Combat: Why isn´t been given more support?

Bleed, breed, and vote usually get several upgrades during releases of new expansions. It´s what get´s to the finals during turnaments. I don ´t have any specific cards in mind, but we all know that Dominate has been one of the more powerfull disciplines concerning forward momentum. What about Combat as a viable path to victory? Why are the only effective cards so far to support that strategy been Fame, Tension, and Dragon Bound?

[ quoted text not captured ] because supporting combat=supporting weenies. decreasing your overall capacity, thus increasing the expendability of your minions, is always a better way to survive a rush combat environment, than stuffing your deck with Obediences, fortitude, Secure Havens etc. Yes, weenies are easier to kill*, but they also have more actions to rescue each other. sorry for stating the obvious. * - not always. for example a three-cap with PRE has absolutely the same chance to survive grapple-disarm as an eleven-cap with PRE. the same with FOR minions against Entombment, etc.

On Oct 17, 3:15 am, tony.a...@gmail.com wrote: > What about Combat as a viable path to victory? Why are the only > effective cards so far to support that strategy been Fame, Tension, > and Dragon Bound? I often hear people ask some variant of this question, "Why doesn't combat win games?" But I think this reflects a wrong way of looking at the game. I agree that an all-combat deck doesn't win, but neither does an all-stealth deck. Do you put 60 stealth cards in a deck and say, "My stealth deck sucks, why doesn't stealth win games?" Of course not. Stealth is great, as part of a larger strategy involving good actions to use the stealth on--and combat is the same. I would like to see better combat cards in the future (on the level of Torn Signpost or Theft of Vitae) because that's how good combat cards have to be to reach competitive play. (I specifically hope Quietus can get some good long-range strikes.) But I would not say that combat is or ever should be a way to win games on its own, any more than stealth is, or should be. Tremere, Brujah, Tzimisce, Ahrimanes, and !Nosferatu all can make finals tables with loads of combat cards in their decks, sometimes more than 30. I think that shows combat has an important role in the game. But they don't win BY fighting--any more than Malkavians win BY stealthing. If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing against combat. It will force a lot of players to include 20+ combat defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain ready. That increases the likelihood that a player will not be able to play his/ her game, and also I think increases the rock/paper/scissors crapshoot element of V:TES. I'm opposed to all this. In conclusion, I think combat is an important part of the game which will continue to shine in some decks, but which should not be transformed into a victory condition. -- Brian

Name.Luc...@gmail.com schrieb: > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > against combat. It will force a lot of players to include 20+ combat > defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain ready. That > increases the likelihood that a player will not be able to play his/ > her game, and also I think increases the rock/paper/scissors crapshoot > element of V:TES. I'm opposed to all this. How is this different to being bled to death by a 1/2 cap weenie computer hacking / dominate deck? -- Johannes Walch

[ quoted text not captured ] There are indeed weenie obfuscate decks that run pretty much 60 stealth cards and win games (and tournaments). Most of them have 8 to 12 computer hackings too (and a few masters), but some run just night moves (which is really a stealth card, not a bleed card). Oh and yeah it would totally suck if a deck had to put 20 combat defense cards in them... it would be almost, like, some decks putting 20 bleed defense (wake, interecept, flick, reduce, pool gain etc.) in them. Oh wait, lots of decks already do.

On Oct 17, 3:23 pm, Johannes Walch <johannes.wa...@vekn.de> wrote: > How is this different to being bled to death by a 1/2 cap weenie > computer hacking / dominate deck? There is a slight difference (although not a big one). A combat deck that effectively removes your minions from the ready region takes away your ability to play the game at all. Which is no fun. Well, a weenie bleed deck ousts you quickly (not that much fun either) but at least you can try to survive and if you get ousted you don't have to sit there and wait to get a chance to join another game. I think Brian just wrote some very wise words people. Compare combat to stealth, not bleed. If combat gets too strong, all the non-competitive play (with interesting trick decks and so on) will just slowly die. And so will VTES as a game too. Is combat too strong as it is now? Not yet, but that day will come sooner that we think if the combat develops at the current rate. Best regards, Antti

On Oct 17, 8:50 am, atir...@gmail.com wrote: > There is a slight difference (although not a big one). A combat deck > that effectively removes your minions from the ready region takes away > your ability to play the game at all. Which is no fun. Lots of decks do that. And aren't combat related. At all. Tons of decks in the game are "no fun". Why single out one of them (combat) as "too not fun to make more viable" while not singling out others? And a fast mega bleed deck that bleeds you out in 4 turns is just as no fun. Why are these decks made to work better with every expansion (more big bleed, more stealth)? They are also "no fun". > Well, a weenie > bleed deck ousts you quickly (not that much fun either) but at least > you can try to survive and if you get ousted you don't have to sit > there and wait to get a chance to join another game. The same thing happens with Rush decks. If I kill all your minions? You will be ousted quickly. And get to play a new game. How is this different than getting bled for 20 by T4? > If combat gets too strong, all the non-competitive play (with > interesting trick decks and so on) will just slowly die. ? That makes no sense. Non competetive decks get killed by heavy bleeds just as much by combat. -Peter

On Oct 17, 8:16 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > I often hear people ask some variant of this question, "Why > doesn't combat win games?" Combat does win games. It is just hard to do. > But I think this reflects a wrong way of > looking at the game. I agree that an all-combat deck doesn't win, but > neither does an all-stealth deck. All stealth decks win games all the time. > Do you put 60 stealth cards in a > deck and say, "My stealth deck sucks, why doesn't stealth win games?" No, you put 60 stealth cards in a deck and say "Wow! That was much more effective than I thought it was going to be. Awsome!" > I would like to see better combat cards in the future (on the > level of Torn Signpost or Theft of Vitae) because that's how good > combat cards have to be to reach competitive play. (I specifically > hope Quietus can get some good long-range strikes.) But I would not > say that combat is or ever should be a way to win games on its own, > any more than stealth is, or should be. Combat is a very important trump to keep S+B in check. S+B is very powerful. Still. Old school/new school S+B decks still win all the time. 'Cause they are amazingly effective. What kills them more than anything else? Rush combat. But for Rush combat to make a show on the scene, Rush combat needs to be a viable way to win. Rush combat was, until recently, a just barely viable way to win games/ tournaments. It was a hard path to follow, sure, but doable. The Imbued knocked the viability of Rush combat back some in a grand sense, which was sad, but maybe something that will get fixed. > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > against combat. There already are enough cards to encourage players to make proactive, Bum's Rush based decks which oust their prey for doing that. See: Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, Perpetual Care (all of which are notably useless against the Imbued...). Rush decks can and do work. They are just a little below the "generally effective" line these days. A lot of people complain the Rush combat isn't "fun", as it keeps folks from playing the game. As noted, lots of decks do that all the time. Getting bled for 20 in 4 turns? Keeps you from playing the game. Having your vampires burned by PTO? Keeps you from playing the game. Having all your minions Brainwashed? Keeps you from playing the game. Getting all your dudes Sensory Deprived? Keeps you from playing the game. VTES can be a mean game. A lot of the time, if your predator is effective? You don't get to play. That is sad. But how it goes. Heck-- in our LotN draft tournament recently, I got ousted by a more or less preconstructed Giovanni deck in, like, 12 minutes from start time. I spent the next hour and a half being like "Huh. That was fairly brutal for a pre-con. Man." and not having anything to do but watch other games. Which was fine, as that is sometimes what happens. > It will force a lot of players to include 20+ combat > defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain ready. You mean like how currently, players are forced to include 20+ bleed defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain in the game? Defense is a choice. Currently, bleed defense is usually the top choice, 'cause bleed is a default action, and the likelyhood of being powerbled is high enough for the opprtunity cost of including specific bleed defense (how many deck include, at the very least 6-8 wake type card/8-10 bounce? Most of them...) People don't generally consider combat to be a winning strategy, so they don't expect to see it much, so they don't include much combat defense. Which is a reasonable thing to do. But then they get cranky when they get rushed and killed. Much like sometimes people get cranky when they get powerbled to death when they included zero bleed defense in their deck. That is just how things go. > That > increases the likelihood that a player will not be able to play his/ > her game, and also I think increases the rock/paper/scissors crapshoot > element of V:TES. I'm opposed to all this. The RPS crapshoot is already a huge element of the game. Except that people regularly throw Scisors (i.e. bleeding), so including Scisor defense is just common wisdom. Rush decks do ok 'cause they throw Rock. > In conclusion, I think combat is an important part of the game > which will continue to shine in some decks, but which should not be > transformed into a victory condition. It already is a victory condition. Just a more protracted one than bleeding for 6 per action. -Peter

Wish I had something to add. Well said. -- David Cherryholmes

On 17 Oct, 15:56, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wish I had something to add. Well said. Heh, I was just thinking that when I got to your post Dave. What I would add is that combat imo HAS got quite a lot of love lately. From a returning players' point of view it certainly seems a more viable and robust strategy than it was (and even then it was not a terrible one imo). It also happens to be my favourite I think. My favourite tourney wins have been with combat decks, they just seem a lot more.... simple. It's on the table, demonstrate it once or twice and you don't have to bother with that silly table talk much, they KNOW you are going to push their face in unless they have some pretty robust defence. There was an interesting post on the UK forum from a new-ish player who liked the look of certain cards, really reminded me about the need for combat to be consistant in what it does (hit for 3, poke for agg etc.) looking at cards like Preternatural Strength reinforces my point on combat getting stronger. Take a disc. combo like POT CEL, not difficult to find, you put a Pre. Strength on that minion and they are hitting for perm 3 or 9 with one Blur, couple that with Immortal grapple or Psyche and you are getting a long way towards a solid combat module for comparatively few cards if you ask me. Look at that.. I did have some crap to add after all!

On Oct 17, 5:19 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Why single out one of them (combat) as > "too not fun to make more viable" while not singling out others? I guess it's just because we were talking about combat here in particular. I've seen too many bad combat decks that do kill your minions but don't oust you because they have to go upstream for their own defense. Hell, I often do it myself too! I apologize for combining combat decks and bad play (stereotyping?). > And a fast mega bleed deck that bleeds you out in 4 turns is just as > no fun. Why are these decks made to work better with every expansion > (more big bleed, more stealth)? They are also "no fun". True. But at least you don't have to sit there and wait to get ousted. I should propably add some sort of metagame disclaimer in my posts since I don't see these mega cheese bleed decks that often. Not in casual play nor in tournaments. > ? That makes no sense. Non competetive decks get killed by heavy > bleeds just as much by combat. Sure. There are tons of ways to get ousted. In my books combat is a denial strategy (remove blockers, then bleed). No one ever asks for more minion lockdown cards (like sensory deprivation) to play effective denial. Why? Because those cards don't let you play your game (i.e. cards in your library) at all. Just like you don't get to play your cards when your minions are in torpor. Oh well. I like combat and combat likes me :-) I'm just afraid that someday there will be more transient anti-S:CE cards (like immortal grapple) and it will change the game altogether. Antti

In article <1192643773.5...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, ati...@gmail.com wrote: > I guess it's just because we were talking about combat here in > particular. I've seen too many bad combat decks that do kill your > minions but don't oust you because they have to go upstream for their > own defense. Hell, I often do it myself too! I apologize for combining > combat decks and bad play (stereotyping?). Sure--lots of decks can be played bad. And yeah, when combat is played badly, it can be incredibly disruptive and make the game suck. Which, well, is a problem, I agree. But again, not solely the province of the combat deck--a completely reactive wall deck is gonna do the same thing and a badly played upstream rush deck; you give your prey a free ride, make your predator miserable, and in best case scenario, you end up with 2VPs while likely your prey wins the game. > True. But at least you don't have to sit there and wait to get ousted. You don't have to sit there and wait to get ousted by combat decks either--when you get all your minions killed, you can't generate pool. You get ousted pretty quickly. When I play Rush decks in competition, I regularly wipe out my first prey (assuming favorable conditions) really quickly. At one qualifier, I Rushed my first prey out of the game so quickly I got the first oust of the tournament. Getting ousted by a Rush deck doesn't have to be any slower than getting ousted by anything else. > I should propably add some sort of metagame disclaimer in my posts > since I don't see these mega cheese bleed decks that often. Not in > casual play nor in tournaments. You probably should--it would make you appreciate Rush decks more :-) Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On Oct 17, 7:56 pm, atir...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 17, 5:19 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > Why single out one of them (combat) as > > "too not fun to make more viable" while not singling out others? > > I guess it's just because we were talking about combat here in > particular. I've seen too many bad combat decks that do kill your > minions but don't oust you because they have to go upstream for their > own defense. Hell, I often do it myself too! I apologize for combining > combat decks and bad play (stereotyping?). So because combat is good at dunking minions, but does not get pool/ prey damage/love for it, it should not get love in the future? Street cred is in my opinion a good start, every single POT deck should pack a few, just like they should pack disarm. More of this would make combat better. In fact, making the red list mechanism more playable as opposed to an Xzealot speciality (love yah Norm ;) would go a long way. If getting perma +2 hand size/bleed/blood per turn was easier, combat would become way more played. > > > And a fast mega bleed deck that bleeds you out in 4 turns is just as > > no fun. Why are these decks made to work better with every expansion > > (more big bleed, more stealth)? They are also "no fun". > > True. But at least you don't have to sit there and wait to get ousted. Really? Get bled for 20 by turn 4, and what do you do but wait to get ousted? > I should probably add some sort of metagame disclaimer in my posts > since I don't see these mega cheese bleed decks that often. Not in > casual play nor in tournaments. Lucky you ;) Where you live? > > ? That makes no sense. Non competetive decks get killed by heavy > > bleeds just as much by combat. > > Sure. There are tons of ways to get ousted. In my books combat is a > denial strategy (remove blockers, then bleed). No one ever asks for > more minion lockdown cards (like sensory deprivation) to play > effective denial. Why? Because those cards don't let you play your > game (i.e. cards in your library) at all. Just like you don't get to > play your cards when your minions are in torpor. > > Oh well. I like combat and combat likes me :-) I'm just afraid that > someday there will be more transient anti-S:CE cards (like immortal > grapple) and it will change the game altogether. > > Antti I wish there was a reverse tension, something which gained me a pool permanently, every time i binned a minion. Even moved a blood to an uncontrolled minion every dunking, that would be awesome. Because Street cred, while being great, once again slots combat into the POT only region, same as IG. Which is probably the best combat card in the game.

In article <1192641637.3...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, rptre...@aol.com wrote: > What I would add is that combat imo HAS got quite a lot of love > lately. From a returning players' point of view it certainly seems a > more viable and robust strategy than it was (and even then it was not > a terrible one imo). (thanks to both of you for the support :-) Yeah, I gotta agree--Rush combat *has* had a lot of bones thrown to it of late: -Tension/Dragonbound: Both huge for Rush ousting. -Perpetual Care: Theoretically strong, but difficult to employ. -Frontal Assault: Can be huge. -Slam/Street Cred: Both, in theory, strong. But hard to use. -LotN has a lot of cool, combat-centric cards for the Assamites (Black Throne?), although, well, ya know, Assamites... So a lot of good cards have been printed to help out pure combat strategies. But, as noted, the Imbued kind of set back most of the advances given to combat decks in a grand sense--most of the cool new cards don't work against the Imbued, and the Imbued are really hard to oust with combat strategies. [ quoted text not captured ]

> What I would add is that combat imo HAS got quite a lot of love > lately. From a returning players' point of view it certainly seems a > more viable and robust strategy than it was (and even then it was not > a terrible one imo). Agreed, and it was my initial reaction at the first post. I've played recently at the french Championship, after nearly a year without playing (not even regular casual play, truly) and I've had to face the following facts : - many fight decks scored GWs and made the finals - among them were all the variations : allies rush, weenie rush (Ani mostly), intercept fight (Trems, Tzim, Ani, Aus/guns), bruise'n'vote, bruise'n'bleed, Eurobrujah toolbox crap (sick of them after so many years), etc. - there were so many fighters that to survive you had to either pack combat love or lots of combat hate - of course weenies were better able to handle the rushers than fatties (2 weenies dead = you get out another weenie ; 2 Inner Circles dead, as I witnesses, = well, you're dead you know ?!) - as a result of all this, decks which I built according to the game I used to play 1 year ago - and with which I made big scores in big tournies - were close to useless, and I got my ass handed to me on a silver plate (granted, I played less well than a year ago too, but the decks did have something to do with it too) So my conclusion is : there definitely has been a change in metagame towards fight, mainly intercept/fight and rush/fight, either as part or total of a winning strategy (the rest might include bleed or vote, always good to, you know, kill a prey or two...). This already requires adapting to, as I can testify. More than this and we might as well play Rage all over and forget all about politics, not to mention bleed. Oh, and playing big vampires - with the possible exception of Enkidu - has definitely become too risky to be worth mentionning at a normal tournament. -- Orpheus -------------------- "Never Kill Again To Live Another Golden Day", the James Bond movie you'll never see.

On 17 Oct, 21:10, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1192641637.366685.270...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, > > rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > > What I would add is that combat imo HAS got quite a lot of love > > lately. From a returning players' point of view it certainly seems a > > more viable and robust strategy than it was (and even then it was not > > a terrible one imo). > > (thanks to both of you for the support :-) > > Yeah, I gotta agree--Rush combat *has* had a lot of bones thrown to it > of late: > > -Tension/Dragonbound: Both huge for Rush ousting. > -Perpetual Care: Theoretically strong, but difficult to employ. > -Frontal Assault: Can be huge. > -Slam/Street Cred: Both, in theory, strong. But hard to use. > -LotN has a lot of cool, combat-centric cards for the Assamites (Black > Throne?), although, well, ya know, Assamites... > > So a lot of good cards have been printed to help out pure combat > strategies. But, as noted, the Imbued kind of set back most of the > advances given to combat decks in a grand sense--most of the cool new > cards don't work against the Imbued, and the Imbued are really hard to > oust with combat strategies. *nods* Those bastards do seem to keep on coming on. Any thoughts as to why they were made so resilient and opposing in terms of negating the effects of a lot of cards Pete? Reading through all the new cards I really do think combat per se has had some good stuff in the last few sets. Indirectly beneficial cards like Carvers spring to mind here; a wonderful plus for most combat decks if you ask me, all sorts of card rolled into one, weenie squash/ block deter, medium to huge blood gain, table blood limiter, self blood gain with Star and weenies deck etc etc. Just a great card that lets your bringers of pain keep bringing the noise. Let's face it, when on a table of 5 is there *not* a couple of minions below 4 that get a drumming? If only that happens a few times in the last few turns the card has paid for its slot and cost imo.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think WW just figured they'd cram all the Imbued goodness they could into a single set up front. It's unlikely we'll see another Imbued heavy set for two or three years. Just so happens that they were slightly more robust than might otherwise be intended. And it will take some other work to scale them back some (or raise the level of combat higher...again). Personally, I'm in the BAN MEMORIES OF MORTALITY camp. That card is just stupid good now with effective allies on the table and it's nearly impossible to remove safely. It's more powerful than Pentex Subversion, with the "restriction" being that you have to play an ally deck to make it worthwhile. That used to be incentive enough not to use it, but not any more. Jeff /or make MoM unique!

On Oct 17, 5:16 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 17, 3:15 am, tony.a...@gmail.com wrote: > > > What about Combat as a viable path to victory? Why are the only > > effective cards so far to support that strategy been Fame, Tension, > > and Dragon Bound? > > I often hear people ask some variant of this question, "Why > doesn't combat win games?" But I think this reflects a wrong way of > looking at the game. I agree that an all-combat deck doesn't win, but > neither does an all-stealth deck. Do you put 60 stealth cards in a > deck and say, "My stealth deck sucks, why doesn't stealth win games?" > Of course not. Stealth is great, as part of a larger strategy > involving good actions to use the stealth on--and combat is the same. > > I would like to see better combat cards in the future (on the > level of Torn Signpost or Theft of Vitae) because that's how good > combat cards have to be to reach competitive play. (I specifically > hope Quietus can get some good long-range strikes.) But I would not > say that combat is or ever should be a way to win games on its own, > any more than stealth is, or should be. Quietus needs more than just good long-range strikes. It needs GOOD STRIKES PERIOD. In Lords of the Night, Quietus as a discipline got loads of useful stuff. But we got one not so hot combat card: Strike at the True Flesh. One could argue this makes melee weapon combat better, but melee weapon combat is quite weak to begin with and this one card won't improve it. Target tech might also help, but it's general purpose and doesn't just help Quietus. The most important combat cards in the game are: Immortal Grapple, Majesty and Carrion Crows. Nothing else really matters unless it can be compared to those three. > Tremere, Brujah, Tzimisce, Ahrimanes, and !Nosferatu all can make > finals tables with loads of combat cards in their decks, sometimes > more than 30. I think that shows combat has an important role in the > game. But they don't win BY fighting--any more than Malkavians win BY > stealthing. Theo Bell and Beast would like to have a talk with you. :) Tremere win because they have Dominate, not Theft of Vitae. Ahrimanes and Tzimisce have access to Carrion Crows and Eagle's Sight/Falcon's Eye as well as significant bleed capability. That's why LOSS is going to be such a huge card for Assamite fans. > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > against combat. It will force a lot of players to include 20+ combat > defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain ready. That > increases the likelihood that a player will not be able to play his/ > her game, and also I think increases the rock/paper/scissors crapshoot > element of V:TES. I'm opposed to all this. The difference, as Peter already expounded, is that a combat deck often wins picking at your bones while you're still sitting at the table. Bleed and vote decks oust while their prey may still be strong and have minions who can act. It's just a perception of how you go down to defeat that makes combat "less fun." > In conclusion, I think combat is an important part of the game > which will continue to shine in some decks, but which should not be > transformed into a victory condition. > > -- Brian I still think combat is relatively viable. The thing it needs now is a way to affect Imbued with respect to pool damage. Peter listed many cards which are staples in combat decks which are utterly useless vs Imbued. Heck, even TASTE OF VITAE is useless--you can't even play it in combat vs Imbued! I don't anticipate the new Imbued hate cards to have a major impact, though I really hope they do. Jeff

In article <1192653228.3...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, rptre...@aol.com wrote: > Those bastards do seem to keep on coming on. Any thoughts as to why > they were made so resilient and opposing in terms of negating the > effects of a lot of cards Pete? I suspect (I was not involved in any Imbued playtesting, so I am just guessing here) that the feeling was the the Imbued were going to be vulnerable to combat, and in the name of not making them completely shut down by combat, they were made resilient (i.e. easy to incapacitate but easy to re-capacitate). And all those cards that said "vampire" when they needed to say "minion" in the context of the Imbued (Taste, Fame, Disarm, etc.) were either just ignored completely or folks figured that "well, the Imbued are totally hosed by combat anyway, so that Taste and Disarm don't work on the Imbued simply by accident isn't a bad thing...". And then you mix in Memories of Mortality. And Champion. And Determine. And all the new cards that don't work on the Imbued too. And you end up with a damn tough bunch of minions for Rush combat to deal with. And maybe it is completely intentional. But maybe not. In either case, in the end, the Imbued being viable and regularly showing up in tournaments means that Rush combat is often fighting a much bigger uphill battle than it can deal with. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I think that Target tech helps the Assimites, Not so much from a Blur addtional strike point of view, but rather from a first strike and frontload a boatload of damage. > The most important combat cards in the game are: Immortal Grapple, > Majesty and Carrion Crows. Nothing else really matters unless it can > be compared to those three. I think that the Target tech w/ first strike may soon be added to that group, but that is just me right now. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

excuse me but i dont understand why majesty and not earth meld is in the list of "most important combat card in the game" (im ok with the other two) could someone explain this to me please? thanks in advance :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 17 Oct, 22:26, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: [snip] > > The most important combat cards in the game are: Immortal Grapple, > > Majesty and Carrion Crows. Nothing else really matters unless it can > > be compared to those three. > > I think that the Target tech w/ first strike may soon be added to that > group, but that is just me right now. I'm bordering on adding Claws (and variants) to that grouping. On its own it requires defending against or the target goes south, simple as. That is strong like bull. With Rots it opens up a whole new avenue of wall possibilities and 'defense in a can' modules.

On 17 Oct, 22:45, "Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex)" <shaitan.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > excuse me but i dont understand why majesty and not earth meld is in > the list of "most important combat card in the game" (im ok with the > other two) > > could someone explain this to me please? > > thanks in advance :) For me it is simply because it is the staple card of a discipline that is also *very* good at ousting.... unlike Protean :o)

[ quoted text not captured ] No idea why but google snipped this bit .... >> and is the paper to Immortal Grapples scissors, in that it is *the* defensive combat card.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And all those cards that said "vampire" when > they needed to say "minion" in the context of the Imbued (Taste, Fame, > Disarm, etc.) were either just ignored completely or folks figured that > "well, the Imbued are totally hosed by combat anyway, so that Taste and > Disarm don't work on the Imbued simply by accident isn't a bad > thing...". Taste doesn't work on the Imbued (or allies in general) by design, not by accident. Same with Fame.

[ quoted text not captured ] ...which leaves us with the tantalising possibility of an updated text on Disarm in some future set! :) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

Salem wrote: > LSJ wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> And all those cards that said "vampire" when they needed to say >>> "minion" in the context of the Imbued (Taste, Fame, Disarm, etc.) >>> were either just ignored completely or folks figured that "well, the >>> Imbued are totally hosed by combat anyway, so that Taste and Disarm >>> don't work on the Imbued simply by accident isn't a bad thing...". >> >> Taste doesn't work on the Imbued (or allies in general) by design, not >> by accident. Same with Fame. > > ....which leaves us with the tantalising possibility of an updated text > on Disarm in some future set! :) Perhaps. If Disarm is somehow deemed too weak, and raising the weak card's power by functionally changing the card text is deemed warranted. That seems unlikely. It has been pointed out that the imbued are apparently mindless as well as armless, too. But Mind Numb seems similarly unlikely to see a functional change.

> Yeah, I gotta agree--Rush combat *has* had a lot of bones thrown to it > of late: You forgot the two most important cards from LotN imo: Monster and Ambulance. Both of these cards will boost the viability of rush considerably. Ambulance also has the added bonus of being a bit of an imbued hoser.

[ quoted text not captured ] Earth Meld didn't make the cut due to Becoming of Ennoia. :) No, even though it's now strictly better than Majesty, it didn't used to be, and it doesn't couple with significant ousting power in the same discipline. All untaps must cost 1 blood. ;) Claws type aggro-cards didn't make the cut for me because they are useless vs Imbued and allies. Plus you just don't see them a whole lot. If people use Protean, it's generally for Form of Mist, Earth Meld and stealth. Chiropteran Marauder is much nastier since it's a freebie. Jeff

On 18 Oct, 06:39, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Claws type aggro-cards didn't make the cut for me because they are > useless vs Imbued and allies. Plus you just don't see them a whole > lot. If people use Protean, it's generally for Form of Mist, Earth > Meld and stealth. Chiropteran Marauder is much nastier since it's a > freebie. !! Is it?? Wow, has that changed then? I thought it was a blood for agg that round at superior? And yes, I agree, I think since Imbued maybe Claws et al dropped off the list but I include stuff like Chi Marauder in that bag too. Prod for 1 agg is still very powerful in quantity I think. Nasty evil smelly imbued. Why are they taking the same type of damage from having their bowels ripped out as being cuffed round the head for 1? Bluurgh.

On Oct 18, 12:39 am, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > All untaps must cost 1 blood. ;) Play with Vampiric Disease. Comments Welcome, Norman s. Brown, Jr [ quoted text not captured ]

> Taste doesn't work on the Imbued (or allies in general) by design, not by > accident. Same with Fame. Terribly flawed design imo. For every reason that peter has so eloquently stated. Rush combat is already fighting an uphill battle against the perpetually regenerating imbued without making chunks of their deck dead cards if they happen to be sitting next to an Imbued opponent.

"Blooded Sand" <sand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1192651774.0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Street cred is in my opinion a good start, every single POT deck > should pack a few, just like they should pack disarm. ObGratuitousDiscussionThrowIn: I *LOVE* the concept of Street Cred in the backstory - "YOU PUNCHED HIM GOOD!!! I *LOVE* YOU!!!"

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1192654476....@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Personally, I'm in the BAN MEMORIES OF MORTALITY camp. That card is > just stupid good now with effective allies on the table and it's > nearly impossible to remove safely. It's more powerful than Pentex > Subversion, with the "restriction" being that you have to play an ally > deck to make it worthwhile. That used to be incentive enough not to > use it, but not any more. Noooooo! Don't ban it!!! Reprint it with card text that makes it work only for recruited and not influenced allies. Fred - still hopelessly in love with stooopid ally decks...

"Mr_Wyrm (AKA Pentex)" <shaita...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1192657552.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > excuse me but i dont understand why majesty and not earth meld is in > the list of "most important combat card in the game" (im ok with the > other two) > > could someone explain this to me please? Because of the nature of the disciplines required to play them. Protean has a lot of offensive combat cards and hence less (though certainly not zero) need for SCE. Presence, on the other hand, is an offensive bleed and vote discipline with no stealth (hence will tend to see combat) and pretty much diddly-squat for offensive combat cards. Its need for SCE is...er...astounding. And Majesty having the untap at superior is easily the best of the lot, even given its cost. Fred

In message <1192687782....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, rptre...@aol.com writes: >On 18 Oct, 06:39, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Claws type aggro-cards didn't make the cut for me because they are >> useless vs Imbued and allies. Plus you just don't see them a whole >> lot. If people use Protean, it's generally for Form of Mist, Earth >> Meld and stealth. Chiropteran Marauder is much nastier since it's a >> freebie. > >!! Is it?? Wow, has that changed then? I thought it was a blood for >agg that round at superior? It's still "burn 1 blood" at superior. >And yes, I agree, I think since Imbued maybe Claws et al dropped off >the list but I include stuff like Chi Marauder in that bag too. > >Prod for 1 agg is still very powerful in quantity I think. Up to a point. It can be very annoying to be on the receiving end of it, but history suggests that Claw-based aggro-poke in vast quantities doesn't win many tournaments, even leaving the Imbued aside. This is probably, at least in part, that the Gangrel disciplines didn't lend themselves so well to defence, so you might well find yourself screwing your prey and then ousted by a metric ton of bleed. Pack Alpha (to make getting out Animalism retainers easier), Sonar, Lost in Translation etc. might make this easier, along with various bits of intercept for Animalism. And potential problems with S:CE etc. didn't help. Aggro-rush goes to smack Arika backwards - oh no, Obedience. Again - oh no, Majesty. Bye bye. Tzimisce defence is much better - Animalism retainers for long-term use supplemented with free and easy Auspex cards, and agg damage (with or without Rotschreck) as the icing on the cake. Less reliable Gangrel intercept does make Rotschreck much more difficult to utilize, of course. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

>> Prod for 1 agg is still very powerful in quantity I think. > > Up to a point. It can be very annoying to be on the receiving end of > it, but history suggests that Claw-based aggro-poke in vast quantities > doesn't win many tournaments, even leaving the Imbued aside. > > This is probably, at least in part, that the Gangrel disciplines > didn't lend themselves so well to defence, so you might well find > yourself screwing your prey and then ousted by a metric ton of bleed. > Pack Alpha (to make getting out Animalism retainers easier), Sonar, > Lost in Translation etc. might make this easier, along with various > bits of intercept for Animalism. Mostly, IME, it is because sending vamps to torpor never won anything in and by itself. The only useful effects of a rush are : - burn the minion right away (decapitate, Tha press'n'burn, Tariq + Amaranth) - send to torpor with 0 blood (Pot fight, Shamblings, War Ghouls, Cel Guns, Ani fight) - send to torpor and graverob (Trems, Giovanni Pro) - the Fame Yo-Yo + eventual Tension in the Ranks - send to torpor and block the rescue (Intercept + fight) All the rest is doomed to fail. Which is a big part of the reason why Assamites (Tariq put aside) don't win : they fit in none of those categories. Same goes for the !Gangrel. Those two clans are the weaker fighters in existence, although they can easily send anyone to torpor, and that's the reason why (ok, no access to IG is part of the reason too). So, interestingly enough, the new Gios with Pro might be very effective against other vampires... although they'll still need lots of Pot against the Imbued and other allies. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 18 Oct, 09:29, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > > >Prod for 1 agg is still very powerful in quantity I think. > > Up to a point. It can be very annoying to be on the receiving end of > it, but history suggests that Claw-based aggro-poke in vast quantities > doesn't win many tournaments, even leaving the Imbued aside. I have been looking at that quite a bit lately and I think something can be done about it :o) > This is probably, at least in part, that the Gangrel disciplines didn't > lend themselves so well to defence, so you might well find yourself > screwing your prey and then ousted by a metric ton of bleed. Pack Alpha > (to make getting out Animalism retainers easier), Sonar, Lost in > Translation etc. might make this easier, along with various bits of > intercept for Animalism. Agreed, i'd also add things that I have been thinking about for a few pointy decks lately. I might build a Proteolicious (Norm... was that you IIRC?) deck variant using Torpid Blood, Carvers and maybe Strained Vitae Supply. That would soon start getting very expensive to rescue the prodded minions. Slowly working the deck up to 2str agg over the course of the game makes it much scarier come the endgame too. Not to mention Frontal Assault. A beauty of a card for mass agg imo. > Tzimisce defence is much better - Animalism retainers for long-term use > supplemented with free and easy Auspex cards, and agg damage (with or > without Rotschreck) as the icing on the cake. Less reliable Gangrel > intercept does make Rotschreck much more difficult to utilize, of > course. Again, agreed but i'm thinking about forward power here more I guess.

[ quoted text not captured ] Every time i read the word 'ambulance' i remember a very drunk and belligerent female punk friend of mine threatening me with "I've got two words for you...*holds up three fingers and ticks them off* 'am', 'bu', 'lance'..." yes, she said "two words". yes, she counted off three syllables. No, I didn't end up in an ambulance. but it was hilarious. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 18, 5:08 am, "Orpheus" <orpheusDEADSPAM...@free.fr> wrote: > - the Fame Yo-Yo + eventual Tension in the Ranks Cobra Fangs is nice for this, because it saves you an action. The real beauty of it is that it triggers in the untap phase.. just in time to hit them for the extra pool from Fame, and just before they have the option of burning the Tension. Brent Ross

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <ixwRi.4622$wF3...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Taste doesn't work on the Imbued (or allies in general) by design, not by >> accident. Same with Fame. > > Because when Taste and Fame were worded ten years earlier, someone said > "Huh--in ten years, we will release an expansion that focuses on > powerful allies, so let's make sure that Taste and Fame say 'vampire' > and not 'minion'..."? No. Because they were made to work only on vampires. Purposefully. Disarm may be in the case you're attempting to put Taste and Fame in, but Taste and Fame are simply not in that boat.

On 18 Oct, 11:32, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> Taste doesn't work on the Imbued (or allies in general) by design, not by > >> accident. Same with Fame. > > > Because when Taste and Fame were worded ten years earlier, someone said > > "Huh--in ten years, we will release an expansion that focuses on > > powerful allies, so let's make sure that Taste and Fame say 'vampire' > > and not 'minion'..."? > > No. Because they were made to work only on vampires. Purposefully. > > Disarm may be in the case you're attempting to put Taste and Fame in, but Taste > and Fame are simply not in that boat. Yep, both 'make sense' thematically as well. I guess Disarm really doesn't, not that that is or should be too high up the biglistofconsiderationsTM

> Yep, both 'make sense' thematically as well. I guess Disarm really > doesn't, not that that is or should be too high up the > biglistofconsiderationsTM It would be good if Potence had a way to burn allies. I mean, Affia can now burn an ally with a strike, but Enkidu cannot...? It would be good if Disarm and/or Decapitate would burn an ally as well, not as a strike, but as an effect at the end of the round perhaps? --> J grail_pbem "at" hotmail.com

On Oct 18, 6:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > No. Because they were made to work only on vampires. Purposefully. Sure. 11 years ago. Taste, when originally printed, existed in an environment where allies were a minor sideline, at best. Yeah, that Taste didn't work on allies had some extra background flavor to it, which was a plus I'm sure, but in a game design sense, there wasn't any need for Taste to work on Allies. As they didn't show up much and didn't have much life in the first place to Taste. Making Taste not work on allies was totally reasonable, when Taste was printed. And then reprinted. Until the Imbued came out. Fame, when printed, was a totally different card. And keyed off of "going to torpor". Allies didn't go to torpor, or anything similar, so as Fame had an effect that happened from going to torpor and a permanent effect that came from being in torpor, it made perfect sense to make it only work on vampires. Especially as, again, allies were almost a total non factor in the game when Fame was printed. And then when Fame was totally reworked, allies still were virtially a zero factor in the game. So it made total sense, at the time, for Taste and Fame (and whatever) to not work on allies. As they didn't need to. Then the Imbued came out. And I can understand that once the Imbued came out, there wasn't going to be a massive re-write of all the cards that said "vampire" instead of "minion", 'cause there are an awful lot of them. But this strikes me as a different path than "Taste was specifically designed to not work on the Imbued". Sure, one could say that the Imbued were specifically designed to not be Tasted (or Famed or Havened or Disarmed or Seductioned or whatever), but that turned out to be, IMHO, something that isn't working out so well. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 6:32 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> No. Because they were made to work only on vampires. Purposefully. > > Sure. 11 years ago. > > Taste, when originally printed, existed in an environment where allies > were a minor sideline, at best. Yeah, that Taste didn't work on allies > had some extra background flavor to it, which was a plus I'm sure, but > in a game design sense, there wasn't any need for Taste to work on > Allies. Nor any need for it not to. Just backstory. There's no "need" for a minion with a Sport Bike not to be able to have a Hawg. Not 11 years ago. Not now.

J wrote: >> Yep, both 'make sense' thematically as well. I guess Disarm really >> doesn't, not that that is or should be too high up the >> biglistofconsiderationsTM Although it would be easy to add "or ally" to the text. I was wondering about "mortal ally" to show that Shamblings or War Ghouls ar hurt less by such a card, but well, a Horde which can only bite still... has teeth, and a Ghoul still has enough strength left to take into account its "other" arms. And there's no reason why a Werewolve or Nephandus couldn't lose its arms. So just include allies in the possible targets could definitively work. I wouldn't change the "burn 3 blood" part to 3 lives, though, because there is no logical way in which most allies should get their arms back once they're off, admitting they survive... > It would be good if Potence had a way to burn allies. > I mean, Affia can now burn an ally with a strike, but Enkidu > cannot...? > > It would be good if Disarm and/or Decapitate would burn an ally as > well, not as a strike, but as an effect at the end of the round > perhaps? It would require a totally new card text, which is a bummer, but the idea is nice. Maybe a new card : Dismember Combat [pot] Only usable at the end of a round of combat in which this vampire successfully inflicted more damage at close range than the opposing vampire or ally. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going into torpor. Put this card on the opposing vampire or ally and send that vampire into torpor or burn that ally. [POT] As above, but the vampire with this card does not untap as normal. Burn this card at the end of your next Untap phase. So we'd basically have a new variation on a known theme, with different uses than Disarm. Variation is better than Errata in most cases. What do you think ? -- "All Hail the Lords of the Night !" Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] You mean, like there's no need for a Rock Cat to be able to ride a Sport Bike, wear a Leather Jacket and use an Assault Rifle ? No, wait... ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] I support LSJ´s point of view here (yeah, that happens!). Instead of finding quirky changes to existing cards we should rather have new cards if there actually *is* a problem As far as I know Potence doesn´t have problems in burning allies. Of course there is no strike card for potence that burns an ally, but Enkidu can just hit for 5 with a Signpost and be done with most of the allies. The only problem Potence (and Celerity) has is Memories of Mortality. But then it would be better to fix Memories than fixing all the other cards. And Imbued got enough anti-love in the recent set, so let´s see from experience first if they are still so uber before applying additional fixes. -- Johannes Walch

Orpheus schrieb: [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. Someone called him (Rocky Cat) on his Camera Phone and told him to read the Book of Going Forth by Night so he can see how the stuff works. Since he enjoys reading before having a nap on his Tapestry of Blood that worked out rather well. No wonder, Rock Cat has a Heart of Nizchetus. -- Johannes Walch

On Oct 17, 4:04 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > You don't have to sit there and wait to get ousted by combat decks > either--when you get all your minions killed, you can't generate pool. > You get ousted pretty quickly. When I play Rush decks in competition, I > regularly wipe out my first prey (assuming favorable conditions) really > quickly. At one qualifier, I Rushed my first prey out of the game so > quickly I got the first oust of the tournament. Getting ousted by a Rush > deck doesn't have to be any slower than getting ousted by anything else. Which is one of the many reasons that weenie rush decks are so much more competitive. But I'm really looking forward to building my Assamite rush decks with Loss and Khabar: Glory. 8 Loss, 4 K:G, and about 12 rushes (8 CC's, 4 master/trifle contracts) seems doable, and should really speed up the oust. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 17, 4:09 pm, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wish there was a reverse tension, something which gained me a pool > permanently, every time i binned a minion. Not quite as buff as that, but Black Throne is pretty good. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 18, 8:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Nor any need for it not to. > > Just backstory. And when backstory needs to take a backseat to game balance, backstory should go out the window. Had we all had the ability to see the future, back in '97 when we were all debating how to change all the cards, like Taste and Fame and whatever, had we known the Imbued were going to exist, it seems likely that an awful lot of folks would have argued that Taste and Fame should be worded to work on the Imbued. Backstory or no. > There's no "need" for a minion with a Sport Bike not to be able to have a Hawg. > Not 11 years ago. Not now. And if there was a significant game balance issue that came from not being able to have both at the same time, you'd have a reasonable argument. Backstory is not a good enough reason for the game to not work well. Currently, that all those cards that say "vampire" when they could very well say "minion", is arguably a game balance problem. That they say "vampire" instead of "minion" is the result of various factors (backstory, inability to see the future when they were printed). But that they do is a problem. And I realize that printing the Imbued does not justify going back and retroactively changing all these cards to say "minion". But still, it is a problem. And until something changes with the Imbued on some level, it will continue to be a problem. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 8:01 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Nor any need for it not to. >> >> Just backstory. > > And when backstory needs to take a backseat to game balance, backstory > should go out the window. Absolutely correct. You can google me for some of the many times that that has been pointed out. But, of course, that isn't the case for Disarm. Nor Fame.

On Oct 18, 8:36 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > Absolutely correct. You can google me for some of the many times that that has > been pointed out. Just making sure we were on the same page. > But, of course, that isn't the case for Disarm. Nor Fame. I don't know that this is neccessarily a case of "of course". Lots of cards say "vampire" when they very well could say "minion", and in doing so, a great deal of problems could go away. Is it necessary for game balance that Taste doesn't work on the Imbued? Is it necessary for game balance that Seduction doesn't work on the Imbued? If Fame did work on the imbued, would they be too weak suddenly? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] You're trying to push a rope. Is Taste too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Taste doesn't work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Taste to correct that? No. Is Fame too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Fame doesn't work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Fame to correct that? No. Is Disarm too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Disarm doesn't work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Disarm to correct that? No. Is Seduction too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Seduction doesn't work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Seduction to correct that? No. Is Kiss of Ra too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Kiss of Ra doesn't work on allies or Arika, and if so is it necessary to alter Kiss of Ra to correct that? No. There are cards that work on allies (and Imbued). One doesn't have to restrict oneself to the cards that don't. Of course, one is free to do so, and reap the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

On Oct 18, 9:59 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Is Taste too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Taste doesn't > work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Taste to correct that? No. I've never said that it was necessary to alter Taste (although altering Taste, et. al. is certainly a way to go about fixing things). I've said that because various cards don't work on Allies, the imbued are much stronger against combat than they probably should be. There are lots of ways to fix the imballance that the Imbued caused to combat decks (a great deal of which came from the fact that many cards say "vampire" when they could just as well say "minion"). Given the current set of cards, most of these ways involve making combat decks specifically better against Imbued at the cost of their effectiveness against non imbued. Which is a bad trade off. So there is a problem (at least in my view of things)--combat is fighting uphill against the Imbued. Why is this? Well, one of the reasons is that a lot of staple combat cards say "vampire" instead of "minion". Which is arguably, in regards to the Imbued, not something the folks who developed those cards (Fame, Taste, etc) intended (as while allies did exist when they were made, the Imbued did not) as a dynamic. A lot of this could have been fixed if these cards said "minion" instead of "vampire". But that is unlikely to happen. Ok. So fix the problem in some other way. > There are cards that work on allies (and Imbued). One doesn't have to restrict > oneself to the cards that don't. Except when one is making a combat deck, one kind of *does* have to restrict oneself to cards that don't work on allies. As there aren't other viable alternatives--is there a Taste that works on allies? A Haven Uncovered? A Disarm? A Fame? -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 9:59 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Is Taste too weak (or is there an imbalance in the game) because Taste doesn't >> work on allies, and if so is it necessary to alter Taste to correct that? No. > > I've never said that it was necessary to alter Taste (although > altering Taste, et. al. is certainly a way to go about fixing things). > I've said that because various cards don't work on Allies, the imbued > are much stronger against combat than they probably should be. You say that, yes. But then you keep painting it in a way that makes it read like: "imbued are too strong against combat decks that have omitted ally-affecting effects."

On Oct 18, 11:02 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > But then you keep painting it in a way that makes it read like: "imbued are too > strong against combat decks that have omitted ally-affecting effects." As noted, you can include the ally affecting effects, but for the most part, you end up with a wildly suboptimal deck, as the ally effecting cards are too narrow in scope. If the staple cards that said "vampire" instead of "minion" said "minion"? Then you wouldn't end up with a wildly suboptimal deck. Because the cards that make combat decks go (Taste, Haven Uncovered, Disarm, Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, whatever) say "vampire" or "torpor", combat decks don't work against Imbued real well. You can replace all these things with cards that work against Allies (Break the Code and Orgy of Blood? Uh, that's pretty much it...), and then the deck does not work against non allies. There isn't so much a middle ground yet. As not enough new cards have been printed that say "minion" instead of "vampire" where they need to say "minion". Print cards that say "minion"--say, a Taste that might be less effective than it is now, but also works against Allies ("Play at the end of a round of combat between two minions when only one minion is ready. That minion gains 2 blood."); a Haven Uncovered that is less effective than Haven Uncovered yet also works on Allies ("Place this card on a minion. Any minion controleld by another methuselah may attack this minion as a (D) action. Any minion may take an action to burn this card at +1 stealth"); a Fame that is less effective than Fame but also works on allies ("Put this card on any minion. When the subject minion leaves the ready reigon, the controller of that minion burns 2 pool"). This would fix a lot of the problem. Suggesting that folks use Orgy of Blood, however, does not. -Peter

> Print cards that say "minion"--say, a Taste that might be less > effective than it is now, but also works against Allies ("Play at the > end of a round of combat between two minions when only one minion is > ready. That minion gains 2 blood."); You should really read my new post, mate ; that's exactly what it's all about. a Haven Uncovered that is less > effective than Haven Uncovered yet also works on Allies ("Place this > card on a minion. Any minion controleld by another methuselah may > attack this minion as a (D) action. Any minion may take an action to > burn this card at +1 stealth"); a Fame that is less effective than > Fame but also works on allies ("Put this card on any minion. When the > subject minion leaves the ready reigon, the controller of that minion > burns 2 pool"). This would fix a lot of the problem. Suggesting that > folks use Orgy of Blood, however, does not. If you really want different versions of existing cards, ask for new cards, not erratas : it will serve, WW will be happy to sell us new cards, the old players won't complain about "yet another errata", etc etc. I think it's a win-win proposal. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 18, 11:57 am, "Orpheus" <orpheusDEADSPAM...@free.fr> wrote: > If you really want different versions of existing cards, ask for new cards, > not erratas : it will serve, WW will be happy to sell us new cards, the old > players won't complain about "yet another errata", etc etc. I think it's a > win-win proposal. ;-) Where am I asking for errata? I have suggested new cards. I have suggested that it is harmful to combat that certain cards were worded to say "vampire" instead of "minion" 11 years ago, and something should probably remedy that somehow. -Peter

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1192722777.1...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > Print cards that say "minion"--say, a Taste that might be less > effective than it is now, but also works against Allies ("Play at the > end of a round of combat between two minions when only one minion is > ready. That minion gains 2 blood."); a Haven Uncovered that is less > effective than Haven Uncovered yet also works on Allies ("Place this > card on a minion. Any minion controleld by another methuselah may > attack this minion as a (D) action. Any minion may take an action to > burn this card at +1 stealth"); a Fame that is less effective than > Fame but also works on allies ("Put this card on any minion. When the > subject minion leaves the ready reigon, the controller of that minion > burns 2 pool"). This would fix a lot of the problem. Suggesting that > folks use Orgy of Blood, however, does not. The trouble with this suggestion - as opposed to simply changing the existing cards through errata or reprinting - is that it effectively reduces the value of combat in the metagame anyway. It may reduce it less than is currently the case (that is, in comparison with the reduction of its matrix game value caused by Imbued decks appearing on the scene) but I don't think the change makes much difference. Bear with me here for a moment. When you add a new card to the game that's intended to be the equivalent of card X but has a slightly different set of costs and effects, that can be a good thing as is the case of adding Forced Awakening to a card mix that already has Wake with Evenings Freshness. This allows more intercept-and-combat- oriented and less bounce-oriented decks a better option for the same effect and allows people to vary their approach to reaction untap cards, leading in turn to more interesting deckbuilding problems. But - notice - it _deliberately_ doesn't change the value of reaction untap very much. It increases it slightly for certain types of decks that are more amendable to the one use (intercept) than the other (bounce). But the change is intentionally small. In the case of, for instance, your altered Fame, your stated intent is likewise not to change the value of Fame. (I'm assuming one couldn't play both the new card AND Fame on a vampire. This, in itself, would make a huge difference in its value since using the two together would be pretty strong.) It's to give players an interesting choice which hinges on whether they expect to prey on almost all vampire decks or a more mixed set of prey which includes more Imbued decks. But giving players an interesting choice doesn't solve your original problem. What I think you really want, Peter, is to directly increase the value of combat decks against Imbued decks. This requires that cards typically used by combat decks be just as good as they currently are against vampire decks while becoming _simultaneously_ better against Imbued decks. Thus, the combat deck can't be required to swap out Fame. It needs to be allowed to use Fame against the Imbued. It may be that Fame needn't make the Famed Imbued's controller lose three pool. The new Fame might still cost three when the minion it were played on was a vampire but only two when played on an Imbued. But I think you have to do something like that to change the game in the way (I believe) you're looking to change it. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 11:57 am, "Orpheus" <orpheusDEADSPAM...@free.fr> wrote: >> If you really want different versions of existing cards, ask for new >> cards, not erratas : it will serve, WW will be happy to sell us new >> cards, the old players won't complain about "yet another errata", >> etc etc. I think it's a win-win proposal. ;-) > > Where am I asking for errata? You talk about "rewrite of cards". And the rest seemed implied in your posts. > I have suggested new cards. In your latest post, yes, before that I didn't see anything that went in that direction. I might have missed it, though, as I read in diagonals your exchanges with LSJ. > I have > suggested that it is harmful to combat that certain cards were worded > to say "vampire" instead of "minion" 11 years ago, and something > should probably remedy that somehow. Ok, you weren't clear about that something. I'm advocating new cards rather than changes in old ones. If we agree, then all is fine ! Feel free to repost your suggestions or comment mine in the new thread I made (I guess many players won't go through all of this thread to find card suggestions...). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 17, 11:24 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > On Oct 18, 12:39 am, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > All untaps must cost 1 blood. ;) > > Play with Vampiric Disease. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman s. Brown, Jr > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp Doesn't work on Imbued. ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] Not if the choice is between "good but not against Imbued" or "less good but works against Imbued", sure ! Which is why the suggestions I posted (see latest thread) are just variations, not tuning-down of cards (for example, the "Fame" equivalent does only 2 pool damage, but also blood damage !). In other words, the new cards include possibilities to affect Imbued, with different side-effects to the ones in existence, but no tuning-down. So choice there is, but between different effects, and if your metagame sees many Imbued you'll chose the one better fitted to that. > What I think you really want, Peter, > is to directly increase the value of combat decks against Imbued > decks. This requires that cards typically used by combat decks be > just as good as they currently are against vampire decks while > becoming _simultaneously_ better against Imbued decks. Thus, the > combat deck can't be required to swap out Fame. It needs to be > allowed to use Fame against the Imbued. Or a good equivalent. > It may be that Fame needn't make the Famed Imbued's controller lose > three pool. The new Fame might still cost three when the minion > it were played on was a vampire but only two when played on an > Imbued. But I think you have to do something like that to change > the game in the way (I believe) you're looking to change it. Feel free to put those suggestions and / or comments in the thread I started for that very purpose. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 18, 1:29 am, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1192687782.307087.69...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > rptreas...@aol.com writes: > >On 18 Oct, 06:39, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Claws type aggro-cards didn't make the cut for me because they are > >> useless vs Imbued and allies. Plus you just don't see them a whole > >> lot. If people use Protean, it's generally for Form of Mist, Earth > >> Meld and stealth. Chiropteran Marauder is much nastier since it's a > >> freebie. > > >!! Is it?? Wow, has that changed then? I thought it was a blood for > >agg that round at superior? > > It's still "burn 1 blood" at superior. Yes, but what I meant to say is that it *can* be freely cycled in combat. Maneuver to long for defense, or maneuver to close and then play the next CM (and burn 1 blood) to torpor your opponent. That's powerful and flexible. To do so with claws costs you two blood and that gets expensive fast, never mind that an empty vampire can't even play the card. Jeff

On Oct 18, 12:35 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheusDEADSPAM...@free.fr> wrote: > You talk about "rewrite of cards". And the rest seemed implied in your > posts. I am simply pointing out the source of a problem (in this case, cards that say "vampire" when they kinda need to say "minion"). And suggesting that something should be be done to fix it. > Ok, you weren't clear about that something. I'm advocating new cards rather > than changes in old ones. If we agree, then all is fine ! Sure. -Peter

"Orpheus" <orpheusDE...@free.fr> wrote in message news:47178cc5$0$19522$426a...@news.free.fr... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> In the case of, for instance, your altered Fame, your stated intent >> is likewise not to change the value of Fame. (I'm assuming one >> couldn't play both the new card AND Fame on a vampire. This, in >> itself, would make a huge difference in its value since using the >> two together would be pretty strong.) It's to give players an >> interesting choice which hinges on whether they expect to prey on >> almost all vampire decks or a more mixed set of prey which includes >> more Imbued decks. But giving players an interesting choice doesn't >> solve your original problem. > > Not if the choice is between "good but not against Imbued" or "less good but works against Imbued", sure ! Which is why the > suggestions I posted (see latest thread) are just variations, not tuning-down of cards (for example, the "Fame" equivalent does > only 2 pool damage, but also blood damage !). In other words, the new cards include possibilities to affect Imbued, with different > side-effects to the ones in existence, but no tuning-down. So choice there is, but between different effects, and if your metagame > sees many Imbued you'll chose the one better fitted to that. Look, there's only two ways to go with a new "equivalent card". Either it's balanced with the original card: i.e., a Fame-equivalent like Peter's suggestion which is more effective against Imbued than Fame but less effective in other ways. Or else it's purely better than Fame in which case it will tend to obsolesce Fame. There's no third choice. It does one or the other. >> What I think you really want, Peter, >> is to directly increase the value of combat decks against Imbued >> decks. This requires that cards typically used by combat decks be >> just as good as they currently are against vampire decks while >> becoming _simultaneously_ better against Imbued decks. Thus, the >> combat deck can't be required to swap out Fame. It needs to be >> allowed to use Fame against the Imbued. > > Or a good equivalent. There is no "good equivalent". There's no balanced way to create one. You either change Fame, obsolesce Fame, or you're doing what Peter suggested which is what I originally responded to. Fred

On Oct 18, 12:27 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > The trouble with this suggestion - as opposed to simply changing the > existing cards through errata or reprinting - is that it effectively > reduces the value of combat in the metagame anyway. It may reduce > it less than is currently the case (that is, in comparison with the > reduction of its matrix game value caused by Imbued decks appearing > on the scene) but I don't think the change makes much difference. Yeah, you are probably right. I totally see where you are going, and pretty much agree with all your points that follow. Where I stand, the possible ways to fix the problem that I see are: A) Go back in time and rewrite all the cards with the forsight of what is going on now (i.e. have known about the Imbued in 1997). Yeah, not going to happen. But would have been nice. B) The more realistic version of above, which is errata all cards as necessary. Unlikely to happen. Cards could have been rewritten with this most recent starter set. Didn't happen. Thus, unlikely to. C) Introduce virtually identical cards (like "Famous!" and "Blaste of Blitae") that work exactly the same as previous cards, but also affect the Imbued. Folks don't like when perfectly good cards get wallpapered. D) Make similar cards like I suggested. But as this sort of thing tends to go, if a perfectly good card gets a different version that is more "powerful" (in this case, able to be played more often), it needs to pay for it somehow. So you make the card slightly less effective in a general sense, but increase the general utility. As you point out, this does downpower combat as cards like Fame a Taste get replaced by less effective, but more playable versions. But at least the option exists--you could still use Fame, say, and take the risk that you won't be able to use it *or* you could switch to the new one that know you will be able to play, but also be less effective (or you could use both...). I think at least if the option existed, that would help. > But giving players an interesting choice doesn't > solve your original problem. True. But I think it would at least help some. > It may be that Fame needn't make the Famed Imbued's controller lose > three pool. The new Fame might still cost three when the minion > it were played on was a vampire but only two when played on an > Imbued. But I think you have to do something like that to change > the game in the way (I believe) you're looking to change it. As noted, I think you are probably right. But I also don't think that what you suggest would ever in a million years happen. So I end up supporting the best alternative. -Peter

On Oct 18, 11:02 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > But then you keep painting it in a way that makes it read like: "imbued are too > strong against combat decks that have omitted ally-affecting effects." It's not the combat cards that perform sub-optimally. It's the stuff that actually ousts that doesn't work against the imbued. There really aren't any alternatives to choose from, currently. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] Then again, combat wasn't designed to oust by combat, since combat doesn't target (directly) the primary resource. But that's not Peter's point. cf, Taste, Disarm, Haven, &c.

On Oct 18, 2:38 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Then again, combat wasn't designed to oust by combat, since combat doesn't > target (directly) the primary resource. Yet there are cards that allow combat to target the primary resource: Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, and to a lesser extent, Perpetual Care. And none of them work against the Imbued (Tension can, in a small number of situations). Why is it necessary for these cards to not work on the Imbued? Would the Imbued be unplayable if these cards worked on them? > But that's not Peter's point. cf, Taste, Disarm, Haven, &c. It is more or less the same point--still, lots of cards don't work on the Imbued simply because they were worded to not work on allies *way* before the Imbued were even a imagined concept. Like I realize that Taste has a backstory reason for working only on vampires, but it seems perfectly possible that had the Imbued existed when Taste was originally written, it might have gone the other way. -Peter

In article <ff7j3p$pa4$1...@news01.versatel.de>, Johannes Walch <johanne...@vekn.de> wrote: > As far as I know Potence doesn´t have problems in burning allies. How does Potence burn the Imbued, exactly? > Of > course there is no strike card for potence that burns an ally, but > Enkidu can just hit for 5 with a Signpost and be done with most of the > allies. The issue is not allies. It is the Imbued. Who work different than regular allies. Which is why the problem. > The only problem Potence (and Celerity) has is Memories of Mortality. > But then it would be better to fix Memories than fixing all the other cards. Memories is certainly a significant issue. And likely enough folks have suggested changing/banning Memories already that I suspect it is uneccessary to continue to suggest it, but, well, who am I to question repetition of point. In any case, yeah, Memories is a significant issue. But not the only one by a landslide. Another huge issue (the one that I'm addressing mostly) is that a very significant number of important tools in most combat strategies simply don't work on the Imbued. Which changing Memories really isn't going to fix. > And Imbued got enough anti-love in the recent set, so let´s see from > experience first if they are still so uber before applying additional fixes. Maybe. But still--most of the new set anti-Imbued technology falls under the same problems as the previous anti-imbued technology: -Narrow Focus -Easily Foiled (see: React with Conviction, Champion, Determine) Ambulance is certainly a plus. Cobra Fangs is pretty good (except that, again, React with Conviction). That is pretty much it. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

On my ARDB Cobra Fangs doesn't have the [ser] tag in front of the basic version text. It only has [SER] next to the superior. Does anyone know if this is a minor issue with ARDB's dB or whether it's in the WW CSV too? -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

On Oct 18, 5:27 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > On my ARDB Cobra Fangs doesn't have the [ser] tag in front of the basic > version text. It only has [SER] next to the superior. > > Does anyone know if this is a minor issue with ARDB's dB or whether it's > in the WW CSV too? The WW CSV has it (at least in the version I have on my machine from Oct 12), it sounds like an ARDB issue. Brent Ross

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 2:38 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Then again, combat wasn't designed to oust by combat, since combat doesn't >> target (directly) the primary resource. > > Yet there are cards that allow combat to target the primary resource: > Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, and to a lesser extent, Perpetual Care. There are now, yes. I was speaking of how the game was designed, however. > And none of them work against the Imbued (Tension can, in a small > number of situations). Why is it necessary for these cards to not work > on the Imbued? Would the Imbued be unplayable if these cards worked on > them? Pushing the rope again.

[ quoted text not captured ] It does now, but only because the omission was pointed out recently on IRC. The WW CSV file used to have the omission, too (as does the physical card).

On Oct 18, 10:27 pm, Salem <salem_christ....@hotmail.com> wrote: > On my ARDB Cobra Fangs doesn't have the [ser] tag in front of the basic > version text. It only has [SER] next to the superior. > > Does anyone know if this is a minor issue with ARDB's dB or whether it's > in the WW CSV too? Thanks for this I will try and get it fixed this weekend. Graham.

In message <1192731511.2...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >D) Make similar cards like I suggested. But as this sort of thing >tends to go, if a perfectly good card gets a different version that is >more "powerful" (in this case, able to be played more often), it needs >to pay for it somehow. So you make the card slightly less effective in >a general sense, but increase the general utility. > >As you point out, this does downpower combat as cards like Fame a >Taste get replaced by less effective, but more playable versions. But >at least the option exists--you could still use Fame, say, and take >the risk that you won't be able to use it *or* you could switch to the >new one that know you will be able to play, but also be less effective >(or you could use both...). Up to a point. You don't have to make cards equally playable against allies AND vampires. For some of the "subtle variations", you could do something like: Tasty, Tasty Blood (*slobber*) Only usable at the end of a round of combat. Not usable by a vampire being burned or going to torpor. This vampire gains an amount of blood equal to one less than the amount lost by the opposing vampire to damage this round, or this vampire gains one blood if any damage was successfully inflicted on the opposing ally. A vampire may play only one Taste of Vitae each round. Only fractionally weaker against vampires (a Brujah Blur deck doesn't care much here). Playable against allies, but not great against them. Cyclable for a small benefit. But isn't stupidly good, and Taste of Vitae would still be interesting. You might, instead, add a requirement to have inflicted a certain amount of damage instead, so you can't just cycle it against a gun deck at range, or whatever. Taste would still be useful. The flip-side of this is that you can make cards that hose allies but which are still playable against vampires. A hypothetical Sanguine Sex Romp might give you less blood when burning allies, but still give you one per minion if you burn an ally. Would that be useful? Perhaps so. I can, for example, see a star vampire deck choosing to splatter blood onto each of its hoard of screaming fans, in order to benefit from Blood Doll/Vessel/Tribute next turn. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <YKNRi.5832$y21....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Then again, combat wasn't designed to oust by combat, since combat >doesn't target (directly) the primary resource. > >But that's not Peter's point. cf, Taste, Disarm, Haven, &c. It seems reasonably clear that combat was designed to win by either frightening people into not blocking when they bleed or, in some cases, rushing people into torpor/non-existence so they can't block. If the Imbued aren't frightened by combat and aren't target-able by staple "combat" cards[0], the original design appears to have been subverted/ignored/cast aside anyway. [0] By which I mean staple cards for combat decks, including Haven Uncovered etc. Not just actual combat cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4g2xC9DL...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >A hypothetical Sanguine Sex >Romp might give you less blood when burning allies, but still give you >one per minion if you burn an ally. one per minion if you burn a *vampire*. Gah. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] So when people mention that there were three different paths to victory, we were obviously mistaken? There's just two paths to victory and the last one was discarded? (or in fact never was...) If combat never was meant to oust, why was there ever the point for Fame, Tensions etc.? When I wrote the first post, I wasn't thinking of red combat cards, but I was thinking about why there hasn't been more master or action cards that rewarded the fighting minion through blood or pool. Instead we have cards that force you to dunk the minions... Though obviously the whole point is gone now that combat clearly has been said to never be an ousting method. (just getting cranky. No insult nor disrespect meant.)

On Oct 17, 7:38 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 17, 8:16 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I often hear people ask some variant of this question, "Why > > doesn't combat win games?" > > Combat does win games. It is just hard to do. No it doesn't. You may mean by extension that a deck with lots of combat in it can win games, but that's not the combat winning. Most successful "rush" decks are not decks that rush, and when they run out, they bleed with everybody--they're decks that bleed with everybody, until they think it's smart to rush. And that's a bruise- and-bleed deck, at its core. If I don't have any minions, you can't "combat me to death". You can't "stealth me to death". You are forced to remove my pool counters. Bleeding affects pool directly, and is a means of winning. Combat is a way of getting bleeds to succeed, or reduce someone's secondary resources, but does NOT oust on its own. (This is important here because the original poster was saying there should be more Fame, Tension, Dragonbound etc. so that combat could oust, and if combat was already a way to oust, then he wouldn't really need to ask for that, would he?) > > But I think this reflects a wrong way of > > looking at the game. I agree that an all-combat deck doesn't win, but > > neither does an all-stealth deck. > > All stealth decks win games all the time. I bring out Lucretia, Cess Queen. Anybody scared yet? No? I actually had a predator like this, at the EC this year, just Lucretia Clan Impersonating Daughters and then Minion Tap/Concert Tour...definitely a stealth bloat deck. Never going to oust me in a million years, though, cause like I said, stealth doesn't win games. And it's important to recognize that a deck is hardly an all stealth deck if it's bleeding forward with lots of small minions. As I imagine Ankur would put it, they're a stealth _weenie_ deck, meaning that they're bleeding with lots of guys every turn. Meaning stealth and bleed. But we knew bleeding wins games; stealth just helps it get there. Unless you know of a deck where the stealth does the work, and bleeding/voting is rarely done. > > Do you put 60 stealth cards in a > > deck and say, "My stealth deck sucks, why doesn't stealth win games?" > > No, you put 60 stealth cards in a deck and say "Wow! That was much > more effective than I thought it was going to be. Awsome!" Not without weenies, Peter. (Again, unless you were thinking about some other stealth deck which doesn't bleed with a bunch of guys, in which case, enlighten me.) > > I would like to see better combat cards in the future (on the > > level of Torn Signpost or Theft of Vitae) because that's how good > > combat cards have to be to reach competitive play. (I specifically > > hope Quietus can get some good long-range strikes.) But I would not > > say that combat is or ever should be a way to win games on its own, > > any more than stealth is, or should be. > > Combat is a very important trump to keep S+B in check. S+B is very > powerful. Still. Old school/new school S+B decks still win all the > time. 'Cause they are amazingly effective. What kills them more than > anything else? Rush combat. But for Rush combat to make a show on the > scene, Rush combat needs to be a viable way to win. Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. I have more experience with my Tremere than I do with all of my other decks put together, besides maybe my Panders, and I've come to think of that Tremere deck as the most effective deck vs. a stealth bleed predator. It uses for bounce: 6 Deflection 3 Telepathic Misdirection 1 Redirection And I think that's really a lot of bounce, most decks using 6-8 Deflections. Wakes are multi-purpose, so is intercept and Blood Dolls; the only bleed-specific defenses are seven of the bounce cards. Compare this strategy to that of a Ventrue voter, which probably has something like 8 Deflection and 8 Majesty. Against a bleeder, paired with his general defense, he'll probably do fine. Against a rush deck? I doubt his majesties are going to matter. Arika is dead, and nothing short of that rush deck having a super-dangerous predator is going to stop that. > Rush combat was, until recently, a just barely viable way to win games/ > tournaments. It was a hard path to follow, sure, but doable. The > Imbued knocked the viability of Rush combat back some in a grand > sense, which was sad, but maybe something that will get fixed. Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more than Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be a big part of many larger strategies? > > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > > against combat. > > There already are enough cards to encourage players to make proactive, > Bum's Rush based decks which oust their prey for doing that. See: > Fame, Tension, Dragonbound, Perpetual Care (all of which are notably > useless against the Imbued...). Rush decks can and do work. They are > just a little below the "generally effective" line these days. I've found, personally, and I know you're Peter Rushdeck Bakija, but I've found that when playing with a rush deck, bleeding with everyone you can afford to and rushing only when you have to is a super-great way to play it, and that Fame isn't necessary to oust with (unless your deck was constructed with midcaps; Beast needs Fame to oust.) > A lot of people complain the Rush combat isn't "fun", as it keeps > folks from playing the game. As noted, lots of decks do that all the > time. Getting bled for 20 in 4 turns? Keeps you from playing the game. > Having your vampires burned by PTO? Keeps you from playing the game. > Having all your minions Brainwashed? Keeps you from playing the game. > Getting all your dudes Sensory Deprived? Keeps you from playing the > game. Good thing most of those don't hit the tournament scene with much regularity. Bleeding hard sees play, and PTO, but then PTO doesn't usually get called every turn such that you can't play at all. Besides, vote defense is becoming more prevalent, such that Delaying Tactics and Confusion of the Eye are serious anti-vote measures you'll see at practically every table. And just like I saw too much weenie AUS in years past, which didn't win, and just timed out, I also saw a whole lot of just-bleed-forward this year at the NAC, which mostly caused their prey to wall up and them to not get the game win because of this. > VTES can be a mean game. A lot of the time, if your predator is > effective? You don't get to play. That is sad. But how it goes. Heck-- > in our LotN draft tournament recently, I got ousted by a more or less > preconstructed Giovanni deck in, like, 12 minutes from start time. I > spent the next hour and a half being like "Huh. That was fairly brutal > for a pre-con. Man." and not having anything to do but watch other > games. Which was fine, as that is sometimes what happens. With all those Reckless Agitations + Conditionings, yeah, I thought the Giovanni precon had a huge ability to end its prey right in the beginning of the game. Also, I noticed that whenever that happened (over 4 prereleases I played in) that its predator usually won the table. I played much more slowly and conservatively, and won the tourney the one time I got the Gio precon. I hope this carries over to constructed, and that players recognize that killing the hell out of their prey in the first 4 turns = table hate, turtling prey, 0GWs, or some combination of these. > > It will force a lot of players to include 20+ combat > > defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain ready. > > You mean like how currently, players are forced to include 20+ bleed > defense cards just in order to be allowed to remain in the game? But they're not. Unless you count all wakes, intercept, pool gain, and multipurpose defense cards (like Confusion of the Eye) as being "bleed defense cards". I say these general defense cards aren't the same, as they are playable (and often quite good) when you have a predator who doesn't bleed you at all. Note that, except for Swallowed by the Night, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of "general defense" which also works very well against combat. > Defense is a choice. Currently, bleed defense is usually the top > choice, 'cause bleed is a default action, and the likelyhood of being > powerbled is high enough for the opprtunity cost of including specific > bleed defense (how many deck include, at the very least 6-8 wake type > card/8-10 bounce? Most of them...) But there's one huge difference between Deflection (you didn't just bleed me) and Majesty (you didn't just fight me): There is no card which does for anti-bleed-defense what Immortal Grapple or Psyche! does for anti-combat-defense. (And if there was, I'd have a problem with bleeding at stealth as a primary strategy!) > People don't generally consider combat to be a winning strategy, so > they don't expect to see it much, so they don't include much combat > defense. Which is a reasonable thing to do. But then they get cranky > when they get rushed and killed. Much like sometimes people get cranky > when they get powerbled to death when they included zero bleed defense > in their deck. That is just how things go. Ahh. See, I get cranky when I'm playing with 10 Majesty and 6 Rolling with the Punches and I get rushed by a super-dedicated combat monster and I only have 3 Majesties in my hand, which is 1 short of what I would have needed to survive. That's the difference between stealth-bleed and rush-combat: There's no capacity-independent, grapple-proof, psyche-proof, sect- independent, transient "your rush action fails" that's worth the card slot. Whereas Deflection and TM are both exactly that, against bleed. When they make "Strike: Action ends. This is a hand strike.", and it only costs one blood, and the basic version is "+1 intercept", then sure, I say rush can be a viable ousting mechanism. But this is a totally different game, not V:TES at all. Telepathic Misdirection is real, and you can't Immortal Grapple it. > > That > > increases the likelihood that a player will not be able to play his/ > > her game, and also I think increases the rock/paper/scissors crapshoot > > element of V:TES. I'm opposed to all this. > > The RPS crapshoot is already a huge element of the game. Except that > people regularly throw Scisors (i.e. bleeding), so including Scisor > defense is just common wisdom. Rush decks do ok 'cause they throw > Rock. People often choose to play with 6-10 cards that only work against getting bled, and 6-10 cards that only work against getting beat up. Making cards that make it realistic that combat decks can oust you _with the combat itself_, without bleeding or voting, would probably increase the number of combat decks in each tournament, and necessarily the combat defense per deck. Similarly, making action modifiers that cancel bounce cards or prevent them from being played would probably increase the "mandatory" bleed defense per deck. But again, it's a poor comparison. Combat's harder to defend against than bleeding, bleeding's more direct than combat. A better comparison is combat and stealth, I think. Undead Strength being comparable to Lost in Crowds in this way, Psyche! to Elder Impersonation, or Majesty to Draba. > > In conclusion, I think combat is an important part of the game > > which will continue to shine in some decks, but which should not be > > transformed into a victory condition. > > It already is a victory condition. Just a more protracted one than > bleeding for 6 per action. Just because a deck wins and happens to have combat in it, does not make combat a victory condition. The guy who started the first post wanted more cards which made "I beat your guy up" mean you lose pool, too. If that sort of thing gets printed enough such that it's seriously as viable as stealth bleed, then the whole game will be totally different from how it is now. Most current decks will not be remotely viable. Every player will need gobs of combat cards just to survive. Exciting variant, but I wouldn't want to play it every couple of weeks. 8 Deflection, 8 Majesty is a perfectly reasonable amount of "mandatory" defense in my book, and we can all leave the other 74 card slots to providing for general defense, setting ourselves up, and generating offense of our own. -- Brian

tony...@gmail.com wrote: > On 18 Okt, 20:38, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> bluedevil wrote: >>> On Oct 18, 11:02 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >>>> But then you keep painting it in a way that makes it read like: "imbued are too >>>> strong against combat decks that have omitted ally-affecting effects." >>> It's not the combat cards that perform sub-optimally. It's the stuff >>> that actually ousts that doesn't work against the imbued. There >>> really aren't any alternatives to choose from, currently. >> Then again, combat wasn't designed to oust by combat, since combat doesn't >> target (directly) the primary resource. >> >> But that's not Peter's point. cf, Taste, Disarm, Haven, &c. > > So when people mention that there were three different paths to > victory, we were obviously mistaken? Unusual assertion. I never indicated anything of the sort. There are many paths to victory. They tend to involve one or more of the three things: combat bleed vote. A deck that relies on Seduction and Bonding to bleed may be hampered when facing allies or medium intercept. A deck that relies on vampire-only effects for combat may be hampered when faced with non-vampires.

On Oct 19, 6:39 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > A deck that relies on Seduction and Bonding to bleed may be hampered when facing > allies or medium intercept. Seduction is a small subset of all possible bleed delivery mechanisms. It's acceptable that sometimes you just get trumped. > A deck that relies on vampire-only effects for combat may be hampered when faced > with non-vampires. As far as getting the oust goes, and in many other respects besides, "effects" and "vampire-only effects" are practically synonymous. Ergo, the imbued are un-oustable by combat decks. The imbued, in addition to their many other strange and quirky advantages, get to ignore one leg of the triangle. Apparently by design. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 19, 5:01 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > Most successful "rush" decks are not decks that rush, and when they > run out, they bleed with everybody--they're decks that bleed with > everybody, until they think it's smart to rush. And that's a bruise- > and-bleed deck, at its core. Oh *snap*. You just told Peter he's essentially been playing (and winning with) bruise and bleed all along. And you made a decent case for it. <grabs popcorn> :) -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 18, 9:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Pushing the rope again. How is asking a straight forward question with an easy "yes" or "no" answer "pushing the rope"? Is it necessary, in a game design sense, that Fame, Dragonbound, Tension, et. al. don't work against the Imbued? Yes. I realize that they don't work against the Imbued. 'Cause the Imbued are allies. And these things don't work on allies. But that isn't an answer to the question of "is it neccessary that they don't work on the Imbued?" If, in a hypothetical universe, these cards *did* work against the Imbued, would the Imbued cease to be playable? Would they be too weak? -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 18, 9:16 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Pushing the rope again. > > How is asking a straight forward question with an easy "yes" or "no" > answer "pushing the rope"? Because of the point of the question. Of course, nothing is necessary. It isn't necessary that a minion cannot have two vehicles. So? Is it necessary that Fame work on Imbued?

On Oct 19, 8:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Is it necessary that Fame work on Imbued? Yes. I would say that it is. And that it (and all similar mechanisms) does not is a problem. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 19, 8:15 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Is it necessary that Fame work on Imbued? > > Yes. I would say that it is. Then we have wildly different definitions of necessary.

On Oct 19, 11:23 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Then we have wildly different definitions of necessary. Nothing in the game is necessary. Yet certain things are good if they happen, in terms of the game working well. Currently, the game doesn't work so well, in regards to the Imbued and how they interact with combat. That a good number of staple cards for most combat strategies simply don't work on the Imbued is problematic. And one can suggest a million times over "then use alternaitives that work on allies", but that doesn't actually fix the problem, as there are very few alternatives to the cards that need to work that *do* work on allies, and the alternatives that do exist are incredibly ineffective and narrow in focus. -Peter

On Oct 19, 5:01 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > No it doesn't. You may mean by extension that a deck with lots of > combat in it can win games, but that's not the combat winning. By that same logic, you can say that a deck with lots of bleed in it can win games, but it isn't the bleed cards that are winning. > Bleeding affects pool directly, and is a means of winning. Combat is > a way of getting bleeds to succeed, or reduce someone's secondary > resources, but does NOT oust on its own. Nothing ousts on its own by virtue of the semantic gymnastics you are applying here. Bleed cards do nothing on their own. You need minions to use them and take actions to bleed with them. > I bring out Lucretia, Cess Queen. Anybody scared yet? No? I > actually had a predator like this, at the EC this year, just Lucretia > Clan Impersonating Daughters and then Minion Tap/Concert > Tour...definitely a stealth bloat deck. Never going to oust me in a > million years, though, cause like I said, stealth doesn't win games. I bring out Arika. I go to bleed for 7. I'm blocked. My turn ends. Anybody scared yet? How is giving an example of a poorly built deck an example of anything? > And it's important to recognize that a deck is hardly an all stealth > deck if it's bleeding forward with lots of small minions. You were trying to claim that stealth does not win games. Now you are trying to claim that stealth doesn't win games, as long as the stealth is used stupidly. Not really supporting your argument. > Not without weenies, Peter. There was no condition in your original assertion that "weenies" were not part of the equation. If your original assertion is "all stealth, when built into a bad deck, can't win games", then ok. But the issue there is "the bad deck" not "all stealth". > Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This > hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce > is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. Bounce slows S+B down. Killing all the S+B minions shuts S+B down. > Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more than > Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be a big part of > many larger strategies? It doesn't *have* to be. Nothing *has* to be. But it already is. And was significantly more effective pre-Imbued. > I've found, personally, and I know you're Peter Rushdeck Bakija, but > I've found that when playing with a rush deck, bleeding with everyone > you can afford to and rushing only when you have to is a super-great > way to play it, and that Fame isn't necessary to oust with (unless > your deck was constructed with midcaps; Beast needs Fame to oust.) Depends. Fame helps. A great deal. > Good thing most of those don't hit the tournament scene with much > regularity. Bleeding hard sees play, and PTO, but then PTO doesn't > usually get called every turn such that you can't play at all. > Besides, vote defense is becoming more prevalent, such that Delaying > Tactics and Confusion of the Eye are serious anti-vote measures you'll > see at practically every table. I'm unsure how this is relevant. > But they're not. Unless you count all wakes, intercept, pool gain, > and multipurpose defense cards (like Confusion of the Eye) as being > "bleed defense cards". I'm counting wakes and bounce in decks that have no other reaction cards, at a bare minimum. Many, many decks include, as noted, 6-8 wake/ 8-10 bounce. Simply to avoid getting powerbled to death. -Peter

On Oct 19, 11:42 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Yet certain things are good if they happen, in terms of the game > working well. Currently, the game doesn't work so well, in regards to > the Imbued and how they interact with combat. That a good number of > staple cards for most combat strategies simply don't work on the > Imbued is problematic. And one can suggest a million times over "then > use alternaitives that work on allies", but that doesn't actually fix > the problem, as there are very few alternatives to the cards that need > to work that *do* work on allies, and the alternatives that do exist > are incredibly ineffective and narrow in focus. "Fame" and other vampire-specific cards were not overpowered before the Imbued came out. Mortal Allies were not overpowered before the Imbued came out. If the Imbued are overpowered now, then the problem that has made them overpowered must be a new problem, caused by new cards printed -- including the imbued themselves. It does not make sense to correct that problem by fixing problems that were not problems before.

On Oct 19, 5:01 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > Bleeding affects pool directly, and is a means of winning. Combat is > a way of getting bleeds to succeed, or reduce someone's secondary > resources, but does NOT oust on its own. (This is important here > because the original poster was saying there should be more Fame, > Tension, Dragonbound etc. so that combat could oust, and if combat was > already a way to oust, then he wouldn't really need to ask for that, > would he?) It already is a way to oust, he just wants it to be easier. I mean, I win tables all the time in my weekly games, playing non-weenie pure rush. People aren't transferring themselves out to help me with that. I'm ousting them. The problem is that it's just not *that* good when compared to real Tier 1 decks based mostly on weenies, voting, and/or stealth bleeding. So some people would like to see it made a little better (which isn't the same thing as burying the pendulum in the far wall). > Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This > hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce > is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. But bounce doesn't actually deter anybody from building, bringing, and playing S&B. They just make sure to have it too, play "huck 5 in the pipe" and make sure to bring the DI's. High combat environments *do* actually make people think twice about playing speed-bleed/pretend combat doesn't exist decks. At the very least it forces them to dilute the deck, giving up offense for combat defense. I think Peter is correct on this point. > And I think that's really a lot of bounce, most decks using 6-8 > Deflections. Wakes are multi-purpose, so is intercept and Blood > Dolls; the only bleed-specific defenses are seven of the bounce cards. Well by your own choices you went more with Deflect than TM. And there are clearly more powerful (or at least a variety of) other intercept cards, yet you only used TM. So clearly for the bounce. I think this line of defense is a bit disingenuous. > Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more than > Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be a big part of > many larger strategies? There's just a lot of evidence, including statements from various designers, that this just isn't so. Combat, vote, and bleed were envisioned as a triangle. Apparently it was intentional with cards like Bum's Rush that you could rush your prey's guys, "force" him to spend more on new guys, rush those, and then finish the job with your paltry bleeds of one (or whatever). That isn't the only way to use red cards, but from what I understand it was really and truly intended as a major path to victory. Unlike Corruption, or whatever other secondary-resource-attacking thing you want to substitute. > > > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > > > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > > > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > > > against combat. Maybe they will balance out with all the people who have attempted to do that which we've been led to believe should be doable, and now suddenly is. Conservation of satisfaction? And again, speaking as someone who brings a lot of combat: a moderate amount of combat defense goes a long way. Rush combat (and to a lesser extent intercept combat) are such piss-poor means of ousting people that even getting stymied a little bit can push you across the razor's edge from winning to losing. Combat is interesting, it's varied, it's a little game within a game. It's "fun". So you have to have 10 less stealth bleed cards and 10 more red cards in the average deck, and actually play the combat game. That is so bad? That would make you like this game less? I guess it's just a subjective thing, but I don't get it. > I've found, personally, and I know you're Peter Rushdeck Bakija, but > I've found that when playing with a rush deck, bleeding with everyone > you can afford to and rushing only when you have to is a super-great > way to play it, and that Fame isn't necessary to oust with (unless > your deck was constructed with midcaps; Beast needs Fame to oust.) Right, non-weenie rush decks need cards like Fame, Tension, and Dragonbound to oust. And they don't work on the Imbued. And even against non-Imbued, they are piss-poor compared to bleeding and voting (for the record, I think they should be a weaker way to cause pool loss than bleeding and voting, but I don't think they need to be piss- poor). > Good thing most of those don't hit the tournament scene with much > regularity. Bleeding hard sees play, and PTO, but then PTO doesn't > usually get called every turn such that you can't play at all. No, you can usually play about the first third of the game, the build- up part, until they cycle into their PTO(s). After that, if you dared to play a big guy, you are probably through playing. See any one of the ad nauseum PTO threads for more. > But they're not. Unless you count all wakes, intercept, pool gain, > and multipurpose defense cards (like Confusion of the Eye) as being > "bleed defense cards". I say these general defense cards aren't the > same, as they are playable (and often quite good) when you have a > predator who doesn't bleed you at all. I would say the wakes are mostly there to support the bounce. Not always, but I think it's fair to say it's common. > But there's one huge difference between Deflection (you didn't just > bleed me) and Majesty (you didn't just fight me): There is no card > which does for anti-bleed-defense what Immortal Grapple or Psyche! > does for anti-combat-defense. Right. Because, as you admit, bleed directly attacks the primary resource and combat doesn't. Bleed needs to have a stronger trump than combat. I think you just don't like having to be involved in combat. Lots of players feel that way. I don't feel like being involved in the bleed/intercept/bounce game. When are people going to start accommodating me? > Ahh. See, I get cranky when I'm playing with 10 Majesty and 6 Rolling > with the Punches and I get rushed by a super-dedicated combat monster > and I only have 3 Majesties in my hand, which is 1 short of what I > would have needed to survive. I feel the same way about "super dedicated bleed/vote monsters." I would like the game more if people would accommodate me on that. -- David Cherryholmes

That a good number of > staple cards for most combat strategies simply don't work on the > Imbued is problematic. I strongly disagree. Demotion of 'staple' cards can be a very good thing. Fossilization of deck 'archtypes' is a bad thing, a game- lamening thing. as there are very few alternatives to the cards that need > to work that *do* work on allies, and the alternatives that do exist > are incredibly ineffective and narrow in focus. I agree, at least mostly. But maybe there are already reasonable options left unexplored because Fame/Haven/Grapple/Disarm/Taste has been so obvious.

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192809941.7...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Huh? Actually, it does. Fixing a problem is fixing a problem is fixing a problem. I'm confused why you would bring up the point about Fame and other vampire-specific (combat-oriented) cards not being overpowered. Nobody was suggesting they were. The issue is whether they lack an ability they should have - particularly, not whether they were too powerful before or after Imbued came out. Did you mean to point out that Fame was not underpowered before Imbued came out? That would make more sense to me. As for mortal allies (or any other allies) not being overpowered before the Imbued, you are absolutely right. Nor are non-Imbued allies overpowered now. Which is why I keep harping on the idea that any changes, be they new cards, errata, or reprinted card changes, ought to be considered in terms of degrading the power of Imbued specifically (or influenced allies as a more general concept) in preference to just slamming all allies. At least, this option should be considered, understanding that sometimes the need for simplicity may rule it out. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Wildly..... WILDLY!! Whoa there, was that some emotion there contained in that adverb? :o)

On Oct 19, 1:35 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message > > "Fame" and other vampire-specific cards were not overpowered before > > the Imbued came out. Mortal Allies were not overpowered before the > > Imbued came out. If the Imbued are overpowered now, then the problem > > that has made them overpowered must be a new problem, caused by new > > cards printed -- including the imbued themselves. It does not make > > sense to correct that problem by fixing problems that were not > > problems before. > > Huh? Actually, it does. Fixing a problem is fixing a problem is > fixing a problem. That being your attitude, let's not attempt a discussion as to what sort of fix may or not be more appropriate. > I'm confused why you would bring up the point about Fame and other > vampire-specific (combat-oriented) cards not being overpowered. Nobody > was suggesting they were. It would have made more sense if had said "underpowered" or "not versatile enough". My general point was that such cards did not need fixing. > As for mortal allies (or any other allies) not being overpowered > before the Imbued, you are absolutely right. Nor are non-Imbued allies > overpowered now. Right. > Which is why I keep harping on the idea that any > changes, be they new cards, errata, or reprinted card changes, ought > to be considered in terms of degrading the power of Imbued specifically > (or influenced allies as a more general concept) in preference to just > slamming all allies. At least, this option should be considered, > understanding that sometimes the need for simplicity may rule it out. Well, I agree, but ... did you not object that "fixing a problem is fixing a problem is fixing a problem?"

<nys...@cs.com> wrote in message news:1192816504.4...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 19, 1:35 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> <nyst...@cs.com> wrote in message >> > "Fame" and other vampire-specific cards were not overpowered before >> > the Imbued came out. Mortal Allies were not overpowered before the >> > Imbued came out. If the Imbued are overpowered now, then the problem >> > that has made them overpowered must be a new problem, caused by new >> > cards printed -- including the imbued themselves. It does not make >> > sense to correct that problem by fixing problems that were not >> > problems before. >> >> Huh? Actually, it does. Fixing a problem is fixing a problem is >> fixing a problem. > > That being your attitude, let's not attempt a discussion as to what > sort of fix may or not be more appropriate. ... >> Which is why I keep harping on the idea that any >> changes, be they new cards, errata, or reprinted card changes, ought >> to be considered in terms of degrading the power of Imbued specifically >> (or influenced allies as a more general concept) in preference to just >> slamming all allies. At least, this option should be considered, >> understanding that sometimes the need for simplicity may rule it out. > > Well, I agree, but ... did you not object that "fixing a problem is > fixing a problem is fixing a problem?" That quote had an intent which was not to suggest that all means of fixing problems should be considered equal. It was to respond to your suggestion which - as I read it, and you are certainly invited to correct me if I misread it - seemed to suggest that problems needn't be fixed if they were not "problems before". By that, I assumed you meant it didn't make sense to consider Fame to be the problem if Imbued were the new cards. I disagree. Sometimes, the problem is not a single card (or group of cards as with the Imbued and Imbued-oriented support cards printed in Nights of Reckoning) but how otherwise reasonable cards interact. And if that's true, then it may not be that relevant which cards are the new cards, other than to consider the logistical issues involved. If you accept Peter's premise that Imbued should be more vulnerable in the metagame to rush combat decks (or at least less hamstrung in using what's in their decks to fight against them), then it makes perfect sense to view the interaction of Fame and the Imbued to be a problem and it makes perfect sense to solve that problem by changing Fame. Whether it's a bad enough situation to be worth the negative aspects of changing cards is another issue. But I didn't understand your comment about "correct that problem by fixing problems that were not problems before". Fred

On Oct 19, 2:42 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > That quote had an intent which was not to suggest that all means of > fixing problems should be considered equal. It was to respond to your > suggestion which - as I read it, and you are certainly invited to correct > me if I misread it - seemed to suggest that problems needn't be fixed if > they were not "problems before". To my mind, it makes less sense to look to old cards for solutions to new problems. > By that, I assumed you meant it didn't > make sense to consider Fame to be the problem if Imbued were the new cards. > I disagree. Sometimes, the problem is not a single card (or group of > cards as with the Imbued and Imbued-oriented support cards printed in Nights > of Reckoning) but how otherwise reasonable cards interact. Nights of Reckoning was designed with knowledge of what cards already existed. If an imbalance has been created (note that I have no opinion on this), it is an error in design in Nights of Reckoning. > And if that's > true, then it may not be that relevant which cards are the new cards, > other than to consider the logistical issues involved. More people are used to the old cards than are used to the new cards, and may be more favorably inclined towards fixing what is broken than towards fixing what worked. Moreover, it is a mistake to make a balanced card imbalanced in order to counter other cards that are imbalanced. Fame does not need to be more powerful -- it is already a favorite. > If you accept Peter's premise that Imbued should be more vulnerable in the > metagame to rush combat decks (or at least less hamstrung in using what's in > their decks to fight against them), then it makes perfect sense to view the > interaction of Fame and the Imbued to be a problem and it makes perfect sense > to solve that problem by changing Fame. Might be better to tweak the Imbued rules, or print a few balanced alternatives to Fame and other rush combat staples in the next expansion or two. > Whether it's a bad enough situation > to be worth the negative aspects of changing cards is another issue. But I > didn't understand your comment about "correct that problem by fixing > problems that were not problems before". Just my opinion.

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: >> Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more >> than Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be >> a big part of many larger strategies? > > It doesn't *have* to be. Nothing *has* to be. But it already is. > And was significantly more effective pre-Imbued. Come on, Peter. That is just crap. You don't hit THAT many imbued decks that your rush combat decks are "significantly" less effective post-imbued. I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, and of those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. I find it interesting that, in general, your posts say things like 'Sometimes you hit a counter to your deck. And you just lose. And that is part of the game.' and then when it comes to combat you are all upset that imbued trump your rushes, and you act like you see imbued decks as a large percentage of your opposing decks. In summary: 1. Rush gets better every expansion. 2. Sometimes you hit the rock to your scissors. 3. Imbued arent played enough to warrant this level of fright. :) Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

In article <r78Si.8578$J36....@newsfe07.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Come on, Peter. That is just crap. You don't hit THAT many imbued decks > that your rush combat decks are "significantly" less effective > post-imbued. The original point at hand, when this thread started, was "why doesn't combat get upgrades?". My original response was "It does, but it also took a hit with the Imbued". Which I think is the truth. > I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, and of > those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. When I played the Origins Qualifier two years ago, I was playing a Rush deck. In two of three rounds, I sat next to Imbued decks--once as my predator, once as my prey. I was totally tooled. Both games. Has happened on a regular basis since then. > I find it interesting that, in general, your posts say things like > 'Sometimes you hit a counter to your deck. And you just lose. And that is > part of the game.' and then when it comes to combat you are all upset that > imbued trump your rushes, and you act like you see imbued decks as a large > percentage of your opposing decks. Sigh. Yes. Sometimes you hit a counter and you get killed. Which is part of the game. The Imbued, however, are fairly over the top, as RPS goes, in regards to combat. My point, in the grand scheme, is that the Imbued simply don't need to be as good against combat as they are. > In summary: > 1. Rush gets better every expansion. > 2. Sometimes you hit the rock to your scissors. > 3. Imbued arent played enough to warrant this level of fright. :) It isn't fright. It is me wanting the Imbued to get fixed some. Somehow. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "Find hungry samurai." -The Old Man

In article <1192812669.1...@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Malone <kffo...@indiana.edu> wrote: > I strongly disagree. Demotion of 'staple' cards can be a very good > thing. Fossilization of deck 'archtypes' is a bad thing, a game- > lamening thing. Sure. So if the intention is to demote staple cards, which happens a lot in this sort of game, the demotion generally comes with a viable, yet usually slightly less effective alternative. The staple cards for combat strategies have been demoted. And we are yet to get the slightly less effective alternatives. We have received some incredibly narrow (Break the Code:Haven Uncovered) or highly questionable (Frontal Assault:Haven Uncovered) alternatives. But nothing that works even remotely like Fame or Taste. Both of which are, generally speaking, A list cards that let combat decks be somewhat viable. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Come on, Peter. That is just crap. You don't hit THAT many >> imbued decks that your rush combat decks are "significantly" less >> effective post-imbued. > > The original point at hand, when this thread started, > was "why doesn't combat get upgrades?". > > My original response was "It does, but it also took a hit > with the Imbued". Which I think is the truth. I guess it just comes down to, then, the part you snipped, where you defined 'significant', and I, above, challenged you on that definition. Looks like our definitions are very different, but I can at least see how you might think the way you are thinking. It isn't that unreasonable, even though I disagree. >> I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, >> and of those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. > > When I played the Origins Qualifier two years ago, I was playing a > Rush deck. In two of three rounds, I sat next to Imbued decks--once > as my predator, once as my prey. I was totally tooled. Both games. > Has happened on a regular basis since then. Really? "Regular basis"? I acknowledge your Origins experience, but are you SURE you aren't exaggerating as to the frequency of seeing imbued at your table? >> I find it interesting that, in general, your posts say things like >> 'Sometimes you hit a counter to your deck. And you just lose. And >> that is part of the game.' and then when it comes to combat you are >> all upset that imbued trump your rushes, and you act like you see >> imbued decks as a large percentage of your opposing decks. > > Sigh. Yes. Sometimes you hit a counter and you get killed. Which is > part of the game. The Imbued, however, are fairly over the top, as RPS > goes, in regards to combat. And Gloria Giovanni and Ingrid Russo are fairly over the top in regards to bleed. And Beast and Enkidu are fairly over the top in regards to combat. And Arika is fairly over the top in regards to vote. Now, you're going to say, Well, Kevin, these are just examples of individual vampires, they aren't valid comparisons to all of the imbued. Except that imbued players only play 5 or 6 of the 20 imbued. Just like they only play the same 5 or 6 vampires when they play Euro-Ventrue. Just like they only play the same 5 or 6 vampires when they play weenie DOM or weenie DEM bleed. Just like they only play the same 5 or 6 vampires when they play inherent (D)rush. The imbued are only considered "over the top" because of the radical in-game differences they represent, and players' ongoing irrational fear of them and their Championed-Determined-Memories'd strengths. There are several ways to deal with these threats. Why not use them? Yes, the imbued are seriously annoying. But I fear any of the above mentioned decks *much* more when I am playing (D)rush combat, since they can kill me much faster than some stupid ("good"?) imbued deck. > My point, in the grand scheme, is that the > Imbued simply don't need to be as good against combat as they are. > >> In summary: >> 1. Rush gets better every expansion. >> 2. Sometimes you hit the rock to your scissors. >> 3. Imbued arent played enough to warrant this level of fright. :) > > It isn't fright. It is me wanting the Imbued > to get fixed some. Somehow. See, they don't need to be fixed, since they aren't any more of a threat than any other strong archetype. Even if I saw them at your level of frequency, they wouldn't be. I don't know what else to say; perhaps you can convince me otherwise. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <MzdSi.10508$oC3....@newsfe08.phx>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > I guess it just comes down to, then, the part you snipped, where you > defined 'significant', and I, above, challenged you on that definition. Hmm. I guess we are crossing paths over what "significant" means? I'm not really sure otherwise--combat has certainly taken a "significant" hit when facing the Imbued. I suspect you think it hasn't taken a "significant" hit, as the Imbued don't show up that much. Depends on what "significant" you choose to look at. > Really? "Regular basis"? I acknowledge your Origins experience, but are > you SURE you aren't exaggerating as to the frequency of seeing imbued at > your table? They show up. They show up in competition regularly. I have played against the Imbued reasonably often with combat decks, and they tend to fair pretty poorly. > Yes, the imbued are seriously annoying. But I fear any of the above > mentioned decks *much* more when I am playing (D)rush combat, since they > can kill me much faster than some stupid ("good"?) imbued deck. To be fair, the real problem is *ousting* the Imbued, rather than being killed by them. But that happens too. > See, they don't need to be fixed, since they aren't any more of a threat > than any other strong archetype. Even if I saw them at your level of > frequency, they wouldn't be. I don't know what else to say; perhaps you > can convince me otherwise. Plenty of people are under the impression that the Imbued, on *some* level, need fixing. Not necessarily just 'cause they hose combat. For lots of other reasons. Me pointing out that they hose combat is just pointing to another problem with the Imbued, but not the only one. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:MzdSi.10508$oC3....@newsfe08.phx... > Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, >>> and of those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. Kevin, I don't think Imbued are quite as rare in L.A. as you're representing. And there is a real "hate Imbued" lobby in L.A. I think there's a bit of social pressure against playing them and two of the usual suspects (Darby and Alex) have recently move away. But the general attitude I've found in Los Angeles has consistently and unquestionably supported my contention that "the Immune" are considered to be (at least) abnormally high on the power scale. > The imbued are only considered "over the top" because of the radical > in-game differences they represent, and players' ongoing irrational fear > of them and their Championed-Determined-Memories'd strengths. There are > several ways to deal with these threats. Why not use them? I'm not sure the fear is all that irrational. I do have to admit, as much as they frustrate me when playing against them, I do agree that Imbued don't seem to win tournaments as much as I would expect. I've come to conclude that they cause more frustration to their opponents than they buy in tournament advantage for themselves. This is because of the slow, permanent, build-up nature using a ton of table permanents which cause slow play. Also, the plodding nature of the beast means it often can't be killed but it often doesn't succeed at killing others - or that's my guess. It's guilty of causing those hated timeout games that were the centerpiece of contention in the recent tournament scoring system debates. Another issue I have with the Imbued is (ironically, for purposes of this thread) that they're awkward to metagame against. That is, you certainly can build decks which defeat them and some are even popular decks. But not many. So, as Peter has pointed out repeatedly, the things people drag out to enter as evidence that Imbued can be beat aren't realistic to use or aren't realistic to use in enough numbers to make them viable answers. What folks in CCG debates continually forget is that answers to deck archetypes must be truly _usable_; it's not enough enough that they exist. If they're not really usable, they're not an answer. (The reason I find this ironic is that another kind of deck which I find awkward to metagame against turns out to be rush combat decks. Go figure. :-P ) > Yes, the imbued are seriously annoying. But I fear any of the above > mentioned decks *much* more when I am playing (D)rush combat, since they > can kill me much faster than some stupid ("good"?) imbued deck. (Granted, I don't play rush combat so I can't answer this exactly as you intended. My comments below are from a standpoint of the types of decks I play.) Maybe. But they can also be defeated. The reason I fear Imbued decks above any of those decks is that that most of the decks I use will never oust an Imbued deck. So if I draw one as prey, or even as grandprey, good night. Wake me when it's over. The next two hours will NOT be worth paying attention to. (Should have brought a book or something.) I don't even care if the Imbued player doesn't win. Point is, I will not be having fun. No point in arguing the "need-to-be-fixed" issue. We seem to have different values so I doubt I could convince you. Fred

Kevin M. wrote: > See, they don't need to be fixed, since they aren't any more of a > threat than any other strong archetype. Even if I saw them at > your level of frequency, they wouldn't be. The sense I get, from some players in my area, is that they object to the imbued for thematic reasons. They just do not think that mere mortals ought to be able to make this sort of trouble. They resent having to adjust their strategies. They do not want to take time out from the ancient vampiric jyhad to do battle with their lunch. If it were something powerful and wicked and "cool", like werwolves, making this much of a splash, maybe it would be less of an issue.

> > Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This > > hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce > > is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. > > But bounce doesn't actually deter anybody from building, bringing, and > playing S&B. They just make sure to have it too, play "huck 5 in the > pipe" and make sure to bring the DI's. I think that's odd that you'd say that people's choice to play more bounce doesn't deter players from bringing S&B. It certainly affects me. In fact, I try to notice when players are packing too many Deflections, or too many Delaying Tactics, or a whole fistful of extra Majesties lately, and then I let that affect my choice for a deck. I think it's a powerful tool that most good players attempt to use. > High combat environments *do* actually make people think twice about > playing speed-bleed/pretend combat doesn't exist decks. At the very > least it forces them to dilute the deck, giving up offense for combat > defense. I think Peter is correct on this point. In my group, as mentioned in previous posts, we had a player with a really terrifying all-combat CEL POT Brujah rush deck. If his deck did more different things, then yes, combat defense would be appropriate. However, that's just not the case. He has so much combat, so many Psyches and so many Immortal Grapples, so many Sideslips and Blurs that you can just absolutely forget about trying to out-combat him at all. This does not diversify play. This leads to more pigeonholed Rock Paper Scissors decks, where you either get really serious about combat, playing at least 40 cards, or you just don't play combat cards at all, because they won't do you any good anyway. I find the game described in the above paragraph to be very non- interactive. All outcomes of all combats are already determined once deck construction is complete, and often this also means that the outcome of the game is already determined once seating has been finalized. I would much rather not know whether I can take someone, and have to judge when the time is right, and play an interactive game of V:TES, than just wonder whether I should even bother to include combat cards in my deck as it's pointless. And getting back to the original poster's concern: Yes, I would be upset if there were some card which allowed that deck to win just for RPS'ing the whole metagame that way. > > And I think that's really a lot of bounce, most decks using 6-8 > > Deflections. Wakes are multi-purpose, so is intercept and Blood > > Dolls; the only bleed-specific defenses are seven of the bounce cards. > > Well by your own choices you went more with Deflect than TM. And > there are clearly more powerful (or at least a variety of) other > intercept cards, yet you only used TM. So clearly for the bounce. I > think this line of defense is a bit disingenuous. What? Why would you think that I didn't use any other intercept cards? Just to make things clear for the rest of this, here are the general defenses that deck had (not the whole decklist): Intercept and wakes: 2 Carna, The Princess Witch 1 KRCG News Radio 1 Aranthebes, the Immortal 8 Forced Awakening 1 Mr. Winthrop 1 Sport Bike 6 Enhanced Senses 3 Telepathic Misdirection 2 Magic of the Smith (if I need Sport Bike) Blood/pool gain: 1 Academic Hunting Ground 1 Arcane Library 3 Blood Doll 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 1 Giant's Blood 1 Powerbase: Montreal 1 Rack, The 1 University Hunting Ground 13 Govern the Unaligned 10 Theft of Vitae And of course, the deck also defended itself with 6 Deflection and 1 Redirection. That totals to 66 cards in a 90 card deck all usable for intercept, untap, or blood gain, and only 7 of them are restricted to "only being usable against bleeds". This is really a small portion of the deck, enough that it didn't jam me up. > > Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more than > > Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be a big part of > > many larger strategies? > > There's just a lot of evidence, including statements from various > designers, that this just isn't so. Combat, vote, and bleed were > envisioned as a triangle. Apparently it was intentional with cards > like Bum's Rush that you could rush your prey's guys, "force" him to > spend more on new guys, rush those, and then finish the job with your > paltry bleeds of one (or whatever). That isn't the only way to use > red cards, but from what I understand it was really and truly intended > as a major path to victory. Unlike Corruption, or whatever other > secondary-resource-attacking thing you want to substitute. OK, I accept that argument. I'm not sure that that means we should continue pursuing that dream until it is realized regardless of the cost to the game's diversity, though. > > > > If someday there are enough cards to encourage players to make > > > > proactive, Bum's Rush-based decks which oust their prey for doing > > > > that, then I think a lot of players will start to really hate playing > > > > against combat. > > Maybe they will balance out with all the people who have attempted to > do that which we've been led to believe should be doable, and now > suddenly is. Conservation of satisfaction? Nah, one of the things that makes V:TES a good game is that players interact via card play quite a bit. If combat gets good enough to where you need 30-40 combat cards in order to survive until your first action, I really doubt it'll be very interactive at all. See, bleeding defaults to your prey, so that you can't just pool your resources with another player to bleed a guy out directly. But Bum's Rush doesn't have that default. And if you think two combat decks sitting next to each other is a bad thing, cause they'll both lose the game, then imagine three sitting in a row. Or all five players playing combat, and the one who has the trumpiest combat wins, or worse, the one who gets in the most combats loses. Sorry, not interested. Combat functions well right now, and just needs some more powerful cards. It does NOT need to be transformed into a victory condition. > And again, speaking as someone who brings a lot of combat: a moderate > amount of combat defense goes a long way. I've played against your Fatima multirush deck a couple times, and it's only a lot of combat _compared to what you would expect to see_. It is not very much combat at all, compared to some of the crap I've been expected to hang on through. And I'll "sort-of" concede a point right now: If rush combat IS given, let's say, a non-unique Fame or something, and it can oust players, and the BEST WAY TO DO THAT just so happens to be in a way where a moderate amount of combat defense can handle it, then I'm not opposed. I'm not in favor, mind you, but I don't think it would hurt the game all that much. But why would players rush with 40 combat cards, when they could rush with 70? I mean, if it can oust your prey now, that is? > Rush combat (and to a > lesser extent intercept combat) are such piss-poor means of ousting > people that even getting stymied a little bit can push you across the > razor's edge from winning to losing. > > Combat is interesting, it's varied, it's a little game within a game. > It's "fun". So you have to have 10 less stealth bleed cards and 10 > more red cards in the average deck, and actually play the combat > game. That is so bad? That would make you like this game less? I > guess it's just a subjective thing, but I don't get it. Again, I don't think it would make players put in 10 more combat defense cards. I think it would make some players include more combat defense cards, until the point where the deck can't support itself anymore, at which point they'll just say, "screw it, if I sit next to rush combat, I'm dead anyway" and just play with no combat cards instead. And then the game is less interactive, instead of more. > > Good thing most of those don't hit the tournament scene with much > > regularity. Bleeding hard sees play, and PTO, but then PTO doesn't > > usually get called every turn such that you can't play at all. > > No, you can usually play about the first third of the game, the build- > up part, until they cycle into their PTO(s). After that, if you dared > to play a big guy, you are probably through playing. See any one of > the ad nauseum PTO threads for more. Yeah, but once again, where the hell are your Confusion of the Eye or Delaying Tactics? DI is only general defense, but I think the other two belong in most decks. My point here is, you can react to the vote (which is one card) with another one card, and that's fine. You can't do that with combat, unless you know you're older than them and have Dominate, but I think that's really limited use. I certainly won't claim that most decks which fear rush would benefit from Obedience, since they're not all large caps with dominate. > > But they're not. Unless you count all wakes, intercept, pool gain, > > and multipurpose defense cards (like Confusion of the Eye) as being > > "bleed defense cards". I say these general defense cards aren't the > > same, as they are playable (and often quite good) when you have a > > predator who doesn't bleed you at all. > > I would say the wakes are mostly there to support the bounce. Not > always, but I think it's fair to say it's common. I think in large-cap decks, sure, it's common. It's also a problem, I think, that so many decks choose to ignore reactions altogether, or all reactions except wakes and bounce. Decks should be able to attack AND defend, for an ideal game. But we're far from ideal, yet. Anyway, in my decks anyway, Wakes aren't usually just for bounce. When they are, it's usually something like 2 WWEF and 8 Deflection, so hardly important. > > But there's one huge difference between Deflection (you didn't just > > bleed me) and Majesty (you didn't just fight me): There is no card > > which does for anti-bleed-defense what Immortal Grapple or Psyche! > > does for anti-combat-defense. > > Right. Because, as you admit, bleed directly attacks the primary > resource and combat doesn't. Bleed needs to have a stronger trump > than combat. I think you just don't like having to be involved in > combat. Hmm...I may be speaking too soon, but I believe that out of the last 6 years of continental championships here and in Europe, my deck used the most combat cards (27) out of any of the winners. That's not a guy who doesn't like being involved in combat--that's a guy who recognizes combat's strength as part of a larger strategy. > Lots of players feel that way. I don't feel like being > involved in the bleed/intercept/bounce game. When are people going to > start accommodating me? I'm not asking to be accommodated in some ridiculously un-V:TES-like way. I'm saying that the fun of combat, indeed the fun of the game, is in NOT knowing who's going to win this combat, or who's going to win this game, and having to interact through card play in order to determine it. Currently, building a deck with 70 combat cards is foolish, and punishes another player or two at random for sitting there, and isn't a mystery who's going to win the combat, and is itself punished by getting 0 vps. If this changes, and building a deck with 70 combat cards is viable, then I don't think there will be more interaction, but less. And, to tie this back into the beginning, if the initial poster's wishes are granted (make rush combat a viable means of ousting players), then I don't really see why decks with 70 combat cards wouldn't be viable, and therefore interaction would probably decrease, and therefore the game would be less fun. > > Ahh. See, I get cranky when I'm playing with 10 Majesty and 6 Rolling > > with the Punches and I get rushed by a super-dedicated combat monster > > and I only have 3 Majesties in my hand, which is 1 short of what I > > would have needed to survive. > > I feel the same way about "super dedicated bleed/vote monsters." I > would like the game more if people would accommodate me on that. You can play with Deflections, or Delaying Tactics, or Confusions of the Eye, as one-card solutions to your problems. But I cannot play with one-card solutions that end a combat without my opponent already having planned my defenses out of meaningful existence. Combat is harder to stop because it doesn't win games by itself. -- Brian

On Oct 19, 8:52 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Oct 19, 5:01 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > > > No it doesn't. You may mean by extension that a deck with lots of > > combat in it can win games, but that's not the combat winning. > > By that same logic, you can say that a deck with lots of bleed in it > can win games, but it isn't the bleed cards that are winning. No, I don't see how. I don't know whether you misinterpreted what I was saying on purpose, but Bum's Rush culminates in exactly 0 pool loss unless there's some other card in play which changes that. This is unlike bleed cards, which increase the amount of pool to be lost directly. When Beast rushes you, and you have Fame, it's the Fame that's causing you to lose pool, not Beast. This is an important distinction for this conversation, because more Fame-like cards is what the OP seems to be asking for. > > Bleeding affects pool directly, and is a means of winning. Combat is > > a way of getting bleeds to succeed, or reduce someone's secondary > > resources, but does NOT oust on its own. > > Nothing ousts on its own by virtue of the semantic gymnastics you are > applying here. Bleed cards do nothing on their own. You need minions > to use them and take actions to bleed with them. You and I both know you can't Bum's Rush someone to death. You can Bum's Rush them out of minions, sure, but not to death. This distinction matters with regard to the OP's request. Also, I'm not engaging in "semantic gymnastics". I'm engaging in "staying on topic". The OP said he wanted "combat [to be] a viable path to victory", and cited Fame, Tension, and Dragonbound to be examples of what he meant. How do you interpret his question, if not the way I do? Also, if OP is talking about rush decks that cannot realistically oust by bleeding, and therefore need to be able to oust by rushing, then why do you think your rush decks, which _can_ oust by bleeding, and do not need to oust by rushing, are relevant in a conversation about combat-as-victory-condition? > > I bring out Lucretia, Cess Queen. Anybody scared yet? No? I > > actually had a predator like this, at the EC this year, just Lucretia > > Clan Impersonating Daughters and then Minion Tap/Concert > > Tour...definitely a stealth bloat deck. Never going to oust me in a > > million years, though, cause like I said, stealth doesn't win games. > > I bring out Arika. I go to bleed for 7. I'm blocked. My turn ends. > Anybody scared yet? How is giving an example of a poorly built deck an > example of anything? A deck which just brings out Al-Ashrad and then rushes people is a poorly built deck. Enter a new card which is basically a non-unique Fame, and now it's not such a poorly built deck after all, is it? That's the point: Just rushing and playing combat cards currently doesn't win. With more fame-like cards, it could. But first I'm making sure we're all on the same page with "just rushing and playing combat cards currently doesn't win." It seems we're not on the same page yet, cause you allow for a bruise and bleed style deck, which is entirely unlike a pure-rush deck. Do you agree that there could very reasonably exist a deck which rushes very effectively, but bleeds poorly, and therefore doesn't oust many preys, but which would be a very good deck if (say) Fame wasn't unique? Because if we agree that that deck probably exists, then we're close enough to "on the same page" that I think we can move on to the next part of the argument. > > And it's important to recognize that a deck is hardly an all stealth > > deck if it's bleeding forward with lots of small minions. > > You were trying to claim that stealth does not win games. Now you are > trying to claim that stealth doesn't win games, as long as the stealth > is used stupidly. Not really supporting your argument. That was not my argument, but I'll pretend it was, in order to demonstrate that my refutation of the OP stands even with a weak version of my argument. If we assume: 1. "Stealth doesn't win games, as long as the stealth is used stupidly." we can probably also assume: 2. "Combat doesn't win games, as long as the combat is used stupidly." and of course, introducing a card fulfilling OP's request: 3. "There should be cards that turn using combat stupidly into a victory." to see whether his request is sensible, consider: 4. "There should be cards that turn using stealth stupidly into a victory." Imagine a card that says that whenever your prey doesn't try to block you, or tries and fails, he or she has to lose some amount of pool. This would make an all-stealth strategy viable. But I'm still against it, for the same reasons I'm against excessive printing of Fame-like effects: Because stealth doesn't oust, because combat doesn't oust, because they're part of the larger picture. These two are not ends unto themselves, and I don't like cards that make them act as though they are, because... Well, you know how a deck with just stealth and bleed cards clumps very little? Imagine it had JUST STEALTH CARDS. It would be goddamned V:TES solitaire. > There was no condition in your original assertion that "weenies" were > not part of the equation. If your original assertion is "all stealth, > when built into a bad deck, can't win games", then ok. But the issue > there is "the bad deck" not "all stealth". Which applies in the same way to combat. "All combat, when built into a bad deck, can't win games." Example, just Beast and Theo Bell trying to kill everything isn't particularly effective at getting GWs. But, oh, look! It's non-unique Fame, or 20 different printed versions of Fame, or whatever. Suddenly just rushing everything with Beast and Theo IS particularly effective at getting GWs! Don't you see a problem with this? > > Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This > > hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce > > is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. > > Bounce slows S+B down. Killing all the S+B minions shuts S+B down. Bounce turns the S+B deck into one of your tools for ousting your prey. Killing all of ANYONE'S minions shuts them down, but doesn't mean you win. > > Why does rush combat have to be a whole strategy, any more than > > Corruption counters has to be? Why can't combat just be a big part of > > many larger strategies? > > It doesn't *have* to be. Nothing *has* to be. But it already is. And > was significantly more effective pre-Imbued. "Just" rush combat wasn't already effective. A deck which could bleed a bunch of times and _also_ rush was a somewhat successful strategy, as you've demonstrated, but that strategy doesn't need Fame for the oust. And because of that, there's a big difference between your deck (which worked fine) and what the OP was talking about (which is apparently combat as a viable path to GWs in some deck which currently DOESN'T win by just rushing people.) > > Good thing most of those don't hit the tournament scene with much > > regularity. Bleeding hard sees play, and PTO, but then PTO doesn't > > usually get called every turn such that you can't play at all. > > Besides, vote defense is becoming more prevalent, such that Delaying > > Tactics and Confusion of the Eye are serious anti-vote measures you'll > > see at practically every table. > > I'm unsure how this is relevant. It was a list of things that stop you from being able to play. However, the things listed are at best rare in serious play, and at worst, non-existant. The remaining cards/deck types are something you can defend against, and that's what I was trying to illustrate. The relevance is, rush decks that preemptively rush all your guys stop you from playing the game before you've started. This is not only (IMHO) bad for the game, but the reason it's not a "supported" strategy. Those strategies we listed which stop players from interacting are given very little support, while those which encourage interaction (stealth vs. intercept, vote vs. vote defense, etc.) are given attention in almost every set. > > But they're not. Unless you count all wakes, intercept, pool gain, > > and multipurpose defense cards (like Confusion of the Eye) as being > > "bleed defense cards". > > I'm counting wakes and bounce in decks that have no other reaction > cards, at a bare minimum. Many, many decks include, as noted, 6-8 wake/ > 8-10 bounce. Simply to avoid getting powerbled to death. OK, in a deck which is made only of offense, except it uses bounce, and then wakes solely for the bounce, sure, wakes count as bleed defense. I'll give you that. However, in any deck which has both defense and offense, almost all of your general defenses help you somewhat against powerbleed. Your Blood Dolls and Minion Taps, your Dreams and Powerbase: Montreal, your Govern or Enchant at superior, your intercept, wakes, you name it--all of your "general" defenses still help you against bleeds. Which of these will help you against combat? I've found wakes can stop the maneuver from a Bum's Rush, but that's about it. I interpreted the OP's request to be that rushing BY ITSELF should be able to oust (with help from new Fame-like cards), which is currently not the case. You happen to play a rush deck that bleeds for the oust; he's talking about a deck which rushes for the oust. I _like_ your deck; I don't like his deck. His deck needs more "Fames" than there currently are in order to win the game. I hope I've explained my position well enough. -- Brian

So because of my request/query it automatically means I'm one of those stereotypical bad rush combat players, who don't put any thought into his combat deck? Jeezus Christ on fricking pogo stick, who plays with 70 fricking combat cards!?! I feel a bit insulted. Ok, you don't agree that combat should get cards that reward rushing and that's fine. I play in a heavy combat environment and we all have fun. there's even been times during casual games where 5 players in a single table was playing a variation of combat+something... and we had "gasp" fun. There's the contract mechanic out there and the only cards that reward it so far are: Provisions, Khabar: Honor, Black Throne and Open Dosier. Three of those are just for Assamites while the Samedi and the Black Hand only get to use Open Dosier. Combat is more then just Immortal Grapple yet Potence is what gets usually mentioned when discussing combat in general. The Imbued are also one heck of a problem for combat rush and something new or a fix of some kind would be nice. Asking for more universal master or action cards that reward the combat theme is wrong in what way? It's not like I'm asking for some kind of krazy insane card that would burn 20 pool if i dunked a minion. In fact I'm asking for non dunking "effective" cards that would in some way benefit combat.

On Oct 19, 1:49 pm, rptreas...@aol.com wrote: > Wildly..... WILDLY!! Whoa there, was that some emotion there contained > in that adverb? Nah. He was just alluding to a really curvy vector taking off -----------> thataway, in his head. Totally consistent and Spocklike. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 20, 7:08 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > I think that's odd that you'd say that people's choice to play more > bounce doesn't deter players from bringing S&B. It certainly affects > me. In fact, I try to notice when players are packing too many > Deflections, or too many Delaying Tactics, or a whole fistful of extra > Majesties lately, and then I let that affect my choice for a deck. I > think it's a powerful tool that most good players attempt to use. I must not be a good player then, since I don't do it, because I really don't think it can be done. Just because I saw this or that guy, or a few in a row, happen to have a lot of a certain card, it doesn't make me think I'm more or less likely to see it with the next guy. I don't think, on that level, metagames can be read or predicted. What I do think can be done is to say "Hhmm, Imbued are new/hot, I think I'll put some Entrancement in my deck in place of a few Enchant Kindreds." Or other stuff along those lines. But that's just my opinion, and not really here or there. What I do think is a good counter-argument is this: bleed is a super-common strategy, and bounce is a super-common defense. The ubiquity of bounce clearly hasn't made bleed a less popular strategy. Ergo, bounce does not deter bleed. > In my group, as mentioned in previous posts, we had a player with a > really terrifying all-combat CEL POT Brujah rush deck. If his deck > did more different things, then yes, combat defense would be > appropriate. However, that's just not the case. He has so much > combat, so many Psyches and so many Immortal Grapples, so many > Sideslips and Blurs that you can just absolutely forget about trying > to out-combat him at all. You build a lot of the rest of your argument based on this idea of unstoppable combat, leading to the conclusion that one shouldn't even try to defend against it, and certainly not if we let combat get any better. I disagree with this. Combat on combat is very risky stuff, and there is no trump. He's playing 50 POT/CEL cards? Super. I'm playing ANI/FOR, or QUI/CEL, or any number of other combat strategies that totally tear it apart. It just seems unstoppable because your 12 or so defensive combat cards are insufficient, just like 12 bounce won't really stop Malk94. It's just a question of numbers. I also believe that as you slide your deck more towards unstoppable combat, you slide it in the opposite direction with respect to actually gaining VP's, both by ousting and by not being ousted yourself. This is why I've always been obsessed with finding the tightest, most minimal combat packages I can put together. > I find the game described in the above paragraph to be very non- > interactive. I find it predicated upon a logical fallacy. > All outcomes of all combats are already determined once > deck construction is complete, and often this also means that the > outcome of the game is already determined once seating has been > finalized. I have a couple of thumb-rules for Jyhad. #3 is "You are not psychic." You don't "know" the outcome, unless the terms of interaction on one side of the equation are zero. All you've done in that case is create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or heck, maybe you are an uber-genius braniac. Plenty of people seem to claim they can "know" the future game states on a table, but my experience doesn't bear this out. > What? Why would you think that I didn't use any other intercept > cards? Just to make things clear for the rest of this, here are the > general defenses that deck had (not the whole decklist): OK, I didn't factor in the whole decklist, and was just going by what you'd posted up-thread. I agree that your deck is a very flexible, toolboxy deck that uses its Auspex to block, not just flick. But a lot of decks are X wakes, Y bounce, and full steam ahead. Lots of decks. > Nah, one of the things that makes V:TES a good game is that players > interact via card play quite a bit. If combat gets good enough to > where you need 30-40 combat cards in order to survive until your first > action, I really doubt it'll be very interactive at all. Nobody is proposing that. I disagree that it would follow as a consequence if there were merely a few more cards like Fame floating about, since decks still need to oust and not be ousted, and it would still be far less reliable than attacking primary resources. You need your get into combat actions, you need some form of defense, probably some vote defense, etc etc. I mean, we're not talking just about weenie decks here, right? > See, bleeding defaults to your prey, so that you can't just pool your > resources with another player to bleed a guy out directly. But Bum's > Rush doesn't have that default. Right. There is no default Bum's Rush. It's more card intensive to oust with rushing, on top of combat being more card intensive in and of itself. These things naturally limit just how focused the deck can get. > And if you think two combat decks > sitting next to each other is a bad thing, cause they'll both lose the > game, then imagine three sitting in a row. Or all five players > playing combat, and the one who has the trumpiest combat wins, or > worse, the one who gets in the most combats loses. Sorry, not > interested. OK, I've played at plenty of tables that were fighty as hell. It's completely unpredictable who will win, and a lot of fun. Cards flying everywhere, and nobody knows who will be still standing when the dust settles. Which sounds exactly like the kind of game you like. I really think you just see your problem when a combat deck rubs up against a deck that is only minimally prepared for combat, or not prepared at all. Which is a strategic choice that is mostly sound, but still not a problem with the game. >Combat functions well right now, and just needs some more > powerful cards. It does NOT need to be transformed into a victory > condition. You already conceded that combat as a victory condition was coequal with bleed and vote, by designer intent. How can you reconcile these two statements? > I've played against your Fatima multirush deck a couple times, and > it's only a lot of combat _compared to what you would expect to see_. > It is not very much combat at all, compared to some of the crap I've > been expected to hang on through. I just meant "brings a lot of combat decks to tournies," not how many red cards are in this or that deck. Fatima is tight, and tends to lose against other decks with 50 combat cards, but those aren't the kind of decks I'm aiming to take out, because they are very rare. > And I'll "sort-of" concede a point right now: If rush combat IS > given, let's say, a non-unique Fame or something, and it can oust > players, and the BEST WAY TO DO THAT just so happens to be in a way > where a moderate amount of combat defense can handle it, then I'm not > opposed. I'm not in favor, mind you, but I don't think it would hurt > the game all that much. > > But why would players rush with 40 combat cards, when they could rush > with 70? I mean, if it can oust your prey now, that is? Because that leaves 20 cards to handle every other aspect the game can throw at you, which is likely to be a losing strategy (again, maybe not with weenies, but I'm all in favor of doing things in a non-weenie- enhancing way). > Again, I don't think it would make players put in 10 more combat > defense cards. I think it would make some players include more combat > defense cards, until the point where the deck can't support itself > anymore, at which point they'll just say, "screw it, if I sit next to > rush combat, I'm dead anyway" and just play with no combat cards > instead. And then the game is less interactive, instead of more. Whether a deck can support itself or not is only a sensible question when placed into the context of a particular environment. If an environment got more fighty (but not absurdly so), then a deck that had 10 more Flashes, and 5 less dominate bleed cards and 5 less obfuscate stealth cards, would arguably be just as "fit." > Yeah, but once again, where the hell are your Confusion of the Eye or > Delaying Tactics? DI is only general defense, but I think the other > two belong in most decks. They are hard to fit in there, because combat is so card-intensive. They definitely don't fit in your 70 combat card straw man. > My point here is, you can react to the vote (which is one card) with > another one card, and that's fine. You can't do that with combat, > unless you know you're older than them and have Dominate, but I think > that's really limited use. I certainly won't claim that most decks > which fear rush would benefit from Obedience, since they're not all > large caps with dominate. S:CE isn't a one card solution, but it's damn close. People talk about combat as if it's only ever about grapple, which it isn't. Grapple is really really good, if you are raping a soft environment. But mono-potence, or even Potence/Celerity, get taken apart by lots of other good combat strategies. It's a circular thing, because in a non- fighty environment (which you seem to prefer), you aim for hosing S:CE. In a more fighty environment you have to start thinking about how to handle hitback, and which types, which makes for a much more varied game overall. > I think in large-cap decks, sure, it's common. It's also a problem, I > think, that so many decks choose to ignore reactions altogether, or > all reactions except wakes and bounce. Decks should be able to attack > AND defend, for an ideal game. But we're far from ideal, yet. Yep, and I would add "and handle combat" to that list as well. > Anyway, in my decks anyway, Wakes aren't usually just for bounce. > When they are, it's usually something like 2 WWEF and 8 Deflection, so > hardly important. And I think you put together some really really good Tremere decks. Starting with the insane efficiency of Dominate, with definite access to bounce, and some awesome crypt capacities with the Tre/!Tre overlap, all contribute to being able to toolbox out in a less nutpunchy way. Dang. Google lopped off the end of your post in my reply. Might finish up with a second post, might be done. Gotta see what you said. -- David Cherryholmes

In article <1192868762.5...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Name.Luc...@gmail.com wrote: > No, I don't see how. I don't know whether you misinterpreted what I > was saying on purpose, but Bum's Rush culminates in exactly 0 pool > loss unless there's some other card in play which changes that. This > is unlike bleed cards, which increase the amount of pool to be lost > directly. Yes. This is all true. But decks that primary strategy is combat win games, primarily due to the combat. Much like decks that primary strategy is stealth win games, primarily due to stealth. Yes, at some point, there is going to be some bleeding. 'Cause that is the default action that makes the game go, and all vampires can take. And yes, without bleeding, a deck that is all combat or all stealth is unlikely to ever oust anyone. But still, the main strategy of the deck is combat (or not being blocked). Given such a situation, it strikes me as reasonable to say "combat wins games". As it does. > Also, I'm not engaging in "semantic gymnastics". I'm engaging in > "staying on topic". The OP said he wanted "combat [to be] a viable > path to victory", and cited Fame, Tension, and Dragonbound to be > examples of what he meant. And I responded with "combat *is* a viable path to victory". Which I think is the case already. > That's the point: Just rushing and playing combat cards currently > doesn't win. But it can. Currently. Yes. At some point, you'll have to, at the very least, take default bleeds of one to finish off your prey. But rushing and destroying your prey's vampires removes secondary resources, and denies primary resources (you can't gain pool, say, if you have no vampires) > Because if we agree that that deck probably exists, then we're close > enough to "on the same page" that I think we can move on to the next > part of the argument. Fair enough. > "Just" rush combat wasn't already effective. A deck which could bleed > a bunch of times and _also_ rush was a somewhat successful strategy, > as you've demonstrated, but that strategy doesn't need Fame for the > oust. And because of that, there's a big difference between your deck > (which worked fine) and what the OP was talking about (which is > apparently combat as a viable path to GWs in some deck which currently > DOESN'T win by just rushing people.) Hmm. Now that I have been seeing your argument, I think you are reading an awful lot into what the OP said that wasn't necessarily there. You seem to be assuming an awful lot about what was meant by this sentence: "What about Combat as a viable path to victory? Why are the only effective cards so far to support that strategy been Fame, Tension, and Dragon Bound? " You seem to be thinking the the OP was implying that combat should be able to oust folks without ever bleeding them, and going from there. I don't actually think that is what he was talking about. It looks to me like, well, he was asking why combat strategies aren't getting that much in the way of support (which isn't actually true, but I can see why he might think so). And I think this is probably the crux in the disagreement here--you are arguing about one thing that I suspect you imagine that the OP was saying, and I'm not actually thinking he was saying what you think he was saying. So we are just talking past each other. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, >> and of those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. > > Kevin, I don't think Imbued are quite > as rare in L.A. as you're representing. Actually, that one imbued deck in 6 games anecdote was from my last playday in L.A., so yes, that did happen. And does happen regularly. Even with Alex and Darby there on a semi-regular basis. > And there is a real "hate Imbued" lobby in L.A. I love these guys, but remember, this is the playgroup that I have problems with when they self-oust on a regular basis, so what they do and do not do must be carefully examined. > I think there's a bit of social pressure against playing them and two > of the usual suspects (Darby and Alex) have recently moved away. Sure, perhaps it is because of all the hate that the imbued decks don't see play, but they just don't. So my one imbued deck in 6 anecdote is valid. How about this: I'll start counting? I suggest Peter do the same. It would be interesting to see the numbers. Perhaps Peter isn't engineering enough social pressure in his playgroup? ;) > But the general attitude I've found in Los Angeles has > consistently and unquestionably supported my contention that > "the Immune" are considered to be (at least) abnormally high on > the power scale. As I say, I don't find them as scary as y'all do. I just see them as another strong, "type1" deck. And they just don't appear enough to warrant this level of fear/hate/concern. >> The imbued are only considered "over the top" because of the radical >> in-game differences they represent, and players' ongoing irrational >> fear of them and their Championed-Determined-Memories'd strengths. >> There are several ways to deal with these threats. Why not use them? > > Another issue I have with the Imbued is (ironically, for purposes of > this thread) that they're awkward to metagame against. That is, > you certainly can build decks which defeat them and some are even > popular decks. But not many. So, as Peter has pointed out > repeatedly, the things people drag out to enter as evidence that > Imbued can be beat aren't realistic to use or aren't realistic to > use in enough numbers to make them viable answers. What folks in > CCG debates continually forget is that answers to deck archetypes > must be truly _usable_; it's not enough enough that they exist. > If they're not really usable, they're not an answer. As I suggested earlier, just bleed them for 3-6 every turn. If you get into combat, great! If not, you're doing the best you can do. The imbued are stronger against (D)rush combat than against bleed or vote, sure. But they are MUCH weaker against vote than against bleed or (D)rush combat, so I think everything works itself out in the end (as we aren't complaining about the imbued being seriously weak against vote). > Maybe. But they can also be defeated. The reason I fear > Imbued decks above any of those decks is that that most > of the decks I use will never oust an Imbued deck. You don't really want me to hit that softball, do you? ;) > No point in arguing the "need-to-be-fixed" issue. We seem > to have different values so I doubt I could convince you. Respectfully, I think there is far too much fear/hate/concern over the imbued. Perhaps MoM or Edge Explosion needs to be corrected somehow. But until then, do the best you can, and just try to see them as another strong deck archetype. Stop. The. Fear. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 20, 7:37 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 20, 7:08 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think that's odd that you'd say that people's choice to play more > > bounce doesn't deter players from bringing S&B. It certainly affects > > me. In fact, I try to notice when players are packing too many > > Deflections, or too many Delaying Tactics, or a whole fistful of extra > > Majesties lately, and then I let that affect my choice for a deck. I > > think it's a powerful tool that most good players attempt to use. > > I must not be a good player then, since I don't do it, because I > really don't think it can be done. Just because I saw this or that > guy, or a few in a row, happen to have a lot of a certain card, it > doesn't make me think I'm more or less likely to see it with the next > guy. I don't think, on that level, metagames can be read or > predicted. OK, but I've expected 1-2 stealth voters, and 1 stealth bleeder, in most major championship finals for years, and it generally comes out that way, too. When I thought there would be more intercept decks, I was right about that, too, for quite some time--until Italy, when that stopped. So it seems that my predictions are pretty reliable, and I certainly don't think I'm the best at predicting this sort of thing. I think the DC guys are pretty good at it, for example. Maybe it's just a matter of playgroups each having some things which are more successful in that particular area, and the changes in playgroups not happening particularly fast, so the meta each year isn't too different. Maybe it's just that new powerful cards don't come out very often, so Forgotten Labyrinth and Kindred Spirits are still top-of-the-curve in their respective realms. Whatever it is, I think gauging the metagame has stopped me from doing dumb things in the past. Like, when Confusion of the Eye and Delaying Tactics started seeing more play, I stopped voting so much. > What I do think can be done is to say "Hhmm, Imbued are new/hot, I > think I'll put some Entrancement in my deck in place of a few Enchant > Kindreds." Or other stuff along those lines. That's not so different from "Hmm, stealth voting was hot last year, so I've seen a lot of DT this year. Voting will probably be harder than normal." > But that's just my opinion, and not really here or there. What I do > think is a good counter-argument is this: bleed is a super-common > strategy, and bounce is a super-common defense. The ubiquity of > bounce clearly hasn't made bleed a less popular strategy. Ergo, > bounce does not deter bleed. Hasn't made bleed less popular strategy than _what_? I argue that if bounce cards didn't exist at all, we would see at least 2-3 times as much stealth bleed as we do now; i.e. bounce HAS made stealth bleed less popular than it would otherwise be. > > In my group, as mentioned in previous posts, we had a player with a > > really terrifying all-combat CEL POT Brujah rush deck. If his deck > > did more different things, then yes, combat defense would be > > appropriate. However, that's just not the case. He has so much > > combat, so many Psyches and so many Immortal Grapples, so many > > Sideslips and Blurs that you can just absolutely forget about trying > > to out-combat him at all. > > You build a lot of the rest of your argument based on this idea of > unstoppable combat, ...because I occasionally encounter combat which is basically unstoppable. Well, unstoppable without the deck sacrificing too much of what it does to still be effective, anyway. > leading to the conclusion that one shouldn't even > try to defend against it, and certainly not if we let combat get any > better. No, disambiguate "combat". I want combat cards which are (almost?) as powerful as the old staples to be printed so that combat gets more play. I do not want rushing your prey's vampires to be a way to remove that prey's pool as effectively as bleeding or voting might do that. > I disagree with this. Good, me too :) > Combat on combat is very risky stuff, > and there is no trump. No, that's not the case. At the NAC day 1 this year, I was playing Salubri Antitribu, and I had only one .44 Magnum in the deck, with no other maneuvers. My predator had a deck with Magic of the Smith for a .44, and a bunch of other permanent and transient maneuvers, meaning even if he can't put my guys down every time, I certainly can't hit him if he doesn't want me to. Now, my !Salubri may not be my most amazing deck, but because it was never going to get a hit in on him, it serves as an example that there IS a such thing as a trump in combat. I suppose I could try to come up with more examples if you really want, but I don't see the point. The real argument here is about the OP's request, which I think would generate all-combat decks, and you seem to think would empower combat as a part of the game, but not necessarily as focused as I have in mind. > just like 12 bounce > won't really stop Malk94. I beg to differ. > It's just a question of numbers. I also > believe that as you slide your deck more towards unstoppable combat, > you slide it in the opposite direction with respect to actually > gaining VP's, ...which is exactly what I believe the OP would have LSJ undermine. > both by ousting and by not being ousted yourself. This > is why I've always been obsessed with finding the tightest, most > minimal combat packages I can put together. Which I respect the hell out of, by the way. I think your calling it "short chain combat" put that distinction in people's minds who wouldn't have learned the lesson if it didn't have a name. > > I find the game described in the above paragraph to be very non- > > interactive. > > I find it predicated upon a logical fallacy. I can recommend a solution: Play where I do. Then, when you get ruined, ask yourself, "Am I glad that this Beast/Jimmy Dunn thing doesn't get VPs?" > I have a couple of thumb-rules for Jyhad. #3 is "You are not > psychic." You don't "know" the outcome, unless the terms of > interaction on one side of the equation are zero. All you've done in > that case is create a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I have a deck, for example, which has no presses or long-range strikes, and cannot get more than 1 stealth (which I think would be a reasonable configuration for a deck), then No Secrets From the Magaji with a Sniper Rifle could quite possibly be "gg" without me needing any sort of clairvoyance. > Or heck, maybe you are an uber-genius braniac. Plenty of people seem > to claim they can "know" the future game states on a table, but my > experience doesn't bear this out. I think people often sell themselves short, sure. But just because SOME predictions are poorly forecast, doesn't mean ALL of them are. For example, as a spectator, I leaned over to Matt Morgan at the NAC finals this year, somewhere towards the beginning of the game, when everyone had already shown their clans. I asked him, "Is there any way Ben doesn't win this?" He looked at the table, then replied, "I don't see one, no." That was pretty early, but by that time, we both figured Ben was going to win unless there was a major upset. He has weenies, his prey has fatties. His weenies all vote for 2, but they're Daughters, so nobody's going to give them as much attention as they deserve. He gains lots of pool; nobody else does. His predator will probably get wrecked (Una rush will kill Dementation malks most certainly). Not psychic, I just didn't know how Una could decide NOT to rush the malks, or how Ben could fail to win with a prey who couldn't stop him and a predator whose vampires were dead. > > What? Why would you think that I didn't use any other intercept > > cards? Just to make things clear for the rest of this, here are the > > general defenses that deck had (not the whole decklist): > > OK, I didn't factor in the whole decklist, and was just going by what > you'd posted up-thread. I agree that your deck is a very flexible, > toolboxy deck that uses its Auspex to block, not just flick. But a > lot of decks are X wakes, Y bounce, and full steam ahead. Lots of > decks. OK, and I think it would be good if they added some combat defense, and I think it would be fine if combat CARDS got an upgrade. I do not think it's reasonable to add more Fame-like effects to this game and expect that MODERATE combat will get an upgrade more than unreasonably focused combat will. After all, Fame is "if X, your prey loses pool" so I think players will try to make a deck that can reliably perform "x" over and over and over again. I still don't see why I should expect that would help boost moderate combat more than focused rush. > > Nah, one of the things that makes V:TES a good game is that players > > interact via card play quite a bit. If combat gets good enough to > > where you need 30-40 combat cards in order to survive until your first > > action, I really doubt it'll be very interactive at all. > > Nobody is proposing that. I disagree that it would follow as a > consequence if there were merely a few more cards like Fame floating > about, since decks still need to oust and not be ousted, Maybe if there were only a few, and they were unique. But with enough to make ousting with rushing as viable as ousting with bleeding--which is where I thought you were going with the designer intent argument-- I'll have you note that Dementation bleed decks which don't use reaction cards at all are being played in serious tournaments. If rushing for the oust was as reliable as bleeding for the oust--and of course, bleeding is so effective that many players are deciding not to use reaction cards in their decks--then why wouldn't rush decks without reaction cards start popping up? > and it would > still be far less reliable than attacking primary resources. Not by your measuring stick, it wouldn't. If designer intent were fulfilled, it would be EXACTLY as reliable as attacking primary resources. > > And if you think two combat decks > > sitting next to each other is a bad thing, cause they'll both lose the > > game, then imagine three sitting in a row. Or all five players > > playing combat, and the one who has the trumpiest combat wins, or > > worse, the one who gets in the most combats loses. Sorry, not > > interested. > > OK, I've played at plenty of tables that were fighty as hell. It's > completely unpredictable who will win, and a lot of fun. OK, sometimes, yeah. I agree, if everyone's thinking the same thing, then it's pretty cool sometimes. But I bet if the expectation that there would be stealth voters and stealth bleeders and blocky decks and such disappeared, each of those decks would take out some of their bleed, bounce, intercept, whatever...they'd focus more on combat, and eventually the game would be a bit lamer. Something I like to say: "WE NEED STEALTH BLEED TO KEEP EVERYONE FROM PLAYING ANIMALISM!" That's hyperbole of course, but every time I see the casual metagame shift to where there are lots of Animalism based decks, it gets a bit boring, and I'm always glad to see a stealth-bleeder oust them all. > Cards flying > everywhere, and nobody knows who will be still standing when the dust > settles. Which sounds exactly like the kind of game you like. I > really think you just see your problem when a combat deck rubs up > against a deck that is only minimally prepared for combat, or not > prepared at all. Which is a strategic choice that is mostly sound, > but still not a problem with the game. I see no problem with a deck which can win rushing someone who isn't very prepared for combat and beating the hell out of their guy. I still see no problem, whether the rushing player gets a GW or 0 vps. I see no problem with a deck which can't win, but has 70 combat cards, rushing you, getting 0 vps, and eventually learning the lesson that he/ she has to do something else to get the oust. I DO see a problem with that same deck playing a couple new Fame-like effects, then playing Fame, then ruining you like before, and learning the lesson that "70 combat cards is FUN!", cause nobody else thought so. My brother used to play an all-combat deck, learned the 0vp lesson, and added Legal Manipulations & Aire of Elation. Bob used to play an all-combat deck, learned the 0vp lesson, and added Intimidation + eventually Iron Glare. John used to play an all-combat deck, learned the 0vp lesson, and added Govern the Unaligned, etc. Another John used to play all-combat Assamites. He's started winning games recently, but it's not cause he figured out how to equip with more weapons or rush more things; it's because he uses a multi-pronged strategy now. I've seen a lot of this lesson being learned, and it's a "coming of age for a player" sort of thing. It's a good thing. More Fames would not be a good thing. More Fames would probably work against this process. Rushing does not have to become a victory condition. I personally think it's better that it not become one, unless you want all-rush decks to become prevalent. > >Combat functions well right now, and just needs some more > > powerful cards. It does NOT need to be transformed into a victory > > condition. > > You already conceded that combat as a victory condition was coequal > with bleed and vote, by designer intent. How can you reconcile these > two statements? I conceded that you were probably correct about the designers intent being that all would be equal. However, I added: "I'm not sure that that means we should continue pursuing that dream until it is realized regardless of the cost to the game's diversity, though." In other words, coequal in intent != coequal in practice, and who knows what Jyhad's base set would have been like had they been coequal in practice? Perhaps Ventrue Vote would have been total crap all along? > > I've played against your Fatima multirush deck a couple times, and > > it's only a lot of combat _compared to what you would expect to see_. > > It is not very much combat at all, compared to some of the crap I've > > been expected to hang on through. > > I just meant "brings a lot of combat decks to tournies," not how many > red cards are in this or that deck. Fatima is tight, and tends to > lose against other decks with 50 combat cards, but those aren't the > kind of decks I'm aiming to take out, because they are very rare. Do you think those kind of decks would remain rare if more Fame-like effects, transforming torpored minions into pool loss, were printed? > > And I'll "sort-of" concede a point right now: If rush combat IS > > given, let's say, a non-unique Fame or something, and it can oust > > players, and the BEST WAY TO DO THAT just so happens to be in a way > > where a moderate amount of combat defense can handle it, then I'm not > > opposed. I'm not in favor, mind you, but I don't think it would hurt > > the game all that much. > > > But why would players rush with 40 combat cards, when they could rush > > with 70? I mean, if it can oust your prey now, that is? > > Because that leaves 20 cards to handle every other aspect the game can > throw at you, which is likely to be a losing strategy (again, maybe > not with weenies, but I'm all in favor of doing things in a non-weenie- > enhancing way). DEM bleed doesn't need reaction cards. Why would all-rush combat? Note, also, that rush can be used defensively. > > Again, I don't think it would make players put in 10 more combat > > defense cards. I think it would make some players include more combat > > defense cards, until the point where the deck can't support itself > > anymore, at which point they'll just say, "screw it, if I sit next to > > rush combat, I'm dead anyway" and just play with no combat cards > > instead. And then the game is less interactive, instead of more. > > Whether a deck can support itself or not is only a sensible question > when placed into the context of a particular environment. If an > environment got more fighty (but not absurdly so), then a deck that > had 10 more Flashes, and 5 less dominate bleed cards and 5 less > obfuscate stealth cards, would arguably be just as "fit." I'm not asking what would happen if a given environment got more fighty, "but not absurdly so". I'm asking you, what if it _were_ "absurdly so"--and, of course, suggesting that the OP's suggestion enacted would make it get "absurdly so". Therefore, until we talk about where more Fames would lead the players, arguments reliant upon a game getting more fighty "but not absurdly so" are irrelevant (in my opinion), as they don't address what I think will happen. > > Yeah, but once again, where the hell are your Confusion of the Eye or > > Delaying Tactics? DI is only general defense, but I think the other > > two belong in most decks. > > They are hard to fit in there, because combat is so card-intensive. > They definitely don't fit in your 70 combat card straw man. Following the thread, in context: "Me" says all-combat rush is bad for the game, cause it stops other players from playing. "Not-me" says PTO is an effect that could also stop players from playing. "Me" says not reasonably, since the PTOing guy is larger (therefore slower) than the target and probably won't play one every turn anyway. "Not-me" says it only takes killing one 10-cap to turn your game off. "Me" says that the target has a chance to play Confusion of the Eye, DT, or DI to prevent PTO (which you'll note is a far smaller # of cards of defense than is needed against a 70-combat-cards-in-deck rush deck.) FYI: A "straw man" is a technique where one arguer constructs a version of another's argument which is weaker than their actual position, defeats the weaker position, and claims victory over the actual position. As I was constructing my own argument using the 70- combat-card deck, rather than trying to characterize your position as being of it in some way, it was clearly not a straw man. Perhaps you mean "red herring", which would be using something that isn't realistic or isn't relevant to distract from the argument, but I think that would be inaccurate as well, since I gave four real life examples of players and their decks who HAVE been all combat, which I have had to face, and I don't think that the new-ish players in the Seattle area think about V:TES in such incredibly different ways from how new-ish players in other regions think, so I bet other playgroups have experienced the "If I kill everything, I win!" mentality before. (Luckily, it wears off with experience.) > S:CE isn't a one card solution, but it's damn close. People talk > about combat as if it's only ever about grapple, which it isn't. > Grapple is really really good, if you are raping a soft environment. > But mono-potence, or even Potence/Celerity, get taken apart by lots of > other good combat strategies. It's a circular thing, because in a non- > fighty environment (which you seem to prefer), you aim for hosing > S:CE. In a more fighty environment you have to start thinking about > how to handle hitback, and which types, which makes for a much more > varied game overall. Yes, that's a pretty good game you're describing. But, please explain to me why I should think that this sort of game would come about more readily than the one I described earlier if Fame weren't unique. > > I think in large-cap decks, sure, it's common. It's also a problem, I > > think, that so many decks choose to ignore reactions altogether, or > > all reactions except wakes and bounce. Decks should be able to attack > > AND defend, for an ideal game. But we're far from ideal, yet. > > Yep, and I would add "and handle combat" to that list as well. I would only add "handle reasonable amounts of combat" to that list. Which I don't think is what we'd be seeing if more Fame-like effects were printed. Seriously, I think this debate can only either [go toward discussion of what printing more Fame effects would encourage], or [go away]. I agree that games with more combat are more fun, up to a point. You _seem_ to agree that 70-combat-card decks wouldn't be fun to play against, but are reluctant to admit they exist, I hope I haven't misstated your position. Now that I've given you four examples of players and their decks, which are very real in my experience, and I have described what happened to their understanding of the game when they lost, please respond to what I think is the only real sticking point left in this whole mess: I think more effects which generate pool damage to your prey would result in more focused rush-combat decks. Do you agree with this assessment, and if not, could you please explain to me what you think would happen, and why? -- Brian

On Oct 21, 12:26 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > I think more effects which generate pool damage to your prey would > result in more focused rush-combat decks. Do you agree with this > assessment, and if not, could you please explain to me what you think > would happen, and why? Snipped a lot, because the whole thing was just getting too long. I'll try to address the substance of your post. No, I don't think printing another Fame effect, or three, or ten, would lead to 70 card combat decks (i.e. "unbeatable combat"). Combat in the 30 - 50 range already kills minions just fine. Not all combat disciplines are created equal, but it's clearly possible to build a table's worth of smashing with at least a few disciplines in that range. So, merely by taking the pool damage up from 3 for fame to, say, 6 for Fame + foo, you aren't really incentivizing a deck full of red cards. I think you also wouldn't see combat in the 70 range because you still have to get a lot of other things done in a game besides rush rush rush (again, we aren't talking about speedy weenie rush decks here). Simply upping your rate of pool damage to your prey, again, doesn't change that. I'd also note that it's already possible to generate open-ended non-bleed damage from Anarch Revolt and rushing your prey's anarchs (or blocking attempts to go anarch). The sky hasn't fallen yet. The other thing I wanted to clear up is any mistaken notion that I think combat should oust as well as bleed or vote. Clearly it shouldn't. It should always be the weakest of the three, because you're also getting the direct benefit of minion control along with it. In fact, you may note I am not one of the people who has weighed in saying "Yeah, give us another damage source." If rush combat needs anything, it's a *pool gain source*, to keep from having to vaporize backstream so much, which tilts a table all to hell and back, but for which many times there's just no alternative. And I also agree with Peter that it's a pretty sucky state of affairs for the Immune to just tick off a whole damn archetype in their "we don't play that game" column. You know I'm pretty focused on the Assamites, and I think Black Throne is a nice start, and K:G also provides the pool padding to enable more sustained pressure forward (I've got a mountain of personal data on this, and I'm convinced it's true. K:G is a power card, although a subtle one). Open Dossier also provides a really good alternative to backousting. I'm pretty content with the state of affairs for my little corner of the combat world, actually. -- David Cherryholmes

In article <1192969125....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, I don't think printing another Fame effect, or three, or ten, > would lead to 70 card combat decks (i.e. "unbeatable combat"). To be fair, there already *are* (well, sort of) "70 card combat decks". When I build a weenie Rush deck? I'm using, like, 12 masters, 12 Rush actions, 60 some odd combat cards, and then the balance in bleed modifiers and whatever. I don't think increasing the number of combat cards in such a deck, even if there *were* more efficient ways of doing pool damage with Rush, is particularly realistic--you need Master cards, you need Rush actions, you need some sort of other defense options (light bounce, light intercept, vote defense, something). So I think being concerned that printing new Fame type cards would open up some path that doesn't already exist and isn't already being followed isn't particularly realistic. > The other thing I wanted to clear up is any mistaken notion that I > think combat should oust as well as bleed or vote. Clearly it > shouldn't. It should always be the weakest of the three, because > you're also getting the direct benefit of minion control along with > it. Agreed. > In fact, you may note I am not one of the people who has weighed > in saying "Yeah, give us another damage source." I don't think Rush combat needs another damage source either. The ones that exist work just fine. Except against the Imbued. Which is where a I want to see something get fixed. One of the problems I'm seeing is that (using Fame as an example), there doesn't seem to be support for errataing Fame; printing a newer, differenter version that works on the Imbued as well as vampires would be problematic as it does exactly what is being discussed here--it would stack with Fame (so if you play Fame and Foo, you are dunking a vampire and burning 5 or so pool instead of just 3; if it only affects the Imbued, it isn't really fixing the problem (as cards that only affect allies are too narrow in focus to be generally useful, powerful Imbued or no); thus, unless such a card has some klunky text saying how it is considered to contest Fame or some such, it is gonna be a problem. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:dVtSi.8762$bO2....@newsfe10.phx... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> And there is a real "hate Imbued" lobby in L.A. > > I love these guys, but remember, this is the playgroup that I have > problems with when they self-oust on a regular basis, so what they do and > do not do must be carefully examined. Sure. I was just pointing out that the "nobody-plays-Imbued-in-LA" story, while possibly true to some extent, has a deeper meaning than what you've represented to Peter. That's all. >> Maybe. But they can also be defeated. The reason I fear >> Imbued decks above any of those decks is that that most >> of the decks I use will never oust an Imbued deck. > > You don't really want me to hit that softball, do you? ;) I would be the first to admit, I have a lot of really bad decks that can't be expected to do very well in a highly competitive enviroment like L.A. However, this point needs to be given its due. You keep alluding to fear and saying Imbued need to regarded as just another powerful deck archetype. If the games I'd played against Imbued, with good decks or bad, had played out like the games against other powerful deck archetypes, I'd agree with you. The trouble is, that's not how it happens in the real world. Far too often in the real world (and it happened twice at the NAC), I've sat down with a deck that has otherwise done fairly well for me and realized that I have no hope of ever ousting this Imbued deck for myself. So I look around the table to see if I'm likely to get any help from one or more of the other players. But LO! No one ELSE has any hope of scratching the Imbued in any meaningful way either! So the game, as far as hope of winning it goes, was over before it began. So, given that this has been my experience with them well over half the time I've played against them, please explain to me what "fear" you think should "stop"? I'm confused. I don't like these experiences and I'd rather stop having them. Your blithe suggestion that one should just "bleed them for 3-6 every turn" really isn't helpful. They bloat for too much and few decks can keep up such pressure for as long as it would take. Those that can usually wouldn't have enough stealth to get the bleeds through the Imbued (Second Sight plus the Unmasking plus, if necessary Mr. Winthrop or Sport Bike or whatever) and wouldn't hold up in combat. Maybe the fact that you don't see them much is contributing to some degree of naivety, perhaps? The problem is, they eat up too much of the existing metagame. It was once said in relation to Return to Innocence that failure to hold a bounce card should not cost one the game. Likewise, failure to be playing animalism combat or the one or two other things effective against Imbued should not cost one all hope of winning a game, too. > Stop. The. Fear. It will stop when the bad, hopeless games stop. Not before. Fred

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> Stop. The. Fear. > > It will stop when the bad, hopeless games stop. Not before. The reason it is not naivety is this: people that keep complaining about the imbued have just shifted their complaining away from what they were before to the imbued now. See, if I am a bleed/vote/combat deck, and I hit a deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck, I lose. It is a bad, hopeless game. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between this, and a (D)rush combat deck hitting an imbued deck. You say, But there are so many things in my combat deck that don't work against the imbued! and I say But there are so many things in my bleed/vote/combat deck that don't work against a deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck! Same thing. I haven't seen anything said yet that convinces me that the imbued are anything other than another strong deck archetype. And even if I saw them more, as you say, it wouldn't change my opinion that they are just another strong deck archetype. It might aggravate me more, but no more than when I see Arika or Enkidu or Eze or Stanislava come out as my opponent's first vampire. Perhaps this is a certain kind of mindset that I have, that I am willing to see the game as a whole, instead of X vs Y vs Z? Is this a failing on my part? I don't know. As with any other strong deck acrhetype, just do the best you can, even if it is a lost cause. And if you can't, or won't, I guess you can keep asking for things to change. Good luck. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:54QSi.9282$XU3....@newsfe15.phx... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >>> Stop. The. Fear. >> >> It will stop when the bad, hopeless games stop. Not before. > > The reason it is not naivety is this: people that keep complaining about > the imbued have just shifted their complaining away from what they were > before to the imbued now. > > See, if I am a bleed/vote/combat deck, and I hit a > deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck, I lose. It is a bad, hopeless > game. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between this, and a (D)rush combat deck > hitting an imbued deck. You say, But there are so many things in my > combat deck that don't work against the imbued! and I say But there are so > many things in my bleed/vote/combat deck that don't work against a > deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck! Same thing. Well, again, I'm not qualified to say whether the rush combat deck is hopeless against Imbued. But I'd sure take Peter's word for it. > I haven't seen anything said yet that convinces me that the imbued are > anything other than another strong deck archetype. So that's the source of our disagreement. My games against Imbued opponents convince me. Sometimes the game-over-before-it-began effect does happen against other decks. But not with anywhere near the frequency it seems to happen against Imbued decks. And even when I can do things that are effective in preventing them from thriving and winning the game, actually ousting them always seems to be a whole other magnitude of challenge. It would be different if I was continually running into guys who were suggesting I do things I haven't tried. But every time I get into this argument, the stuff I hear back never makes any sense. So until I do, I'm going to believe what my eyes tell me in real games rather than what the people-who-love-to-argue(tm) on Usenet claim. Fred

Howdy, On Oct 21, 3:06 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> Stop. The. Fear. > > > It will stop when the bad, hopeless games stop. Not before. > > The reason it is not naivety is this: people that keep complaining about > the imbued have just shifted their complaining away from what they were > before to the imbued now. > > See, if I am a bleed/vote/combat deck, and I hit a > deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck, I lose. It is a bad, hopeless > game. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between this, and a (D)rush combat deck > hitting an imbued deck. You say, But there are so many things in my > combat deck that don't work against the imbued! and I say But there are so > many things in my bleed/vote/combat deck that don't work against a > deflection/intercept/prevent heavy deck! Same thing. I think you're missing the other part of Peter's argument, which, as I understand it, is that rush combat has been, historically, a pretty marginal strategy. A strategy was was becoming less marginal until the Imbued showed up and tipped the balance back to 'too marginal to work reliably'. This argument relies more on the marginality of rush combat than on the amount of ways that Imbued hose rush combat. If rush was less marginal to begin with, then, sure, it wouldn't matter (so much) that the Imbued hosed it - everything gets to be hosed by something else or balance is lost. (There also seem to be questions about what exactly it is that hoses Imbued, but that's not within the scope of Peter's argument.) But rush was fragile enough that now, when at least Peter is regularly running into Imbued, it's gone from an X% chance of winning to an X-N% chance of winning, where N is enough to go from 'worth taking the risk' to 'not'. I think that's a different argument than the 'no fair playing the paper to my rock' argument. There's also the (less important, mechanically) question of why it is that (fragile, mortal) Imbued should be a combat hoser from a WoD perspective, but, again, I don't think that's what Peter's concerned about. Hope that helps, Alex

On 20 oct, 15:52, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >> I go to L.A. to play VTES once a month, and we get in 6 games, > >> and of those 24 opposing decks, MAYBE ONE is an imbued deck. > > I think there's a bit of social pressure against playing them and two > > of the usual suspects (Darby and Alex) have recently moved away. > > Sure, perhaps it is because of all the hate that the imbued decks don't > see play, but they just don't. So my one imbued deck in 6 anecdote is > valid. How about this: I'll start counting? I suggest Peter do the same. > Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas > "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier So, you want numbers, Kevin. Ok, if we see the TWDA, (and I know tournaments are not the only thing in the world but neither is a experience in one place). In the last 2 years (2006 and 2007) the Imbued has won 26 tournaments, not other clan has won that many times. Not even the Gangrel has won that much and they have won 15 times, Malk 13 times and Malk! another 13. The other clans have won even fewer. >> In summary: >> 1. Rush gets better every expansion. >> 2. Sometimes you hit the rock to your scissors. >> 3. Imbued arent played enough to warrant this level of fright. :) Rush gets better but not enough to warrant a level of fright by the Imbued. You DO sometimes hit the rock to your scissors, and, as you say, you do your best, but... Based on the numbers above, either they show up regularly or they're really good to win one in 6 tournaments they attend.

On 20 oct, 23:26, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > On Oct 20, 7:37 am, bluedevil <david.cherryhol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 20, 7:08 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Regarding stealth-bleed being kept in check by rush combat: This > > >hasn't been my experience. I personally have found that bleed bounce > > >is the most effective "check" for s+b decks. > >Bounce slows S+B down. Killing all the S+B minions shuts S+B down. >Bounce turns the S+B deck into one of your tools for ousting your >prey. Killing all of ANYONE'S minions shuts them down, but doesn't >mean you win. That's not necesarily true. Not always S+B turns into one of your tools for ousting using bounce, it could mean that it turns the S+B into your tool when you bounce and then into your prey's tool when they bounce at least until they get to the bleedsink because he has no bounce. Even more, if you're packing bounce most of the time you're a S +B or a Powerbleed. At least here in Mexico, no one is saying "I will not bring S+B next tourney because everybody has bounce" they're saying "I will bring bounce next time". And not because it's the best defense, but because it's the most efficient: less cards and a fair opportunity to not take the bleed, and maybe it hurts my prey (maybe not, but at least it's not me who take the hit) > > > I think that's odd that you'd say that people's choice to play more > > > bounce doesn't deter players from bringing S&B. It certainly affects > > > me. In fact, I try to notice when players are packing too many > > > Deflections, or too many Delaying Tactics, or a whole fistful of extra > > > Majesties lately, and then I let that affect my choice for a deck. I > > > think it's a powerful tool that most good players attempt to use. > I think combat could be made a better ousting strategy, without affecting the game; just not to the extension of the bleed, which by the way I don't think it could be achievable by another fame-like card, because I think no one, not even the OP, said that he wanted 15 more fame-like cards. You already accepted that the predictions of the metagame would lead to changes of your deck. So, use that ability to predict that you'll see combat and change your deck effectively. Or what? only if meta shifts to combat is boring but if it shifts between bleed and vote is diverse? > > But that's just my opinion, and not really here or there. What I do > > think is a good counter-argument is this: bleed is a super-common > > strategy, and bounce is a super-common defense. The ubiquity of > > bounce clearly hasn't made bleed a less popular strategy. Ergo, > > bounce does not deter bleed. > > Hasn't made bleed less popular strategy than _what_? I can't talk about world experience, but here in Mexico that's a fact, bounce hasn't made less popular strategy than anything. S+B followed by Powerbleed are the most common here, and yeah, they all pack bounce. > I argue that if > bounce cards didn't exist at all, we would see at least 2-3 times as > much stealth bleed as we do now; i.e. bounce HAS made stealth bleed > less popular than it would otherwise be. If that's the case, and bounce wouldn't exist, almost 100% of tournament decks would be S+B or Powerbleed here. ;) > ...because I occasionally encounter combat which is basically > unstoppable. Well, unstoppable without the deck sacrificing too much > of what it does to still be effective, anyway. See, predict, diversify your style, and pack combat. > > leading to the conclusion that one shouldn't even > > try to defend against it, and certainly not if we let combat get any > > better. > > No, disambiguate "combat". I want combat cards which are (almost?) as > powerful as the old staples to be printed so that combat gets more > play. I do not want rushing your prey's vampires to be a way to > remove that prey's pool as effectively as bleeding or voting might do > that. You're right, not that effective. Although PTO removes secondary resources easier than combat and with more advantages and then removes primary resources much better than combat, but that's another thread. > > Combat on combat is very risky stuff, > > and there is no trump. > > No, that's not the case. At the NAC day 1 this year, I was playing > Salubri Antitribu, and I had only one .44 Magnum in the deck, with no > other maneuvers. My predator had a deck with Magic of the Smith for > a .44, and a bunch of other permanent and transient maneuvers, meaning > even if he can't put my guys down every time, I certainly can't hit > him if he doesn't want me to. Now, my !Salubri may not be my most > amazing deck, but because it was never going to get a hit in on him, > it serves as an example that there IS a such thing as a trump in > combat. > > I suppose I could try to come up with more examples if you really > want, but I don't see the point. The real argument here is about the > OP's request, which I think would generate all-combat decks, and you > seem to think would empower combat as a part of the game, but not > necessarily as focused as I have in mind. There's trump to a particular deck over another particular deck, but no THE trump combat. So you can come up with as much examples as you like and I can help you. > If I have a deck, for example, which has no presses or long-range > strikes, and cannot get more than 1 stealth (which I think would be a > reasonable configuration for a deck), then No Secrets From the Magaji > with a Sniper Rifle could quite possibly be "gg" without me needing > any sort of clairvoyance. Then what does the deck do? What you need, as you say, is to predict and build accordingly and that's when the diversion comes in. What kind of combat I'd probably see? It's common a combat deck without maneuvers or presses? If I can outmanuever or outpress him can I win? Of course, combat it's not that easy to predict, right? It's not "pack 10 bounce cards and 10 Delaying tactics then I'm set against bleed and vote" one card per action per strategy. That's why everybody love S:CE and when they can't do it, get angry.

On Oct 20, 3:30 am, tony.a...@gmail.com wrote: > So because of my request/query it automatically means I'm one of those > stereotypical bad rush combat players, who don't put any thought into > his combat deck? > Jeezus Christ on fricking pogo stick, who plays with 70 fricking > combat cards!?! Lots of guys I have to play against do. It's not _that_ abnormal where I play. > I feel a bit insulted. I suppose I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. I'm sorry to have assumed too much about where you were coming from. > There's the contract mechanic out there and the only cards that reward > it so far are: Provisions, Khabar: Honor, Black Throne and Open > Dosier. I have a Contract deck with K:H and Provision, and that's certainly enough support for me to have a hell of a lot of fun with it. Oh, and don't forget Husamettin rewards contracts :) > Three of those are just for Assamites while the Samedi and the Black > Hand only get to use Open Dosier. Combat is more then just Immortal > Grapple yet Potence is what gets usually mentioned when discussing > combat in general. Some people use Potence as a measuring stick for combat. That aside, when people talk about how to improve "combat", there's the difficulty that some people use combat to mean "including combat cards in your deck" while other people use combat to mean "a deck designed to kill minions as its primary function". Out of the combat decks designed to kill minions as their primary function, the mono-Potence deck has been probably the longest-lived and most successful, and I think that's a large part of why it keeps coming up. > The Imbued are also one heck of a problem for > combat rush and something new or a fix of some kind would be nice. I've found combat to be one of the most effective ways to beat Imbued. And even if it weren't, there are plenty of things about Imbued that are much more problematic than their performance against one decktype or another. > Asking for more universal master or action cards that reward the > combat theme is wrong in what way? Mostly because it's barking up the wrong tree. I think Torn Signpost, Theft of Vitae, Carrion Crows, and Pursuit are four combat cards from different disciplines which all see fairly regular competitive play, and often in decks without any use for Fame. This demonstrates that players already include strong combat cards in their competitive decks. More Fame-like effects will not make sub-par combat cards into gold, and besides, I'd rather the designer simply made better combat cards to begin with. > It's not like I'm asking for some > kind of krazy insane card that would burn 20 pool if i dunked a > minion. In fact I'm asking for non dunking "effective" cards that > would in some way benefit combat. Non-dunking? I think a great non-dunking card for combat is Swallowed by the Night, cause it means you can still put stealth cards in your deck without having to forego combat ability. Another great non-dunking card which benefits combat is Canine Horde. It's something that affects the board from within combat, and I think there should be more of that. What's wrong with "Strike: Untap this vampire" or "Only usable at the end of combat when this vampire is still ready and the opposing minion is not. This action continues as if unblocked."? These cards would benefit combat. Fame doesn't benefit combat, it rewards it. I don't believe combat needs more rewards than it already has, as it is already very interactive, competitive, and fun. All that's wrong with combat is that there aren't enough combat cards that measure up. I don't agree that not enough combat gets played because the extrinsic motivators, the rewards, aren't great enough. -- Brian

On Oct 20, 10:13 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <1192868762.552668.224...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > > No, I don't see how. I don't know whether you misinterpreted what I > > was saying on purpose, but Bum's Rush culminates in exactly 0 pool > > loss unless there's some other card in play which changes that. This > > is unlike bleed cards, which increase the amount of pool to be lost > > directly. > > Yes. This is all true. But decks that primary strategy is combat win > games, primarily due to the combat. Much like decks that primary > strategy is stealth win games, primarily due to stealth. And if the OP is saying that merely killing things isn't winning games, and he'd like new cards that turn killing things into winning games, then you can see why I'd have a distinction between the thing that does the bulk of the work and the thing that actually moves the pool--which is, because I thought OP was giving one to me. > Yes, at some point, there is going to be some bleeding. 'Cause that is > the default action that makes the game go, and all vampires can take. > And yes, without bleeding, a deck that is all combat or all stealth is > unlikely to ever oust anyone. But still, the main strategy of the deck > is combat (or not being blocked). Given such a situation, it strikes me > as reasonable to say "combat wins games". As it does. In a vacuum, yes, I agree with you. The distinction between ousting WITH combat and BECAUSE of combat is too small to matter. In context of the OP's request and my reply to it, the distinction between these two is fairly important. > > Also, I'm not engaging in "semantic gymnastics". I'm engaging in > > "staying on topic". The OP said he wanted "combat [to be] a viable > > path to victory", and cited Fame, Tension, and Dragonbound to be > > examples of what he meant. > > And I responded with "combat *is* a viable path to victory". Which I > think is the case already. Your reply does not seem to take into account the distinction between combat setting up the conditions necessary to be able to oust (should your deck have the ability to bleed), and the combat itself doing the ousting. Because my position is based on this distinction, and the OP's request as well, a reply which does not acknowledge the distinction is a reply which seems unrelated to what it's attempting to reply to. > > That's the point: Just rushing and playing combat cards currently > > doesn't win. > > But it can. Currently. Yes. At some point, you'll have to, at the very > least, take default bleeds of one to finish off your prey. Yes. Exactly. That's why, if there was a bunch of Fame-like cards running around, you would NOT have to take default bleeds of one to finish off your prey. You could literally rush them to death. This is what I was saying would be undesirable. [ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, that's my guess. Still, I think combat's main place in the game isn't totally crippling one or more players at the table, but rather as a deterrent against being blocked. This makes it somewhat comparable to stealth. Combat with a bunch of bleed in play is good; combat with bleed cards in hand is good; combat without much bleed in play or in hand isn't very good. I consider the rush decks you popularized to be in the first category; the decks I enjoy watching the most are in the second category; and most concerns I hear about combat not winning games usually come from players using decks in the third category. Hope this makes sense why I categorize your decks as bruise and bleed, and why I think requests for more Fame, Tension, Dragonbound etc. are misplaced. -- Brian

On Oct 25, 1:49 am, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > I think you're missing the other part of Peter's argument, which, as I > understand it, is that rush combat has been, historically, a pretty > marginal strategy. A strategy was was becoming less marginal until > the Imbued showed up and tipped the balance back to 'too marginal to > work reliably'. Heh. I kinda lost track of what my own argument was, but this does a pretty good job of summing it up. Thanks! :-) -Peter

On Oct 25, 7:19 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > And if the OP is saying that merely killing things isn't winning > games, and he'd like new cards that turn killing things into winning > games, then you can see why I'd have a distinction between the thing > that does the bulk of the work and the thing that actually moves the > pool--which is, because I thought OP was giving one to me. Ahh, see, yeah, I didn't actually get that from the post that started this discussion. As it was only a scentence long. He didn't strike me as saying "I want more things like Fame" necessarily, he was just asking "why does combat not get more support." Which is a much bigger question than the one you are answering. > In context of the OP's request and my reply to it, the distinction > between these two is fairly important. Well, in the context of who you are envisioning the OP's request is. > Yes. Exactly. That's why, if there was a bunch of Fame-like cards > running around, you would NOT have to take default bleeds of one to > finish off your prey. You could literally rush them to death. This > is what I was saying would be undesirable. But it is already completely possible to do this. I have killed folks countless times simply by Faming someone and dunking them repeatedly (i.e. the "lather, rinse, repeat" maneuver...). Or by virtue of Dragonbound. Or using the Eurobrujah to rush everyone into torpor and then playing Perpetual Care. The things you envison an undesireable already exist. > Still, I think combat's main place in the game isn't totally crippling > one or more players at the table, but rather as a deterrent against > being blocked. Except that using combat like this, really, doesn't work so well. If you have enough combat to beat folks up reliably, then you don't have really enough room to do other things that are effective. If you don't have enough combat to beat folks up reliably, then when they call your bluff, they are no longer afraid of you. This is why what is traditionally thought of as "Bruise+Bleed" isn't really that effective. If you are good at combat, you need to be good at combat, and you need to get into combat toplay cards and cycle your deck. Which means Rush actions (or blocking, but that is a whole other story). If you just wait for folks to block your bleed of 1, you lose the game. If you justy wait for someone to block your bleed of 3, you just get deflected to your grand prey, and you don't want to beat them up. So you don't cycle your cards, and your next action is a bleed of 1. That no one cares about. > This makes it somewhat comparable to stealth. Combat > with a bunch of bleed in play is good; combat with bleed cards in hand > is good; combat without much bleed in play or in hand isn't very > good. And that is what you end up with when you play "Bruise+Bleed". > Hope this makes sense why I categorize your decks as bruise and bleed, > and why I think requests for more Fame, Tension, Dragonbound etc. are > misplaced. You can call things whatever works for you. But historically, "Bruse +Bleed" has refered to "I come to bleed you. If you block, I kill you.If you don't block, I bleed you a lot!". Which, historically, hasn't been a spectacular archetype, because: A) It cycles poorly. B) No one blocks you. C) It can't reliably rush Arika before she kills you. -Peter

On Oct 25, 7:19 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > Still, I think combat's main place in the game isn't totally crippling > one or more players at the table, but rather as a deterrent against > being blocked. This makes it somewhat comparable to stealth. Except that it's different in significant ways from stealth. Stealth is relatively atomic. I play one, you play some intercept, maybe I play another one. Combat involves, on average, a much longer chain of cards. More importantly, it involves an escalating chain of dependencies, where I play *this* which allows me to play *that* and if all goes right then I get to play this *other* one. Those are significant card flow barriers that something as simple and direct as stealth doesn't have. Combat can't be "the other white meat" to stealth. We can keep discussing what it is and maybe what it should be, but it clearly isn't that. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 25, 1:49 am, wumpus <wump...@comcast.net> wrote: > There's also the (less important, mechanically) question of why it is > that (fragile, mortal) Imbued should be a combat hoser from a WoD > perspective.... That's one I can answer, at least: the Imbued have "the Messengers" (which are, like as not, angels) on their side. They've been granted this power to defend mortal humanity against the supernatural, which isn't very useful if they crumple on impact. Jason

>If I have a deck, for example, which has no presses or long-range >strikes, and cannot get more than 1 stealth (which I think would be a >reasonable configuration for a deck), then No Secrets From the Magaji >with a Sniper Rifle could quite possibly be "gg" without me needing >any sort of clairvoyance. This example, and the one about a !Salubri deck getting owned by a single .44 Magnum do look like good cases of your deck being totally trumped. However, your claim that they represent "reasonable configurations" is totally ridiculous. If you can't generate stealth, you need to have combat that can beat a sniper rifle or a magnum. End of story. If you're deck has neither of those things, it probably sucks.

On Oct 21, 12:26 am, Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: > ...which is exactly what I believe the OP would have LSJ undermine. You recall that all the OP said, in one scentence, was "How come combat hasn't been given more support?", right? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Followed by another post stating that I was asking for none-dunking cards in particular that would benefit combat decks. It's like been ignored several times since I posted it... Cards that would not be potence based that supported combat strategy better would be bad because? Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: >Mostly because it's barking up the wrong tree. I think Torn Signpost, >Theft of Vitae, Carrion Crows, and Pursuit are four combat cards from >different disciplines which all see fairly regular competitive play, >and often in decks without any use for Fame. This demonstrates that >players already include strong combat cards in their competitive >decks. Again... It would bad because of? As it has been already stated; People are already playing rush decks were they repeatedly fame dunk a minion. People have won with such a strategy in the past, but it has gotten harder again with the coming of the Imbued. I didn't post this thread because "I never won" with such a concept, but because the concept is viable but not an easy thing to do. I mentioned my examples because those where staple cards in such combat decks and not because of me wanting more of that. Name.Luckynum...@gmail.com wrote: >More Fame-like effects will not make sub-par combat cards into >gold, and besides, I'd rather the designer simply made better combat >cards to begin with. > Never asked for more fame-like cards, but I also hold the opinion that it would not alter the game as drastically as you seem to do.

[ quoted text not captured ] I was reminded again yesterday why the Imbued are so resilient against combat decks. It was a four-player table, I was playing my new Assamite Black- handers and bleeding a new player who I donated my weenie-animalism rush deck to (cos it's quite a simple, but effective strategy - carrion crows, aid from bats, rinse-repeat). He, unfortunately, was bleeding an Imbued gehenna heavy deck, who was bleeding a Setite S&B temptation deck, who was bleeding me. Yes, the Imbued did not win. The game, however, still really, really sucked for the weenie animalism, who stood 0 chance against the Imbued, although it would've (and did) repeatedly cream just about any body else who got into combat with it (maybe not in each and every combat, but over the long haul). The imbued which it did manage to knock down did the yo-yo dance and popped out in a turn, as the imbued player was smart enough not to waste convictions through combat. Things got worse when a piece or two of equipment hit the table (a .44 magnum on one and a crusader sword on Jack (manuever on first round). Events made things far worse (Thirst, Restricted Vitae, Unmasking, Dr. Marisa Fletcher, Nightmare-upon-Nightmares, Slow Withering - in that order). It quickly became a war of attrition between the imbued and the weenies, with the imbued winning by a landslide, because each torped vampire struggled to get back into action, but each imbued (with Jennie on the table) popped right back out in their turn - even without Edge Explosion out and about (although there were 2 minions with Inspire). The weenies tried to block the actions of the imbued (with Cat's and Raven Spies), but often with little success, as the minions with Raven Spies often collected a memories of mortality for their trouble (sorry, no block for you). It was just too difficult for the weenie animalism to burn the imbued in the incapacitated region (in fact, it never managed to burn a single one). It would often dunk another imbued/2 who blocked, but they usually got dunked in the process as well. It made me come to the realisation that there is no basic rule to allow vampires to burn imbued in combat outright, unlike vampires who can be burnt by aggravated damage. Yes, there are a few cards that allow one to burn the imbued in combat, but these are (a) very few and (b) very limited, i.e. Obtenebrate, Thaum, etc. are relatively rare disciplines. This is also another aspect of the imbued that is really powerful. I made the glib comment then that they should introduce lethal damage into the game (like in the role-playing game) - you know, make weapons all deal lethal damage (by the rule-book) and if the imbued are hit below 0-life (like agg's x+1) with a weapon, they burn out-right. It would, at least, give combat a decent out against the Imbued that is also useful against other vamps. I'd certainly put in a few magnum into the weenie animalism if that was the case. Still, I stand by my statement that a big issue for combat decks is that it's just the imbued are too difficult to burn, and too easy to bring back out via the yo-yo dance. There are so many ways that they can change this to make it more reasonable, such as: Imbued in incapacitated region don't recover conviction, but any other imbued can burn the conviction to 'rescue' them. Imbued require an action to recover from incapacitated. Jennie's text only works while she is ready and applies to only 1 Imbued a turn Imbued have the option to gain a conviction or burn conviction to recover from incapacitated. Imbued are tapped when they recover from incapacitated Imbued lose all conviction and/or powers when they enter the incapacitated region. Those are just some ideas off the top of my head. Again, yes, I know the imbued didn't win this game with a rush predator, but I've seen that deck win before with a rush-predator, and it only lost because it's prey was an uber-s&b deck who ousted everyone a turn/2 after the Imbued had nullified it's predator and had just begun to go forward.

On Oct 28, 4:20 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > It made me come to the realisation that there is no basic rule to > allow vampires to burn imbued in combat outright, unlike vampires who > can be burnt by aggravated damage. Yes, there are a few cards that > allow one to burn the imbued in combat, but these are (a) very few and > (b) very limited, i.e. Obtenebrate, Thaum, etc. are relatively rare > disciplines. This is also another aspect of the imbued that is really > powerful. I have no opinion on whether the imbued are "too powerful". However, I do feel that the above feature of the game is thematically wrong. The imbued are (allegedly) "mortal". I have no objection to their being tough, versatile and resilient, and well qualified to kick monster butt, but "mortals" (of all people) should not be *immune* to death, when facing effects that *thematically* speaking, should have at least the potential to kill a mortal. There should be at least *some* possibility of their being machine-gunned to death, or decapitated with a bastard sword, or burned to a cinder with walk of flame, of skewered in the vitals with a thrown gate, or simply ripped apart by the nasty sharp claws and teeth of some monster with supernatural strength. The other day I was playing a deck that had put a hell hound in play (yes -- I actually play that card sometimes). The hell hound was annoying my predator by persistently blocking his weaker minions, so he decided he'd had enough an decided to put an end to him. He rushed him and played some effect that ought to have put an end to the poor doggy. I whiped the satisfied smile off his face by playing "Left for Dead". That was unexpected. That was what made it fun. The imbued should be more like that -- reasonably likely to survive in a well designed deck that gives appropriate combat support cards. But when your opponent knows, before he even enters combat with you, that you cannot die -- knows that even after he slices you to bits with his bastard sword, while his two ghoul retainers riddle you with bullets from their assault rifles, he still must send someone on a special mission to cut off your head, put a stake through your heart, burn the remains to ashes, and bury you at a crossroads -- it takes all the fun out of it -- besides making the imbued seem more monstrous and abnormal than the vampires. > I made the glib comment then that they should introduce lethal damage > into the game (like in the role-playing game) - you know, make weapons > all deal lethal damage (by the rule-book) and if the imbued are hit > below 0-life (like agg's x+1) with a weapon, they burn out-right. Aggravated damage, currently, is a vampire specific concept. Sunlight and bright light do aggravated damage. I think it best that mortals be different from vampires in that they are no more vulnerable to ag damage than normal damage. Nor do I see why weapon damage and other kinds of damage (like hand damage) should be treated differently. Thematically, if a minion is not powerful enough to inflict lethal damage with his hands, he cannot hurt his enemies at all. Hence, there are plenty of mortals who inflict zero hand damage -- they need a weapon or a lucky blow to hurt their enemies, and many mortal allies have but one life point to lose. The reason most vampires have 1 hand damage is because they are supernatural monsters capable of killing with their hands. Any mortal with 1 hand damages is unusually tough. One could experiment with the simple rule "x+1 damage kills an imbued". If that makes them too vulnerable, one could try "x+2 damage kills an imbued," or introduce a rule permitting the burning of convictions to heal damage that would otherwise burn the minion. > It > would, at least, give combat a decent out against the Imbued that is > also useful against other vamps. I'd certainly put in a few magnum > into the weenie animalism if that was the case. Well, I agree that imbued should not be immune to a .44 magnum. But neither do I see any thematic reason why their bodies should be immune to being completely devoured by a swarm of carrion crows. Logically, if you drop unconscious while being pecked to death by "carrion crows" -- that should be curtains for you. The issue should be the amount of damage sustained -- not the source of the damage. > Still, I stand by my statement that a big issue for combat decks is > that it's just the imbued are too difficult to burn, and too easy to > bring back out via the yo-yo dance. There are so many ways that they > can change this to make it more reasonable, such as: > > Imbued in incapacitated region don't recover conviction, but any other > imbued can burn the conviction to 'rescue' them. > Imbued require an action to recover from incapacitated. > Jennie's text only works while she is ready and applies to only 1 > Imbued a turn > Imbued have the option to gain a conviction or burn conviction to > recover from incapacitated. > Imbued are tapped when they recover from incapacitated > Imbued lose all conviction and/or powers when they enter the > incapacitated region. I don't think much of any of these. I think you were on the right track with your first idea. I have no problem (thematically) with the idea that if an imbued somehow survives combat, his vampire enemies will have trouble interfering with his recovery. After all, the imbued can operate in daylight, and vampires cannot.

On Oct 28, 4:34 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > One could experiment with the simple rule "x+1 damage kills an > imbued". If that makes them too vulnerable, one could try "x+2 damage > kills an imbued," or introduce a rule permitting the burning of > convictions to heal damage that would otherwise burn the minion. Or you could experiment with "they are mortal allies, we have rules for such, follow them." It's not like they *don't* have a mountain of other advantages anyway and would become auto-unplayable. Heck, for starters, they're cheap. If one of them is actually burned -- which I find unlikely with all their DI'ing and MoM'ing, and mana-from-heaven equipfests -- you can bring out another copy of the dingus for not much pool.... thematically a sort of Left for Dead kind of effect. I like things simple, and treating them like what they already are, mortal allies, seems perfectly OK to me balance-wise and thematically. -- David Cherryholmes

On Oct 28, 10:34 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 28, 4:20 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > I have no opinion on whether the imbued are "too powerful". However, > I do feel that the above feature of the game is thematically wrong. > The imbued are (allegedly) "mortal". I have no objection to their > being tough, versatile and resilient, and well qualified to kick > monster butt, but "mortals" (of all people) should not be *immune* to > death, when facing effects that *thematically* speaking, should have > at least the potential to kill a mortal. There should be at least > *some* possibility of their being machine-gunned to death, or > decapitated with a bastard sword, or burned to a cinder with walk of > flame, of skewered in the vitals with a thrown gate, or simply ripped > apart by the nasty sharp claws and teeth of some monster with > supernatural strength. Possibly, but changing each individual card to include 'lethal' damage would require to much of a rewriting. Including a line in the rule- book that states 'If an Imbued is wounded, and a weapon deals an additional point of damage to that Imbued, the Imbued burns instead of being sent to the incapacitated region" is a much shorter, succient solution that is far more manageable - and makes sense thematically. It has both mechanics and thematics on it's side. > > I made the glib comment then that they should introduce lethal damage > > into the game (like in the role-playing game) - you know, make weapons > > all deal lethal damage (by the rule-book) and if the imbued are hit > > below 0-life (like agg's x+1) with a weapon, they burn out-right. > > Aggravated damage, currently, is a vampire specific concept. Sunlight > and bright light do aggravated damage. I think it best that mortals > be different from vampires in that they are no more vulnerable to ag > damage than normal damage. I didn't suggest the imbued that the imbued should suffer from agg - I just suggested they should have a 'lethal' damage equivalent that works with weapons instead of aggravated damage. > Nor do I see why weapon damage and other kinds of damage (like hand > damage) should be treated differently. Thematically, if a minion is > not powerful enough to inflict lethal damage with his hands, he cannot > hurt his enemies at all. Most roleplaying games see a difference between lethal damage and non- lethal damage. You can hurt someone without killing them. > Hence, there are plenty of mortals who > inflict zero hand damage -- they need a weapon or a lucky blow to hurt > their enemies, and many mortal allies have but one life point to > lose. Or they have 0 hand damage cos they can't throw a punch. > The reason most vampires have 1 hand damage is because they > are supernatural monsters capable of killing with their hands. Any > mortal with 1 hand damages is unusually tough. And yet the roleplaying game (and all versions of it, might I add) all distinguish between normal damage and lethal damage - and often the distinction is found in the weapons of the game. Sure there would be some strange cases where the weapon would be technically non-lethal, such as brass knuckles, but this would be a small minority over a very large majority (especially of played) weapons that are lethal. > One could experiment with the simple rule "x+1 damage kills an > imbued". If that makes them too vulnerable, one could try "x+2 damage > kills an imbued," or introduce a rule permitting the burning of > convictions to heal damage that would otherwise burn the minion. Then I fear it would be far too easy to burn an imbued, and they would be come far too vulnerable to decent combat. Or alternatively if your X + gets too high, then it would become far too cornercase. > > It > > would, at least, give combat a decent out against the Imbued that is > > also useful against other vamps. I'd certainly put in a few magnum > > into the weenie animalism if that was the case. > > Well, I agree that imbued should not be immune to a .44 magnum. But > neither do I see any thematic reason why their bodies should be immune > to being completely devoured by a swarm of carrion crows. Logically, > if you drop unconscious while being pecked to death by "carrion crows" > -- that should be curtains for you. The issue should be the amount of > damage sustained -- not the source of the damage. Again, my solution is both thematically appropriate and thematically strong. Your solutions may make thematic sense, but really fall short on the mechanics, being either far too difficult to implement, or changing things far too dramatically, to the point where Imbued become ultra-weak. Especially since you could argue your case for what happens to vampires after they are torporized. Why can't the gangrel stick around an extra round after you've been knocked out to tear you completely apart with his claws? Because it would break the mechanics of the game. > > Imbued in incapacitated region don't recover conviction, but any other > > imbued can burn the conviction to 'rescue' them. > > Imbued require an action to recover from incapacitated. > > Jennie's text only works while she is ready and applies to only 1 > > Imbued a turn > > Imbued have the option to gain a conviction or burn conviction to > > recover from incapacitated. > > Imbued are tapped when they recover from incapacitated > > Imbued lose all conviction and/or powers when they enter the > > incapacitated region. > > I don't think much of any of these.> I think you were on the right > track with your first idea. I have no problem (thematically) with the > idea that if an imbued somehow survives combat, his vampire enemies > will have trouble interfering with his recovery. After all, the > imbued can operate in daylight, and vampires cannot. Of all the options I've listed only 1 of them actually would potentially have any vampire interference. All the rest (5) are purely looking at the imbued.

[ quoted text not captured ] I fear this would also break the mechanics of the Imbued and make them far too fragile in combat. They do need something like an incapacitated type region, but they also need a decent generic way of burning them in combat, in the same way that vampires have a generic way of being burnt in combat (aggravated damage). Afterall, anyone can equip a flamethrower. Plus, I like the idea of a vampire hunter nemesis that just keeps coming back, but ultimately, you should have a way of destroying them for good in battle.

On Oct 30, 11:31 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > Plus, I like the idea of a vampire hunter nemesis that just keeps > coming back, but ultimately, you should have a way of destroying them > for good in battle. Here is an idea that is so crazy, it just might work! How about if an Imbued is incapacitated while they have zero conviction, they are instead burned? Imbued always come into play with convictions, and they always use convictions by choice--there is no way to force them to burn conviction. So you can always manage to have at least 1 conviction on your Imbued if you are worried about it. Thematically, it kind of makes sense--conviction represents their special abilities and powers and devine intervention or whatever. If someone lacks the necessary conviction (figuratively and literally), when they get whacked, they get whacked (i.e. burned). So when someone gets out of the incapacitated reigon by spending all their conviction, they are extra vulnerable to getting killed (and if they get rushed again and incapacitated yet again, they are burned). A nice, simple, easy rule. Slows the use of conviction, as the imbued need to balance their burning of conviction to do stuff with the need to not get burned in combat. Makes them generically vulnerable, but not so much that they'll get vaporized left and right. I think I might be brilliant. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I agree with most of your post. Except for maybe the last word. I would have left it as a Mad Lib: "I think I might be ________________ (adjective)." best- chris -- Super Fun Cards http://stores.ebay.com/superfuncards/ auct...@superfuncards.com

On Oct 30, 7:25 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Oct 28, 10:34 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > On Oct 28, 4:20 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > I have no opinion on whether the imbued are "too powerful". However, > > I do feel that the above feature of the game is thematically wrong. > > The imbued are (allegedly) "mortal". I have no objection to their > > being tough, versatile and resilient, and well qualified to kick > > monster butt, but "mortals" (of all people) should not be *immune* to > > death, when facing effects that *thematically* speaking, should have > > at least the potential to kill a mortal. There should be at least > > *some* possibility of their being machine-gunned to death, or > > decapitated with a bastard sword, or burned to a cinder with walk of > > flame, of skewered in the vitals with a thrown gate, or simply ripped > > apart by the nasty sharp claws and teeth of some monster with > > supernatural strength. > > Possibly, but changing each individual card to include 'lethal' damage > would require to much of a rewriting. Surely. I didn't anyone was suggesting such a thing. > Including a line in the rule- > book that states 'If an Imbued is wounded, and a weapon deals an > additional point of damage to that Imbued, the Imbued burns instead of > being sent to the incapacitated region" is a much shorter, succient > solution that is far more manageable - and makes sense thematically. > It has both mechanics and thematics on it's side. I don't agree that it makes sense thematically, because I believe your weapons-only distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage makes no sense thematically. All damage is lethal, because (setting aside the imbued) all damage can kill a typical mortal ally. In many cases, and for most mortal allies, a single point of damage will suffice. If a mortal ally has more than a single life, it means he is unusually tough. Every time a vampire burns blood to heal a point of damage, he uses the mystical properties of blood to magically heal damage that would kill a typical mortal. Igo's hand damage can kill an arms dealer, or whipe out an entire pack of gypsies. With a press or a lucky blow, Igo can whipe out a loyal street gang. From the perspective of ordinary mortals, Igo is a deadly supernatural monster. It is only from the perspective of more powerful vampires that he is a wimp. Every horror movie about werewolves I have ever seen tells me that werewolves do not need weapons to kill mortals. Your rule implies that a werewolf's claws and teeth are somehow not "lethal".. > I didn't suggest the imbued that the imbued should suffer from agg - I > just suggested they should have a 'lethal' damage equivalent that > works with weapons instead of aggravated damage. Right. And the weapons-only part of your proposal makes no sense to me. > > Nor do I see why weapon damage and other kinds of damage (like hand > > damage) should be treated differently. Thematically, if a minion is > > not powerful enough to inflict lethal damage with his hands, he cannot > > hurt his enemies at all. > > Most roleplaying games see a difference between lethal damage and non- > lethal damage. You can hurt someone without killing them. Obviously, this is not that game. Any damage that cannot kill an ordinary mortal is ignored for game purposes. Any ally that cannot kill an ordinary mortal without benefit of a "lucky blow" has zero hand damage. > > Hence, there are plenty of mortals who > > inflict zero hand damage -- they need a weapon or a lucky blow to hurt > > their enemies, and many mortal allies have but one life point to > > lose. > > Or they have 0 hand damage cos they can't throw a punch. That makes no sense thematically. Usually, for a mortal, 0 strength means that they do not ordinarily carry lethal hand weapons. Carlton Van Wyck, a capable vampire hunter, is presumably capable of throwing a punch; but normally carries handgun rather than a hand weapon -- hence he has inherent 1R damage and 0 strength. Same logic applies to Survivalist and Wendell Delburton. A Courier is presumably fit and healthy, but has 0 strength, because he does not normally carry lethal weapons on his bike. Street Gangs and Arms Dealers have 1 strength, because they ordinarily carry lethal weapons. > > The reason most vampires have 1 hand damage is because they > > are supernatural monsters capable of killing with their hands. Any > > mortal with 1 hand damages is unusually tough. > > And yet the roleplaying game (and all versions of it, might I add) all > distinguish between normal damage and lethal damage - and often the > distinction is found in the weapons of the game. Obviously, this rule has not been incorporated into the card game. > Sure there would be > some strange cases where the weapon would be technically non-lethal, > such as brass knuckles, but this would be a small minority over a very > large majority (especially of played) weapons that are lethal. Thematically, all damage is lethal. One point of damage kills an ordinary mortal. > > One could experiment with the simple rule "x+1 damage kills an > > imbued". If that makes them too vulnerable, one could try "x+2 damage > > kills an imbued," or introduce a rule permitting the burning of > > convictions to heal damage that would otherwise burn the minion. > > Then I fear it would be far too easy to burn an imbued, and they would > be come far too vulnerable to decent combat. Or alternatively if your X > + gets too high, then it would become far too cornercase. In which case, perhaps they need appropriate combat defense cards. Thematically, I see no other solution., > > > It > > > would, at least, give combat a decent out against the Imbued that is > > > also useful against other vamps. I'd certainly put in a few magnum > > > into the weenie animalism if that was the case. > > > Well, I agree that imbued should not be immune to a .44 magnum. But > > neither do I see any thematic reason why their bodies should be immune > > to being completely devoured by a swarm of carrion crows. Logically, > > if you drop unconscious while being pecked to death by "carrion crows" > > -- that should be curtains for you. The issue should be the amount of > > damage sustained -- not the source of the damage. > > Again, my solution is both thematically appropriate and thematically > strong. Thematically is precisely how your solution is inappropriate. > Your solutions may make thematic sense, but really fall short > on the mechanics, being either far too difficult to implement, or > changing things far too dramatically, to the point where Imbued become > ultra-weak. Well, I'll have to try it out. > Especially since you could argue your case for what > happens to vampires after they are torporized. Why can't the gangrel > stick around an extra round after you've been knocked out to tear you > completely apart with his claws? Seems to me that this is an entirely separate thematic "problem". Perhaps it would be contrary to his nature. His temptation would be to commit diablerie. Perhaps resisting that temptation means walking away and leaving the body where it lies. Moreover, Gangrel *can* kill in combat. A lucky blow with wolf claws, to a vampire with no blood, does the trick. Who are you to say this does not represent multiple blows. I'm sure when Igo the Hungry whipes out an entire loyal street gang with a "lucky blow", we are supposed to imagine this actually represents multiple blows. > Because it would break the mechanics > of the game. And yet Gangrel *do* tear apart their opponents during combat (burn them in combat) and the mechanics of the game are not broken. > > > Imbued in incapacitated region don't recover conviction, but any other > > > imbued can burn the conviction to 'rescue' them. > > > Imbued require an action to recover from incapacitated. > > > Jennie's text only works while she is ready and applies to only 1 > > > Imbued a turn > > > Imbued have the option to gain a conviction or burn conviction to > > > recover from incapacitated. > > > Imbued are tapped when they recover from incapacitated > > > Imbued lose all conviction and/or powers when they enter the > > > incapacitated region. > > > I don't think much of any of these.> I think you were on the right > > track with your first idea. I have no problem (thematically) with the > > idea that if an imbued somehow survives combat, his vampire enemies > > will have trouble interfering with his recovery. After all, the > > imbued can operate in daylight, and vampires cannot. > > Of all the options I've listed only 1 of them actually would > potentially have any vampire interference. All the rest (5) are purely > looking at the imbued Almost all of them look at their ability to recover once incapacitated. I just don't see that as a thematic problem.

[ quoted text not captured ] Just make a rule that if any minion takes x+2 aggrivated damage in combat where x equals their current life/blood/mana then they are burnt rather than sent to the incapacitated region. Flamethrowers are not toys. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

On Oct 30, 5:40 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Just make a rule that if any minion takes x+2 aggrivated damage in > combat where x equals their current life/blood/mana then they are > burnt rather than sent to the incapacitated region. What is this "mana" you speak of? It intrigues me. I still have that Mage mechanic on the back burner, you know. -- David Cherryholmes

[ quoted text not captured ] I was just pontificating about a blanket rule that would encompass future expansions so that if and when a "Mage", "changeling", or true "Garou" expansion was released that each expansion with its correlating background doesn't spawn a thread exactly like this one. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 30, 8:46 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 30, 7:25 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 28, 10:34 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > On Oct 28, 4:20 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > Including a line in the rule- > > book that states 'If an Imbued is wounded, and a weapon deals an > > additional point of damage to that Imbued, the Imbued burns instead of > > being sent to the incapacitated region" is a much shorter, succient > > solution that is far more manageable - and makes sense thematically. > > It has both mechanics and thematics on it's side. > > I don't agree that it makes sense thematically, because I believe your > weapons-only distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage makes no > sense thematically. Well, in the thematics of the role-playing game, it does make sense, even if it's not strictly. But as 90% of the weapons in the card game would be considered as dealing lethal damage in the roleplaying game, I would be willing to live with it thematically. > > All damage is lethal, because (setting aside the imbued) all damage > can kill a typical mortal ally. In many cases, and for most mortal > allies, a single point of damage will suffice. If a mortal ally has > more than a single life, it means he is unusually tough. > > Every time a vampire burns blood to heal a point of damage, he uses > the mystical properties of blood to magically heal damage that would > kill a typical mortal. No, he uses a blood to heal damage that would typically 'wound' them. Saying that this damage would kill a typical mortal is up for interpretation. Nowhere has this been made explicit, and thus talking about it 'thematically' is the theme according to you. At least my thematical distinction is based on the roleplaying game, and not personal interpretation of the way the VTES world is. > > Igo's hand damage can kill an arms dealer, or whipe out an entire pack > of gypsies. With a press or a lucky blow, Igo can whipe out a loyal > street gang. From the perspective of ordinary mortals, Igo is a > deadly supernatural monster. It is only from the perspective of more > powerful vampires that he is a wimp. > > Every horror movie about werewolves I have ever seen tells me that > werewolves do not need weapons to kill mortals. Your rule implies > that a werewolf's claws and teeth are somehow not "lethal".. As I said, I'm not saying that other damage would not be lethal in it's own right, but that sufficient weapons are lethal, enough to warrant that they all would deal lethal (killing) damage to the imbued. They may release other cards later that deal lethal damage as well, but I wouldn't suggest rewriting all the old cards. > > Most roleplaying games see a difference between lethal damage and non- > > lethal damage. You can hurt someone without killing them. > > Obviously, this is not that game. Actually, it is that game - this game is based on the roleplaying game. The roleplaying game has a distinction between lethal and non- lethal damage that lethal damage kills mortals far more readily than non-lethal damage does. Taking into account that the Imbued are more combat resilient than normal mortals, I'd expect them to be more resilient to normal methods of damage, but still not be as resilient to lethal damage as a vampire is. And in the roleplaying game, your 'hand damage' is never lethal, even with martial arts training - although it may still kill mortals. > Any damage that cannot kill an > ordinary mortal is ignored for game purposes. Any ally that cannot > kill an ordinary mortal without benefit of a "lucky blow" has zero > hand damage. Well, all the Vampire roleplaying games have this distinction. If there were mortal crypt cards to begin with in the card game, it would probably have had lethal damage included. > > > Hence, there are plenty of mortals who > > > inflict zero hand damage -- they need a weapon or a lucky blow to hurt > > > their enemies, and many mortal allies have but one life point to > > > lose. > > > Or they have 0 hand damage cos they can't throw a punch. > > That makes no sense thematically. Usually, for a mortal, 0 strength > means that they do not ordinarily carry lethal hand weapons. This is pure poppy-cock. Because these mortals would still deal their damage under immortal grapple. If they had lethal hand weapons, then they would have 0 strength, and their text would allow them to strike for +1 strength (or whatever) as a melee strike. > Carlton > Van Wyck, a capable vampire hunter, is presumably capable of throwing > a punch; but normally carries handgun rather than a hand weapon -- > hence he has inherent 1R damage and 0 strength. Same logic applies to > Survivalist and Wendell Delburton. A Courier is presumably fit and > healthy, but has 0 strength, because he does not normally carry lethal > weapons on his bike. Street Gangs and Arms Dealers have 1 strength, > because they ordinarily carry lethal weapons. I disagree with this reasoning. I'd say they have the 1 strength because they know how to fight, fit and healthy means extra life, but I wouldn't assume that a typical Courier is able to fight. > > > The reason most vampires have 1 hand damage is because they > > > are supernatural monsters capable of killing with their hands. Any > > > mortal with 1 hand damages is unusually tough. > > > And yet the roleplaying game (and all versions of it, might I add) all > > distinguish between normal damage and lethal damage - and often the > > distinction is found in the weapons of the game. > > Obviously, this rule has not been incorporated into the card game. Because there was no reason to before hand - all allies burnt when they hit 0. > > Sure there would be > > some strange cases where the weapon would be technically non-lethal, > > such as brass knuckles, but this would be a small minority over a very > > large majority (especially of played) weapons that are lethal. > > Thematically, all damage is lethal. One point of damage kills an > ordinary mortal. Burn =/= kill. When I use the word 'lethal' I don't mean it in the dictionary sense of the word, I mean it in the role-playing game sense of the word - which is how I brought it up - by saying that they have no 'lethal' damage equivalent from the roleplaying game as they have an 'aggravated' damage equivalent. I think you may be talking about lethal damage in the dictionary sense. > > > > It > > > > would, at least, give combat a decent out against the Imbued that is > > > > also useful against other vamps. I'd certainly put in a few magnum > > > > into the weenie animalism if that was the case. > > > > Well, I agree that imbued should not be immune to a .44 magnum. But > > > neither do I see any thematic reason why their bodies should be immune > > > to being completely devoured by a swarm of carrion crows. Logically, > > > if you drop unconscious while being pecked to death by "carrion crows" > > > -- that should be curtains for you. The issue should be the amount of > > > damage sustained -- not the source of the damage. > > > Again, my solution is both thematically appropriate and thematically > > strong. > > Thematically is precisely how your solution is inappropriate. We'll have to agree to disagree. My understanding of the card game and how it relates to the roleplaying game, says that it is possible to interpret damage from weapons in that way. Some damage is just more likely to kill you than it is to maim you. > > > Your solutions may make thematic sense, but really fall short > > on the mechanics, being either far too difficult to implement, or > > changing things far too dramatically, to the point where Imbued become > > ultra-weak. > > Well, I'll have to try it out. Please do, and then let me know how the mechanics work out. > > Especially since you could argue your case for what > > happens to vampires after they are torporized. Why can't the gangrel > > stick around an extra round after you've been knocked out to tear you > > completely apart with his claws? > > Seems to me that this is an entirely separate thematic "problem". > Perhaps it would be contrary to his nature. His temptation would be > to commit diablerie. Perhaps resisting that temptation means walking > away and leaving the body where it lies. And how would this relate to leaving a mortal ally lying in incapacitated. Would the vampire have the same problems? Would they just let the mortals be taken away by the ambulance? Not such a huge thematic difference there now, is there? > > Moreover, Gangrel *can* kill in combat. A lucky blow with wolf claws, > to a vampire with no blood, does the trick. Who are you to say this > does not represent multiple blows. I'm sure when Igo the Hungry > whipes out an entire loyal street gang with a "lucky blow", we are > supposed to imagine this actually represents multiple blows. Or that it represents a lucky blow to the leader that scares the shit out of all the others and cause them to flee. Again - it's up to interpretation. Thematics should only carry an argument so far. As long as it is not thematically completely inappropriate, implementing any rule will be fine so long as the mechanics are sound. > > Because it would break the mechanics > > of the game. > > And yet Gangrel *do* tear apart their opponents during combat (burn > them in combat) and the mechanics of the game are not broken. > Not even close to often enough to consider it broken. > > > Of all the options I've listed only 1 of them actually would > > potentially have any vampire interference. All the rest (5) are purely > > looking at the imbued > > Almost all of them look at their ability to recover once > incapacitated. I just don't see that as a thematic problem. Yes, but these are a mechanical problem in the game that can be explained via thematics. For example, an imbued that gets the snot kicked out of him, might lose some of his faith in the cause (i.e. lose all their conviction), or imbued don't get out of hospital ready to go running around doing the errands of a methuselah immediately, they might need to 'tap' in order to get back home or to their base of operations or whatever. You are getting far too hung up on thematics. I say fixing the mechanics comes first, then find a way to make it thematically fit in - and if that's not possible, then find another solution. The weapon distinction is a mechanical solution - it's good for weapon combat decks, which aren't very popular or common especially when compared with the number of vote decks, or s&b decks. In fact, they are probably far less common than Imbued decks are in the tournament scene. Helping out combat with an obvious weakness seems very mechanically sound to me. Then the thematics can be explained away by the same reasoning they use in the roleplaying game - i.e. it is far easier to kill mortals with weapons than your bare fists, and it's far more difficult for a mortal to sustain a blow with a bastard sword than it is to sustain the same level of damage from a fist (e.g. a vampire throwing a haymaker). Sure, some other cards could have done 'lethal' damage, but then some other cards should already affect the imbued that don't - such as decapitate and disarm. At this point in the game, it would be far too difficult to change that, but the weapon mechanic is very easy to change in comparison.

On Oct 31, 11:17 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:46 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > All damage is lethal, because (setting aside the imbued) all damage > > can kill a typical mortal ally. In many cases, and for most mortal > > allies, a single point of damage will suffice. If a mortal ally has > > more than a single life, it means he is unusually tough. > > > Every time a vampire burns blood to heal a point of damage, he uses > > the mystical properties of blood to magically heal damage that would > > kill a typical mortal. > > No, he uses a blood to heal damage that would typically 'wound' them. Where's the contradiction? You "wound" a vampire when you shove a stake through his heart. What do you think that does to a typical mortal? > Saying that this damage would kill a typical mortal is up for > interpretation. No. This is a cold hard fact. No interpretation required. Not counting imbued, 31 retainer or ally cards, representing single mortals, have been printed. 22 of them have 1 life, 7 have 2 life, and 2 have 3 life. (Of those 7 cards representing multiple mortals, 1 has 1 life, 4 have 2 life, and 2 have 3 life). > Nowhere has this been made explicit, and thus talking > about it 'thematically' is the theme according to you. Simple observation. > At least my > thematical distinction is based on the roleplaying game, and not > personal interpretation of the way the VTES world is. At least my observations are based on the right game. > > Igo's hand damage can kill an arms dealer, or whipe out an entire pack > > of gypsies. With a press or a lucky blow, Igo can whipe out a loyal > > street gang. From the perspective of ordinary mortals, Igo is a > > deadly supernatural monster. It is only from the perspective of more > > powerful vampires that he is a wimp. > > > Every horror movie about werewolves I have ever seen tells me that > > werewolves do not need weapons to kill mortals. Your rule implies > > that a werewolf's claws and teeth are somehow not "lethal".. > > As I said, I'm not saying that other damage would not be lethal in > it's own right, but that sufficient weapons are lethal, enough to > warrant that they all would deal lethal (killing) damage to the > imbued. They may release other cards later that deal lethal damage as > well, but I wouldn't suggest rewriting all the old cards. Anything capable of inflicting a single point of damage is lethal. One damage snuffs out one "life". > > > Most roleplaying games see a difference between lethal damage and non- > > > lethal damage. You can hurt someone without killing them. > > > Obviously, this is not that game. > > Actually, it is that game - this game is based on the roleplaying > game. Different game. Different mechanics. Similar thematics. > The roleplaying game has a distinction between lethal and non- > lethal damage that lethal damage kills mortals far more readily than > non-lethal damage does. Different mechanics. A card game cannot be expected to have mechanics as intricate as an RPG. In the card game, the distinction between lethal and non-lethal is represented by "at least 1 damage" as distinct from "0 damage". > Taking into account that the Imbued are more > combat resilient than normal mortals, I'd expect them to be more > resilient to normal methods of damage, but still not be as resilient > to lethal damage as a vampire is. I agree that mortals -- even imbued mortals -- should be easier to burn in combat than vampires. I just don't see why such a solution should involve a "lethal damage" rule. > And in the roleplaying game, your 'hand damage' is never lethal, even > with martial arts training - although it may still kill mortals. I don't see how the mechanics of the RPG are relevant. Thematics? Yes. Mechanics? No. > > Any damage that cannot kill an > > ordinary mortal is ignored for game purposes. Any ally that cannot > > kill an ordinary mortal without benefit of a "lucky blow" has zero > > hand damage. > > Well, all the Vampire roleplaying games have this distinction. If > there were mortal crypt cards to begin with in the card game, it would > probably have had lethal damage included. The original card game did include many mortals -- and lethal damage (simply "damage") was included. One damage burns one "life". I don't see how it is relevant that they were not crypt cards. > > > > Hence, there are plenty of mortals who > > > > inflict zero hand damage -- they need a weapon or a lucky blow to hurt > > > > their enemies, and many mortal allies have but one life point to > > > > lose. > > > > Or they have 0 hand damage cos they can't throw a punch. > > > That makes no sense thematically. Usually, for a mortal, 0 strength > > means that they do not ordinarily carry lethal hand weapons. > > This is pure poppy-cock. I don't think so. > Because these mortals would still deal their > damage under immortal grapple. If they had lethal hand weapons, then > they would have 0 strength, and their text would allow them to strike > for +1 strength (or whatever) as a melee strike. You are confusing thematics with mechanics. Thematically, many mortal allies carry guns, but for purposes of game mechanics, these are merely inherent abilities to inflict ranged damage as a strike. You also forget that in the original game, most melee weapons were (and still are) very large. A bastard sword inflicted +1 damage. Small knives and switchblades have never been included in the game. They are too small and insignificant to count for damage purposes, and maybe are too small (thematically) to be affected by immortal grapple. > > Carlton > > Van Wyck, a capable vampire hunter, is presumably capable of throwing > > a punch; but normally carries handgun rather than a hand weapon -- > > hence he has inherent 1R damage and 0 strength. Same logic applies to > > Survivalist and Wendell Delburton. A Courier is presumably fit and > > healthy, but has 0 strength, because he does not normally carry lethal > > weapons on his bike. Street Gangs and Arms Dealers have 1 strength, > > because they ordinarily carry lethal weapons. > > I disagree with this reasoning. I'd say they have the 1 strength > because they know how to fight, fit and healthy means extra life, but > I wouldn't assume that a typical Courier is able to fight. It is all relative. A courrier is no match for an entire street gang, or even an entire pack of gypsies. But he can still take out an eccentric billionaire with a lucky blow. > > > > The reason most vampires have 1 hand damage is because they > > > > are supernatural monsters capable of killing with their hands. Any > > > > mortal with 1 hand damages is unusually tough. > > > > And yet the roleplaying game (and all versions of it, might I add) all > > > distinguish between normal damage and lethal damage - and often the > > > distinction is found in the weapons of the game. > > > Obviously, this rule has not been incorporated into the card game. > > Because there was no reason to before hand - all allies burnt when > they hit 0. Exactly. There is no need for a "lethal damage" rule, because all damage is lethal. 3 damage kills a werewolf, for chrissakes. The thematic problem with imbued is that they are immune to ordinary (but perfectly lethal) damage. > > > Sure there would be > > > some strange cases where the weapon would be technically non-lethal, > > > such as brass knuckles, but this would be a small minority over a very > > > large majority (especially of played) weapons that are lethal. > > > Thematically, all damage is lethal. One point of damage kills an > > ordinary mortal. > > Burn =/= kill. When I use the word 'lethal' I don't mean it in the > dictionary sense of the word, I mean it in the role-playing game sense > of the word - which is how I brought it up - by saying that they have > no 'lethal' damage equivalent from the roleplaying game as they have > an 'aggravated' damage equivalent. I think you may be talking about > lethal damage in the dictionary sense. Of course. I am discussing thematics. Why discuss the mechanics of a different game? > > Seems to me that this is an entirely separate thematic "problem". > > Perhaps it would be contrary to his nature. His temptation would be > > to commit diablerie. Perhaps resisting that temptation means walking > > away and leaving the body where it lies. > > And how would this relate to leaving a mortal ally lying in > incapacitated. Would the vampire have the same problems? Would they > just let the mortals be taken away by the ambulance? Not such a huge > thematic difference there now, is there? Allies normally burn when they hit 0 life. As for the Imbued, I have already stated that I have a problem, thematically, with their immunity to death in combat. > > Moreover, Gangrel *can* kill in combat. A lucky blow with wolf claws, > > to a vampire with no blood, does the trick. Who are you to say this > > does not represent multiple blows. I'm sure when Igo the Hungry > > whipes out an entire loyal street gang with a "lucky blow", we are > > supposed to imagine this actually represents multiple blows. > > Or that it represents a lucky blow to the leader that scares the shit > out of all the others and cause them to flee. If you like. > Again - it's up to > interpretation. Hence, no problem.

On Oct 31, 8:20 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 31, 11:17 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 8:46 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > All damage is lethal, because (setting aside the imbued) all damage > > > can kill a typical mortal ally. In many cases, and for most mortal > > > allies, a single point of damage will suffice. If a mortal ally has > > > more than a single life, it means he is unusually tough. > > > > Every time a vampire burns blood to heal a point of damage, he uses > > > the mystical properties of blood to magically heal damage that would > > > kill a typical mortal. > > > No, he uses a blood to heal damage that would typically 'wound' them. > > Where's the contradiction? You "wound" a vampire when you shove a > stake through his heart. What do you think that does to a typical > mortal? My point is that you are adding in your own extra bit - that being that damage that would 'wound' a vampire is the same thing as damage that would kill a typical mortal. While is may be in some circumstances, it won't be in most. (It's the: "All dogs have four legs. All dogs are animals. Hence all animals are dogs." argument.) Just because typical mortals can be killed with one point of damage in the card game, and all imbued are mortal, does not mean that they should be equally easy to kill (with a single point of damage). Imbued are supernatural mortals. > > > Saying that this damage would kill a typical mortal is up for > > interpretation. > > No. This is a cold hard fact. No interpretation required. Not > counting imbued, 31 retainer or ally cards, representing single > mortals, have been printed. 22 of them have 1 life, 7 have 2 life, > and 2 have 3 life. (Of those 7 cards representing multiple mortals, 1 > has 1 life, 4 have 2 life, and 2 have 3 life). Again, that is up for interpretation - a typical mortal need not die in order to no longer be in your ready region. They could just as easily have been beat up, and left your cause for it, but still be perfectly alive. > > Nowhere has this been made explicit, and thus talking > > about it 'thematically' is the theme according to you. > > Simple observation. No. Simple thumb sucking interpretation of a mechanic that has never been made explicit thematically. > > At least my > > thematical distinction is based on the roleplaying game, and not > > personal interpretation of the way the VTES world is. > > At least my observations are based on the right game. No. They're based on your interpreted observations of the game, and your specific way of visualising what is happening. There are other ways of interpreting it which is perfectly reasonable. > > As I said, I'm not saying that other damage would not be lethal in > > it's own right, but that sufficient weapons are lethal, enough to > > warrant that they all would deal lethal (killing) damage to the > > imbued. They may release other cards later that deal lethal damage as > > well, but I wouldn't suggest rewriting all the old cards. > > Anything capable of inflicting a single point of damage is lethal. > One damage snuffs out one "life". One life in the mechanics sense, but not necessarily one life in the dictionary sense. > > > > > Most roleplaying games see a difference between lethal damage and non- > > > > lethal damage. You can hurt someone without killing them. > > > > Obviously, this is not that game. > > > Actually, it is that game - this game is based on the roleplaying > > game. > > Different game. Different mechanics. Similar thematics. Yes, and that is why I'm looking at the thematics of the RPG to interpret thematically a change to the rules (i.e. mechanics) of the card game. I am not saying that because it is in the RPG, it should be in the CCG. I'm saying the CCG needs a mechanic to make Imbued able to burn via combat, looking at the RPG for inspiration and thematical guidance, and introducing a mechanic into the CCG which is thematically justified by the RPG. It's really, really tough to base any thematic discussion on anything but the RPG, as it is completely open to interpretation otherwise. > > > The roleplaying game has a distinction between lethal and non- > > lethal damage that lethal damage kills mortals far more readily than > > non-lethal damage does. > > Different mechanics. A card game cannot be expected to have mechanics > as intricate as an RPG. I'm not asking the CCG to have the same mechanics as the RPG. I'm saying the CCG needs a mechanic to make the Imbued able to burn in combat. I'm offering a suggestion for that mechanic. And then I'm saying that it fits in thematically as seen in the RPG. > In the card game, the distinction between > lethal and non-lethal is represented by "at least 1 damage" as > distinct from "0 damage". Again, that's your interpretation. I would say that there is an equally strong reason to believe that the distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage is not at all made in the CCG, as there was never a need for it prior to the Imbued. Allies burnt when they hit 0 life, and vampires treat 'lethal' damage in the same way they treat 'non-lethal' damage. > > > Taking into account that the Imbued are more > > combat resilient than normal mortals, I'd expect them to be more > > resilient to normal methods of damage, but still not be as resilient > > to lethal damage as a vampire is. > > I agree that mortals -- even imbued mortals -- should be easier to > burn in combat than vampires. I just don't see why such a solution > should involve a "lethal damage" rule. Because it's a simple mechanic that can be thematically justified and has the right level of balance. I haven't heard any other suggestion that has all three of these things yet. Mostly they seem unbalanced (too powerful or too weak). > > > And in the roleplaying game, your 'hand damage' is never lethal, even > > with martial arts training - although it may still kill mortals. > > I don't see how the mechanics of the RPG are relevant. Thematics? > Yes. Mechanics? No. Again, I'm suggesting a mechanic into the CCG and using the RPG to thematically justify it. The only thing taken from the mechanics of the RPG is a distinction between lethal and non-lethal damage (i.e. the actual terminology) and the fact that weapons in the RPG typically do lethal damage whereas fists do not. The actual mechanics of this in the RPG are very, very different to what I'm suggesting here (as it deals mostly with how mortals & vamps soak/prevent lethal damage - which is not the mechanic I'm introducing here). > > Well, all the Vampire roleplaying games have this distinction. If > > there were mortal crypt cards to begin with in the card game, it would > > probably have had lethal damage included. > > The original card game did include many mortals -- and lethal damage > (simply "damage") was included. One damage burns one "life". I don't > see how it is relevant that they were not crypt cards. It is relevant in the sense that those mortals don't have an incapacitated region. When they become 'incapacitated' they leave your cause (are burnt) - this may or may not be due to actual death - especially if you think about playing the same unique mortal (e.g. Moise Kasavubu gets burnt, then you bring out another Moise - it's kinda saying the first one didn't actually die, it just left your cause for a while.) > You also forget that in the original game, most melee weapons were > (and still are) very large. A bastard sword inflicted +1 damage. > Small knives and switchblades have never been included in the game. > They are too small and insignificant to count for damage purposes, and > maybe are too small (thematically) to be affected by immortal > grapple. Yes, which is exactly why I say it's difficult to work with thematics first, and mechanics second. Make the mechanic first, then justify it via thematics. If it can't be justified, toss it, and start again. > It is all relative. A courrier is no match for an entire street gang, > or even an entire pack of gypsies. But he can still take out an > eccentric billionaire with a lucky blow. My point exactly. It's relative - i.e. it's open to interpretation. You have been using your interpretation of the thematics of the CCG to discredit my suggestion - which is a relative argument. My interpretation is just as feasible as yours, except that my 'lethal weapon' mechanic actually has merit as far as mechanics and game balance is concerned - an issue that you have not addressed. Putting thematics aside (which as I have said can be interpreted in different ways), is the mechanic a balanced one? I would say very much so. Then: Can it be justified through thematics? I would also say so - in that it can be easily interpreted in that way, even if it can be equally interpreted another way. Nothing you can say will be able to make my interpretation seem completely unreasonable, just as nothing I can say can make your interpretation unreasonable. Both are equally good interpretations. > > Because there was no reason to before hand - all allies burnt when > > they hit 0. > > Exactly. There is no need for a "lethal damage" rule, because all > damage is lethal. In the dictionary sense of the word - which is not the sense I was using it. My lethal damage rule is just stating that some kinds of damage (particularly those of weapons) are more lethal (i.e. more likely to lead to death) than other kinds of damages. Being hit by a bastard sword is far more likely to lead to death than a good haymaker shot - which is more likely to lead to you being knocked unconscious. > 3 damage kills a werewolf, for chrissakes. The > thematic problem with imbued is that they are immune to ordinary (but > perfectly lethal) damage. Not immune, just resilient. I believe their resilience can be reasonable dropped for weapons - and still be balanced in the game. > > Burn =/= kill. When I use the word 'lethal' I don't mean it in the > > dictionary sense of the word, I mean it in the role-playing game sense > > of the word - which is how I brought it up - by saying that they have > > no 'lethal' damage equivalent from the roleplaying game as they have > > an 'aggravated' damage equivalent. I think you may be talking about > > lethal damage in the dictionary sense. > > Of course. I am discussing thematics. Why discuss the mechanics of a > different game? It's not discussing the mechanics of another game. It's discussing the thematics and terminology of another game. For example, if there was no aggravated damage in the CCG, and I wanted to introduce the concept, I would refer to the idea of aggravated damage as it is in the RPG (i.e. use their terminology). Unless you also want to discredit aggravated damage because of it's dictionary definition. I'm only using the terminology, as explained in the RPG, in the same way aggravated damage uses the terminology of the RPG. I could change the term from lethal to "Fizz-whopper" damage if you like - which would mean damage that is much more likely to kill than severely maim a mortal. I would put a vampires fists in the NON-fizz- whopper category, and most weapons in the fizz-whopper category, even if you take into account things like undead strength and haymakers and lucky blows etc.

On Oct 31, 6:00 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > On Oct 31, 8:20 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > On Oct 31, 11:17 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 8:46 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > > All damage is lethal, because (setting aside the imbued) all damage > > > > can kill a typical mortal ally. In many cases, and for most mortal > > > > allies, a single point of damage will suffice. If a mortal ally has > > > > more than a single life, it means he is unusually tough. > > > > > Every time a vampire burns blood to heal a point of damage, he uses > > > > the mystical properties of blood to magically heal damage that would > > > > kill a typical mortal. > > > > No, he uses a blood to heal damage that would typically 'wound' them. > > > Where's the contradiction? You "wound" a vampire when you shove a > > stake through his heart. What do you think that does to a typical > > mortal? > > My point is that you are adding in your own extra bit - that being > that damage that would 'wound' a vampire is the same thing as damage > that would kill a typical mortal. That's not "my own bit". I demonstrated that part. Most mortals have one life, and those that do not tend to be unusually tough (such as Scapelli the family mechanic). > While is may be in some > circumstances, it won't be in most. It *is* true in most. > (It's the: "All dogs have four > legs. All dogs are animals. Hence all animals are dogs." argument.) > Just because typical mortals can be killed with one point of damage in > the card game, and all imbued are mortal, does not mean that they > should be equally easy to kill (with a single point of damage). Straw man. I never argued that Imbued should be as easy to kill as typical mortals. I argued that one point of damage is, by its very nature, lethal damage. If some imbued have a whopping 5 life, it is because they are able to survive combat where the damage being dealt is normally lethal in nature, not because the damage is not lethal. > > > Saying that this damage would kill a typical mortal is up for > > > interpretation. > > > No. This is a cold hard fact. No interpretation required. Not > > counting imbued, 31 retainer or ally cards, representing single > > mortals, have been printed. 22 of them have 1 life, 7 have 2 life, > > and 2 have 3 life. (Of those 7 cards representing multiple mortals, 1 > > has 1 life, 4 have 2 life, and 2 have 3 life). > > Again, that is up for interpretation - a typical mortal need not die > in order to no longer be in your ready region. They could just as > easily have been beat up, and left your cause for it, but still be > perfectly alive. Uh. Okay. We can do it that way when little kids are present and we play the G-rated version of the game. We can do it that way when a unique burned minion once again enters play (Ha ha -- you THOUGHT he was dead but ...). But come on, that ain't supposed to be the normal thematic assumption, and you know it. Why do you think burned minions can be ressurected, or used to make zombie hordes, etc. etc. Perhaps the card "Left for dead" should be retitled "High Morale", to represent the fact that this ally continues to serve me after some mean enemy vampire tweaked his little nose and insulted his mommy. > > At least my observations are based on the right game. > > No. They're based on your interpreted observations of the game, and > your specific way of visualising what is happening. There are other > ways of interpreting it which is perfectly reasonable. Thematics are always subject to interpretation. Only the mechanics are laid in stone. But I cannot believe you are denying the normal thematic assumption that an ally burned in combat has lost his life. See "Left for Dead" for a card that forges an exception that proves the rule. > > Different game. Different mechanics. Similar thematics. > > Yes, and that is why I'm looking at the thematics of the RPG to > interpret thematically a change to the rules (i.e. mechanics) of the > card game. I am not saying that because it is in the RPG, it should be > in the CCG. I'm saying the CCG needs a mechanic to make Imbued able to > burn via combat, looking at the RPG for inspiration and thematical > guidance, and introducing a mechanic into the CCG which is > thematically justified by the RPG. It's really, really tough to base > any thematic discussion on anything but the RPG, as it is completely > open to interpretation otherwise. I agree that there should be a mechanic to make the imbued burn via combat. This, however, should not involve the assumption that normal damage is not lethal in nature. > > > The roleplaying game has a distinction between lethal and non- > > > lethal damage that lethal damage kills mortals far more readily than > > > non-lethal damage does. > > > Different mechanics. A card game cannot be expected to have mechanics > > as intricate as an RPG. > > I'm not asking the CCG to have the same mechanics as the RPG. I'm > saying the CCG needs a mechanic to make the Imbued able to burn in > combat. And I agree. > I'm offering a suggestion for that mechanic. To which I disagreed. > And then I'm > saying that it fits in thematically as seen in the RPG. It is thematically wrong as applied to the card game, because it assumes that 1 point of damage from a non-weapon source is not lethal in nature. Vagabond Mystic deals "non-lethal" hand damage -- represented as 0 strength; he cannot kill fellow mortals without a weapons or a lucky blow. > > In the card game, the distinction between > > lethal and non-lethal is represented by "at least 1 damage" as > > distinct from "0 damage". > > Again, that's your interpretation. I would say that there is an > equally strong reason to believe that the distinction between lethal > and non-lethal damage is not at all made in the CCG, as there was > never a need for it prior to the Imbued. There is still no need for it. If a solution to the imbued is necessary, it need not involve a lethal/non-lethal damage distinction. > > The original card game did include many mortals -- and lethal damage > > (simply "damage") was included. One damage burns one "life". I don't > > see how it is relevant that they were not crypt cards. > > It is relevant in the sense that those mortals don't have an > incapacitated region. When they become 'incapacitated' they leave your > cause (are burnt) - this may or may not be due to actual death - > especially if you think about playing the same unique mortal (e.g. > Moise Kasavubu gets burnt, then you bring out another Moise - it's > kinda saying the first one didn't actually die, it just left your > cause for a while.) This can also happen with a unique vampire following diablerie. "Ha ha, I guess you diablerized the wrong vampire! You thought you got Sheldon, but that was actually another vampire you sucked dry, cause guess what ... Sheldon' s back." Such rationalizations work fine, when they are necessary. But are you now going to tell me that, ordinarily, diablerie represents stealing all a vampire's money and sending him into demoralized exile? > > It is all relative. A courrier is no match for an entire street gang, > > or even an entire pack of gypsies. But he can still take out an > > eccentric billionaire with a lucky blow. > > My point exactly. It's relative - i.e. it's open to interpretation. > You have been using your interpretation of the thematics of the CCG to > discredit my suggestion - which is a relative argument. My > interpretation is just as feasible as yours, except that my 'lethal > weapon' mechanic actually has merit as far as mechanics and game > balance is concerned - an issue that you have not addressed. How can I address it? I have suggested other solutions. You merely made the conclusive and unsupported statement that x+1 would make them too weak, and X+2 would make them too weak, but eventually (at x+3?) they would be too strong. How can you be so sure that no happy medium can be found -- that none of these options are balanced? Why should I believe you, without playtesting? > > Because there was no reason to before hand - all allies burnt when > > > they hit 0. > > > Exactly. There is no need for a "lethal damage" rule, because all > > damage is lethal. > > In the dictionary sense of the word - which is not the sense I was > using it. My lethal damage rule is just stating that some kinds of > damage (particularly those of weapons) are more lethal (i.e. more > likely to lead to death) than other kinds of damages. Being hit by a > bastard sword is far more likely to lead to death than a good haymaker > shot - which is more likely to lead to you being knocked unconscious. Which is exactly why a fight between a courier and an eccentric billionaire will probably end with both alive, unless they both have bastard swords, or somehow get lucky (via lucky blow). However, a fight between a terrorist and a street gang will probably end in death, because these are the types of folks who kill, and carry deadly weapons. > > Of course. I am discussing thematics. Why discuss the mechanics of a > > different game? > > It's not discussing the mechanics of another game. It's discussing the > thematics and terminology of another game. For example, if there was > no aggravated damage in the CCG, and I wanted to introduce the > concept, I would refer to the idea of aggravated damage as it is in > the RPG (i.e. use their terminology). "Aggravated damage" has thematic relevance, because it involves loyalty to one specific idea of how vampires function. The idea of "lethal damage" has no thematic relevance. It is simply a game mechanic, as applied to ideas that are thematically ordinary -- like fists and machine guns and the human body.

On Nov 1, 1:12 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Oct 31, 6:00 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 31, 8:20 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 11:17 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 30, 8:46 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > My point is that you are adding in your own extra bit - that being > > that damage that would 'wound' a vampire is the same thing as damage > > that would kill a typical mortal. > > That's not "my own bit". I demonstrated that part. Most mortals have > one life, and those that do not tend to be unusually tough (such as > Scapelli the family mechanic). Your own bit being that they are dead, and not that they've just left your cause. If you want to look at it in a different way - all allies could become incapacitated when they have 0 life - some (non-crypt) may die, some might not - non-lethal damage can be lethal (in the dictionary sense) sometimes. Non-crypt allies are not as bound to you as crypt allies are, so they leave your cause when they are left incapacitated (thus are burnt). > > Again, that is up for interpretation - a typical mortal need not die > > in order to no longer be in your ready region. They could just as > > easily have been beat up, and left your cause for it, but still be > > perfectly alive. > > Uh. Okay. We can do it that way when little kids are present and we > play the G-rated version of the game. We can do it that way when a > unique burned minion once again enters play (Ha ha -- you THOUGHT he > was dead but ...). But come on, that ain't supposed to be the normal > thematic assumption, and you know it. Why do you think burned minions > can be ressurected, or used to make zombie hordes, etc. etc. Perhaps > the card "Left for dead" should be retitled "High Morale", to > represent the fact that this ally continues to serve me after some > mean enemy vampire tweaked his little nose and insulted his mommy. Well, working with kids I can tell you that they'd be far more used to the idea of things dying, than things being beaten and bashed into a bloody pulp (but still surviving). That aside, my point is not that the 'G-rated' version of the game is correct, my point is that there is no 'normal thematic assumption' to be made on this issue, it could swing either way, and, until another card is played that creates the reality, either case could be true. It's the quantum 'cat-in-a-box' situation - until a card is played that determines the fate of the combat, either case could be true - the ally could have survived and simply left your cause, or the ally could be dead. > Thematics are always subject to interpretation. Only the mechanics > are laid in stone. But I cannot believe you are denying the normal > thematic assumption that an ally burned in combat has lost his life. > See "Left for Dead" for a card that forges an exception that proves > the rule. I'm not denying the 'normal' thematic assumption. I'm saying it could go either way - they are both valid and equal interpretations, and that, in this case, there is no norm to really base it on. > > I agree that there should be a mechanic to make the imbued burn via > combat. This, however, should not involve the assumption that normal > damage is not lethal in nature. Normal damage could be lethal, but nothing has convinced me that normal damage MUST be lethal. > > Again, that's your interpretation. I would say that there is an > > equally strong reason to believe that the distinction between lethal > > and non-lethal damage is not at all made in the CCG, as there was > > never a need for it prior to the Imbued. > > There is still no need for it. If a solution to the imbued is > necessary, it need not involve a lethal/non-lethal damage distinction. Maybe it doesn't. I just think that it may be one reasonable option. I also don't think it should be written as 'lethal damage' into the rule books, but that other cards that would burn imbued in this fashion would simply state so on the card. (i.e. If a mortal is reduced to 0 life with this strike, burn that mortal). > > > > The original card game did include many mortals -- and lethal damage > > > (simply "damage") was included. One damage burns one "life". I don't > > > see how it is relevant that they were not crypt cards. > > > It is relevant in the sense that those mortals don't have an > > incapacitated region. When they become 'incapacitated' they leave your > > cause (are burnt) - this may or may not be due to actual death - > > especially if you think about playing the same unique mortal (e.g. > > Moise Kasavubu gets burnt, then you bring out another Moise - it's > > kinda saying the first one didn't actually die, it just left your > > cause for a while.) > > This can also happen with a unique vampire following diablerie. "Ha > ha, I guess you diablerized the wrong vampire! You thought you got > Sheldon, but that was actually another vampire you sucked dry, cause > guess what ... Sheldon' s back." Such rationalizations work fine, > when they are necessary. But are you now going to tell me that, > ordinarily, diablerie represents stealing all a vampire's money and > sending him into demoralized exile? No. But there are other ways of vamps returning from the dead, even after diablerie. Look at Saulot and a dozen other Tzimisce Methuselahs, look at Soul Gem - there are mystical ways for vampires to survive diablerie. > > My point exactly. It's relative - i.e. it's open to interpretation. > > You have been using your interpretation of the thematics of the CCG to > > discredit my suggestion - which is a relative argument. My > > interpretation is just as feasible as yours, except that my 'lethal > > weapon' mechanic actually has merit as far as mechanics and game > > balance is concerned - an issue that you have not addressed. > > How can I address it? By saying that the mechanic is too powerful, too weak, too cornercase etc. > I have suggested other solutions. You merely > made the conclusive and unsupported statement that x+1 would make them > too weak, and X+2 would make them too weak, but eventually (at x+3?) > they would be too strong. How can you be so sure that no happy medium > can be found -- that none of these options are balanced? Why should I > believe you, without playtesting? Yes, I gave my opinion on the matter and gave my prediction. I also said go ahead and playtest it and let me know how it works out. I could easily be wrong. I am, in fact, curious myself if it would work, but feel that it probably won't in enough cases and will unnecessarily favour potence when a balance is reached between the Imbued being torn apart and the Imbued being too resilient. > > > > Of course. I am discussing thematics. Why discuss the mechanics of a > > > different game? > > > It's not discussing the mechanics of another game. It's discussing the > > thematics and terminology of another game. For example, if there was > > no aggravated damage in the CCG, and I wanted to introduce the > > concept, I would refer to the idea of aggravated damage as it is in > > the RPG (i.e. use their terminology). > > "Aggravated damage" has thematic relevance, because it involves > loyalty to one specific idea of how vampires function. The idea of > "lethal damage" has no thematic relevance. Yes, it too involves loyalty to one specific idea of how mortals function. And seeing that mortals are becoming more involved in the game via Imbued, the theme of the CCG game should be broadened to include mortal thematics (like conviction has done).

On Nov 1, 10:27 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > I'm not denying the 'normal' thematic assumption. Yes you are. You are denying the normal thematic assumption that a burned ally or retainer has been killed. > I'm saying it could > go either way - they are both valid and equal interpretations, and > that, in this case, there is no norm to really base it on. Right. So you are denying the norm. I suppose Mummies are kind of like flightly lovers, who always come back after leaving your cause, and that is why they always get reshuffled into your library instead of going to your ash heap. I suppose this is "equally valid" by your standards -- after all, neither of us can stop anyone from imagining it that way if they want to. But I always thought it was pretty clear that this game mechanic thematically represents the idea that mummies are immortal, and refuse to stay dead after being "killed".

On Nov 1, 4:41 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Nov 1, 10:27 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > I'm not denying the 'normal' thematic assumption. > > Yes you are. You are denying the normal thematic assumption that a > burned ally or retainer has been killed. Ok, maybe you have misunderstood me. To clarify my position: A burned ally or retainer may be killed OR may simply have been rendered useless (by staying in a coma - hence the card that burns them, etc.) OR no longer be in your control for some other reason (such as loyalty). I can understand why someone would first assume they were dead, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they must be and there is no way of thematically interpreting it so as that they are not. Assumptions may not be spot on. Look at LSJ's justification for Taste of Vitae not working on allies. One would first assume that mortals have blood and so you should be able to taste it thematically, but LSJ has thematically stated that mortal blood is too thin - which is also thematically appropriate, but doesn't follow people's first assumptions. Assumptions do not make the thematics correct. > > > I'm saying it could > > go either way - they are both valid and equal interpretations, and > > that, in this case, there is no norm to really base it on. > > Right. So you are denying the norm. I am denying that there actually is a norm, yes. I'm not denying what you claim is the norm might, in fact, be what happens thematically, or in specific circumstances. > I suppose Mummies are kind of like flightly lovers, who always come > back after leaving your cause, and that is why they always get > reshuffled into your library instead of going to your ash heap. I > suppose this is "equally valid" by your standards -- after all, > neither of us can stop anyone from imagining it that way if they want > to. But I always thought it was pretty clear that this game mechanic > thematically represents the idea that mummies are immortal, and refuse > to stay dead after being "killed". While it is fine to assume that burnt minions are dead, it's very narrow minded to say that it is the only possible outcome, even if you allow for a few minor exceptions to prove the rule. In fact, I would imagine that many burnt allies and even some vampires are simply rendered ineffective (physically in the case of combat) rather than destroyed. My fuller incorporated understanding of the thematics accounts for everything - from resurrection to unique minions returning after being burnt. Using hyperbole and streched out cases does not help strengthen your points. I wouldn't make such assumptions of mummies, because I'd have no reason to make such assumptions, and I cannot think of any reason why someone's first assumption would be incorrect (at this point in time). Mortal allies being killed when they are burnt, however, does have enough problems to be questioned as the only way of interpreting it thematically (unique minions being the big hole in that theory). It seems that there needs to be a broader view which can incorporate issues like minions 'returning from the dead' without resorting to resurrection. Still, you have yet to show me why your assumption is the actual case - especially in the degrees you are talking about - i.e. that everycase of an ally being burnt they are actually killed. I'm just not willing to make that thematic leap of faith.

On Nov 1, 3:08 pm, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote:. > Still, you have yet to show me why your assumption is the actual case > - especially in the degrees you are talking about - i.e. that > everycase of an ally being burnt they are actually killed. I'm just > not willing to make that thematic leap of faith. <sigh> I cannot prove to you that when an ally burns in combat from losing all his "life" this thematically represents losing all his LIFE (ie. dying), if you are not willing to make that "leap of faith". You have already objected that I am using the dictionary definition of "life", rather than using the term "correctly" as merely referring to a game mechanic. You could make the same objection to the term "vampire" which merely is a term for an in-game mechanic. You could even point out that some minions that are vampires thematically are not "vampires" for game purposes (ie. the gargoyle ally). There is no way I can force you to acknowledge any thematic element, without making a "leap of faith". We are at a dead end.

[ quoted text not captured ] Right, a mummy never actually dies. They merely 'leave your service' until their body regenerates enough to be fully active (shuffling back into your deck until you draw the card or a copy again), and you can entice them back into doing your dirty work (i.e. you pay pool to bring them back into play). I don't think Name Forgotten is suggesting that every minion that is burned just ups and leaves your service. More that a minion burning doesn't necessarily mean that they have died. There's only so many soap opera "Haha! You only _thought_ I was dead ..." incidents I can reasonably take in a game, or "Haha! I'm Carlton's _other_ twin brother that no one knew about ..." The idea that Igo takes out the Street Gang's leader, causing them to scatter to the winds until a new leader is found (the gang being brought back into play by whatever means) is certainly not a stretch of the imagination. Following the strict burn = dead motif, then every Methuselah you oust must by default be killed outright. In my mind, though, Pool represents the resources at the Metheselah has available. This could be money, policitical clout or supernatural power, all of which is used to Influence (i.e. buy the services of) Vampires and other creatures of the night. Losing your last pool ends your influence in worldly affairs, but doesn't necessarily mean that Igo found your little hidey hole and put and end to you once and for all. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 1, 6:34 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > I don't think Name Forgotten is suggesting that every minion that is > burned just ups and leaves your service. No, but he did say this explanation has equal thematic value as death, and I disagree. I think that death is the normal, intended, default thematic explanation for a burned ally, especially when he burns from losing his last life. Other explanations are merely thematic plan B when the death explanation does not work. > More that a minion burning > doesn't necessarily mean that they have died. I never said it did. I merely said death was the normal, default, thematic explanation for a burned ally. > There's only so many > soap opera "Haha! You only _thought_ I was dead ..." incidents I can > reasonably take in a game, or "Haha! I'm Carlton's _other_ twin > brother that no one knew about ..." Then you should never read superhero comics. > The idea that Igo takes out the Street Gang's leader, causing them to > scatter to the winds until a new leader is found (the gang being > brought back into play by whatever means) is certainly not a stretch > of the imagination. I already agreed I had no problem with this. > Following the strict burn = dead motif, then every Methuselah you oust > must by default be killed outright. I never advocated a strict burn = dead motiff, and certainly never tried to extend it to Methuselahs. I merely said that, when a mortal ally loses his last "life" and therefore burns, the normaly, default, thematic explanation is that he has been killed. Which, of course, is why you can then resurrect him, or use him to make Shambling Hordes, etc, etc.

On Nov 2, 12:51 am, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Nov 1, 6:34 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > > > I don't think Name Forgotten is suggesting that every minion that is > > burned just ups and leaves your service. > > No, but he did say this explanation has equal thematic value as death, > and I disagree. Well, then maybe it's because you misunderstand what I mean by equal thematic value. I mean that either is just as likely to be the case and you never know until something else is played - because nothing makes the status of that burnt minion known until that point. I'm not saying that it isn't more probable that the minion is dead, just that themetically it could swing either way. 'Lethal' damage would simply make it much more probable that the minion actually has less likelihood of surviving a trip to the hospital, in the thematic sense. > I think that death is the normal, intended, default > thematic explanation for a burned ally, especially when he burns from > losing his last life. Other explanations are merely thematic plan B > when the death explanation does not work. I agree that death is the normal every-day assumption of what happens, and consititutes the case the majority of the time - but I don't think that introducing a mechanic that changes the thematic odds of burning=death vs burning=rendered useless (for an undisclosed period of time) would be so themetically detrimental. The thematics would still be fine. > > More that a minion burning > > doesn't necessarily mean that they have died. > > I never said it did. I merely said death was the normal, default, > thematic explanation for a burned ally. Well, let's take a look at that - here's some cut & paste of things you've said: ____________________________ One damage snuffs out one "life". There is no need for a "lethal damage" rule, because all damage is lethal. 3 damage kills a werewolf, for chrissakes. Thematically, all damage is lethal. One point of damage kills an ordinary mortal. ____________________________ These quotes have lead me to assume that your position was that burning = death. None of these say 3 damage burns a werewolf, or a point of damage burns an ordinary mortal - these all use the word kill - as in death. If you can themetatically make the leap that enough damage to burn something does not necessarily make something die, then you can equally make the leap that some kinds of damage are more likely to leave an ally dead than other kinds - without looking at damage levels. I'd think that someone would be far more likely to actually die from a .44 magnum shot to the vitals then they would survive an Imbued smacking them in the head with a haymaker, for example, even though the damage is mechanically speaking, equal, or, at least, leave them so badly damaged that recovery is very, very unlikely.

That's all fine and dandy, however, not only did you diverge from the topic (which isn't bad) but also started a rhethorics competition instead of talking about something relevant. Thematics interests people only so far. When playing people do NOT normally think of how the events are supposed to represent "real life" events because it's a CCG not RPG. If we started to translate game events into "reality" we would get a sensless blurb many a time. Just think of Learjetting Rock Cats or fashionably acute War Ghouls in Leather Jackets. This is a game that uses elements of RPG but it's not supposed to be a perfect reflection of the latter. Sacrifices must be done in name of playability and lesser rule complication. Bearing this in mind introducing lethal damage brings a new level of complexity that is not neccessary. Maybe it would be better if Imbued were killed after receiving x+2 aggravated damage? That would make sense. Of course combat in particularal (and Disciplines in general) should get more ally-hosing cards that are usable not only against the Imbued (Ambulance and this NEC/AUS thingie are good examples).

sathriel wrote: > That's all fine and dandy, however, not only did you diverge from > the topic (which isn't bad) but also started a rhethorics > competition instead of talking about something relevant. Are you talking to me? If so, you should so indicate. But whoever you are talking to, you are being hypocritical. What is the above if not irrelevant ad-hominem rhetoric? > Thematics interests people only so far. When playing people do NOT > normally think of how the events are supposed to represent "real > life" events because it's a CCG not RPG. If we started to > translate game events into "reality" we would get a sensless blurb > many a time. Just think of Learjetting Rock Cats or fashionably > acute War Ghouls in Leather Jackets. This is the old "Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle" argument -- that thematics is irrelevant. He who resorts to it surrenders any points his opponent may make about thematic appropriateness. Perhaps you could now move on to showing what the disadvantages are of the more thematically-appropriate fix. Personally, I cannot see any.

[ quoted text not captured ] ...but thematics are just window dressing over the complex mechanisms which are VTES. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > ...but thematics are just window dressing over the complex > mechanisms which are VTES. Right. This resembles the old "DPTES" position, as in, "the game could be called 'Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle' and it would make no difference to me, as I am only interested in the wonderful game mechanics." Those who simply don't care about thematics can move on and discuss different aspects of the proposal, such as whether a proposal is or is not likely to balance the game, or would or would not render the imbued too powerful or too unplayable. There is no point discussing thematics with someone who does not care about it.

[ quoted text not captured ] The problem is that you are using thematics to justify mechanical changes, and that intrigues me. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Right. Because I care about thematics. If someone else does not, my justifications will have no meaning for them. Hence, no basis for discussion. Nothing further to be said. Where's the problem?

[ quoted text not captured ] No problem, it's just that you are discussing a rule to add a new kind of damage, lethal, to a game that really doesn't need an additional level of complexity as well as rewrite of most of the cards in the game added to it for the specific purposes of addressing the imbued in combat. It just seems excessive, unwieldy and unnecessary. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 9:51 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > No problem, it's just that you are discussing a rule to add a new kind > of damage, lethal, to a game that really doesn't need an additional > level of complexity as well as rewrite of most of the cards in the > game added to it for the specific purposes of addressing the imbued in > combat. I was discussing it, yes. I was completely opposed to that proposal. I do not think a new category of damage, called "lethal damage" should be introduced to the game. > It just seems excessive, unwieldy and unnecessary. I agree. Besides which, I also thought it was NOT appropriate thematically for the reasons I stated. That's how we arrived at this discussion of thematics. If we want to make Imbued more burnable in combat (for both thematic and balance reasons), then my suggestion would be: 1 point, or 2 points, or 3 points (whichever is balanced) of regular damage beyond that which incapacitates them will kill them. This would make them more like regular allies.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, if we want the concept of "durable" but "burnable" applied to imbued why don't you just apply the already existing concept of "X+2 agg damage burn a vampire" and just umbrella that concept over the imbued to be "X+2 agg damage burns a minion". It keeps agg damage relavent when dealing with other minions, such as imbued, who are unusually resilient. It makes it difficult to burn them, but it puts it within the realm of possibility. I think that burning imbued with regular damage is too easy and will likely void them as a viable concept. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 10:42 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > Well, if we want the concept of "durable" but "burnable" applied to > imbued why don't you just apply the already existing concept of "X+2 > agg damage burn a vampire" and just umbrella that concept over the > imbued to be "X+2 agg damage burns a minion". It keeps agg damage > relavent when dealing with other minions, such as imbued, who are > unusually resilient. Because agg damage is a vampire-specific concept. Change that, and much thematic flavor will be voided > It makes it difficult to burn them, but it puts it within the realm of > possibility. So does requiring a sufficiently-high level of regular damage. > I think that burning imbued with regular damage is too easy and will > likely void them as a viable concept. Then increase the amount of regular damage needed, until you are satisfied that it "makes it difficult to burn them, but puts it in the realm of possibility." But if you give them the (thematically appropriate) ability to make almost unblockable (by vampires) daylight actions, I guarantee people will be playing them no matter how easy they are to burn.

On Nov 3, 9:57 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:42 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > > > Well, if we want the concept of "durable" but "burnable" applied to > > imbued why don't you just apply the already existing concept of "X+2 > > agg damage burn a vampire" and just umbrella that concept over the > > imbued to be "X+2 agg damage burns a minion". It keeps agg damage > > relavent when dealing with other minions, such as imbued, who are > > unusually resilient. > > Because agg damage is a vampire-specific concept. Change that, and > much thematic flavor will be voided No, it is not. It applies to Mages, Werewolves, Faeries, AND vampires. I am not familiar with the Imbued books to know if agg damage affects them similarly. > > It makes it difficult to burn them, but it puts it within the realm of > > possibility. > > So does requiring a sufficiently-high level of regular damage. If LIfe +2 is the subjective target, then Potence (Sup Torn, Increased Str, Pushing the limit) or Guns (Sawed Off Shotgun, Target Vitals, Manstopper rounds) can generate 6 damage easily which would burn most full strength Imbued in existance (16 out of 20). > > I think that burning imbued with regular damage is too easy and will > > likely void them as a viable concept. > > Then increase the amount of regular damage needed, until you are > satisfied that it "makes it difficult to burn them, but puts it in the > realm of possibility." Care to put out a number? > But if you give them the (thematically appropriate) ability to make > almost unblockable (by vampires) daylight actions, I guarantee people > will be playing them no matter how easy they are to burn. That would be interesting, but probably terribly broken. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > If LIfe +2 is the subjective target, then Potence (Sup Torn, > Increased Str, Pushing the limit) or Guns (Sawed Off Shotgun, > Target Vitals, Manstopper rounds) can generate 6 damage easily > which would burn most full strength Imbued in existance (16 out of > 20). Not if they maneuver and/or dodge. Not if you play "Left for Dead" after being burned. Not if the attacking minion has Memories of Mortality. Not if your Imbued have a "Secure Haven", and cannot be rushed. But if you have no combat defense, there is no reason why the right combat deck should not kill you. But if X+2 does not work, try X+3. Sooner or later I am sure you will hit the right balance. > > > I think that burning imbued with regular damage is too easy > > > and will likely void them as a viable concept. > > > > Then increase the amount of regular damage needed, until you are > > satisfied that it "makes it difficult to burn them, but puts it > > in the realm of possibility." > > Care to put out a number? Why should I? You are the critic. You tell me where the correct balance lies. You don't like X+2, so X+3? X+4? X+5? But I can see where this is going. You are the type of critic who is never satisfied, so if it does not make them too weak, it is sure to make them too strong. > > But if you give them the (thematically appropriate) ability to > > make almost unblockable (by vampires) daylight actions, I > > guarantee people will be playing them no matter how easy they > > are to burn. > > That would be interesting, but probably terribly broken. If done badly; but clearly you are a pessimist, if you assume it would be dond badly. I see no reason why thematic strengths (like the ability to operate in sunlight) and thematic weaknesses (mortal vulnerability) might not be reasonably balanced.

XZealot wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:57 pm, nyst...@cs.com wrote: > > Because agg damage is a vampire-specific concept. Change that, > > and much thematic flavor will be voided > > No, it is not. It applies to Mages, Werewolves, Faeries, AND > vampires. I am not familiar with the Imbued books to know if agg > damage affects them similarly. Aggravated damage, in VTES, is defined only by its effect on vampires. Check the rulebook. Hence, Burst of Sunlight causes aggravated damage, but Argent Baton does not. I imagine silver (or whatever) cause damage that is aggravated to werewolves in the RPG, but this is not "aggravated damage" in the VTES sense of the word. "Aggravated damage" means "damage that is aggravated to vampires." Hence, other creatures (mainly wraiths and one demon) are affected by whether damage is aggravated only as indicated by card text.

[ quoted text not captured ] As opposed to the conviction mechanic? Or the power mechanic? Or the incapacitated region? Unfortunately the Imbued stepped past the excessive, unwieldy and unnecessary boundary a long time ago. I'm suggesting lethal damage to go along with aggravated damage in the same way that incapacitated goes along with torpor. Altho I like Peter's suggestion in some aspect, just not the fact that it'll make Imbued go even slower than they already do. Perhaps they should burn conviction for every point of damage beyond, and then burn when they no longer have conviction to burn. I'd suggest that they get some sort of 'hunt' mechanic as well, such as a rest-and-recover (R&R) action, or a visit to the doctor, or something similar, to gain back a life. It is a bit silly that they don't IMO. Maybe even make it at 2 stealth, or unblockable by vampires, or something similar, if necessary. They'd need it to make sure they don't just burn in mass amounts. If this was the case, then they could put Imbued more in line with Vampire mechanics, and make them have a 'wounded' status as well (i.e. they go to incapacitated when they are hit below 0, otherwise, they are forced to R&R). I think it would probably be balanced, and still keep the Imbued doing actions instead of just walling.

On Nov 3, 10:28 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > No, it is not. It applies to Mages, Werewolves, Faeries, AND > vampires. I am not familiar with the Imbued books to know if agg > damage affects them similarly. It only applied to Mages as of Mage Rev. A lot of people didn't like that change, myself among them, since Mages were supposed to be normal mortals aside from the ability to do magic. -- David Cherryholmes

On Nov 3, 10:28 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > No, it is not. It applies to Mages, Werewolves, Faeries, AND > vampires. I am not familiar with the Imbued books to know if agg > damage affects them similarly. It doesn't. There is no agg damage in Hunter: the Reckoning. Agg damage isn't even mentioned in the H:tR line, except in reference to other books (ie, "If you want to import aggravated damage from Vampire: The Masquerade, here's how you can do so..."). John Eno

nys...@cs.com wrote in news:1194145047.703592.259250@ 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: > On Nov 3, 10:42 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: >> Well, if we want the concept of "durable" but "burnable" applied to >> imbued why don't you just apply the already existing concept of "X+2 >> agg damage burn a vampire" and just umbrella that concept over the >> imbued to be "X+2 agg damage burns a minion". It keeps agg damage >> relavent when dealing with other minions, such as imbued, who are >> unusually resilient. > > Because agg damage is a vampire-specific concept. Change that, and > much thematic flavor will be voided > >> It makes it difficult to burn them, but it puts it within the realm of >> possibility. > > So does requiring a sufficiently-high level of regular damage. > Not hardly. Increased strength + (insert potence strike here) would often be sufficient to burn an Imbued, if only excessive normal damage were needed.... >> I think that burning imbued with regular damage is too easy and will >> likely void them as a viable concept. > > Then increase the amount of regular damage needed, until you are > satisfied that it "makes it difficult to burn them, but puts it in the > realm of possibility." > > But if you give them the (thematically appropriate) ability to make > almost unblockable (by vampires) daylight actions, I guarantee people > will be playing them no matter how easy they are to burn. > ..? You're an advocate for 'thematically appropriate' and yet you assume that the little vampire portrait represents the only resource in which you as a Meth have invested? How odd... Influence a vampire, and you get its whole network of RPG resources in the bargain (financial resources, underlings, havens, etc etc). The cards are just too small to represent the whole resource network accurately. In-game cards representing those resources represent those resources which are poarticularly noteworthy. Its totally not thematically appropriate that Imbued get vampirically unblockable "daytime actions"... DaveZ Atom Weaver ...can play the 'thematcially appropriate game'

nys...@cs.com wrote in news:1194153142.413950.177770 @o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] I'd dispute that. from 6.4.6 "Some damage is described as aggravated damage, such as damage from fire or sunlight or from the claws or fangs of some other immortal creatures, including some vampires. Aggravated damage differs from normal damage in two ways: Aggravated damage cannot be healed, and aggravated damage can burn a vampire if that vampire is already wounded. " That last sentence can be parsed as two seperate, salient features to aggravated damage. Only the second phrase references a particular type of minion. DaveZ Atom Weaver

atomweaver wrote: > from 6.4.6 > > "Some damage is described as aggravated damage, such as damage from fire or > sunlight or from the claws or fangs of some other immortal creatures, > including some vampires. Aggravated damage differs from normal damage in > two ways: Aggravated damage cannot be healed, and aggravated damage can > burn a vampire if that vampire is already wounded. " > > That last sentence can be parsed as two seperate, salient features to > aggravated damage. Only the second phrase references a particular type of > minion. "Heal damage" is, in VTES, a vampire-only ability: the ability to burn a blood to heal a point of damage. from 6.4.6 "Any remaining damage (damage that was not prevented) is successfully inflicted. The damage is then healed (if the victim is a vampire) or causes a loss of life points (if the victim is an ally or retainer)."

atomweaver wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote in news:1194153142.413950.177770 > > Aggravated damage, in VTES, is defined only by its effect on > > vampires. Check the rulebook. Hence, Burst of Sunlight causes > > aggravated damage, but Argent Baton does not. I imagine silver > > (or whatever) cause damage that is aggravated to werewolves in > > the RPG, but this is not "aggravated damage" in the VTES sense > > of the word. "Aggravated damage" means "damage that is > > aggravated to vampires." Hence, other creatures (mainly wraiths > > and one demon) are affected by whether damage is aggravated only > > as indicated by card text. > > I'd dispute that. > > from 6.4.6 > > "Some damage is described as aggravated damage, such as damage > from fire or sunlight or from the claws or fangs of some other > immortal creatures, including some vampires. Aggravated damage > differs from normal damage in two ways: Aggravated damage cannot > be healed, and aggravated damage can burn a vampire if that > vampire is already wounded. " > > That last sentence can be parsed as two seperate, salient features > to aggravated damage Only the second phrase references a > particular type of minion. Both do. The concept of "healing", as referenced here, is applicable only to vampires. In VTES, allies may gain or lose life, but they do not "heal". "Healing" in VTES, refers to a vampire burning blood to avoid torpor, and that is EXACTLY the rules mechanism that is being discussed here. There is no other secondary intended meaning. Agg damage does NOT prevent a Renegade Garou from regenerating.

atomweaver wrote: > nys...@cs.com wrote in news:1194145047.703592.259250@ > 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com: > > > On Nov 3, 10:42 pm, XZealot <xzea...@cox.net> wrote: > >> Well, if we want the concept of "durable" but "burnable" > >> applied to imbued why don't you just apply the already existing > >> concept of "X+2 agg damage burn a vampire" and just umbrella > >> that concept over the imbued to be "X+2 agg damage burns a > >> minion". It keeps agg damage relavent when dealing with other > >> minions, such as imbued, who are unusually resilient. > > > > Because agg damage is a vampire-specific concept. Change that, > > and much thematic flavor will be voided > > > >> It makes it difficult to burn them, but it puts it within the > >> realm of possibility. > > > > So does requiring a sufficiently-high level of regular damage. > > Not hardly. Yes easily. I'll let you decide what "sufficiently high" is, but, if you keep increasing the damage requirement, you will eventually reach a point where Imbued are reasonably resilient, and even (if you keep going) almost as unburnable, for practical purposes, as they are now. > Increased strength + (insert potence strike here) would > often be sufficient to burn an Imbued, if only excessive normal > damage were needed.... If you think this is a problem, then increase the requirement so that most potence strikes, coupled with increased strength, will not normally burn them. What is it about "sufficiently high" that you did not understand? With the right combo, you can also inflict large amounts of agg damage. If "x+2 agg damage to burn" makes vamps reasonably resilient, then "x+4 normal damage to burn" should make an imbued reasonably resilient. And if you don't like X+4, go to X+5. The above assumes that your goal is to make allies just as hard to burn as vampires. Thematically, I don't think this should be the goal. I think it would be better if Imbued were easier to burn in combat than vampires, but were counterbalanced in other ways (as with day operation type abilities). I should also point out that "increased strength plus potence strike" is a 2-card combo (and a clunky one, since increased strength has no effect when played alone) which can be defeated by a single card: dodge. Of course, if you want to immortal grapple the imbued, you are dealing with a 3-card combo now -- one that can be defeated by a card: Fake Out. If you want to counter the Fake Out, you are dealing with a 4-card combo

On Nov 5, 4:13 pm, atomweaver <atomwea...@hotmail.com> wrote: > nyst...@cs.com wrote in news:1194145047.703592.259250@ [ quoted text not captured ] Which begs the question, why can't Lambach's ghoul underling stop Jennie from getting out of hospital? At least in so far as to keep them there. "Oh, looks like Jennie fell off of her wheelchair getting out of hospital AGAIN. Oh, well, get her up and wheel her back to ICU. We really should hire someone else. That Mr. Winthrop has got some real butter fingers." 8^P

In message <1194121035.3...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com writes: >Right. This resembles the old "DPTES" position, as in, "the game >could be called 'Dog Poo: The Eternal Struggle' and it would make no >difference to me, as I am only interested in the wonderful game >mechanics." There are those of us who would play DP:TES because the game would be fun, but who like having a decent theme when possible. However, theme is rarely a good reason to: - initiate change in the first place - use a complicated system in preference to a simple one - have specific, corner-case rules that don't generalize well to other facets of the game (e.g. Paralyze, Close Quarters) and that sort of thing. Theme is great for getting inspiration, design ideas, and so on, but it should never be an overriding concern. The card game must hang together as a card game. This means that even those who don't have much interest in theme may have some desire to make sure that certain thematic aspects are ignored or employed, where possible. As you say elsewhere, thematics are subject to interpretation. If I'd rather have a different system in place then, even if I don't personally care much about thematics, it may be in my interests to suggest a meaningful interpretation to get those people who do care considering and supporting my proposal, or to get useful WoD-oriented names for new counters, new damage, new rules etc. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <1193928092....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, nys...@cs.com writes: >On Nov 1, 10:27 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >> I'm not denying the 'normal' thematic assumption. > >Yes you are. You are denying the normal thematic assumption that a >burned ally or retainer has been killed. This is "normal" up to a point. For a non-unique ally/retainer, it seems a reasonable assumption. The new Wolf Companion I bring out is a new one. I summon up a shadow and it really doesn't have to be the same shadow. For unique allies/retainers, it's significantly trickier to work out what the "normal thematic assumption" is. You can bring out Mr Winthrop and have him murdered, then bring him out again, have him murdered again, and bring him out yet again. No Necromancy needed to reanimate him. No Vicissitude, fleshcrafting him back from the brink of his organs spilling out of his body. No Chimerical illusion so it's not actually Mr Winthrop but his brother with a spell on him. From the game's point of view, it's just Mr Winthrop again. Normal thematic assumption? Reports of his death *may* have been grossly exaggerated. The same is also true of vampires, where there have long been thematic issues with vampires who were burned or diablerized coming back without any special effort being expended. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1193928092....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > nys...@cs.com writes: >> On Nov 1, 10:27 am, The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote: >>> I'm not denying the 'normal' thematic assumption. >> Yes you are. You are denying the normal thematic assumption that a >> burned ally or retainer has been killed. > > This is "normal" up to a point. > > For a non-unique ally/retainer, it seems a reasonable assumption. The > new Wolf Companion I bring out is a new one. I summon up a shadow and > it really doesn't have to be the same shadow. > > For unique allies/retainers, it's significantly trickier to work out > what the "normal thematic assumption" is. You can bring out Mr Winthrop > and have him murdered, then bring him out again, have him murdered > again, and bring him out yet again. That just indicates a disparity between the functional implementation and the theme, rather than indicating a different thematic assumption is at work. The thematic assumption (that Mr. Winthrop was killed) is right. But, as you noted in a different post, theme is rarely a good reason to use a complicated system instead of a simple one.

James Coupe wrote: > This is "normal" up to a point. Right. "Normal up to a point" is precisely what I mean by "normal" when I say "normal thematic assumption. Otherwise, I would not have bothered using the word at all.

The Name Forgotten <tex...@telkomsa.net> wrote in news:1194276528.6...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com: [ quoted text not captured ] Awesome Ally idea, TNF!!! Corrupted Orderly (Unique?) Ally 2 blood Corrupted Orderly may tap to prevent an Imbued from leaving the incapacitated region. Corrupted Orderly may take a +2 stealth action to add a blood from the blood bank to a vampire in torpor. DaveZ Atom Weaver