[card idea article]
no Archon Investigation or similar cheese! Check this one out:
Outpost
Master, Location (_non-unique_), 0 pool cost
When you sustain pool loss due to being successfully bled,
tap Outpost to designate an untapped minion you control to
enter combat with the acting minion. Does not prevent
the pool loss. Your minion becomes tapped and is considered
the blocking minion in the combat. No strike: combat ends may
be played in the combat. If the acting minion survives the
combat, another Outpost (and another untapped minion) may be
used in succession.
Illustration: armed-and-dangerous guy in watch-tower, looking
meaningfully at sneaky guy walking along street below.
Flavor Text: "It is dangerous to mess with he who is always
alert ... " - annonymous
Of course, this has to be a common card.
--
"Live Life with Heart."
Alan Kwan kw...@cs.cornell.edu
Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
:
: [card idea article]
[ quoted text not captured ]
Now if the DT could just accept the idea of non-cheesy defenses like
this I could be saved from having to do a lot of ranting....
JA Chapman
president of the save bash and
bleed decks foundation
jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) wrote:
>Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
>:
>: [card idea article]
>:
>: no Archon Investigation or similar cheese! Check this one out:
>:
>:
>: Outpost
>:
>: Master, Location (_non-unique_), 0 pool cost
>:
>: When you sustain pool loss due to being successfully bled,
>: tap Outpost to designate an untapped minion you control to
>: enter combat with the acting minion. Does not prevent
>: the pool loss. Your minion becomes tapped and is considered
>: the blocking minion in the combat. No strike: combat ends may
>: be played in the combat. If the acting minion survives the
>: combat, another Outpost (and another untapped minion) may be
>: used in succession.
I can tell you didn't think this one through very well Alan,This so
called card idea is exactly like Archon investigation except you get to
beat the crap out of him instead of just buring him,and you do it without
spending 3 pool,unless they come of the vampire in the form of Additional
strikes.
Sorry try again,
Errol
In article <49iq6p$j...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca> Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes:
>
>I can tell you didn't think this one through very well Alan,This so
>called card idea is exactly like Archon investigation except you get to
>beat the crap out of him instead of just buring him,and you do it without
>spending 3 pool,unless they come of the vampire in the form of Additional
>strikes.
Big difference. You need to build an entire combat deck to
support it, and it doesn't work against bruise-and-bleed.
It's more like a permanent Bum's Rush against S&B, but you
don't fight until you've /taken/ a bleed, which may well be
more than 3 pool (especially if he /knows/ that he'll lose
his vampire to your Outpost ...) You need to keep a vampire
untapped to fight him. And, in most cases, you torporize,
but don't /burn/.
This card would be close to Archon Investigation, if your
predator plays a straight S&B deck with absolutely no combat
elements in the deck. But "Bloodhunt" or "Archon" can pretty
much do the same, or more.
I didn't say "Acting minion may not play any strikes in this
combat", did I?
[ quoted text not captured ]
>That's the whole point - producing a balanced version of AI. It's *supposed*
>to be very similar to AI, but without being so over-the-top munckinized.
>
>Nice Job, Alan. I can tell you did think this one through.
>--
>-----
>L. Scott Johnson (lsc...@crl.com) | The opinions expressed are mine
>Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger | and subject to card text
A balanced form of AI? First off there is nothing unbalancing about
AI,And there never will be you whiners are just to narrow minded to see
past your blurring tears,and I stand by my post this card of Alans is
just another version, except with unbalancing possibilities.
Errol
In article <49iq6p$j...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>,
Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
>jac...@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr JA Chapman) wrote:>>Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
>>:>>: no Archon Investigation or similar cheese! Check this one out:
>>:
>>: Outpost
>>:
>>: Master, Location (_non-unique_), 0 pool cost
>>:
>>: When you sustain pool loss due to being successfully bled,
>>: tap Outpost to designate an untapped minion you control to
>>: enter combat with the acting minion. Does not prevent
>>: the pool loss. Your minion becomes tapped and is considered
>>: the blocking minion in the combat. No strike: combat ends may
>>: be played in the combat. If the acting minion survives the
>>: combat, another Outpost (and another untapped minion) may be
>>: used in succession.>>I can tell you didn't think this one through very well Alan,This so
>called card idea is exactly like Archon investigation except you get to
>beat the crap out of him instead of just buring him,and you do it without
>spending 3 pool,unless they come of the vampire in the form of Additional
>strikes.
>>Sorry try again,[ quoted text not captured ]
Thomas R Wylie (aa...@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
: Alan's card is a Majesty hoser, and a narrow one at that, since it can only
: be used if you have already been bled. If it is a bleed hoser, then why does
: it let the bleed through?
Cards can be hosers by punishing certain actions or clans, etc., not
necessarily just by preventing them.
: Why does it prevent Combat Ends?
: And I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out that the
: backstory is inconsistent: outposts are supposed to keep people out, not let
: you jump them after they've already gotten through your defense.
I assumed that the Outpost had already been breached [the minion had
enough stealth to get in and bleed without being stopped], but that the
bleed was discovered afterwards before the acting minion could escape,
and thus the outpost manners would kick the acting minion's rear end on
the way out. Since the minion is already inside the outpost, trying to
escape out of a defended area once discovered wouldn't be feasible. I
assumed that was why Combat Ends couldn't be used.
: This is not to say that Alan's card is a terrible card. But whether or not
: you think AI is munchkinized, and whether or not you think Alan's card is
: munchkinized, it is not a bleed hoser.
Varying opinions. Granted, it's not as much of a hoser as AI [which I
still don't know what it does, except that it burns a bleeding vampire
without letting him do the bleed damage?], but I guess that goes with the
arguments that AI is not balanced enough.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "What is a man without the beasts? If the beasts were gone, |
| man would die from a great loneliness of spirit." |
| "Confuse, annoy, and dee-STROY!!" Call me "Nicole" and I |
| npu...@tiger.lsu.edu -- Jet...@aol.com will have to kill you. |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two opinions follow. I disagree with them.
In article <49lb72$5...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T
<etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote:
> >That's the whole point - producing a balanced version of AI. It's
*supposed*
> >to be very similar to AI, but without being so over-the-top munckinized.> A balanced form of AI? First off there is nothing unbalancing about
> AI,And there never will be you whiners are just to narrow minded to see
> past your blurring tears,and I stand by my post this card of Alans is
> just another version, except with unbalancing possibilities.
>
In article <49mkd7$p...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, aa...@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R
Wylie) wrote:
> Alan's card is a Majesty hoser, and a narrow one at that, since it can only
> be used if you have already been bled. If it is a bleed hoser, then
why does
> it let the bleed through? Why is it preventing Combat Ends? It's not all
> that different from a Haven Uncovered that prevented Combat Ends
instead of
> granting a maneuver. And I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out
that the
> backstory is inconsistent: outposts are supposed to keep people out,
not let
> you jump them after they've already gotten through your defense.
>> This is not to say that Alan's card is a terrible card. But whether or not
> you think AI is munchkinized, and whether or not you think Alan's card is
> munchkinized, it is not a bleed hoser.
Errol: Think about these facts with AI:
The vampire is burned for 3 pool.
The bleed is unsuccessful (no Edge, no damage, just 3 pool loss)
If a person has all Jyhad backs, why worry?
To remove a vampire normally requires combat, a vote, or a
return of the investment (a la Golconda). There is a chance of failure.
To hose votes we have: Beaureacratic Overload (DS card, all PA
cost 1 Pool).
To hose combat we have majesty.
To hose bleeds we have: DESTROY the Vampire.
Is there a comparison to the power of AI anywhere? Please, give
examples.
Your Contention about Alan's being unbalancing.
The vampire CAN be destroyed, given a card combo in hand and
given the Bleeder doesn't have a defense. Who Bleeds well? Ventrue
(defense of Majesty, Fortitude, and Thoughts Betrayed (DS card: No combat
cards playable by opponent), Toreador (Celerity, Majesty), Brujah
(Celerity, Potence, Majesty), Malkavian (Thoughts Betrayed,
Disguised/Concealed Weapon). They have a CHANCE of making it.
They succeed in the Bleed (get the Edge, even if the vamp croaks).
Alan's works (though is in my mind complicated). AI doesn't.
Tom: Read the above. The card hoses bleeds by getting combat to the
bleedee.
Why this matters:
Every combat able clan can defend against bleeds.
Bleed Bounce and Counter, and Intercept are not the only
bleed defenses. It is a bleed hoser.
Opinion: AI is only viable if the bleed succeeds.
"I can send and receive e-mail even over the Internet"-aol commercial
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
# Adrian Sullivan sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu Spoutingly yours 8^) #
$ GAT/CS/O/WS R+++* tv&--- b++(+++)&+ t X++&-- 5->? e+*>++++ PS+&-+ @
# PE&++&- C(+++)$ UX+>+++$ N++(+) K+>++++ w---$>? M++$ r(+) y*+? 3.1#
@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$
Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: Big difference. You need to build an entire combat deck to: support it, and it doesn't work against bruise-and-bleed.
: It's more like a permanent Bum's Rush against S&B, but you
: don't fight until you've /taken/ a bleed, which may well be
: more than 3 pool (especially if he /knows/ that he'll lose
: his vampire to your Outpost ...) You need to keep a vampire
: untapped to fight him. And, in most cases, you torporize,
: but don't /burn/.
Why would anyone play with stealth once an Outpost hit the table?
What would be the point of upping your stealth so your action got
through, if you knew that you'd be jumped on anyway? Why play
with intercepts, either? I thought stealth was supposed to be a
way of avoiding combat decks.
Not a card I'd want to see printed.
: I didn't say "Acting minion may not play any strikes in this
: combat", did I?
No, and Majesty needs more hosers. But not the kind that hose stealth
as well.
- Neil
--
nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu, lentus in umbra | nudus ara, sere nudus...
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
Errol T (etre...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote:
:
: I can tell you didn't think this one through very well Alan,This so: called card idea is exactly like Archon investigation except you get to
: beat the crap out of him instead of just buring him,and you do it without
: spending 3 pool,unless they come of the vampire in the form of Additional
: strikes.
:
: Sorry try again,:
: Errol
:
:
With this idea at least you a: pay for the bleed (unlike AI)
and b: the combat isnt an out and out death sentence like AI . WIth S:CE
elysium and a little bit of combat stuff theres a decent chance that the bleeder
will actually be in reasonable shape at the end of it . Not to mention
the fact that the person being bled will actually be required to have
some cards in their hand to actually damage the bleeder - as opposed to
the 1 AI fix (almost) everything problem .
AI - just say bugger off
JA CHapman
Alan's card is a Majesty hoser, and a narrow one at that, since it can only
be used if you have already been bled. If it is a bleed hoser, then why does
it let the bleed through? Why is it preventing Combat Ends? It's not all
that different from a Haven Uncovered that prevented Combat Ends instead of
granting a maneuver. And I'm surprised that nobody has pointed out that the
backstory is inconsistent: outposts are supposed to keep people out, not let
you jump them after they've already gotten through your defense.
This is not to say that Alan's card is a terrible card. But whether or not
you think AI is munchkinized, and whether or not you think Alan's card is
munchkinized, it is not a bleed hoser.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa...@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Neil Bernstein (nwbe...@unix.amherst.edu) wrote:
: Alan Kwan (kw...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: : Big difference. You need to build an entire combat deck to
: : support it, and it doesn't work against bruise-and-bleed.
: : It's more like a permanent Bum's Rush against S&B, but you
: : don't fight until you've /taken/ a bleed, which may well be
: : more than 3 pool (especially if he /knows/ that he'll lose
: : his vampire to your Outpost ...) You need to keep a vampire
: : untapped to fight him. And, in most cases, you torporize,
: : but don't /burn/.: Why would anyone play with stealth once an Outpost hit the table?
: What would be the point of upping your stealth so your action got
: through, if you knew that you'd be jumped on anyway? Why play
: with intercepts, either? I thought stealth was supposed to be a
: way of avoiding combat decks.
There's more to stealth than just bleeding, or vice versa. Stealth
isn't even really connected with the bleeding in my deck usually, it's
used to take other actions, such as calling votes, or getting equipment
that'll make someone think twice about blocking a bleed...
[ quoted text not captured ]