive than the original. Much easier to play with than the 7/7. Far less errata. Still retains concept of original. Still retains much of the text layout of the original. Remove rather than burn. (a small point to be sure) Con's: 'Benefit' concept. Tapping the Barrens benefits the Methuselah while tapping the Elysium benefits the vampire. This concept could be tricky for some. Still a very large bleed. Note that the 'Max X' bleed could still have a bleed modifier played on it (maybe you anticipate a flurry of Tele. Counters), the bleed is just reduced to its card dictated maximum. Regardless. This is the fix I would propose for my playgroup. Your comments are welcome, in fact I encourage them. Thanks, Jaysen

Jaysen Knight wrote: > > NEW CARD > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > acting vampire. The acting vampire cannot use, or receive the > benefit of; equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration > of this action. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from > the game if this action is successful. > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > Pro's: Far less abusive than the original. If you say so; it can still be made unblockable, and is still a bleed for X, putting it far above any other bleed card. > Much easier to play with than the 7/7. Far less errata. I'd say this is pretty moot. If you're going to change a card significantly (and this _is_ a significant change over the original), I don't see how these shades of grey really matter. One complete rewording is the same as another for me; as long as the change makes the card not abusive any longer. > Still retains concept of original. As does 7/7. Moot. > Still retains much of the text layout of the original. So? Moot. The text layout may be the same, but it's still an entirely different card (e.g. limits the maximum amount of the bleed, uses the possibly ambiguous phrase "receive benefit from", etc.). > Remove rather than burn. (a small point to be sure) This was in the 6/23 rulings and no one seemed to mind. Moot. > Con's: 'Benefit' concept. Tapping the Barrens benefits the > Methuselah while tapping the Elysium benefits the vampire. > This concept could be tricky for some. Who would it be tricky for? I'd say everybody. There's a difference between what you think "receives benefit from" means and what it means in the rules. If a card like this were actually in print, you'd get five people a day asking what the hell that phrase meant. > Still a very large bleed. Note that the 'Max X' bleed could still > have a bleed modifier played on it (maybe you anticipate a flurry of > Tele. Counters), the bleed is just reduced to its card dictated > maximum. ...and, as I said above, can still be made unblockable. Maxing the bleed at X is about the only worthwhile thing this fix does, and even X is far too big. Just there should never be a "Bleed at +3" card, there should not be a "Bleed for +X" or even "Bleed for a max. of X" card, since this just screams "abuse me!". James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "All the headless corpses / where do they all come from?"

In article <35D39BB0...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: > >Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of >our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed >mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt >with it. I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6quvn7$7...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, du...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu (Joshua Duffin) wrote: > ...All that said, I do think that +X/2 with no action modifiers would > make RtI relatively hard to abuse. I wouldn't be wildly upset about > seeing that as an actual rule. I would even consider it better than > the current fix (the turn-delayed one). As for banning the card, yeah, > I also prefer to fix cards rather than ban. I just think it's hard to > fix this one properly while keeping at all close to its intent. You have to keep in mind, that I also want ToR to be fixed with the permanent -1 counters. If ToR is fixed that way, IC-members aren't likely to have 11 cap. but rather less. ;) So the RtI bleed is per se less. IMO, _both_ cards have to be fixed to effectively balance the game. Of course, there will still be vamps that don't have -1 counters and still be 10 or 11 cap. Therefore I believe that RtI would be properly fixed if a) no action modifiers (whether from the acting minion or any other minion) may be played _and_ b) the bleed is at +X, where X is the vamp's halfed capacity, rounded *up*. Rounding up takes into account that - Tomb is -1 fixed - no Action Modifiers can be played - the bleed is at X/2 instead of X > > : > RtI has always been a more valuable card for decks that try to abuse > : > it than 'normal' decks. A bruise&bleed deck usually wants to be able > : > to keep taking actions with several vampires each turn. Burning a > : > vamp for one large bleed is probably not as useful as keeping the vamp > : > around to do several smaller bleeds, for a bruise&bleed deck. > > : The idea is that your prey either blocks the RtI or is in deep trouble. > : Most players rather block then get ousted. So you enter combat. And > : if not, your prey is probably ousted and you got a well deserved VP. > : Let's not forget: the acting vamp gets burned if Rti is successful. > > I know. That's part of the problem. The cost of RtI is so high > that it seems to only be very useful if you can abuse it in some way. > (As per the paragraph I wrote previously, below.) Note that with > the +X/2 portion, most bruise-bleed decks wouldn't get more than +3 > (or +4 at the most) bleed out of it - not really worth it compared > to Govern the Unaligned or Legal Manipulations, which won't burn > your vamp if you get through. You are probably right on this point. But I don't care. I think that real bruise&bleed or rush is anyway powerful. So if they have one card (=RtI) less to work with, is that really a drawback? > > : > So, due to the high cost (especially the burning a vamp part) and > : > huge effect of RtI, I think it's very dubious that it can ever be > : > balanced while remaining anything close to faithful to its original > : > text or intent. As it was written, the card demands to be abused, > : > or else not used at all. > > [this paragraph right here] > > That's why I think the only 'real' fixes are things like Lupus > Australis' (I think it was him) proposal of 'The acting vampire's > predator may burn 2 pool to cause this action to fail.' (The vampire > is not burned and pays no blood.) Hm, I'm still not sure if I *really* like that fix. This way someone else gets to decide whether a player takes the (still) full brunt of RtI. (Just thinking loud): What if we make RtI no act.mods, X/2, _and_ predator burns 2 pool to cancel? I assume that would make the card really wallpaper, and it's actually a rewording though there are only additions to the text, no "rewording" as such. But the cost to cancel the card seems right. Has the predator to decide to cancel as RtI is played (like a D.I.) or can he wait until the action has resolved? [ quoted text not captured ] The only difference would be that pre 7/7, you had to have bleed bounces to defend. Now, you can *block* it if you want. (I mean with my proposed fix.) And it hurts only half that much as before. IMO, the 7/7 fix is a joke. It aims at making rush decks stronger. That's the wrong way. The right way would be to fix RtI with a combination of some or all of the 3 ideas presented so far. _And_, ToR has to be fixed with the -1 counters. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35D39BB0...@internorth.com>, jay...@compusmart.ab.ca wrote: > Sigh, the RTI merry-go-round continues.... > > First, I apologize for snipping out all the comments that everyone has > made so far. I generally think that the points you have all made are > well thought out and easy to comprehend. > > Second, all of the suggestions I have read here on RTI fixes are far > more intuitive and true to the original concept of the card than the > 7/7 ruling. They also require far less errata. > > Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of > our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed > mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt > with it. I suspect this depends on your houserules (CL perhaps?) and players style. > > Fourth, I can somewhat see where others might view the card as a > little overpowered. Hell, lots of people feel that way (judging > by the posts in the NG). > > Fifth, I'm willing to compromise. The 'new card' below is the one > that I would offer to my play group as a house rule if RTI ever became > a big issue with us. > > OLD CARD > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > acting vampire. Burn this vampire if this action is successful. > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > NEW CARD > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > acting vampire. The acting vampire cannot use, or receive the > benefit of; equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration > of this action. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from > the game if this action is successful. > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon Don't want to be rude, but: Hmpf! :) No, really, your compromise is not very useful. What does it accomplish? Maximum bleed is X. Okay, but then you don't need the sentence with the equipment, location, retainer. > > (Assuming no skill cards on the IC in question) > Inner Circle w/RTI: RTI + D.Ops Bleed = 11 = 11 > Inner Circle w/DOM: GU + D.Ops + Cond. Bleed = 3+2+3 = 8 > - keep vamp for next turn. > - max. possible is 9? (using that other DOM action mod. card) This means, an IC can still play Conditioning? This would be a bleed for 14. That's too high!! And it is unblockable (DayOp). Result: oust your prey unless bleed bounce. That's the old problem. Ack! (just wanted to be a bit rude, sorry :) > > Pro's: Far less abusive than the original. falsch > Much easier to play with than the 7/7. Far less errata. falsch > Still retains concept of original. richtig > Still retains much of the text layout of the original. falsch > Remove rather than burn. (a small point to be sure) gut > > Con's: 'Benefit' concept. Tapping the Barrens benefits the Methuselah > while tapping the Elysium benefits the vampire. This > concept could be tricky for some. Hahh???? > Still a very large bleed. Note that the 'Max X' bleed could > still have a bleed modifier played on it (maybe you > anticipate a flurry of Tele. Counters), the bleed is > just reduced to its card dictated maximum. Then you can leave the card as is. Insignificant difference. > > Regardless. This is the fix I would propose for my playgroup. Your > comments are welcome, in fact I encourage them. Okay, I made enough sensless remarks. <Sobering> Can you tell me the reasoning behind that fix, perhaps with a historical background? [ quoted text not captured ]

CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: : You have to keep in mind, that I also want ToR to be fixed with the : permanent -1 counters. If ToR is fixed that way, IC-members aren't : likely to have 11 cap. but rather less. ;) : So the RtI bleed is per se less. IMO, _both_ cards have to be fixed : to effectively balance the game. Of course, there will still be vamps : that don't have -1 counters and still be 10 or 11 cap. : Therefore I believe that RtI would be properly fixed if a) no action : modifiers (whether from the acting minion or any other minion) may be : played _and_ b) the bleed is at +X, where X is the vamp's halfed : capacity, rounded *up*. : Rounding up takes into account that : - Tomb is -1 fixed : - no Action Modifiers can be played : - the bleed is at X/2 instead of X Yeah, fixed ToR does help in that respect. Rounding up is fine with me. : > I know. That's part of the problem. The cost of RtI is so high : > that it seems to only be very useful if you can abuse it in some way. : > (As per the paragraph I wrote previously, below.) Note that with : > the +X/2 portion, most bruise-bleed decks wouldn't get more than +3 : > (or +4 at the most) bleed out of it - not really worth it compared : > to Govern the Unaligned or Legal Manipulations, which won't burn : > your vamp if you get through. : You are probably right on this point. But I don't care. I think that : real bruise&bleed or rush is anyway powerful. So if they have one : card (=RtI) less to work with, is that really a drawback? Well, no, I'm just saying that RtI was never a very good bruise-bleed card (in my opinion) because the cost of RtI has always been too high unless you have some way to abuse it. : > That's why I think the only 'real' fixes are things like Lupus : > Australis' (I think it was him) proposal of 'The acting vampire's : > predator may burn 2 pool to cause this action to fail.' (The vampire : > is not burned and pays no blood.) : Hm, I'm still not sure if I *really* like that fix. This way someone : else gets to decide whether a player takes the (still) full brunt of RtI. : (Just thinking loud): What if we make RtI no act.mods, X/2, _and_ predator : burns 2 pool to cancel? I assume that would make the card really wallpaper, : and it's actually a rewording though there are only additions to the text, : no "rewording" as such. : But the cost to cancel the card seems right. Has the predator to decide : to cancel as RtI is played (like a D.I.) or can he wait until the action : has resolved? If it had all three drawbacks, it would end up pretty balanced as far as I'm concerned. But I suspect that a lot of the people who liked old RtI would really hate the 'predator may cancel' part, and it would be basically okay with me if it didn't make the cut, if both no action mods and X/2 were in effect. My take on cancellation timing was that the predator could decide to cancel at any time while the action was still taking place, ie as long as the victim hasn't burned the pool yet. : > If RtI makes it necessary for every deck to leave vamps untapped : > to block, because it'll still oust you if it gets through, even if : > it can't be made unblockable, it's still having an unacceptable : > impact on the game. (I think this is less likely to happen with : > RtI as +X/2 rather than +X. I just can't reiterate enough that : > the whole idea of a disciplineless card that produces the biggest : > bleed in the game is dubious at best.) : The only difference would be that pre 7/7, you had to have bleed bounces : to defend. Now, you can *block* it if you want. (I mean with my proposed : fix.) And it hurts only half that much as before. Well, clearly the no action mods fix is better than no fix at all. I just didn't think it was enough by itself. : IMO, the 7/7 fix is a joke. It aims at making rush decks stronger. That's : the wrong way. I don't find it the most satisfying either. : The right way would be to fix RtI with a combination of some or all : of the 3 ideas presented so far. _And_, ToR has to be fixed with the -1 : counters. :) Yeah, I agree on the ToR part. (Although as ToR is currently, it doesn't have to get the -1 counter fix for RtI to be fixed this way - the current fix is even weaker than the -1 counters (in my opinion), so it's even less of a problem in helping to create excessive IC members.) Josh I'm still big... it's the bootlegs that got small

> You have to keep in mind, that I also want ToR to be fixed with the > permanent -1 counters. If ToR is fixed that way, IC-members aren't > likely to have 11 cap. but rather less. ;) > So the RtI bleed is per se less. IMO, _both_ cards have to be fixed > to effectively balance the game. Of course, there will still be vamps > that don't have -1 counters and still be 10 or 11 cap. > Therefore I believe that RtI would be properly fixed if a) no action > modifiers (whether from the acting minion or any other minion) may be > played _and_ b) the bleed is at +X, where X is the vamp's halfed > capacity, rounded *up*. > Rounding up takes into account that > - Tomb is -1 fixed > - no Action Modifiers can be played > - the bleed is at X/2 instead of X > Well, I think if the bleed is at X/2(rounded down, preferrably), it is balanced. With Mind Rape and Tomb fixed, vampires are not to be tossed around willy-nilly. (Did I just use the word "willy-nilly?" Who says that?) Even an I.C. member would only get +5 bleed out of it. And since such a huge +bleed requires a big vamp, it's almost the same as a discipline card. I'd agree to it with the "no Action Modifiers" tacked on, but I don't think it's necessary. Losing a vampire for only +4 bleed or so is no longer broken, IMO. > > I know. That's part of the problem. The cost of RtI is so high > > that it seems to only be very useful if you can abuse it in some way. > > (As per the paragraph I wrote previously, below.) Note that with > > the +X/2 portion, most bruise-bleed decks wouldn't get more than +3 > > (or +4 at the most) bleed out of it - not really worth it compared > > to Govern the Unaligned or Legal Manipulations, which won't burn > > your vamp if you get through. > > You are probably right on this point. But I don't care. I think that > real bruise&bleed or rush is anyway powerful. So if they have one > card (=RtI) less to work with, is that really a drawback? > Well, the idea is, RtI shouldn't be completely wallpaper. Wallpaper is certainly preferrably to the hideous state pre-7/7, but it'd be better to leave RtI as a powerful card, but not broken. And leaving it with approximately the same mechanics/intentions as the original card is always a plus. > > > > That's why I think the only 'real' fixes are things like Lupus > > Australis' (I think it was him) proposal of 'The acting vampire's > > predator may burn 2 pool to cause this action to fail.' (The vampire > > is not burned and pays no blood.) > > Hm, I'm still not sure if I *really* like that fix. This way someone > else gets to decide whether a player takes the (still) full brunt of RtI. > (Just thinking loud): What if we make RtI no act.mods, X/2, _and_ predator > burns 2 pool to cancel? I assume that would make the card really wallpaper, > and it's actually a rewording though there are only additions to the text, > no "rewording" as such. > But the cost to cancel the card seems right. Has the predator to decide > to cancel as RtI is played (like a D.I.) or can he wait until the action > has resolved? > How about not letting the predator choose. What if the person *bled* by Return to Innocence could pay 2 pool to cancel the bleed? Thus, you wouldn't end up paying the high cost, etc. You might look at this and say, "well duh... of course they'll pay, that's useless." But, let's compare it to Computer Hacking, shall we? Assuming that the 2 pool will be paid every time... Computer Hacking will result in a bleed for 2, this may be modified by other bleed cards, but may be lowered with Telepathic Counter and that one Chimerstry card. Further, you can get Major Booned by your predator, always a bad thing when it happens. It will also get you the Edge. This version of Return to Innocence will cause a loss of 2 pool which may not be modified by other bleed cards and may not be Telepathically Countered or Major Booned. If you're not playing a bleed discipline, this version seems just slightly better than Computer Hacking (if the 2 pool is always paid). If you *are* playing a bleed discipline, get some balls and use a real (D)bleed card; don't bother with Computer Hacking or RtI. If the 2 pool is not paid, you end up bleeding for a bunch and losing a vamp. This would make it a risky proposition to use RtI with a 4 cap (your prey might just take the bleed for 5, and make you lose your vampire), but if you have the right cards in your hand, you may be able to psyche your prey into taking a big bleed, while you have the capacity to benefit (Possession, Redeem the Lost Soul, etc...). And the best part... this adds very little text to the original and still has the same general mechanics. Alternately, perhaps make the player pay 3 pool to cancel the bleed instead of 2. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi James, Please don't think I am being rude here for not answering your post specifically. Please see my response to Carl's post on the NG (hope you get it) as it answers many of the same points you had. And yes, the whole 'benefits' thing sucks. (Actually, the concept is good - the reality of implementation is what sucks). Jaysen James Hamblin wrote: > Jaysen Knight wrote: > > > > NEW CARD > > > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > > Requires a ready vampire. > > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > > acting vampire. The acting vampire cannot use, or receive the > > benefit of; equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration > > of this action. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from > > the game if this action is successful. > > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > > > Pro's: Far less abusive than the original. > > If you say so; it can still be made unblockable, and is still a bleed > for X, putting it far above any other bleed card. > > > Much easier to play with than the 7/7. Far less errata. > > I'd say this is pretty moot. If you're going to change a card > significantly (and this _is_ a significant change over the original), I > don't see how these shades of grey really matter. One complete > rewording is the same as another for me; as long as the change makes the > card not abusive any longer. > > > Still retains concept of original. > > As does 7/7. Moot. > > > Still retains much of the text layout of the original. > > So? Moot. The text layout may be the same, but it's still an entirely > different card (e.g. limits the maximum amount of the bleed, uses the > possibly ambiguous phrase "receive benefit from", etc.). > > > Remove rather than burn. (a small point to be sure) > > This was in the 6/23 rulings and no one seemed to mind. Moot. > > > Con's: 'Benefit' concept. Tapping the Barrens benefits the > > Methuselah while tapping the Elysium benefits the vampire. > > This concept could be tricky for some. > > Who would it be tricky for? I'd say everybody. There's a difference > between what you think "receives benefit from" means and what it means > in the rules. If a card like this were actually in print, you'd get > five people a day asking what the hell that phrase meant. > > > Still a very large bleed. Note that the 'Max X' bleed could still > > have a bleed modifier played on it (maybe you anticipate a flurry of > > Tele. Counters), the bleed is just reduced to its card dictated > > maximum. > [ quoted text not captured ]

Hi Carl, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > <snip> all of my other crap. > > > > Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of > > our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed > > mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt > > with it. > > I suspect this depends on your houserules (CL perhaps?) and players > style. > No card limits here. How could one play that way? Please don'tanyone respond to that seriously (we go through that thread once a month anyways). > > > > <snip> more crap. > > > > OLD CARD > > > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > > Requires a ready vampire. > > (D) Bleed your prey with +X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > > acting vampire. Burn this vampire if this action is successful. > > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > > > NEW CARD > > > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > > Requires a ready vampire. > > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > > acting vampire. The acting vampire cannot use, or receive the > > benefit of; equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration > > of this action. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from > > the game if this action is successful. > > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > Don't want to be rude, but: Hmpf! :) > No, really, your compromise is not very useful. What does it accomplish? > Maximum bleed is X. Okay, but then you don't need the sentence with the > equipment, location, retainer. Yeah, I knew the whole 'benefit' thing was trouble - but hey, hadto throw it out there. Here are the only two places where my playgroup has found RTI to be somewhat obnoxious: 1) In combo with Soul Gem or Mind Rape. Mind Rape needs its own fix. 2) Non-bleed discipline decks. No PRE or DOM usually means no big bleeds. RTI gets around this. My playgroup doesn't find this too bad, but I am not so sure I like it. I once put a single RTI in my Wynn Rush deck, got the card on my first draw and discarded it. My prey kept an AI in his hand for almost the entire game - kind of funny. Anyways, the whole equipment thing is meant to stop Soul Gem and the Concoction (mainly the Soul Gem though). Try this: 1) Burn all equipment, location, and retainer cards attached to this vampire. (may not solve the Concoction problem) or 2) The acting vampire cannot use equipment, location, or retainer cards for the duration of this action. This is also a future looking thing, if there ever was an expansion (ok, stop laughing) could we really trust WOTC to not put in some locquipment ot retainer that could create another abusive RTI/Soul Gem combo? > > > > (Assuming no skill cards on the IC in question) > > Inner Circle w/RTI: RTI + D.Ops Bleed = 11 = 11 > > Inner Circle w/DOM: GU + D.Ops + Cond. Bleed = 3+2+3 = 8 > > - keep vamp for next turn. > > - max. possible is 9? (using that other DOM action mod. card) > > This means, an IC can still play Conditioning? This would be a bleed for > 14. That's too high!! And it is unblockable (DayOp). Result: oust your > prey unless bleed bounce. That's the old problem. Ack! (just wanted to be > a bit rude, sorry :) Ummm no. Sure you can play the Cond., max bleed is still X. Youbig rude mean guy you, ahhh maybe I'll get over it. > > > > Pro's: Far less abusive than the original. > falsch > > Much easier to play with than the 7/7. Far less errata. > falsch > > Still retains concept of original. > richtig > > Still retains much of the text layout of the original. > falsch > > Remove rather than burn. (a small point to be sure) > gut > > > > Con's: 'Benefit' concept. Tapping the Barrens benefits the Methuselah > > while tapping the Elysium benefits the vampire. This > > concept could be tricky for some. > > Hahh???? Yeah, yeah. I know. > > Still a very large bleed. Note that the 'Max X' bleed could > > still have a bleed modifier played on it (maybe you > > anticipate a flurry of Tele. Counters), the bleed is > > just reduced to its card dictated maximum. > > Then you can leave the card as is. Insignificant difference. Very significant difference. Especially with non-IC members. Basic (common) scenario's with old card and new card results. 8 cap vamp with natural +1 bleed, for/DOM or PRE & best act. mod. OLD card = 2+8+3 = 13 bleed (plus whatever equips, masters, etc) NEW card = 8 bleed 8 cap vamp with natural +1 bleed, for/DOM or PRE but no RTI GTU+Day Ops+Cond. = 4+3 = 7 bleed (plus equips, masters, etc) IC member with for/DOM or PRE. OLD card = 3+11+3 = 17 bleed (plus equips, etc.) NEW card = 11 bleed The difference is even more pronounced with smaller cap vamps. > > > > Regardless. This is the fix I would propose for my playgroup. Your > > comments are welcome, in fact I encourage them. > > Okay, I made enough sensless remarks. <Sobering> Can you tell me the > reasoning behind that fix, perhaps with a historical background? My own personal take on the RTI thing? Ok. Things I don't like about original RTI: - Combo with Soul Gem and Mind Rape (as mentioned above). To a lesser extent you can include the ToR III here. - Potential for HUMONGOUS bleed. A bleed of 7/8 is bad, a bleed of 11 is really bad. A basic bleed (IC member) of 14 plus act. mods plus equipments/locations/masters/retainers? That goes beyond bad. - Small vamps getting huge bleeds. A 6 cap w/GTU and Cond. does a 6 pl. bleed. With RTI and Cond. the same vamp is doing 10? This is where I find RTI most abusive. 6 cap vamps are almost recyclable - on the 3rd and 5th turn of the game I can bleed you for 20 on a basic investment of 12? I don't like that. The max. bleed concept changes the investment to return equation significantly. The only time unblockability becomes abusive is when the action is abusive, so I don't have too many problems with Day Ops, etc. But I can see the problems with Mind Rape, RTI, etc. as the game has expanded. I guess that for me it works like this: I don't mind the big vamp going out in a blaze of glory - I just don't think it has to be a Supernova. Jaysen > -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum Try this: Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood Requires a ready vampire. (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the game if this action is successful. Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon Let's just get rid of that 'benefit' concept shall we? :)

Jasper Phillips wrote: > In article <35D39BB0...@internorth.com>, > Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: > > > >Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of > >our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed > >mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt > >with it. > > I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? A lot of different ways I guess. One game he got screwed by a Tremere Cryptic Mission/Banishment deck. One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) One game he got screwed by the good old pre/obf deck (you know - Lena/Hadrian/Nepata and all other pre weenies). These are the ones that come from memory. He did win a game or two with it (I had a 13 game run once with a Settite corruption deck, so a two or three game run for his deck is pretty modest), and it was a good deck - the games were always interesting and always close. Jaysen 'I must have used up all my luck on that one 13 game streak because boy have I sucked wind since then' Knight [ quoted text not captured ]

Jaysen Knight wrote: > > Return to Innocence, The Action 4 blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the capacity of the > acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all equipment, > location, or retainer cards attached to the acting vampire. The > maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the game if this > action is successful. The only thing that this really affects is Concoction of Vitality. But the action can still be made unblockable, and it's still a bleed for X, both of which are very bad things. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r1klv$ii2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <ber...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote: [RtI fix] >> - the bleed is at X/2 instead of X Wouldn't it be simpler to just say: "Bleed at +4. No action modifiers may be played on this action. If successful, remove this vampire from the game." (+4, because it costs 4 blood.) Personally, I'd rather just dump the card entirely, though if I had to design it from scratch I'd probably do something like: Return to Innocence Action 2 blood Bleed at +2; you may not increase this bleed with action modifiers. -- Justin Fang (jus...@ugcs.caltech.edu) This space intentionally left blank.

In article <35D48455...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [talk about "dealing" with RtI snipped] >> I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? > >A lot of different ways I guess. > >One game he got screwed by a Tremere Cryptic Mission/Banishment deck. > >One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) > >One game he got screwed by the good old pre/obf deck (you know - > Lena/Hadrian/Nepata and all other pre weenies). Seems like a weak RtI deck, to be honest. Cryptic Banishment is funny, but not exactly strong (it certainly won't oust you like Unblockable RtIs with others Vampires, Soul Gems, etc), Animalism Rush is a joke (You played Majesty? I go home), and pre/obf weenie bleed is annoying, but hardly going to stop oust someone before they get their IC out with the Tomb and unblockably bleed. >These are the ones that come from memory. He did win a game or >two with it (I had a 13 game run once with a Settite corruption >deck, so a two or three game run for his deck is pretty modest), >and it was a good deck - the games were always interesting and >always close. > >Jaysen 'I must have used up all my luck on that one 13 game streak >because boy have I sucked wind since then' Knight You won 13 straight with a _corruption_ deck!? I've never heard of anyone winning 13 straight with _any_ deck (I'll be really amazed if you were playing with the old tournament rules, and ousted players cards all disappeared).. [ quoted text not captured ]

In case anyone gets confused, we're talking about the following proposed RTI fix: Add the line "If this action remains unblocked, your predator may pay 2 pool to cause this action to fail." On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > >It is in the most "abusive" situations, (such as an ousting bleed for 17 > >with an IC member) that the predator is most likely to take the 2 pool > >burn option. > > Well, I won't argue that it can't be usefull, but if it's only usefull > in the situations you describe it still looks like wallpaper to me > (the only really viable possibility being if your predator has <=2 pool. > You may as well just ban the card. I think you are so familiar with how RTI was normally played, that you have given no thought to how it *would* be played if this fix were adopted. There are lots of reasons why your predator would agree to let the RTI go through. One of them is, of course, that stopping it costs 2 pool. Another reason is that a successful RTI gives your predator something he wants: the destruction of one of your vampires. The destruction of a vampire is a high cost to pay. So I play RTI saying to my predator "I have damaged my prey, but I'm also damaging myself as well, which is something *you* want." The problem with old RTI is that high cost (destruction of a vampire) is easily circumvented by a number of ways: 1) One means of circumventing this cost was that old RTI was *never* used unless the action would oust prey if successful. It made less sense to use the card at other times, so it was always saved until preys pool was low enough. But when it was used to oust prey, the destruction of your own vampire was repaid by the gaining of 6 pool, (which could be used to bring out another vampire). It was never used when prey had enough pool to take the bleed, since the cost would not thereby be circumvented. With the above fix, however, the ousting will not meet the approval of my predator, who will stop it if he can. Thus, I am not likely to try that tactic. I am far more likely to attempt RTI bleeds that will leave my prey standing. In doing so, I take a risk, since I do not directly oust my prey, and have damaged myself. You see the difference? Destruction of one of my vampires in exchange for significant pool loss for my prey can be a fair exchange (and my predator might actually think this is to his benefit). Destruction of a vampire in exchange for destruction of a Methuselah is NOT fair. You directly gain a victory point AND 6 pool. No vampire is worth that much. 2) Another way of circumventing the cost of RTI was by means of Minion Tap. The bigger the vampire, the greater the portion of his cost you can recover before using RTI. You spend 11 to bring him out, but then you Minion Tap to recover 6, recovering half his cost before destroying him. This meant that RTI was always used with the biggest vampires possible. No-one played RTI with 4 capacity vampires, since the entire cost of the vampire always had to be sacrificed. This would change with the above fix, because if I go too far to circumvent the cost, then my predator has no reason to allow it to happen. On the other hand, I could bring out my IC member, with him still at capacity, have him bleed for +11, severely damaging my prey, but not immediately ousting him. Should my predator pay 2 pool to stop me? Why? I have paid 11 pool to do +11 damage to my prey, so I have arguably damaged myself just as much as he. If my predator feels he has a good chance of finishing me off before I finish off my prey, then he has no reason to stop me. Also, if I play RTI with a 4 capacity minion, why would my predator want to pay 2 pool to save my minion and restore 5 pool to some other methuselah (unless the move would oust my prey and gain me 6)? 3) A third way of circumventing the cost of RTI is by using it to circumvent the cost of another card: Day Operation. Day Operation is a powerful card with a serious cost, but that serious cost was meaningless when used with (old) RTI. With the above fix, this cost cannot be circumvented. Playing RTI with Day Operation merely gives your predator the opportunity to pay 2 pool to send your vampire to torpor tapped, while still causing your action to fail. 4) A fourth way of circumventing the cost of RTI is by means of the Soul Gem of Etrius, which gets you a younger vampire, filled to capacity, in exchange for the one you destroyed, thus offsetting the cost by up to 10 blood points. This will no longer work, as predator has no reason to agree. So you see, one can still bleed with RTI with the proposed fix, but only so long as one does not use the usual tactics to circumvent the cost. If a 12 capacity IC member, minion tapped to 6 pool, with a soul gem plays RTI with conditioning and Day Operation for 18 bleed to his prey, ousting him because he has only 17, gaining 6 pool, a victory point, and a brand new IC member filled to capacity who will be Minion Tapped next turn...well, of course my predator will willingly pay 2 pool to stop that AS WELL HE SHOULD. However if I do not try these abusive tactics, my RTI can indeed be more than just a back bleed for 2. The trick is doing it in such a manner as to make it LOOK to my predator that I am damaging myself almost as much as my prey. Of course, I still might think I know better, cause he doesn't know what cards I have. Then again, he might think he knows better than me because I don't know what cards he has (such as maybe a Pentex Subversion and plenty of bum's rush and combat cards to take out my few remaining vampires and leave me at his mercy). This aspect would exist even if cancelling the RTI cost only one pool...or even nothing at all. Indeed, the proposed fix has the potential to turn this tedious card into something somewhat interesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980814194112.29646C-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: >On 12 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >It is in the most "abusive" situations, (such as an ousting bleed for 17 >> >with an IC member) that the predator is most likely to take the 2 pool >> >burn option. >> >> Well, I won't argue that it can't be usefull, but if it's only usefull >> in the situations you describe it still looks like wallpaper to me >> (the only really viable possibility being if your predator has <=2 pool. >> You may as well just ban the card. > >I think you are so familiar with how RTI was normally played, that you >have given no thought to how it *would* be played if this fix were >adopted. Actually, we never allowed RtI. >There are lots of reasons why your predator would agree to let the RTI go >through. One of them is, of course, that stopping it costs 2 pool. >Another reason is that a successful RTI gives your predator something he >wants: the destruction of one of your vampires. The destruction of a >vampire is a high cost to pay. So I play RTI saying to my predator "I >have damaged my prey, but I'm also damaging myself as well, which is >something *you* want." Except that RtI generally ousts your prey, so the choice becomes your prey loses a vampire (likely getting it back with the Soul Gem), and gains a VP + 6 pool, or you lose 2 pool. Leaving it in to, as you say later, only bleed your prey when he can take it and your predator won't mind is a very iffy proposition. I wouldn't use it. I understand exactly what it does, but I would rather have standard bleed cards that will actually help me when I'm doing well. IMHO, despite the points you make, such RtI would be wallpaper. [snip] [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35D48455...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@internorth.com> writes >> >Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of >> >our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed >> >mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt >> >with it. >> >> I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? > >A lot of different ways I guess. > >One game he got screwed by a Tremere Cryptic Mission/Banishment deck. > He's playing !Ven. He should have had some anti-vote and I'm wondering exactly how a deck doing that can be pulled off by the Tremere being as they are pretty shitty at votes. >One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) He's playing !Ven. He's playing unblockable RTI. He has fortitude in the deck. He doesn't need to hit back, just prevent until he gets a better chance. > >One game he got screwed by the good old pre/obf deck (you know - > Lena/Hadrian/Nepata and all other pre weenies). A little bounce perhaps, to hold them at bay, and he has vampires to block with of course, who aren't going to take much damage from this. -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

On 15 Aug 1998, Jasper Phillips wrote: > Actually, we never allowed RtI. Good for you. > >There are lots of reasons why your predator would agree to let the RTI go > >through. One of them is, of course, that stopping it costs 2 pool. > >Another reason is that a successful RTI gives your predator something he > >wants: the destruction of one of your vampires. The destruction of a > >vampire is a high cost to pay. So I play RTI saying to my predator "I > >have damaged my prey, but I'm also damaging myself as well, which is > >something *you* want." > Except that RtI generally ousts your prey, so the choice becomes your > prey loses a vampire (likely getting it back with the Soul Gem), and > gains a VP + 6 pool, or you lose 2 pool. Continued RTIs can cause continued pool losses. That 2 pool is something that I would be reluctant to pay unless the benefit to my prey appeared overwhelming. > Leaving it in to, as you > say later, only bleed your prey when he can take it and your predator > won't mind is a very iffy proposition. I wouldn't use it. Your predator doesn't have to just "not mind". He has to not mind enough to pay 2 pool to stop you. As a clanless, disciplineless bleed card, RTI should be no more powerful than, say, computer hacking. Would you pay 2 pool to cause a computer hacking action to fail? I doubt it. Even though it is of benefit to your prey in helping to oust HIS prey, it is not enough of a benefit to him that you would choose to take the pool loss INSTEAD of his prey. I doubt you would pay 2 pool for most predator actions. If you use RTI in such a manner that it causes you no more benefit than Computer Hacking -- such that it brings you closer to death by x, and your prey closer to death by x+2 -- then it still will not be worth it to your prey to burn 2 pool to stop you. I can still see it being a very powerful underdog card -- used to knock a giant down to size. When you get to a three player game, this can be a benefit to both you AND your predator, as you will be damaging his predator, and taking the pressure off him. If you put one in a deck, there is no guarantee that you will be able to use it. But if you do use it, you might well do so to great effect. > I understand exactly what it does, but I would rather have standard > bleed cards that will actually help me when I'm doing well. IMHO, > despite the points you make, such RtI would be wallpaper. Perhaps, but that for you would be no loss, in any case, since it was forbidden in your playgroup. When 2 players remain, the action, if successful, will cause 2 pool loss per action. It will be just as good as Computer Hacking in such circumstances, unless you do it with Beast and your prey decides it's worth an extra 6 pool to get rid of him. There may be something wrong with my analysis, but I suspect that, when there are more than 2 players remaining, the card is still at least as good as Computer Hacking, though analysis here becomes more difficult. The concept originally presented by LSJ, derived from the Golconda analogy, was that it was your prey who would have the option to burn 2 pool. This version makes it even more likely to be stopped, and it is clearly balanced compared to computer hacking, but ends up seeming like a glorified version of it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > In article <35D48455...@internorth.com>, > Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: > > [talk about "dealing" with RtI snipped] > > >> I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? > > > >A lot of different ways I guess. > > > >One game he got screwed by a Tremere Cryptic Mission/Banishment deck. > > > >One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ > > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) > > > >One game he got screwed by the good old pre/obf deck (you know - > > Lena/Hadrian/Nepata and all other pre weenies). > > Seems like a weak RtI deck, to be honest. Cryptic Banishment is > funny, but not exactly strong (it certainly won't oust you like > Unblockable RtIs with others Vampires, Soul Gems, etc), Animalism > Rush is a joke (You played Majesty? I go home), and pre/obf weenie > bleed is annoying, but hardly going to stop oust someone before > they get their IC out with the Tomb and unblockably bleed. > Of course it wasn't the strongest, I would see a straight Ventrue deck as being the strongest (adds the S:CE component). That isn't the whole point though. The point was, he made a very viable RTI based deck and was, at best, competitive. NOT overpowering. See my response to James for more detail on why he sometimes lost. > >These are the ones that come from memory. He did win a game or > >two with it (I had a 13 game run once with a Settite corruption > >deck, so a two or three game run for his deck is pretty modest), > >and it was a good deck - the games were always interesting and > >always close. > > > >Jaysen 'I must have used up all my luck on that one 13 game streak > >because boy have I sucked wind since then' Knight > > You won 13 straight with a _corruption_ deck!? I've never heard of anyone > winning 13 straight with _any_ deck (I'll be really amazed if you > were playing with the old tournament rules, and ousted players cards > all disappeared).. > House rules incorporated Golden Tenants, etc. We also ignored the Golden Rule of Ownership 'as long as the player was still in the building or area' (if you had to go home, then fine). Also, I had roughly four decks going at that time so the meta-game had never really come after that one deck. Note: I didn't have a 13 game winning streak - the deck did. If I had been playing just that one deck.....maybe a three game streak, at best? [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In article <35D48455...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight > <jay...@internorth.com> writes > >> >Third, our play group has never found RTI to be unbalanced. One of > >> >our players made a deck based on unblockable RTI's and DOM bleed > >> >mods using the !Ventrue. No big deal (good deck though), we dealt > >> >with it. > >> > >> I'm curious. How exactly did you deal with it? > > > >A lot of different ways I guess. > > > >One game he got screwed by a Tremere Cryptic Mission/Banishment deck. > > > > He's playing !Ven. He should have had some anti-vote and I'm wondering > exactly how a deck doing that can be pulled off by the Tremere being as > they are pretty shitty at votes. > You are assuming that the deck was 'pulled off'. Any deck, no matter how tenuous its strategy, can get lucky and oust its prey - even if only its initial prey. Of course, such a deck wouldn't work at a large table, but at a small table it certainly can. In this case I think that Magdalaena was out, Blythe was Tremere Justicar, Astrid was out, maybe one other (had an Info Highway)? Yes, there was another vamp, just forget which one. Pearl Harbor. Cryptic Mission followed by Banishment/Tele Vote Counter followed by Might of Camarilla (isn't that the one that gets rid of an uncontrolled vamp?). Lather, rinse, repeat. The chances that someone has a deck that can get you are pretty good, however - in this case it worked out. > > >One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ > > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) > > He's playing !Ven. He's playing unblockable RTI. He has fortitude in > the deck. He doesn't need to hit back, just prevent until he gets a > better chance. > One thing we have found out about Animalism in our play group. ANI does sxxtloads of damage, and SoS sucks against it. More than once my FOR prevention decks have been screwed by it. Leon w/a Murder of Crows plays a Trap followed by 2x Carrion Crows, followed by whatever damage prevention Leon has. Unless I have S:CE, or I cycle through all the Skin of Rocks I have in my entire Library, I'm toast. For added fun, the player in question loaded up on Terror Frenzy's - which also screws Rush or FOR based decks. > > >One game he got screwed by the good old pre/obf deck (you know - > > Lena/Hadrian/Nepata and all other pre weenies). > > A little bounce perhaps, to hold them at bay, and he has vampires to > block with of course, who aren't going to take much damage from this. > Oh c'mon? I saw this deck a lot. First turn: Him: Barrens followed by Lena and Dinkledorf (Caitiff w/pre) Me: I was first Meth so I put another 4 pool on Wynn (now at 5) Second turn: Him: Elder Library, I get bled for ~8, followed by Hadrian. Knows he has me so starts to discard stealth. Me: another 4 on Wynn (now at 9) etc., etc., I'm now dead. Sure I would do meta-game changes to my decks (all new decks, etc.) but there are always times when that fast bleed deck gets you, and yes - sometimes I smacked his pre/obf deck around. Seating position, luck of the draw, they all matter. So hey, the RTI deck got nailed. It also got nailed once by my Ravnos Brainwash/Sens Dep/Pentex Subv. deck. Too bad for him. Jaysen [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980815013800.4843B-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > >> Except that RtI generally ousts your prey, so the choice becomes your >> prey loses a vampire (likely getting it back with the Soul Gem), and >> gains a VP + 6 pool, or you lose 2 pool. > >Continued RTIs can cause continued pool losses. That 2 pool is something >that I would be reluctant to pay unless the benefit to my prey appeared >overwhelming. You don't call your prey getting a VP + 6 pool overwhelming!? >> Leaving it in to, as you >> say later, only bleed your prey when he can take it and your predator >> won't mind is a very iffy proposition. I wouldn't use it. > >Your predator doesn't have to just "not mind". He has to not mind enough >to pay 2 pool to stop you. As a clanless, disciplineless bleed card, RTI >should be no more powerful than, say, computer hacking. I agree. >Would you pay 2 pool to cause a computer hacking action to fail? I doubt >it. Even though it is of benefit to your prey in helping to oust HIS >prey, it is not enough of a benefit to him that you would choose to take >the pool loss INSTEAD of his prey. I doubt you would pay 2 pool for most >predator actions. No, I wouldn't pay that cost for computer hacking, but I probably would for a large pool loss that ousts my grand-predator. I'm hoping to ouse my prey and get to him next, and having to deal with a prey that has 6 extra pool is a big pain in the ass. >If you use RTI in such a manner that it causes you no more benefit than >Computer Hacking -- such that it brings you closer to death by x, and your >prey closer to death by x+2 -- then it still will not be worth it to your >prey to burn 2 pool to stop you. And it won't be worth it for you to play either! The fact that someone else chooses what the card does dramatically weakens the card. It will only bleed when it's in _your predator's_ best interest. >I can still see it being a very powerful underdog card -- used to knock a >giant down to size. When you get to a three player game, this can be a >benefit to both you AND your predator, as you will be damaging his >predator, and taking the pressure off him. > >If you put one in a deck, there is no guarantee that you will be able to >use it. But if you do use it, you might well do so to great effect. > >> I understand exactly what it does, but I would rather have standard >> bleed cards that will actually help me when I'm doing well. IMHO, >> despite the points you make, such RtI would be wallpaper. > >Perhaps, but that for you would be no loss, in any case, since it was >forbidden in your playgroup. True, but that doesn't make this a good fix. >When 2 players remain, the action, if successful, will cause 2 pool loss >per action. It will be just as good as Computer Hacking in such >circumstances, unless you do it with Beast and your prey decides it's >worth an extra 6 pool to get rid of him. Which makes it _worse_ than computer hacking, because there are sitations where I'd rather just do 2 pool, but with this card, I can't. Also consider that computer hacking doesn't require that I have a vampire with 4 blood... Computer Hacking is simply better most of the time. >There may be something wrong with my analysis, but I suspect that, when >there are more than 2 players remaining, the card is still at least as >good as Computer Hacking, though analysis here becomes more difficult. I think you severely underrate the disadvantage of having someone else choose what the card does. >The concept originally presented by LSJ, derived from the Golconda >analogy, was that it was your prey who would have the option to burn 2 >pool. This version makes it even more likely to be stopped, and it is >clearly balanced compared to computer hacking, but ends up seeming like a >glorified version of it. The card doesn't really compare well to Golconda at all. If Golconda goes off, you don't oust someone. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35D5EECE...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: >Jasper Phillips wrote: >> >Of course it wasn't the strongest, I would see a straight Ventrue >deck as being the strongest (adds the S:CE component). That isn't >the whole point though. The point was, he made a very viable >RTI based deck and was, at best, competitive. NOT overpowering. Ok, I admit, I was baiting you into the argument that's been going around about RtI for a while: I was expecting you to say that people used cards like Bleed Bounce, Archon Investigation, etc. to counter RtI, and give the reasons those aren't a good counter, from a game balance/variety standpoint. However, when you didn't post a counter to RtI that actually works, I couldn't resist. My point is this, if you could stop his RtI deck the way you mentioned, it _wasn't_ a good RtI deck. A good RtI deck _is_ overpowering. [ quoted text not captured ]

When considering whether cards are overpowered/underpowered, it is often useful to compare them to baseline cards like Majesty, Lucky Blow, KRC, and Computer Hacking. Everyone agrees (hopefully) that these cards are the epitome of balance and fairness in the game. So, let's compare RtI to CH: Computer Hacking Blood Cost: zero Opportunity Cost: zero Effect: +1 bleed Return to Innocence Blood Cost: four Opportunity Cost: vampire burns if successful Effect: +X bleed, X >= 4 due to blood cost [I might be using the term "opportunity cost" incorrectly; I mean this to be the cost in terms of future opportunities; RtI's burning of the vampire keeps you from having future possbile actions] So RtI has a greatly increased cost, and a greatly increased effect. Since its cost is so high, people have argued that the huge effect the card has is balanced. It is true that the "abuses" discussed in concert with RtI -- unblockability, high stealth, etc. -- can be used with Computer Hacking, but with RtI, the effect of the single action is so much higher that the benefits of such "abuses" are greatly increased. When is it worthwhile to play RtI? The effect, +X bleed, at first glance seems to be offset by the burn cost; your prey has lost X pool, and you have lost X pool in the form of an X-capacity vampire. But, as anyone who has played a combat deck knows, destroying an X-capacity vampire is not the same as bleeding a player for X pool. First of all, the amount of blood on the vampire is fluid, and has not necessarily all come from the player's pool but rather from cards like Art Museum or Tomb of Ramses III. Also, the vampire's blood can have been moved into the players pool by way of Minion Tap or Blood Doll, among other things. If a deck is designed to take advantage of RtI, the vampire's cost will likely have been recovered by the time the action is taken. Secondly, the loss of X pool in a single is often devestating, most often to the point of ousting the recipient, thus providing the ousting player with 6 pool, which also serves to offset the card's high cost. Take into account the abuses possible with Soul Gem, and the card has a negative cost; it bleeds your prey for X, likely ousts him, gaining you 6 pool and a victory point, and you get a free vampire, full of blood and ready to repeat the process. The success of this strategy is not in dispute; decks of this nature (until 7/7) won tournaments handily. What about the supposed drawbacks of RtI? Like any bleed, this one can be deflected, to devestating effect. But since not every deck can use this defense, this hardly justifies RtI's power. The action can also be made unblockable very easily, with Fortitude, Protean, or simply with equipment. In a deck that cannot guarantee the success and cost-effectiveness of the action, with the above methods, RtI's cost is simply too high; no one wants to risk their vampire for an action that can easily fail disastrously. So no one will play with this card unless it is to abuse it. Hence RtI is alternatively wallpaper and the most powerful card in the game. ---------------------- All of that said, what of the "your predator can burn 2 pool to make this action fail" clause? I really don't like this "fix", since it really doesn't fix the card. It's just as abusive, but if your predator is in a magnanimous mood, they will spare your prey's life. But this leaves too much up to the whimsy of people at the table, and doesn't get to the heart of what's wrong with this card: it's simply too much to have a card provide +X bleed, where X ranges as high as 11. The card just screams out to be abused. If you add more and more restrictions on the card, it will still oscillate between extremes; in the few instances when the action is successful, it is just as devestating. It encourages people not to use the card by making it less versatile, but RtI is still a huge sledgehammer. By making it heavier and heavier you make it harder to lift, but when someone manages to, it's just as deadly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote in message <6r4ts5$rs3$1...@news.NERO.NET>... [snip] >However, when you didn't post a counter to RtI that actually works, >I couldn't resist. My point is this, if you could stop his RtI deck >the way you mentioned, it _wasn't_ a good RtI deck. A good RtI deck >_is_ overpowering. [snip] OK, what constitutes a good RtI deck? You tell me and I will go build it and play test it. Mind you, I only have 4 RtI in my possession. If it wins a significant amount of games then I would agree. Hmm... What would happen if you took a good RtI deck and replaced only the RtI with anything else? How would that deck fair? I guess if the track records were about the same then you really couldn't say RtI was all that. But this is all speculation. Does anyone have a good RtI deck out there they could post? I do play a 'meet the inner circle' deck and it does use the 4 RtI s and contains 6 unblockable action cards. It uses other cheesy manuvers too, like ToR and Soul Gem - golconga - necromancy - minion tap - Fifth Tradition etc. It does really well on rare occasions.

Jasper Phillips wrote: > > In article <35D5EECE...@internorth.com>, > Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: > >Jasper Phillips wrote: > >> > >Of course it wasn't the strongest, I would see a straight Ventrue > >deck as being the strongest (adds the S:CE component). That isn't > >the whole point though. The point was, he made a very viable > >RTI based deck and was, at best, competitive. NOT overpowering. > > Ok, I admit, I was baiting you into the argument that's been going > around about RtI for a while: I was expecting you to say that people > used cards like Bleed Bounce, Archon Investigation, etc. to counter > RtI, and give the reasons those aren't a good counter, from a game > balance/variety standpoint. > Sorry :) That whole bunch of hooey has been around so long the horse is up in heaven laughing at us. > > However, when you didn't post a counter to RtI that actually works, > I couldn't resist. My point is this, if you could stop his RtI deck > the way you mentioned, it _wasn't_ a good RtI deck. A good RtI deck > _is_ overpowering. > Ah, here is where we make an interesting digression from the beaten path. To whit: A) Most arguements on RTI focus on it's unbalanced nature as a single card action (usually blended and pureed with Day Ops). B) My arguement contends that as a deck strategy, in the context of predator and prey relationships, RTI (in combo with Day Ops or huge stealth/Elder Imp.) is far from overpowered. Now, let me make a some of points here: 1) As a single combo, RTI/Day Ops, especially when using RTI as it was printed, is a killer combo. Almost, as many say, the prototypical "oust your prey" card. However....see 2) 2) It is the extended combo's that make RTI truly game unbalancing as I see it. a) RTI/Day Ops/Soul Gem b) Tomb/RTI/Day Ops c) Mind Rape/RTI/Day Ops The deck mentioned above was an effective deck. When it rolled, it really rolled. However, it did not make use of any of the three items mentioned above, or any other combo extension that boosts the inherent power of RTI/Day Ops. To re-iterate the point. You could build any RTI/Day Ops deck, and if it doesn't use any of the combo extensions above, you would be at the mercy of your predator - just as any other deck in the game is. Combat or Vote or Bleed or whatever combination, a reasonably effective predator that puts pressure on you (the prey) will disrupt your RTI strategy and you will be ousted. You may take out your initial prey, you may not. You may clear the table, you may not. Your VP totals with that deck will not be any greater than anyone else in your playgroup that uses a decent deck. Until, of course, you extend your combo. At this point the balance of predator/prey comes into question. (In my own lunatic mind anyways) RTI, as is, provides a big bang for the buck - with those other cards - ouch. For this reason you have to look at all the cards as a group. RTI - reduce the maximum 'real' bleed possible, whether you go with my "max X bleed" concept or the "+X/2" concept, pick one. I do not view 7/7 as acceptable. Tomb - bring the 'cost reduction' aspect of the card into line, I personally like the Tomb counters idea Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. Don't know. Wow, am I ever drifting here (sorry). Regardless, like any other deck being played, a basic RTI deck is at the mercy of card draw and table seating like any other. I can see your point, that as a single card action RTI (as written) may be overbalancing. I hope you can see mine, that as a 'deck strategy' RTI (in and of itself) is no better or worse than many others. When brought into combination with other cards though, more than just Day Ops, RTI threatens table balance - and that is something I would like to see balanced more than taking the easy way out and neutering the card. Hoping I almost sound intelligent, yet not holding my breath.... Jaysen [ quoted text not captured ]

Jasper Phillips wrote in message <6r5h9k$6sk$1...@news.NERO.NET>... >Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: >>I do play a 'meet the inner circle' deck and it does use the 4 RtI s and >>contains 6 unblockable action cards. It uses other cheesy manuvers too, >>like ToR and Soul Gem - golconga - necromancy - minion tap - Fifth Tradition >>etc. It does really well on rare occasions. > >The deck that was nasty with RtI used more copies, and the old Mind Rape. > Yikes! I don't have too many Mind Rapes either! But, If you think about it, RtI with any deck can do a lot of damage provided you can efficiently bring vampires into play. There really is no doubt that it's an overpowered card. There are already many ways to recoup the lost vampire. Can some one please tell me the location of The Rules everyone is so fond of? Replace nospam with red for a usable email address. =================================================== Get out of your own way. - Wicker ===================================================

In article <6qotnf$chv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > In article <199808080413...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, > fant...@aol.com (Fantasy15) wrote: > > >Here's some fun house errata for RTI which, in my opinion, balances the card > > >and still makes it fun to play with. The idea is that the vampire becomes > > >human at the beginning of the action rather than at the end. > > > > > >(D) bleed your prey with +X bleed where X is the capacity of the acting > > >vampire. The acting vampire may not play cards requiring disciplines during > > >this action. Remove this vampire from the game after the action's > > >conclusion. > > This is a good start, but I would even go so far and say: "The acting vampire > may not play any cards until the action is resolved." Does the declaration that the action is blocked count as resolving it? In other words, if it *is* blocked, is the bleeder allowed to use cards in combat? J. Andrew Lipscomb <ew...@chattanooga.net, them...@delphi.com> PGP keys by request

Recently I posted a post that described a house errata for RTI to see what people thought about it. Two people responded to the asked question. However, many others took this to be an open forum on wheter or not the original RTI was balanced or not. If you want postings with a new subject matter, please make it a new subject rather than a response.

In article <qaqB1.1429$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: > >Jasper Phillips wrote in message <6r4ts5$rs3$1...@news.NERO.NET>... >[snip] >>However, when you didn't post a counter to RtI that actually works, >>I couldn't resist. My point is this, if you could stop his RtI deck >>the way you mentioned, it _wasn't_ a good RtI deck. A good RtI deck >>_is_ overpowering. >[snip] > >OK, what constitutes a good RtI deck? You tell me and I will go build it >and play test it. Mind you, I only have 4 RtI in my possession. If it wins >a significant amount of games then I would agree. Well, normally I would try to show you what I'm talking about, but since RtI no longer works like it used to, it's all academic, and really not worth the time... I believe there's such a deck posted on one of the archives floating around. I'm hoping someone else already has the deck worked out. >Hmm... What would happen if you took a good RtI deck and replaced only the >RtI with anything else? How would that deck fair? I guess if the track >records were about the same then you really couldn't say RtI was all that. >But this is all speculation. Does anyone have a good RtI deck out there >they could post? Honestly? Such a deck would be pretty worthless without RtI, since it relies upon abusing the RtI. >I do play a 'meet the inner circle' deck and it does use the 4 RtI s and >contains 6 unblockable action cards. It uses other cheesy manuvers too, >like ToR and Soul Gem - golconga - necromancy - minion tap - Fifth Tradition >etc. It does really well on rare occasions. The deck that was nasty with RtI used more copies, and the old Mind Rape. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35D63F50...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [large snip] >The deck mentioned above was an effective deck. When it rolled, it >really rolled. However, it did not make use of any of the three >items mentioned above, or any other combo extension that boosts the >inherent power of RTI/Day Ops. Hmmm, from what you say here it looks like we basically agree. >Until, of course, you extend your combo. At this point the balance >of predator/prey comes into question. (In my own lunatic mind >anyways) RTI, as is, provides a big bang for the buck - with those >other cards - ouch. Right. It's an excellent card by itself; of course when checking if something is broken, you have to check against how the card is actually played (ie. as part of the combo). >For this reason you have to look at all the cards as a group. > >RTI - reduce the maximum 'real' bleed possible, whether you go > with my "max X bleed" concept or the "+X/2" > concept, pick one. I do not view 7/7 as acceptable. Well, It's acceptable to me purely because it's better than it was. I can easily envision better fixes. My favorite is starting to become just ban the stupid thing. >Tomb - bring the 'cost reduction' aspect of the card into line, > I personally like the Tomb counters idea I agree, this is the most elegant. >Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read > 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, > besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. I like this one. It's limited to younger vampires, and can't be golconda'd. It's still vulnerable to forced diablerie, but I can live with that. >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > Don't know. I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. >I can see your point, that as a single card action RTI (as written) >may be overbalancing. I hope you can see mine, that as a 'deck >strategy' RTI (in and of itself) is no better or worse than many >others. When brought into combination with other cards though, more >than just Day Ops, RTI threatens table balance - and that is something >I would like to see balanced more than taking the easy way out and >neutering the card. I suppose so, although I think this is something of a straw man argument though: Crafty opponents will never play just the "basic" RtI. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <z7sB1.1439$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, "Dragon" <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: > Can some one please tell me the location of The Rules everyone is so fond > of? The Rules Team Rulings posted on 6/23/98 and 7/7/98 are archived at http://members.tripod.com/Lasombra or you could search on dejanews (www.dejanews.com) for posts by LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) on those dates. You could also search for the new FAQ posted and maintained by James Hamblin the link for which currently escapes me but is linked to on the Lasombra page (http://members.tripod.com/Lasombra). Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <z7sB1.1439$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, "Dragon" <nospam...@adelphia.net> wrote: > Can some one please tell me the location of The Rules everyone is so fond > of? The Rules Team Rulings posted on 6/23/98 and 7/7/98 are archived at http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra or you could search on dejanews (www.dejanews.com) for posts by LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) on those dates. You could also search for the new FAQ posted and maintained by James Hamblin the link for which currently escapes me but is linked to on the Lasombra page (http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra). Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <35D5F755...@internorth.com>, Jaysen Knight <jay...@internorth.com> writes >James Coupe wrote: >> >You are assuming that the deck was 'pulled off'. Any deck, no matter >how tenuous its strategy, can get lucky and oust its prey - even if >only its initial prey. Of course, such a deck wouldn't work at a >large table, but at a small table it certainly can. In which case, it is not effective as a way of dealing with RtoI. If it can't be relied upon, then you shouldn't be bothering putting it forward as a defence. > >In this case I think that Magdalaena was out, Blythe was Tremere >Justicar, Astrid was out, maybe one other (had an Info Highway)? >Yes, there was another vamp, just forget which one. > >Pearl Harbor. Cryptic Mission followed by Banishment/Tele Vote Counter >followed by Might of Camarilla (isn't that the one that gets rid of >an uncontrolled vamp?). Lather, rinse, repeat. The chances that >someone has a deck that can get you are pretty good, however - in this >case it worked out. The point of the Cryptic Mission eludes me being as you're burning the vampire anyway. And you only had four votes there. Someone else on the table must have been able to deal with it. >> >> >One game he got screwed by an Animalism Rush deck (Terror Frenzy/ >> > Carrion Crows/Aid from Bats/etc.) >> >> He's playing !Ven. He's playing unblockable RTI. He has fortitude in >> the deck. He doesn't need to hit back, just prevent until he gets a >> better chance. >> >One thing we have found out about Animalism in our play group. ANI >does sxxtloads of damage, and SoS sucks against it. More than once >my FOR prevention decks have been screwed by it. > Anyone who only plays SoS is a fool. >Oh c'mon? I saw this deck a lot. > >First turn: > Him: Barrens followed by Lena and Dinkledorf (Caitiff w/pre) > Me: I was first Meth so I put another 4 pool on Wynn (now at 5) > >Second turn: > Him: Elder Library, I get bled for ~8, followed by Hadrian. > Knows he has me so starts to discard stealth. > Me: another 4 on Wynn (now at 9) *sigh* Put smaller vampires in your crypt. If you only have large vampires, you will be overrun by any swarm deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199808160151...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Fantasy15 <fant...@aol.com> writes [ quoted text not captured ] What is wrong with putting forward my house fix and then analysing whether or not it would be better than the current one? *VERY* little thread drift there. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <qaqB1.1429$N15.6...@news.axxsys.net>, Dragon <nospam...@adelphia.net> writes >I do play a 'meet the inner circle' deck and it does use the 4 RtI s and >contains 6 unblockable action cards. It uses other cheesy manuvers too, >like ToR and Soul Gem - golconga - necromancy - minion tap - Fifth Tradition >etc. It does really well on rare occasions. No longer possible, of course. Neither of RtoI and Golconda actually burn the vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <jMrbLXAJ...@obeah.demon.co.uk>, James Coupe <ve...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > In article <199808160151...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Fantasy15 > <fant...@aol.com> writes > >Recently I posted a post that described a house errata for RTI to see what > >people thought about it. Two people responded to the asked question. However, > >many others took this to be an open forum on wheter or not the original RTI was > >balanced or not. If you want postings with a new subject matter, please make > >it a new subject rather than a response. > > What is wrong with putting forward my house fix and then analysing > whether or not it would be better than the current one? > > *VERY* little thread drift there. Sorry, fellow prince, but he's right. I followed the thread because I really wanted a good discussion about possible fixes for the power cards and the opinions thereof. But recently, you are discussing about cryptic missions, banishments, swarm decks, and other stuff. If that's not a deviation, what is it then? 8) -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna PS: Sorry, but I think there are more pressing matters at hand than discussing specific decks. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r5sts$a5f$1...@news.NERO.NET>, phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU (Jasper Phillips) wrote: > In article <35D63F50...@internorth.com>, > Jaysen Knight <jay...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: <snip, snip, snip-i-di-dip> > >For this reason you have to look at all the cards as a group. > > > >RTI - reduce the maximum 'real' bleed possible, whether you go > > with my "max X bleed" concept or the "+X/2" > > concept, pick one. I do not view 7/7 as acceptable. > > Well, It's acceptable to me purely because it's better than it was. > I can easily envision better fixes. My favorite is starting to > become just ban the stupid thing. Banning is not good. This limits possibilities. Fixes are better. I'd like to stick with bleed for X/2 and no action mods. > > >Tomb - bring the 'cost reduction' aspect of the card into line, > > I personally like the Tomb counters idea > > I agree, this is the most elegant. Yep, but the questions of permanent counters or not remains. > > >Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read > > 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, > > besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. > > I like this one. It's limited to younger vampires, and can't > be golconda'd. It's still vulnerable to forced diablerie, but > I can live with that. Huh, actually I don't remember the Mind Rape fix. But I can tell you that: the card was originally planned to stay in play for as many turns as the acting vampire had capacity! Now, the above said is totally useless in the current discussion, so leave it only as a "Develpers insanity" anecdote. Concerning the combo ToR and Mind Rape: how much would it help if the Tomb counters would be permanent? I mean, the vamp which comes into play via the Tomb is substantially younger with the permanents, and as a consequence has less options when Mind Raping other vamps. What's more, a Mind Raped vampire is (with the RtI "no act.mod" fix) likely to get blocked when attempting to RtI. > > >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > > Don't know. > > I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, > but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. No, as Golconda and RtI are 6/23 errataed, that the vamp is removed from play, Soul Gem is "fixed" as it is. > > >I can see your point, that as a single card action RTI (as written) > >may be overbalancing. I hope you can see mine, that as a 'deck > >strategy' RTI (in and of itself) is no better or worse than many > >others. When brought into combination with other cards though, more > >than just Day Ops, RTI threatens table balance - and that is something > >I would like to see balanced more than taking the easy way out and > >neutering the card. > > I suppose so, although I think this is something of a straw man > argument though: Crafty opponents will never play just the "basic" RtI. True, so the cards ToR, RtI, Mind Rape have to be fixed _together_ with each of the other named cards in mind. That should do the trick. Has anybody ideas for a Mind Rape fix? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

> >RTI - reduce the maximum 'real' bleed possible, whether you go > > with my "max X bleed" concept or the "+X/2" > > concept, pick one. I do not view 7/7 as acceptable. > > Well, It's acceptable to me purely because it's better than it was. > I can easily envision better fixes. My favorite is starting to > become just ban the stupid thing. > What about the fix that allows the *recipient* of the bleed to pay 2 pool to cause the action to fail? Then the card begins to look a lot like Computer Hacking. Then again, that does make it pretty bland. I think my preferred fix is the +"X/2" without disallowing action modifiers. I'm still of the opinion that RtI is broken only because it deals *so much* damage, and reducing that a little fixes it alright. > >Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read > > 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, > > besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. > > I like this one. It's limited to younger vampires, and can't > be golconda'd. It's still vulnerable to forced diablerie, but > I can live with that. > Why not just "Take control of a younger vampire until the end of your current minion phase." I don't understand the one-turn delay crap, and I don't like the fact that the chosen minion is untapped when you take control of it (c.f. current fix, if you can decipher it). I don't see one-turn control as being horribly overpowered, especially as most people tap out every turn anyway. You still have the possible problem of a Mind Rape/RtI, but without an extra turn to set things up, and with a fixed ToRIII, getting an older vampire is non-trivial. > >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > > Don't know. > > I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, > but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. > Question: *Does* it still combo with Golconda? Removing from the game is still considered burning, right? So that means that Golconda'ing or RtI'ing a vamp with the Soul Gem will still activate the Gem, right? (Not that I see a problem with this, just wondering.) > >I can see your point, that as a single card action RTI (as written) > >may be overbalancing. I hope you can see mine, that as a 'deck > >strategy' RTI (in and of itself) is no better or worse than many > >others. When brought into combination with other cards though, more > >than just Day Ops, RTI threatens table balance - and that is something > >I would like to see balanced more than taking the easy way out and > >neutering the card. > > I suppose so, although I think this is something of a straw man > argument though: Crafty opponents will never play just the "basic" RtI. > But even just a "basic" RtI is way broken, simply because there's just about no risk. If you're blocked, fine, no blood spent, no vamp burned (well, except maybe in combat). If not, you oust your prey. Way back when, we used to play that the cost for actions was paid when attempted (which made it a huge risk to equip an Assault Rifle). My thoughts when I first saw RtI... "Maybe we should go back to playing that way." Of course, that was never really a house rule, just ignorance of the correct rules. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > Question: *Does* [Soul Gem] still combo with Golconda? Removing from the > game is > still considered burning, right? No. Burning is going to the ash heap (for cards, at any rate). Just as a vampire burned in combat doesn't pass through torpor on his way to the ash heap, a vampire removed from the game doesn't pass through the ash heap on his way out. -- L. Scott Johnson (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Searchable database of official card text, errata, and rulings: http://deckserver.net/cgi-deckserver/rulemonger.cgi/powersearch [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] yes, The action is not resolved until combat is over, at which point the vamp could use disciplines again except that also then he would be removed from the game.

>In article <199808160151...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Fantasy15 ><fant...@aol.com> writes >>Recently I posted a post that described a house errata for RTI to see what >>people thought about it. Two people responded to the asked question. >However, >>many others took this to be an open forum on wheter or not the original RTI >was >>balanced or not. If you want postings with a new subject matter, please >make >>it a new subject rather than a response. > >What is wrong with putting forward my house fix and then analysing >whether or not it would be better than the current one? > >*VERY* little thread drift there. > >-- >James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply > Comparing the subject errata to different errata is fine, but soon the subject was changed as to whether or not RTI was a balanced card or not. I wanted serious feedback, and mostly got the same old arguments that I've been hearing for a long time now. PS my previous message wasn't personally diected at you James. Although sometimes I do like to get on your case.

Jasper Phillips (phil...@tx.ENGR.ORST.EDU) wrote: : In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980815013800.4843B-100000@amanda>, : Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: : > : >> Except that RtI generally ousts your prey, so the choice becomes your : >> prey loses a vampire (likely getting it back with the Soul Gem), and : >> gains a VP + 6 pool, or you lose 2 pool. : > : >Continued RTIs can cause continued pool losses. That 2 pool is something : >that I would be reluctant to pay unless the benefit to my prey appeared : >overwhelming. : You don't call your prey getting a VP + 6 pool overwhelming!? While it is possible I may be wrong in my arguments, your counterarguments would be more convincing if you were not being so deliberately dense. Yes, I *do* think that ousting your prey and getting 6 pool and a VP can be an great benefit. You already know this, if you bothered to read my previous posts. Please make at least a token effort to understand what I am trying to say, else this argument is pointless. It is not self evident that RTI *must* be used in such a manner as to oust your prey and gain 6 pool. It is perfectly possible to use RTI in such a manner that its benefits are balanced, damaging yourself by about x, while damaging your prey by about x+2, with a net benefit to yourself (once the value of costs are subtracted from the value of gains) that is aproximately equivalent to computer hacking. If you use it for only moderate net gain, then its effects will be balanced. In such situations, it will not be any more worth burning 2 pool to prevent than is the typical action, such as computer hacking. However, it will still be just as valuable as computer hacking. : >Would you pay 2 pool to cause a computer hacking action to fail? I doubt : >it. Even though it is of benefit to your prey in helping to oust HIS : >prey, it is not enough of a benefit to him that you would choose to take : >the pool loss INSTEAD of his prey. I doubt you would pay 2 pool for most : >predator actions. : No, I wouldn't pay that cost for computer hacking, but I probably would : for a large pool loss that ousts my grand-predator. I'm hoping to ouse : my prey and get to him next, and having to deal with a prey that has : 6 extra pool is a big pain in the ass. Of course you would. Your prey knows you would do this. That is why he will not try to get stupid and greedy and go for enormous net gain for himself. He knows that if he does, he will only end up back bleeding for 2. So he instead tries for a small, moderate, balanced net gain, that will not be worth you spending 2 pool to prevent. He is perfectly capable of doing this since he is fully in control of how he uses the card. If he does it right, then he will succeed in creating a balanced effect to his benefit, rather than a counterproductive back-bleed. : >If you use RTI in such a manner that it causes you no more benefit than : >Computer Hacking -- such that it brings you closer to death by x, and your : >prey closer to death by x+2 -- then it still will not be worth it to your : >prey to burn 2 pool to stop you. : And it won't be worth it for you to play either! Why not? Plenty of actions are worth playing, without being worth 2 pool to prevent. Why can I not use RTI in such a manner that it of moderate net benefit to me (equivalent to other action cards) but, like them, not worth it to my predator to spend 2 pool to prevent. : The fact that someone : else chooses what the card does dramatically weakens the card. Well, it DOES dramatically weaken the card. That was the intent. : It will : only bleed when it's in _your predator's_ best interest. No, it will only bleed when it is in your predators best interest to spend 2 pool to stop you. There is a difference here. Very few (balanced) actions are worth 2 pool for your predator to stop. I am perfectly capable of using RTI as a balanced action, with benefits only moderately exceeding the cost, because I control how I use the card. I do not HAVE to use it for a 18 pool bleed with day op from an IC member with a Soul Gem that ousts my prey in one go. You seem to have a lot of understanding that I JUST DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. : Which makes it _worse_ than computer hacking, because there are : sitations where I'd rather just do 2 pool, but with this card, I can't. Yes you can. Use it in such a manner that it is not worth it to your predator to spend 2 pool to stop you. : Also consider that computer hacking doesn't require that I have a vampire : with 4 blood... Computer Hacking is simply better most of the time. I have no problem with Computer Hacking being better most of the time. Alot of cards are better than other cards "most of the time", while the other cards are still better some of the time. As long as a card is better some of the time, it is not wallpaper. : >There may be something wrong with my analysis, but I suspect that, when : >there are more than 2 players remaining, the card is still at least as : >good as Computer Hacking, though analysis here becomes more difficult. : I think you severely underrate the disadvantage of having someone else : choose what the card does. It is quite possible that you are right about this. But you have not succeeded in convincing me by the power of your arguments. Rather, your statements seem to indicate that you do not understand mine. : >The concept originally presented by LSJ, derived from the Golconda : >analogy, was that it was your prey who would have the option to burn 2 : >pool. This version makes it even more likely to be stopped, and it is : >clearly balanced compared to computer hacking, but ends up seeming like a : >glorified version of it. : The card doesn't really compare well to Golconda at all. If Golconda goes : off, you don't oust someone. My proposed fix does not oust anyone either if it "goes off". If it did, it usually would not "go off". The revised version can typically only be used to damage, not for the Coup de Grace. For the Coup de Grace, I will probably have to follow up next round with some Computer Hackings. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6r9fb1$ju4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at writes >Sorry, fellow prince, but he's right. I followed the thread because I really >wanted a good discussion about possible fixes for the power cards and >the opinions thereof. But recently, you are discussing about cryptic >missions, banishments, swarm decks, and other stuff. If that's not a >deviation, what is it then? *sigh* This is Usenet? What do you expect? People sticking to the topic in hand? ;) -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia) Change nospam to obeah to reply Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net

In article <6r9pqr$36c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > > > >RTI - reduce the maximum 'real' bleed possible, whether you go > > > with my "max X bleed" concept or the "+X/2" > > > concept, pick one. I do not view 7/7 as acceptable. > > > > Well, It's acceptable to me purely because it's better than it was. > > I can easily envision better fixes. My favorite is starting to > > become just ban the stupid thing. > > > > What about the fix that allows the *recipient* of the bleed to pay 2 pool to > cause the action to fail? Then the card begins to look a lot like Computer > Hacking. Then again, that does make it pretty bland. I think my preferred > fix is the +"X/2" without disallowing action modifiers. I'm still of the > opinion that RtI is broken only because it deals *so much* damage, and > reducing that a little fixes it alright. If you allow action-modifiers, then you allow *much* damage. X/2 _and_ no action modifiers is a good way of fixing the overpowered card. If X/2 is rounded up or down doesn't matter to _me_, as long as the X/2 and no act.mod. are agreed upon. Look, if you allow act.mod., an IC bleeds for 6(i.e.+X/2)+1(that stackable mod)+3(conditioning)+2(inherent modifier of IC) which equals a massive 12 pool bleed. That's still too high. W/o act.mod. this would only be a bleed for 8. Yeah, high enough, but survivable, sometimes at least. But it cannot be made unblockable (except for Concoction of Vitality) and that's a *good* thing. Otherwise the only defence is bleed-bounce, and that's what everyone complained about! > > > >Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read > > > 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, > > > besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. > > > > I like this one. It's limited to younger vampires, and can't > > be golconda'd. It's still vulnerable to forced diablerie, but > > I can live with that. > > > > Why not just "Take control of a younger vampire until the end of your current > minion phase." Which would be very similar to Temptation. But that's okay for me. :) I suppose, that one turn is not enough time to completely destroy the stolen vampire. You cannot: Minion Tap, Golconda, etc. the stolen vamp. You still could transfer equipment, and with Heidelburg castle, you could transfer retainer and blood. You can try to Rti with the stolen vamp, but if Rti is fixed to "X/2, no act.mod.", the action is likely not to succeed, which doesn't burn the stolen vamp. That's it: by fixing another card (RtI) _and_ fixing Mind Rape like "Take control of a younger vampire until the end of your current turn. Untap that vampire." the combos are weakened, more balanced. Abuse is not possible anymore. > I don't understand the one-turn delay crap, and I don't like > the fact that the chosen minion is untapped when you take control of it (c.f. > current fix, if you can decipher it). I don't see one-turn control as being > horribly overpowered, especially as most people tap out every turn anyway. > You still have the possible problem of a Mind Rape/RtI, but without an extra > turn to set things up, and with a fixed ToRIII, getting an older vampire is > non-trivial. Yes, that's the third card in the circle that must be fixed according to RtI and Mind Rape. The -1 cap. counters do the job quite well. Bringing out a big vamp with ToR is risky business: his capacity decreases. He still has the disciplines and the special ability (if any), but is more vulnerable in combat, cannot Mind Rape at will, and the Minion Tap - 5th Trad./Giants Blood combo will not generate such huge amounts of blood. The bottom line is: if RtI and Mind Rape are fixed in the way I lined out, the Tomb needs to be fixed with the permanent -1 cap. counters (btw, to minimize confusion, the counters could be placed on the Tomb instead of the vamp). All three cards would then be properly fixed. > > > >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > > > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > > > Don't know. > > > > I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, > > but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. > > > > Question: *Does* it still combo with Golconda? Removing from the game is > still considered burning, right? So that means that Golconda'ing or RtI'ing > a vamp with the Soul Gem will still activate the Gem, right? (Not that I see > a problem with this, just wondering.) Hm, I assume the Gem activates when a vamp is *burned*, so the combos are stopped with the 6/23 errata. But then, I might be wrong. If so, we should do something about the Gem. Can we agree that the "Power 3" have to be fixed _together_ in order to balance them? -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <199808170431...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] No, the vamp is burned if the action is successful, so he is only burned if not blocked! And forbidding any discipline-cards is not a good idea. First, it's a bad thing if you are using RtI as a bait to get into combat (Bleed&Bruise?). Second, the "no action modifier" clause would be totally sufficient to prevent abuse of RtI by itself. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.980815013800.4843B-100000@amanda>, > Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> wrote: > > > >> Except that RtI generally ousts your prey, so the choice becomes your > >> prey loses a vampire (likely getting it back with the Soul Gem), and > >> gains a VP + 6 pool, or you lose 2 pool. > > > >Continued RTIs can cause continued pool losses. That 2 pool is something > >that I would be reluctant to pay unless the benefit to my prey appeared > >overwhelming. > > You don't call your prey getting a VP + 6 pool overwhelming!? Mmm. Reading this, I got a little idea that might help to balance RtI. However, it might already have been debated, as I am back from a little trip, and there is *much* post to catchup. Since RtI is often used when a chance to oust your prey his possible, but with a dramatic stroke (i.e. massive bleed with losing a vampire), and the few posts I have read seems to say that the benefit for one action are too high (or overwhelming :), I just thought that if a Prey is ousted with RtI, maybe the card could prevent you from gaining the 6 pool associated with the ousting. I.E.: RtI: add text "If your prey is ousted with the successful use of this action, do not gain 6 pool." (or other appropriate wording... ) and some or all other appropriate fixes (such as "remove this vampire from the game, not Action Mod, your prededator can spend 2 pool to cancel this action, etc.). What do you think? Frederic. (just trying to help...)

> > What about the fix that allows the *recipient* of the bleed to pay 2 pool to > > cause the action to fail? Then the card begins to look a lot like Computer > > Hacking. Then again, that does make it pretty bland. I think my preferred > > fix is the +"X/2" without disallowing action modifiers. I'm still of the > > opinion that RtI is broken only because it deals *so much* damage, and > > reducing that a little fixes it alright. > > If you allow action-modifiers, then you allow *much* damage. X/2 _and_ > no action modifiers is a good way of fixing the overpowered card. If X/2 > is rounded up or down doesn't matter to _me_, as long as the X/2 and no > act.mod. are agreed upon. Look, if you allow act.mod., an IC bleeds for > 6(i.e.+X/2)+1(that stackable mod)+3(conditioning)+2(inherent modifier of IC) > which equals a massive 12 pool bleed. That's still too high. W/o act.mod. > this would only be a bleed for 8. Yeah, high enough, but survivable, > sometimes at least. But it cannot be made unblockable (except for > Concoction of Vitality) and that's a *good* thing. Otherwise the only > defence is bleed-bounce, and that's what everyone complained about! > I don't think that adding action modifiers and/or inherent bonuses is a valid argument. In that case, you can say that Govern the Unaligned is too powerful because it's a bleed for 9. That's simply not true. GtU is a bleed for 3. Make it unblockable and it's still a bleed for 3. RtI with the +X/2 change would be a bleed for a maximum of 6 or 7. Since it's cost is 4 blood and a vampire (and in order to make it a bleed of 6 or 7 it has to be a huge vampire) is no longer trivial, due to the fixes of Mind Rape and the Tomb. Tacking on "no action modifiers" is unnecessary and ends in wallpaper. > > > > > >Mind Rape - don't really know what to do here, perhaps I'll read > > > > 7/7 again. Who knows? Maybe there will be a ruling, > > > > besides the Thoughts Betrayed ruling, that I liked. > > > > > > I like this one. It's limited to younger vampires, and can't > > > be golconda'd. It's still vulnerable to forced diablerie, but > > > I can live with that. > > > > > > > I don't understand the one-turn delay crap, and I don't like > > the fact that the chosen minion is untapped when you take control of it (c.f. > > current fix, if you can decipher it). I don't see one-turn control as being > > horribly overpowered, especially as most people tap out every turn anyway. > > You still have the possible problem of a Mind Rape/RtI, but without an extra > > turn to set things up, and with a fixed ToRIII, getting an older vampire is > > non-trivial. > > Yes, that's the third card in the circle that must be fixed according to > RtI and Mind Rape. The -1 cap. counters do the job quite well. Bringing > out a big vamp with ToR is risky business: his capacity decreases. He still > has the disciplines and the special ability (if any), but is more vulnerable > in combat, cannot Mind Rape at will, and the Minion Tap - 5th Trad./Giants > Blood combo will not generate such huge amounts of blood. > The bottom line is: if RtI and Mind Rape are fixed in the way I lined out, > the Tomb needs to be fixed with the permanent -1 cap. counters (btw, to > minimize confusion, the counters could be placed on the Tomb instead of the > vamp). All three cards would then be properly fixed. > You talk as though the Tomb is not already fixed. It has been completely neutered and is incapable of being abused. While I agree that this is a Good Thing, I still prefer the version which is more interesting, useful, and faithful to the original. Unfortunately, I think LSJ has his mind made up on the matter. We'll see in time, I suppose... > > > > > >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > > > > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > > > > Don't know. > > > > > > I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, > > > but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. > > > > > > > Question: *Does* it still combo with Golconda? Removing from the game is > > still considered burning, right? So that means that Golconda'ing or RtI'ing > > a vamp with the Soul Gem will still activate the Gem, right? (Not that I see > > a problem with this, just wondering.) > > Hm, I assume the Gem activates when a vamp is *burned*, so the combos > are stopped with the 6/23 errata. But then, I might be wrong. If so, > we should do something about the Gem. > Why? In any case, it doesn't matter, as the errata you mention does remove those combos. But do you really want to make the game so that no *combos* are even possible? You may be the first of the doomsday fixers that Legbiter prophesied. But no... I will resist the doomsday fixers... 8) > Can we agree that the "Power 3" have to be fixed _together_ in order to > balance them? > The "Power 3" have been fixed. Just not to our liking. You realize that, right? And I agree that they should be fixed differently, but I think you go too far with the RtI thing. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Mmm. Reading this, I got a little idea that might help to balance RtI. > However, it might already have been debated, as I am back from a little trip, and there is > *much* post to catchup. > > > RtI: add text "If your prey is ousted with the successful use of this action, do not gain 6 pool." > (or other appropriate wording... ) and some or all other appropriate fixes (such as "remove > this vampire from the game, not Action Mod, your prededator can spend 2 pool to cancel this > action, etc.). > > What do you think? > While this isn't a bad idea, and it is certainly preferrable to pre-7/7 card text, it doesn't really fix the card. (WARNING: Leaving reply mode and simply arguing for my favourite fix now...) 8) The biggest problem with RtI, as I (and quite a few others) see it is the sheer size of it. Nothing else has this much swing effect. A single card which can cause a pool loss of 8 to 12 to a single methuselah. Actually, the upper limit is something closer to 98 (Masika + 14 skill cards + Clan Impersonation: Lasombra + 74 Camarilla Vitae Slaves in a 5 player game, leaving 1 card for RtI), but that's an actual combo and is pretty ridiculous anyway, so we'll count 10 as the average amount of damage dealt. Can anything else in the game do that? Not reliably. Let's take a look: Parity Shift - In a 6-player game (about the largest you can really expect to find), this causes 6 pool loss. Conservative Agitation - Again, in a 6-player game, causes a 5 pool loss to a single methuselah. Ancient Influence - Causes a maximum of a 5 pool loss, is unreliable (as a damaging vote), and unfocused. Ancilla Empowerment - Can routinely cause 10-20 pool loss or more, but rarely more than 5 to a single methuselah, and it is very unfocused. The biggest bleed is a joke... GtU or equivalent for 3 bleed. Anything else I'm missing? After about 5 turns, Smiling Jack will have dealt 15 pool loss, but also 5 to you, and they can burn him or pay with vampire blood. All-in-all, there's just nothing as big as RtI. Hell, I'm not going to say that RtI is undercosted. The cost is actually probably appropriate, now that losing the vampire is non-trivial (fixed Tomb and semi-fixed Mind Rape). But the effect is just too much for the game as a whole. But, if the bleed is cut in half... well, that's a whole other story. Especially if capacity/2 is rounded down, a normal RtI will only deal 4-6 pool loss, very much in line with damaging votes. Sure, it doesn't require vote dominace, but as I said, the loss of a vampire is no longer trivial. At no more than twice the power of a GtU, that's not so bad. Consider this... First, a vampire with Dominate... I can bleed with GtU for 3 pool (ignoring additional modifiers) for 1 blood. Or, I can spend an additional 3 blood, and burn the vampire to add 2 or 3 more to the bleed. Not so terrible. A vampire without Dominate has a similar decision with Computer Hacking. The decision is no longer obvious, as it was with pre-7/7 RtI. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > RtI: add text "If your prey is ousted with the successful use of this action, > > do not gain 6 pool." (or other appropriate wording... ) and some or all > > other appropriate fixes (such as "remove this vampire from the game, > > no Action Mod, your prededator can spend 2 pool to cancel this > > action, etc.). > While this isn't a bad idea, and it is certainly preferrable to pre-7/7 card > text, it doesn't really fix the card. (WARNING: Leaving reply mode and > simply arguing for my favourite fix now...) 8) ( arguing for Bleeding for half-capacity ) Well, to say the truth, and reading your reply, bleeding for half-capacity is not a bad idea at all, and one I would accept without much fuss (if not none at all). I was simply trying to bring another "possible" fix, in case another balancing factor was needed. Frederic.

In article <1103_90...@bernier2.meca.polymtl.ca>, gen...@iname.com writes >RtI: add text "If your prey is ousted with the successful use of this action, do >not gain 6 pool." Problem: Hit them with it first, then oust them with a tiny one point bleed :( [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6rcf6d$lue$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ber...@cco.caltech.edu wrote: > <snipped> > I don't think that adding action modifiers and/or inherent bonuses is a valid > argument. In that case, you can say that Govern the Unaligned is too > powerful because it's a bleed for 9. That's simply not true. GtU is a bleed > for 3. Make it unblockable and it's still a bleed for 3. RtI with the +X/2 > change would be a bleed for a maximum of 6 or 7. Since it's cost is 4 blood > and a vampire (and in order to make it a bleed of 6 or 7 it has to be a huge > vampire) is no longer trivial, due to the fixes of Mind Rape and the Tomb. > Tacking on "no action modifiers" is unnecessary and ends in wallpaper. With the fixes of Mind Rape and Tomb, do you mean 7/7-fixes, my proposed fixes or any other fixes? If you mean my fixes, I reluctantly agree with you, but I still have problems with unblockable bleeds. If you use DayOp, you get it practically for free (DayOp), cause it doesn't matter if the vamp goes to torpor, he is burned. You still manage an unblockable 5/6 bleed with all modifiers (+2 for IC, +3 Conditioning) on top of it! That's still a bleed for 10 or 11 pool, and IMHO that's a bit too high, especially if it's unblockable. [ quoted text not captured ] Indeed I do, as the Eco-fix is crap. Sorry, that's my opinion, and I'm adamant about it. Period. It's because the Eco-fix is not very true to the intent of the card. Granted, it makes ToR *less* powerful, just a bit too much less! The -1 cap. fix on the other hand is elegant, limits ToR, and is balanced. I still haven't seen any arguments contradicting this. And with the -1 cap. fix, RtI and MR don't have to be altered *that* much! See, the key is capacity: if it is lower to begin with, then RtI is a bit lessened (just a bit!), and MR cannot be used against any vamp on the table anymore (depends on their cap.). Even with ToR fixed (-1), RtI and MR need some slight fixes to limit abuse. That's what I'm trying to say. > > > > > > > > >Soul Gem - maybe it should cost 2 pool, like the V:TES version says. > > > > > Or maybe, with the RTI in line, a 0 pool cost is OK. > > > > > Don't know. > > > > > > > > I think soul gem is fine really. It does combo well with Golconda, > > > > but it's really not that bad. RtI was definitly the culprit here. > > > > > > > > > > Question: *Does* it still combo with Golconda? Removing from the game is > > > still considered burning, right? So that means that Golconda'ing or RtI'ing > > > a vamp with the Soul Gem will still activate the Gem, right? (Not that I > see > > > a problem with this, just wondering.) > > > > Hm, I assume the Gem activates when a vamp is *burned*, so the combos > > are stopped with the 6/23 errata. But then, I might be wrong. If so, > > we should do something about the Gem. > > > Why? In any case, it doesn't matter, as the errata you mention does remove > those combos. But do you really want to make the game so that no *combos* are > even possible? You may be the first of the doomsday fixers that Legbiter > prophesied. But no... I will resist the doomsday fixers... 8) Hah, I *love* combos, but I dislike abusive ones. IMO, Soul Gem can be abused as a pool generator. I've played against a deck with IC's and Carlotta Giovanni, with Hostile Takeovers and Temptations of Greater Power and Compel the Spirit (the nec card that brings your vamps back from the ash heap), and the obligatory Mind Rape. Sure as hell he had Tombs en masse in the deck as well. In one of the games I even was his predator, and I played an effective rush deck (+1 hand damage and CEL). Outcome: I couldn't oust him (not even with RtI!), and he *always* had aroud 40!!! pool. One of the key cards that made that possible was: Soul Gem. Okay, now that it removes vamps from the game, it is somewhat less powerful, but still it generates massive amount of blood in the right combo. > > > Can we agree that the "Power 3" have to be fixed _together_ in order to > > balance them? > > > The "Power 3" have been fixed. Just not to our liking. You realize that, > right? And I agree that they should be fixed differently, but I think you go > too far with the RtI thing. Okay, I agree that the 3 cards have been fixed. But they haven't been fixed in a way to remain in their original intent. And the RtI-thing: I guess that there are players out there who wished it was restricted even further then my fix. It's just some sort of compromise, as I think it generates still a big "swinging"-effect on the game if act.mod. are allowed. -Carl, VEKN Prince of Vienna -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1103_90...@bernier2.meca.polymtl.ca>, gen...@iname.com wrote: > > > RtI: add text "If your prey is ousted with the successful use of this action, > > > do not gain 6 pool." (or other appropriate wording... ) and some or all > > > other appropriate fixes (such as "remove this vampire from the game, > > > no Action Mod, your prededator can spend 2 pool to cancel this > > > action, etc.). > > > While this isn't a bad idea, and it is certainly preferrable to pre-7/7 card > > text, it doesn't really fix the card. (WARNING: Leaving reply mode and > > simply arguing for my favourite fix now...) 8) > > ( arguing for Bleeding for half-capacity ) > > Well, to say the truth, and reading your reply, bleeding for half-capacity is > not a bad idea at all, and one I would accept without much fuss (if not none > at all). I was simply trying to bring another "possible" fix, in case another > balancing factor was needed. IMHO, bleed at X/2 is not enough, this still allows abuse. I would like to have no action modifiers, too. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 gen...@iname.com wrote: > Since RtI is often used when a chance to oust your prey his possible, > but with a dramatic stroke (i.e. massive bleed with losing a vampire), > and the few posts I have read seems to say that the benefit for one > action are too high (or overwhelming :), I just thought that if a Prey > is ousted with RtI, maybe the card could prevent you from gaining the 6 > pool associated with the ousting.: This is a good fix, but I think a lot of people would question whether it goes far enough. One might say that the main problem with RTI is not that it gains you pool, but that it wins the game for you, and loses it for someone else. The victory point you gain may be so significant that your pool count becomes irrelevant. Even if playing RTI does not leave you with enough resources to survive, the victory point you gain can be of immense significance, especially in tournament play where you might otherwise have gained *no* victory points. For your victem, the significance of this action is absolute. Your fix would have no significance in the end game, where only 2 players remain. If you already have 2 victory points, then one more will typically win you the game, even if your are subsequently ousted. With 1 victory point already, one more is often enough for a tie game. In tournament games, which are so often called on time, 2 victory points is often enough to make you the top player at the table. I think any fix of RTI must address the issue of ensuring that the cards cost--the loss of a vampire--remains significant after the action resolves. But the only reason you need the vampire in the first place is to help you win the game. If the action gains you victory or partial victory (as the unfixed version almost always does) then the sacrifice of this vampire involves no real risk. He has already served his purpose. With RTI, the cost might be appropriate to the effect only if your prey really does have enough pool to take the bleed. For instance: If my prey has 15 pool, and I RTI him for 10 with a 9 capacity minion, leaving him at 5 pool and me without my biggest minion, I bring him closer to death but also take a serious risk to myself. I have not won the game yet and since I have lost one of the minions I need to win the game the sacrifice I made for the enormous bleed was not meaningless. I believe if the use of RTI were somehow restricted to circumstances like the above, then it would be a balanced card. I can think of no truly elegant fixes that would ensure this. One idea is my previous suggestion (predator may burn 2 pool to cause action to fail), which ensures that action will be cancelled any time is used for "overwhelming" benefit (which would probably include any time it is used to oust). However, there is no guarantee that a predator would be willing to pay two pool to stop an oust (especially if it's the only 2 pool he has left). Other thoughts: "Only usable when your prey has 2x pool or more." [x, if you recall, is the capacity of the acting minion.] "If this action would oust your prey, he instead withdraws instantly with one victory point." [ quoted text not captured ]

Lupus Australis wrote: > > I can think of no truly elegant fixes that would ensure this. One idea is > my previous suggestion (predator may burn 2 pool to cause action to fail), > which ensures that action will be cancelled any time is used for > "overwhelming" benefit (which would probably include any time it is used > to oust). However, there is no guarantee that a predator would be willing > to pay two pool to stop an oust (especially if it's the only 2 pool he has > left). This is why this isn't that great of a fix; it requires the predator to care about someone across the table. If there is any sort of animosity between your prey and your predator, then this isn't a fix at all. For example, if the predator is saying "that's a rush deck and I hate rush decks, go ahead and kill him". I know that doesn't sound very reasonable, but most people aren't very reasonable. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu V:EKN FAQ Maintainer http://www.math.wisc.edu/~hamblin/faq.html "We _do_ kill people... that's sort of our raison d'etre" -- Spike

In article <6rglvc$n79$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, CPilh...@bhak12.ac.at wrote: > > You talk as though the Tomb is not already fixed. It has been completely > > neutered and is incapable of being abused. While I agree that this is a Good > > Thing, I still prefer the version which is more interesting, useful, and > > faithful to the original. Unfortunately, I think LSJ has his mind made up on > > the matter. We'll see in time, I suppose... > > Indeed I do, as the Eco-fix is crap. Sorry, that's my opinion, and I'm > adamant about it. Period. > It's because the Eco-fix is not very true to the intent of the card. Granted, > it makes ToR *less* powerful, just a bit too much less! > The -1 cap. fix on the other hand is elegant, limits ToR, and is balanced. > I still haven't seen any arguments contradicting this. <argument> Queen Anne or any other 10 with DOM will now be able to Govern the Unaligned at superior and add to the Blood bringing out Arika (or any other inner circle member) ??? Arika at 9 would be perfect. Pass those minus capacity counters over here. </argument> TheLasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6ri54u$8j1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, TheLa...@hotmail.com wrote: [ Tomb counters ] > Queen Anne or any other 10 with DOM will now be able to Govern > the Unaligned at superior and add to the Blood bringing out > Arika (or any other inner circle member) ??? > Arika at 9 would be perfect. Actually, she'll be at 11 (base) + 3 (paying for the Tomb) - 2 (GtU) which is 12. You pay 1 more. Mike -- Mike Bohlmann, MAIP - Prince of Urbana-Champaign Rules Survey - http://www.shout.net/~mbohlman/vekn/ [ quoted text not captured ]

This is about the weakest RTI I could reasonably support as new card text. Return to Innocence, The Action X blood Requires a ready vampire. (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the current blood on the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the game if this action is successful. Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon My wording may not be the best, but you get the idea. An IC with 11 blood RTI's with Day Ops. Final Bleed = 10 (1 blood is burned via Day Ops) Investment to cost ratio s/b pretty close. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jaysen Knight wrote: > > This is about the weakest RTI I could reasonably support as new card > text. > > Return to Innocence, The Action X blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the current blood on > the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all > equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting > vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the > game if this action is successful. > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > My wording may not be the best, but you get the idea. > An IC with 11 blood RTI's with Day Ops. Final Bleed = 10 > (1 blood is burned via Day Ops) > Investment to cost ratio s/b pretty close. Actually, you couldn't play Day Operation, since the cost of the action is 11 blood. Spending one blood on Day Op would cause the action to (eventually) fail, since you would be unable to pay the cost. I think you want the total bleed amount to be determined only when the action is successful, which IMO would cause no end of rules headaches. But, the way it is, you _can't_ play Day Op or any action mod. requiring a blood cost, which I rather like. But seriously. We're jumping through hoops to cripple this card, when the reason it needs such serious cripping is that "X". No matter what "fixes" you make, a bleed for X or +X is just screaming to be abused. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Return to Innocence, The Action X blood > Requires a ready vampire. > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the current blood on > the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all > equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting > vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the > game if this action is successful. > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > Well, then, I suppose that makes you a vote in favour of the 7/7 version of RtI. Because that makes no effort whatsoever at balancing the card. Fixing a maximum bleed is useless, it just means you need different cards for the combo (capacity-increasing instead of bleed-increasing). The fact is, bleeding with a bonus equal to capacity is just ridiculously huge for the game. -Chris [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > Return to Innocence, The Action X blood > > Requires a ready vampire. > > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the current blood on > > the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all > > equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting > > vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the > > game if this action is successful. > > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > The fact is, > bleeding with a bonus equal to capacity is just ridiculously huge for the > game. First, I think you misread the card text proposed above. X is not equal to the capacity of the vampire; it is equal to the current # of blood on it. Of course, should the vampire be full, X equals "capacity", but that is circumstantial. Second, how is this card any different from the power of Spiridonas? As you will recall, it says: "Once each turn, Spiridonas can burn X+2 blood to get +X bleed" (okay, it is not "exactly" the same, but close enough for the sake of the argument). Are you arguing that Spiridonas's power is broken? If yes, how should it is fixed? If not, why should the above RtI be fixed? Frederic.

In article <6rifuo$lfi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, mboh...@shout.net wrote: > In article <6ri54u$8j1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > TheLa...@hotmail.com wrote: > > [ Tomb counters ] > > > Queen Anne or any other 10 with DOM will now be able to Govern > > the Unaligned at superior and add to the Blood bringing out > > Arika (or any other inner circle member) ??? > > > Arika at 9 would be perfect. > > Actually, she'll be at 11 (base) + 3 (paying for the Tomb) - 2 (GtU) > which is 12. You pay 1 more. Actually, Mike I was talking about the -1 cap fix that allows transfers on other vamps to be matched. Once I have 2 -1 cap counters on Arika, I will simply use GtU and Fourth Tradition, and Scouting Mission, and Legal Manipulations to bring her out the rest of the way for free. Therefore, Arika as a 9 for the three pool I paid for the Tomb (and a few actions at inherent stealth). Carpe noctem. TheLasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > Jaysen Knight wrote: > > > > This is about the weakest RTI I could reasonably support as new card > > text. > > > > Return to Innocence, The Action X blood > > Requires a ready vampire. > > (D) Bleed your prey with X bleed, where X is the current blood on > > the acting vampire. When this action is declared burn all > > equipment, location, or retainer cards attached to the acting > > vampire. The maximum bleed is X. Remove this vampire from the > > game if this action is successful. > > Artist: Dave Roach and John Kent Rarity: Uncommon > > > > My wording may not be the best, but you get the idea. > > An IC with 11 blood RTI's with Day Ops. Final Bleed = 10 > > (1 blood is burned via Day Ops) > > Investment to cost ratio s/b pretty close. > > Actually, you couldn't play Day Operation, since the cost of the action > is 11 blood. Spending one blood on Day Op would cause the action to > (eventually) fail, since you would be unable to pay the cost. I think > you want the total bleed amount to be determined only when the action is > successful, which IMO would cause no end of rules headaches. But, the > way it is, you _can't_ play Day Op or any action mod. requiring a blood > cost, which I rather like. Good, I like that then as well. I will however disagree with you forever on your viewpoint below. I don't mind there being a big bleed card in the game, as long as it isn't easy to abuse. And the text of the card above would be quite hard to abuse. No: Minion Tap abuse Concoction abuse Day Ops/Horrific Countenance abuse (Daring the Dawn? - not sure) Bleed Modifier abuse Investment/Return abuse Soul Gem abuse With the card above, as long as the other 'power two' are fixed, you have a pretty balanced card. If there are other abuse combo's out there that you can think of I would genuinely like to hear them. Jaysen [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <1103_90...@bernier2.meca.polymtl.ca>, gen...@iname.com writes > Are you arguing >that Spiridonas's power is broken? If yes, how should it is fixed? If not, why >should the >above RtI be fixed? You can see Spiridonas coming a mile away. You are told by the special ability that he has that he can bleed well. Pro-acters can get in, and people can see it coming a mile off if you bleed with him. Return to Innocence just happens. No warning. No deck strategy. No vampire you can actually sit down and think "He will play RtoI because sie has that special ability". No set of disciplines required. RtoI has *no* warning. Generally, a pure S&B deck won't need it, but it goes in any other form of deck and just happens. If it's pulled off, you're dead. [ quoted text not captured ]