Jyhad/VTES question

New at this game. Have a question. With the Jyhad cards, there is a 'Blood Rage' card with the fortitude symbol on it. With V:tes, there is a thaumaturgy symbol on it. Is this a misprint, or are there now two blood rage cards? Thanks for any info. Michael

Yes it is a misprint, Blood Rage is a thaumaturgy card. Blood Fury is its "sister" card. Just as a side note: My group plays Wake with Evenings Freshness as a thaumaturgy card. This helps clans without stealth or combat strong ones.

Michael Encinas <spif...@Concentric.net> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] >Michael They were originally Thaum cards but were misprinted. Rory

JoeHallie wrote: > > Just as a side note: My group plays Wake with Evenings Freshness as > a thaumaturgy card. This helps clans without stealth or combat strong > ones. Well, I think this does is prevent all clans except Tremere from having any easy untap. I think (and I might be wrong) that all that's left is the following: Aid from Rats (Ani.): Only works vs. bleeds. 2nd T. Domain: Only works with Princes/Justicars. It seems to me that this takes a lot of the guesswork out of the game. I mean, if you know that it is impossible for your opponent to untap and block/deflect/whatever, then you are taking no chances by doing so. This leads to no one ever tapping out and Misdirection becoming nigh on a game-breaker. OTOH, Wake is quite powerful, and more is always better than less. For example, I own 3. I have one deck, and were I to make a second (which I have contemplated), it would work _far_ worse just due to the fact that I don't have spare Wakes and Blood Dolls to put in. So, do we punish the card by restricting its use, or even the playing field by restricting the card? Well, too many of any one card leads to clogging, but 8-10 Wakes in an 80 card deck is quite reasonable if you have things to do when you're untapped (deflection, etc.). This gives you an extreme advantage over the person (i.e., me) with 3. But, Wake and Blood Doll are common. Then again, the fact that everyone wants as many as they can have makes them _much_ harder to obtain. Look at any Jyhad sale list. If Wake/BloodDoll are even listed at all, their price rivals that of some rares due to their usefulness. Opinions? James -- James Hamblin | jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't worry; base 8 is just like base 10, if you're missing two fingers." -- Tom Lehrer, "New Math"

I have to agree totally with James. I have about 6 in a 60 card deck. My regular opponents know this. It makes it more difficult to decide if they want to bleed me or something. Restricting it seems, to me, absurd.(I usually don't play with Tremere, but if I did my opinon would be the same.) It allows me to take full use of a turn. I don't have to worry about a vampire( with +1 bleed, DOM, bleeding with Conditioning) taking advantage of my minions being tapped. Sometimes someone has felt gutsy and one of their vamps ended up in torpor (OTOH some of my vamps ended up in torpor because I blocked). Sometimes they didn't bleed because thay couldn't risk me having a Wake. Summary: Wake is a pratical and neutralizing card, and is great to have in any deck.(with no clan restrictions.) Reminder: This is just the humble opinion of a simple player. Cyber...@aol.com (David Greenwood)

Michael Encinas (spif...@Concentric.net) wrote: : New at this game. Have a question. With the Jyhad cards, there is a : 'Blood Rage' card with the fortitude symbol on it. With V:tes, there is : a thaumaturgy symbol on it. Is this a misprint, or are there now two : blood rage cards? Thanks for any info. The jyhad card was misprinted. Blood Rage is a Thaumaturgy discipline, and official eratt has benn issued to that effect. SO no, you can't put the Jyhad version in your Gangrel decks. :) Joe -- +--------------...@dimensional.com------------------------+ | "Look what I had to overcome from my last life / | | I think I'll write a book" | +-----"I have no fear of falling / but I hate hitting the ground"-----+

The Blood Rage card was misprinted in the Jyhad version it is a Thaum card not Fortitude, also my suggestion is to find the errata lists for cards of of one of the Jyhad pages that qutie a few people have set up either The Corrupters or The RuleMongers page. Errol T.

James Hamblin (jham...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu) wrote: : JoeHallie wrote: : > : > Just as a side note: My group plays Wake with Evenings Freshness as : > a thaumaturgy card. This helps clans without stealth or combat strong : > ones. We actually play a Wake is for Tremere only. This makes the games much more fun and balanced. Now you have to worry about defense also, so dont always tap out. : Well, I think this does is prevent all clans except Tremere from having : any easy untap. I think (and I might be wrong) that all that's left is : the following: That is right : Aid from Rats (Ani.): Only works vs. bleeds. : 2nd T. Domain: Only works with Princes/Justicars. correct. But with this configuration, the game balances greatly. : It seems to me that this takes a lot of the guesswork out of the game. I : mean, if you know that it is impossible for your opponent to untap and : block/deflect/whatever, then you are taking no chances by doing so. This : leads to no one ever tapping out and Misdirection becoming nigh on a : game-breaker. Well, you opponents wont tap out as much as you would if using wakes. playing wakes this way also make the animalism and 2nd Domain more valuable : But, Wake and Blood Doll are common. Then again, the fact that everyone : wants as many as they can have makes them _much_ harder to obtain. Look : at any Jyhad sale list. If Wake/BloodDoll are even listed at all, their : price rivals that of some rares due to their usefulness. hmmmm, hard to beleive anyone want to buy my wakes? I have 8 or so :-) __ -later |_/\ ,--,;\) /-------------------------------\ ,-"-..._\ | Michael Bist | \_...._( ) | sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu | |a a )`| \-------------------------------| ___ /`._ / / |---==[___]\/; \' `B-'|_`,) <'/||8`> __|::| (__.';| (_)

On 6 May 1996, mike bist wrote: > We actually play a Wake is for Tremere only. This makes the games much > more fun and balanced. Now you have to worry about defense also, so > dont always tap out. > : Well, I think this does is prevent all clans except Tremere from having > : any easy untap. I think (and I might be wrong) that all that's left is > : the following: > That is right > : Aid from Rats (Ani.): Only works vs. bleeds. > : 2nd T. Domain: Only works with Princes/Justicars. > correct. But with this configuration, the game balances greatly. I don't see it. The Tremere are already powerful enough, this gives them far too much of an edge over other clans.. Other clans need _something_. WWEF is _too_ easy, true, but this fix is too restrictive. Misdirection becomes _way_ too powerful. If only princes, animalism, and tremere have untap, where does that leave everyone else? L. Scott Johnson has a wonderful fix on his house rules list: Play WwEF as an out-of-turn Master. Thoughts? "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(+) z*+? 3.1# @#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$@#$

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : I don't see it. The Tremere are already powerful enough, this gives them : far too much of an edge over other clans.. Other clans : need _something_. WWEF is _too_ easy, true, but this fix is too restrictive. I dont agree, playing wakes as Tremere only make other untapping cards more valuable. Additionaly, almost all clans can untap with some cards: Nosefertu & Gangrel: Animalism Gangrel: Proetin Brujah & Toredor: Majesty Ventrue: 2nd Tradition (lots of princes) Tremere: Wake with evenings freshness The only ones left out of the action are the Malks, and they are plenty powerful enough. I realize that some of the above cards have to be played by vampires in combat, but leaving only 1 defender with alot of untapping ability is a way around this. The point is that majesty, earth meld, cats guidence, rats warning, 2nd Tradition ... Are now much more usefull, and game becomes more interesting. : : Misdirection becomes _way_ too powerful. If only princes, animalism, and : tremere have untap, where does that leave everyone else? Why does misdirection become way too powerful? Playing with wakes as Tremere only makes you play with more stradgey about tapping yourself out. : L. Scott Johnson has a wonderful fix on his house rules list: : Play WwEF as an out-of-turn Master. That is another interesting way to play it. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

mike bist wrote: > The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: [Tremere given too much of an edge by WWEF as only Tremere card] > I dont agree, playing wakes as Tremere only make other untapping cards more > valuable. Additionaly, almost all clans can untap with some cards: > Nosefertu & Gangrel: Animalism > Gangrel: Proetin > Brujah & Toredor: Majesty > Ventrue: 2nd Tradition (lots of princes) > Tremere: Wake with evenings freshness > The only ones left out of the action are the Malks, and they are plenty > powerful enough. > : Misdirection becomes _way_ too powerful. If only princes, animalism, and > : tremere have untap, where does that leave everyone else? > > Why does misdirection become way too powerful? Playing with wakes as > Tremere only makes you play with more stradgey about tapping yourself out. Misdirection becomes too powerful, because under your rules the following clans would be screwed unless they had Princes (for 2nd Tradition): Brujah, Giovanni, Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue. They would have _no_ recourse to a Misdirection. If the action is not a bleed, EVERYONE (except Tremere) are hurt by Misdirection. That is not good. LSJ's fix of WWEF as an Out-of-Turn Master is far more elegant and balanced. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think this is really bizzarre thing to do (make WWEF a Thaum) I have this card in all my decks (9) I have 10 in my combat deck and could not imagine this house rule it would be a Nightmare. Errol T.

The Corrupter wrote: > Misdirection becomes too powerful, because under your rules the following > clans would be screwed unless they had Princes (for 2nd Tradition): > Brujah, Giovanni, Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue. > They would have _no_ recourse to a Misdirection. > > If the action is not a bleed, EVERYONE (except Tremere) are hurt by > Misdirection. > > That is not good. LSJ's fix of WWEF as an Out-of-Turn Master is far more > elegant and balanced. > Eh..am I missing something? misdirections can only be used against bleeds right? I mean, what is there to misdirect if someone is equipping a gun, or calling a vote? So misdirections can only be used when someone is bleeding, just like with the other reaction cards. However, I agree on the out-of-turn master idea (although it would take the place of other possibly important masters), as with misdirection, the Tremere have the same anti-bleed capacity as the other clans, and do not need more recources than other clans. Grtz, Joost -- |~~| "Sure I've got a brain, it's a multilayer Kohonen net" |~~| |oost Hage (ha...@cs.utwente.nl) \_/ Oh yeah, this is my personal opinion, and mine only

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] >Errol T. The fact that you have this card in all your decks suggests that it is in need of fixing, to bring it back into line. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | DejaFu - http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | The feeling that things have Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. | been this FU'ed before.

Errol T (etre...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote: : I think this is really bizzarre thing to do (make WWEF a Thaum) I have : this card in all my decks (9) I have 10 in my combat deck and could not : imagine this house rule it would be a Nightmare. What kind of stradgey is it when you put so many in your decks? What kind of fun is it also? If you had the restriction that we place in our games, it would force you to become more imaginative and even think about not tapping out, and even leave alittle mystery if someone will untap or not. Theme decks and balanced decks are the only way to play, not decks consisting of 20% WWEF. mike

sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu (mike bist) wrote: >The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >: I don't see it. The Tremere are already powerful enough, this gives them >: far too much of an edge over other clans.. Other clans >: need _something_. WWEF is _too_ easy, true, but this fix is too restrictive. > >I dont agree, playing wakes as Tremere only make other untapping cards more >valuable. Additionaly, almost all clans can untap with some cards: > >Nosefertu & Gangrel: Animalism >Gangrel: Proetin >Brujah & Toredor: Majesty >Ventrue: 2nd Tradition (lots of princes) >Tremere: Wake with evenings freshness > >The only ones left out of the action are the Malks, and they are plenty >powerful enough. > >I realize that some of the above cards have to be played by vampires in >combat, but leaving only 1 defender with alot of untapping ability is >a way around this. The point is that majesty, earth meld, cats guidence, >rats warning, 2nd Tradition ... Are now much more usefull, and game >becomes more interesting. >: >: Misdirection becomes _way_ too powerful. If only princes, animalism, and >: tremere have untap, where does that leave everyone else? > >Why does misdirection become way too powerful? Playing with wakes as >Tremere only makes you play with more stradgey about tapping yourself out. > >: L. Scott Johnson has a wonderful fix on his house rules list: >: Play WwEF as an out-of-turn Master. > >That is another interesting way to play it. All cards mentioned are situational, WWEF is the most powerful because it can be used against actions not just attempts to bleed and it can be used when it is not your turn not like majesty etc, this is the most bizzarre house rule I have ever heard of. Errol T.

I don't think WWEF was ever broken or needed to be fixed, I don't understand why anyone wanted to "Fix" this card everyone can use it defending against it becomes an art form you have to know when to feint etc its part of the game I don't see what the big deal is. Errol T.

Hage <ha...@cs.utwente.nl> wrote: : The Corrupter wrote: : > Misdirection becomes too powerful, because under your rules the : > following clans would be screwed unless they had Princes (for 2nd : > Tradition): : > Brujah, Giovanni, Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue. : > They would have _no_ recourse to a Misdirection. : > : > If the action is not a bleed, EVERYONE (except Tremere) are hurt by : > Misdirection. : > : > That is not good. LSJ's fix of WWEF as an Out-of-Turn Master is far : > more elegant and balanced. : Eh..am I missing something? misdirections can only be used against bleeds : right? I mean, what is there to misdirect if someone is equipping a gun, : or calling a vote? So misdirections can only be used when someone is : bleeding, just like with the other reaction cards. You're thinking of Telepathic Misdirection. Misdirection is the master that taps X minions for X pool. --Eric

In article <4mp5pi$a...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Wake with Evening's Freshness is the only card that you can put into your deck that gives without any real cost. Any other card takes up deck space. Wakes can be played whenever it is not your turn to get rid of them (as long as someone is acting, and how often does no one act, all the way around the table). It is similar to the animalism and 2nd Tradition untaps in that it gives you a resource back (a blocker), but unlike them, Wake will not clog your hand if you don't have the appropriate vampires available. The cost of "do not replace until after combat" is really laughable if the card is just used to cycle ("I wake, but don't attempt to block"). As (I believe) Alan Kwan wrote in an article on card resource management, Wake is the _only_ card that can be used this way. There is no cost to put it into your deck (it can be cycled like water), and it gives gives gives. This perfectly describes why it is broken. It is not a "killer" card, but it needs to be brought into line with every other Jyhad card made (evenn the many DS cards that went overboard on this), it should have an appreciable cost. Even Thoughts Betrayed, which many feel is broken, has an appreciable cost with regards to discipline, blood, and only being usable in combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I think this is really bizzarre thing to do (make WWEF a Thaum) I have > this card in all my decks (9) I have 10 in my combat deck and could not > imagine this house rule it would be a Nightmare. > > Errol T. That's the reason there's the wake debate in the first place. Because of the NCL. In the group I play with (which uses 4CL) never encounters any unbalancing because of the 4CL (I know, I know. "Well la dee da for your group"). Who wants 10 majesties, wakes, etc. anyway? THere's no strategy to that. With some of the decks I see posted here and the WWW pages, I'd be suprised if the games played with them last any longer than half an hour. Jyhad/V:tES isn't about quick kill. (Unless it's a tourney with 2 Boxes of Ancient Hearts as grand prize *SLURP!* But that's not what I'm talking about.) It's about watching the game unfold and making deals and welching on them and seeing if more subtle strategies (unlike Blythe and 25 telepathic counters) work out. If you want a quick kill go "Fireball" someone with all your Red Mana, unless of course it's counterspelled (feh...) -Zach Haffey

In article <Pine.DYN.3.91.96050...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, Zach Haffey <haf...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > I think this is really bizzarre thing to do (make WWEF a Thaum) I have > > this card in all my decks (9) I have 10 in my combat deck and could not > > imagine this house rule it would be a Nightmare. > > > > Errol T. > That's the reason there's the wake debate in the first place. Because of the > NCL. Not from my end. Wake has virtually no cost. That's why I feel its bad. Fortunately, even then its not an awful thing, just me whining about the few imperfections of the game. > In the group I play with (which uses 4CL) never encounters any > unbalancing because of the 4CL (I know, I know. "Well la dee da for your > group"). I wonder if this is a purposeful troll or not? In any case, this point has been argued again and again. I'll respond with the canonical response, "What about Malks?" To which you'll respond, "They can be dealt with". Me: "How?" You: "With Rush". Me: "Oh, really?", etc.. etc.. Let's not debate CL. > Who wants 10 majesties, wakes, etc. anyway? THere's no strategy > to that. Actually there is. You need to counter the cost of the card in your deck vs. the payback it gives you. As Curt Adams's article wrote, Jyhad has an economical principle of declining value. The more you put in, you reach a point where the value of putting more in declines. WWEF is the one exception that I can think of. The strategy lies in making an economical dck. > With some of the decks I see posted here and the WWW pages, I'd > be suprised if the games played with them last any longer than half an hour. Which ones? > Jyhad/V:tES isn't about quick kill. (Unless it's a tourney with 2 Boxes of > Ancient Hearts as grand prize *SLURP!* But that's not what I'm talking > about.) It's about watching the game unfold and making deals and welching > on them and seeing if more subtle strategies (unlike Blythe and 25 > telepathic counters) work out. That's how I've always played. At the SPTR tournament, the first round, one game went in 15 minutes (weenie vote deck got lucky, no one else at the table had _any_ politics), the others took an average of two-and-a-half hours. The next game with the weenie voter, it took two-and-a-half hours. Some of those decks had more than 20 copies of a card. The finals took three-and-a-half-hours. The one that won had no more than 6. Economizing makes a deck win, not mere bulk of card copies, contrary to what many seem to think about NL. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 6 May 1996 06:45:33 GMT, sid...@umdsun2.umd.umich.edu (mike bist) said: mike> We actually play a Wake is for Tremere only. This makes the games much mike> more fun and balanced. Now you have to worry about defense also, so mike> dont always tap out. Ummm... what? Why on earth would you want to give the Tremere an advantage like this? They're already powerful enough (I play them a lot :-). Make it a non-Camarilla -only card and it might balance things, but on the whole I don't see what your problem is. Wake isn't a problem card, IMHO. //Petri

Hage <ha...@cs.utwente.nl> writes: >The Corrupter wrote: >> Misdirection becomes too powerful, because under your rules the following >> clans would be screwed unless they had Princes (for 2nd Tradition): >> Brujah, Giovanni, Malkavian, Toreador, Ventrue. >> They would have _no_ recourse to a Misdirection. >> >> If the action is not a bleed, EVERYONE (except Tremere) are hurt by >> Misdirection. >> > Eh..am I missing something? misdirections can only be used against bleeds >right? I mean, what is there to misdirect if someone is equipping a gun, >or calling a vote? So misdirections can only be used when someone is >bleeding, just like with the other reaction cards. Misdirection is a Master card. Pay X pool to tap X minions. Telepathic Misdirection is the card you're thinking of. [ quoted text not captured ]

Zach Haffey <haf...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> writes: >on them and seeing if more subtle strategies (unlike Blythe and 25 >telepathic counters) work out. If you want a quick kill go "Fireball" someone >with all your Red Mana, unless of course it's counterspelled (feh...) Just a note - Blythe has been errata'ed to have normal, not superior, auspex - she was mis-printed. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] >Errol T. What does this mean? you like the 'bizarre' house rule because you realize that WwEF is too powerful (being non-situational), or... You don't like the house rule because it is bizarre and WwEF is merely more powerful, yet still situational, or... WwEF is too powerful, but needs a less drastic change than this bizarre house rule (which changes the nature of WwEF too much), or... ??? [ quoted text not captured ]

I have Information Highway in 80% of my deck does it need fixing? I have presses and manuvers in ALL of my decks do they need fixing? I have sudden reversals in all of my decks does it need fixing to? Ah to hell with lets scrape every card and start over what the hell was Garfeild thinking of you guys got it all figured out what the hell does a guy with a Phd know anyway. You did nothing to prove your point Scott, and don't bother I respect your opinion on alot of issues but will not on this one ;) Errol T.

Its callled a defense Mike, you don't have to like it, it just is. Unimaginative, no sorry your thinking of a 4cl malk s&b. My oppenents do all kinds of things that are annoying I don't like them at all but does that make me want to go out and change every card uh...no. I respect a persons choice in taking any Jyhad card and changing it to fit there game environment and to express them on the news group I like to read about them (mostly;)), I'm simply saying WWEF in my environment does not need fixing. Errol T. PS I would like to see your Imaginative Decks Mike.

I play Malkavian S&B almost exclusively, and I have no problem with WWEF. One Faceless Night (or Lost in Crowds, or Cloak the Gathering, or Earth Control, or Backways, etc.) eliminates the problem. In our group, Wake's are fine because of stealth. (Then again, we play that after a Methuselah plays a Wake, he cannot redraw any intercept cards played until combat begins, so...)

Petri Wessman (Petri....@hut.fi) wrote: : Ummm... what? Why on earth would you want to give the Tremere an : advantage like this? They're already powerful enough (I play them a : lot :-). Make it a non-Camarilla -only card and it might balance : things, but on the whole I don't see what your problem is. Wake isn't : a problem card, IMHO. The wake with evenings freshenss is a Tremere ritual in the Vampire the Masquerade role playing game (from which jyhad was derived from). This is the reason we give it to Tremere. And the problem with the card has already been discussed earlier. [ quoted text not captured ]

Errol T (etre...@compusmart.ab.ca) wrote: : PS I would like to see your Imaginative Decks Mike. hmm, some of the decks that i currently have are the following: Sisterhood of Nod deck (or matriarch deck) - consists of a pure female vampire crypt whose sole dedication is the worship of the Creator Caine. Deck is a high teck deck consisting of weapons coupled with celerity. Deck bleeds with labtops and threats. + does other stuff in theme I have a Malk I am a god deck - A few high level malks with a bunch of catiff who actually beleive in the magick performed by the malk. Deck isnt very powerful but is fun. Cards in deck are most clan specific detrimental cards(ie. malk dementia, devolution...) and the catiff equip with bombs and sacrifice themselfs in the name of their god. .... running out of time short description Fallen Heros Deck - A deck working off of potence and celerity. A power hungry mob orentiated Tremer deck And a steath Ventrue deck those are my most current, i have seen many interesting ideas for decks and have played against some in very fun games. [ quoted text not captured ]

The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: : We tend to play relatively hard. We play NL/GT-SPTR and play to win. : People make theme decks (I'm well known for mine), but they make them _to : win_. If someone has an experimental deck, they usually improve it the : hard way. If you aren't playing to win, you aren't likely to see the : kind of ways that your proposed solution destroys game balance. I agree about this to some extent. I may not see the implications of our rule to groups who put the highest emphisis on winning. Our group first plays for theme, and then to win without using any cheap weenie decks, or too many of any cards, esp the powerful ones. The reason we play is for fun, and beleive me, i do have fun winning. So in light of what i just said, our suggestion is not meant to balance the game for groups using killer/winning decks, our use to the WWEF is very well suited for groups playing in the theme of the Jyhad/Vtes cards. : > But there are other cards that can : > be used unfairly also. The point is, if poeple play with balanced decks, : > then misdirection does not become a problem. : The point should not be to make people not play certain decks because : playing them is percieved to be "naughty". The point should be to make a : game environment where there is no such thing as a "naughty" deck. I have played against decks that are deemed naughty by my group. We went thru many phases in the history of our playing. Its the evolution of our group that theme and creativity has overpowered the desire to build a non theme deck whose sole purpose is to win. : I have had a long-standing, as of yet unmet, challenge to _anyone_ to make : a degenerate deck in the following environment: : No Card Limits Lets not even touch this issue Ohh well, just our way of playing the game Mike

The Corrupter <sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu> wrote: : Wake with Evening's Freshness is the only card that you can put into : your deck that gives without any real cost. Any other card takes up : deck space. Wakes can be played whenever it is not your turn to get : rid of them (as long as someone is acting, and how often does no one : act, all the way around the table). It is similar to the animalism and : 2nd Tradition untaps in that it gives you a resource back (a blocker), : but unlike them, Wake will not clog your hand if you don't have the : appropriate vampires available. The cost of "do not replace until after : combat" is really laughable if the card is just used to cycle ("I wake, : but don't attempt to block"). As (I believe) Alan Kwan wrote in an : article on card resource management, Wake is the _only_ card that can : be used this way. There is no cost to put it into your deck (it can be : cycled like water), and it gives gives gives. This perfectly describes : why it is broken. It is not a "killer" card, but it needs to be brought : into line with every other Jyhad card made (evenn the many DS cards that : went overboard on this), it should have an appreciable cost. Even : Thoughts Betrayed, which many feel is broken, has an appreciable cost : with regards to discipline, blood, and only being usable in combat. Would it be acceptable to you if the Waking vampire immediately had to either attempt to block (and had to be able to meet the current stealth) or immediately play at least one reaction card? That would stop the cycling (which I really never see at my games, but your mileage may vary). I feel that it is just too easy to either tap or bypass untapped vampires to make Wake more expensive than that. --- Eric Pettersen pe...@cgl.ucsf.edu (NeXTmail capable)

I can't Fireball anybody I sold my Magic for the best game around ;) Errol T.

So change the rule that you can't burn them off we played this way all the time until we found out you could burn them off. I this is the only problem then play the way we do and don't allow people to burn them and we also play that you can't use them unless an action is directed at you or you Pred\Prey are preforming actions. Errol T.

On 9 May 1996, mike bist wrote: > The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: > : We tend to play relatively hard. We play NL/GT-SPTR and play to win. NL/GT-SPTR?? I like to play MS&B with a bit of P added myself. I also like a GN ADSD. I have been known to play a VTPD, or a GRC weird deck. Then I like to go home for a little S&M. I think we have WAY too many acronyms on this group.

[ quoted text not captured ] You miss the point, the point is not that you always put wake's in your deck an therefore it is broken. The fact that you like certain cards does not make them broken, but if there are cards everyone must have a card to make a decent deck then you might suspect there is a problem. The claim is that wake is over powerful, and one form of proof of this is that every person you know always has lots of them in there decks (I for one can say this is has been my experience). Scott has also presented other reasons as well( such as analysis that states it is unique in that it has no cost to use, can be used with virtually no restrictions and no limit on the number of times it can be used). I am sure everyone on this net would agree that Garfield did a good job in making Jyhad. However the game is not perfect, and if we can't discuss the problems in the forum where can they be discussed? I think personally like making wake cost 1 blood and don't replace until your next untap balances the card well. -- Steve balancing

mal...@macatawa.org writes: >On 9 May 1996, mike bist wrote: >> The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: >> : We tend to play relatively hard. We play NL/GT-SPTR and play to win. >NL/GT-SPTR?? I like to play MS&B with a bit of P added myself. I also >like a GN ADSD. I have been known to play a VTPD, or a GRC weird deck. >Then I like to go home for a little S&M. Oooh! I'll play! P - Presence? GN ADSD - Gangrel/Nosferatu Aggravated Damage / Stealthy Diablerie VTPD - Ventrue/Toreador Political Deck GRC - Gangrel/Ravnos/Caitiff S&M - Sewing and Mending :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: >I have Information Highway in 80% of my deck does it need fixing? I have >presses and manuvers in ALL of my decks do they need fixing? I have >sudden reversals in all of my decks does it need fixing to? Ah to hell >with lets scrape every card and start over what the hell was Garfeild >thinking of you guys got it all figured out what the hell does a guy with >a Phd know anyway. >You did nothing to prove your point Scott, and don't bother I respect >your opinion on alot of issues but will not on this one ;) Thanks for the suggestion (and the following compliment), but I'm sure you'll understand if I don't heed it. Info Highway - if everybody thinks it's so good, you'll be contesting it. If you think it's so goos as to put nine into a deck, you'll be wasting deck slots. Wakey isn't affected by either of these considerations. Presses and maneuvers - either need a skill or a hand slot during combat, both of which constitute a cost. Wakey has only an extremely mild version of the latter, as the hand slot lost outside of combat is almost unnoticed. Sudden Reversals - cost a master phase action, which is plenty of cost. A similar cost for wakey would be welcomed. I merely said that the fact that the card went into all of your decks *suggested* that it might be broken. Other cards (as you mention) may also go into every deck, and should also be examined for that reason to see if they are broken. Most, after only casual inspection, are shown to be properly balanced (cost/ease of use/effect, etc.) Wakey is not. It costs nothing, can be used at almost any time, and has an astounding effect - effectively untapping a minion. Even if you don't need the effect (which can happen from time to time - when your Predator is weakened early on for instance), you can simply pitch the Wakeys for free to make room for other cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

>You miss the point, the point is not that you always put wake's in your >deck an therefore it is broken. WRONG! You and others think it is broken, therefore for you it is and people like Scott and others have taken measures to fix the card you feel is broken, (PS you can't state your opinion like it is Fact, because we all know are opinions are know were near that.) The fact that you like certain cards does >not make them broken, but if there are cards everyone must have a card to make a >decent deck then you might suspect there is a problem. I have a Malkavian\Caitiff deck that has no WWEF so I was wrong in saying it was in all of my decks, so again no problem. > >The claim is that wake is over powerful, and one form of proof of this is that every person you know always has lots of them in the= re decks (I for one can say this is >has been my experience). Scott has also presented other reasons as well( such as >analysis that states it is unique in that it has no cost to use, can be used with >virtually no restrictions and no limit on the number of times it can be used). > This still proves nothing.The abuse is in burning it off just to draw a card that I agree is about the only thing wrong with it. >I am sure everyone on this net would agree that Garfield did a good job in >making Jyhad. However the game is not perfect, and if we can't discuss the problems >in the forum where can they be discussed? Yeah I know I was alittle cynical and snide the other night bad day at work. > >I think personally like making wake cost 1 blood and don't replace until your next >untap balances the card well. > >-- Steve >balancing Great I'm glad it works for your group, and you enjoy playing it that way My group does not and we play it are way and it works for us, I'm sure we both respect are opinions, but oh well this is turning out to be one of those ridiculous limit debates, enough said. Errol T.

On 10 May 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > mal...@macatawa.org writes: > >On 9 May 1996, mike bist wrote: > >> The Corrupter (sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu) wrote: > >> : We tend to play relatively hard. We play NL/GT-SPTR and play to win. > >NL/GT-SPTR?? I like to play MS&B with a bit of P added myself. I also > >like a GN ADSD. I have been known to play a VTPD, or a GRC weird deck. > >Then I like to go home for a little S&M. > > Oooh! I'll play! > > P - Presence? Protean, actually. > GN ADSD - Gangrel/Nosferatu Aggravated Damage / Stealthy Diablerie Essentially. > VTPD - Ventrue/Toreador Political Deck Ventrue/Tremere Political deck. > GRC - Gangrel/Ravnos/Caitiff Giovanni, actually. > S&M - Sewing and Mending :-) No... I really meant a Toreador Strike:Dodge/Blur deck (Strike & Miss). Really. Really I did. What else could it be? (uncomfortable laugh)

Hi Errol, On 14 May 1996, Errol T wrote: [Volumes of stuff deleted] > > This still proves nothing.The abuse is in burning it off just to draw a > card that I agree is about the only thing wrong with it. > Hmm, I find myself agreeing with this. As I see it, the real problem with Wake is that there is no penalty for stuffing your deck with them, you can discard them whenever you want. I would rather see a house (official?) rule that said you must attempt to do something when you play it, ie. block, deflect, etc. I'll have to give some thought to the mechanics though. I guess it means you would have to immediately follow the wake with a block attempt, use a special ability, or play a card. Ideas? Algustas *****The world must be coming to an end. Children no longer obey their parents and every man wants to write a book.***** Author Unkown, written on a clay tablet near Babylon, about 2800 BC.

In article <1996May10.2...@schbbs.mot.com>, sba...@cso.geg.mot.com (Steve Bauer x1014) wrote: >In article s...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: >> I have Information Highway in 80% of my deck does it need fixing? I have >> presses and manuvers in ALL of my decks do they need fixing? I have >> sudden reversals in all of my decks does it need fixing to? Ah to hell >> with lets scrape every card and start over what the hell was Garfeild >> thinking of you guys got it all figured out what the hell does a guy with >> a Phd know anyway. >> >> You did nothing to prove your point Scott, and don't bother I respect >> your opinion on alot of issues but will not on this one ;) >> >> Errol T. >> > >You miss the point, the point is not that you always put wake's in your >deck an therefore it is broken. The fact that you like certain cards does >not make them broken, but if there are cards everyone must have a card to make a >decent deck then you might suspect there is a problem. > >The claim is that wake is over powerful, and one form of proof of this is that every person you know always has lots of them in there decks (I for one can say this is >has been my experience). Scott has also presented other reasons as well( such as >analysis that states it is unique in that it has no cost to use, can be used with >virtually no restrictions and no limit on the number of times it can be used). > >I am sure everyone on this net would agree that Garfield did a good job in >making Jyhad. However the game is not perfect, and if we can't discuss the problems >in the forum where can they be discussed? > >I think personally like making wake cost 1 blood and don't replace until your next >untap balances the card well. > >-- Steve >balancing > I agree with Errol on this point.I think there are too many players out there who worry about the rules and cards too much and are missing out on alot of the fun of this game.O.k if a card is obsene like thoughts betrayed then questions will be asked about what to do with it.Especially as in certain decks it is lethal but to say just because everyone must have a wake doesn't mean its overly powerful or broken!The fact of the matter is that everyone can have them therefore it is a good card rather than broken.If say only Tremere or people with dominate could use them then it would be a worry as it would make the game unbalanced.In my opinion because everyone can have them and can use them and also the fact that most people have them means that this card is fair enough.I don't like messing with cards unless absolutely necessary and it appears to me that people are arguing for the sake of arguing and not to help the game on this matter.Enough said. LS

In article 4...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca, Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: > > >You miss the point, the point is not that you always put wake's in your > >deck an therefore it is broken. > > WRONG! You and others think it is broken, therefore for you it is and > people like Scott and others have taken measures to fix the card you feel > is broken, (PS you can't state your opinion like it is Fact, because we > all know are opinions are know were near that.) > > The fact that you like certain cards does > >not make them broken, but if there are cards everyone must have a card to make a > >decent deck then you might suspect there is a problem. > > I have a Malkavian\Caitiff deck that has no WWEF so I was wrong in saying > it was in all of my decks, so again no problem. > > > > >The claim is that wake is over powerful, and one form of proof of this is that every person you know always has lots of them in the= > re decks (I for one can say this is > >has been my experience). Scott has also presented other reasons as well( such as > >analysis that states it is unique in that it has no cost to use, can be used with > >virtually no restrictions and no limit on the number of times it can be used). > > > > This still proves nothing.The abuse is in burning it off just to draw a > card that I agree is about the only thing wrong with it. > Then we are in total agreement, I believe it is the only thing wrong with it also. Yes I have stated that the fact Wake is broken is a fact and I agree I have not complete proven it. As you have admitted that you think it is broken also I don't see the need to formulate a more exacting proof(I have minors in Logic and Math so if you want such a proof I am sure I can manage it.) > >I am sure everyone on this net would agree that Garfield did a good job in > >making Jyhad. However the game is not perfect, and if we can't discuss the problems > >in the forum where can they be discussed? > > Yeah I know I was alittle cynical and snide the other night bad day at > work. Understood > > > >I think personally like making wake cost 1 blood and don't replace until your next > >untap balances the card well. > > > >-- Steve > >balancing > > Great I'm glad it works for your group, and you enjoy playing it that way > My group does not and we play it are way and it works for us, I'm sure we > both respect are opinions, but oh well this is turning out to be one of > those ridiculous limit debates, enough said. > > Errol T. > If it not brook don't fix it, so if your group has no problem I am glad and would not recommend any fix. Also I think a no burn rule on wakes is a better solution than the one I use but it is difficult to enforce and explain to new players. I have nothing left to say(but just had to get the last word in) -- Steve

Errol T. and Algustas wrote: [Volumes of stuff deleted] > > This still proves nothing.The abuse is in burning it off just to draw a > card that I agree is about the only thing wrong with it. > > Hmm, I find myself agreeing with this. As I see it, the real >problem with Wake is that there is no penalty for stuffing your deck with >them, you can discard them whenever you want. I would rather see a house >(official?) rule that said you must attempt to do something when you play >it, ie. block, deflect, etc. > I'll have to give some thought to the mechanics though. I guess >it means you would have to immediately follow the wake with a block >attempt, use a special ability, or play a card. Ideas? When I first read the card Wake with Evening's Freshness,I read: "Usable only by a tapped vampire. This vampire can play reaction cards and attempt to block as though untapped until the current action is concluded." I assumed (somewhat foolishly) that you had to attempt to block. That's the way I have always played, and that's the way my opponents have always played. I wondered from the beginning what the whole uproar over this card was all about. Now I know. If the card is played as I (my own opinion) belive it was intended, there would be no fuss. By the way, I belive that if you play WwEF you should attempt to block otherwise It does, as I belive Steve "The Evil" Sierb pointed out to me, seem to take a little away from the ideal and charm of the game. It seems cheap, although legal, to just burn a card for the hell of it. Isn't that what the discard phase is for? Cyber...@aol.com (David Greenwood)

Yeah thats the way we play the card. Errol T.

Lord of Shadows (MIN4...@leeds.ac.uk) wrote: : I agree with Errol on this point.I think there are too many : players out there who worry about the rules and cards too : much and are missing out on alot of the fun of this game.O.k : if a card is obsene like thoughts betrayed then questions : will be asked about what to do with it.Especially as in : certain decks it is lethal but to say just because everyone : must have a wake doesn't mean its overly powerful or : broken!The fact of the matter is that everyone can have them : therefore it is a good card rather than broken.If say only : Tremere or people with dominate could use them then it would : be a worry as it would make the game unbalanced.In my opinion : because everyone can have them and can use them and also the : fact that most people have them means that this card is fair : enough.I don't like messing with cards unless absolutely : necessary and it appears to me that people are arguing for : the sake of arguing and not to help the game on this : matter.Enough said. : LS The whole point of this debate is to make the game more fun. It isnt a question of balance issue. Yes, everyone can have a wake with the current rules, but WWEF when overused, takes away from the stradgy of tapping. The reason my group made the WWEF a Tremere only card, is to take the wakes out of everyones hands, without totally abolishing the card. Tremere only was chosen cause it is a Tremere ritual in VTM. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >Errol T <etre...@compusmart.ab.ca> writes: > >>I have Information Highway in 80% of my deck does it need fixing? I have >>presses and manuvers in ALL of my decks do they need fixing? I have >>sudden reversals in all of my decks does it need fixing to? Ah to hell >>with lets scrape every card and start over what the hell was Garfeild >>thinking of you guys got it all figured out what the hell does a guy with >>a Phd know anyway. > >>You did nothing to prove your point Scott, and don't bother I respect >>your opinion on alot of issues but will not on this one ;) > >Thanks for the suggestion (and the following compliment), but I'm sure >you'll understand if I don't heed it. > LOL >Info Highway - if everybody thinks it's so good, you'll be contesting it. Has happened on occassion but I'm so stubburn I always win these. >If you think it's so goos as to put nine into a deck, you'll be wasting >deck slots. Wakey isn't affected by either of these considerations. > True >Presses and maneuvers - either need a skill or a hand slot during combat, >both of which constitute a cost. Wakey has only an extremely mild >version of the latter, as the hand slot lost outside of combat is almost >unnoticed. > >Sudden Reversals - cost a master phase action, which is plenty of cost. >A similar cost for wakey would be welcomed. > >I merely said that the fact that the card went into all of your decks >*suggested* that it might be broken. Other cards (as you mention) may >also go into every deck, and should also be examined for that reason >to see if they are broken. Most, after only casual inspection, are >shown to be properly balanced (cost/ease of use/effect, etc.) >Wakey is not. It costs nothing, can be used at almost any time, and >has an astounding effect - effectively untapping a minion. Even if >you don't need the effect (which can happen from time to time - when >your Predator is weakened early on for instance), you can simply >pitch the Wakeys for free to make room for other cards. > Here we agree,Burning cards for free is abusive and negates truely neat and unique cards like Fragment Book of Nod. Errol T.