ERRATE PTO !!! ;)

Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards". The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;)) ------------ Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:421647eb$0$7823$636a...@news.free.fr... > Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards". Gee, Orpheus. That would wallpaper the new Anarch Revolt, don't you think? Without PTO, how are we suppose to slam our opponents who go anarch in response to Anarch Revolt? Shame on you! (OK: :-) ) > The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;)) Eh, you don't fool me. I seem to recall your list was longer than that. Fred (like we'd hear nothing about getting rid of the withdrawal rule...)

> > Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards". > > Gee, Orpheus. That would wallpaper the new Anarch Revolt, don't > you think? Without PTO, how are we suppose to slam our opponents > who go anarch in response to Anarch Revolt? > > Shame on you! (OK: :-) ) LOL. > > The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;)) > > Eh, you don't fool me. I seem to recall your list was longer > than that. Fred, you're insightful. Yes, I hate all the "shut up" cards : Kiss of "shut up and go into torpor, you didn't have For anyway" Ra, Röt "shut up and go into torpor, period" beurk, Direct "shut up you card doesn't exist" Intervention, mainly. But none is as bad as Protect "shut up and burn" your fucking Own. There is, though, a difference between cards I hate because I don't see what they're doing in the game except ruin some of them, and cards that are so badly thought they throw the whole balance or concept of the game head over heels. Succubus, Anarch Revolt, and, yes, the chage of places, all fall under that last category, with PTO. The others annoy me, and sure, I would welcome an errata to Rötshit, but I can imagine none to Kiss of Râ, and the rest is here to say I guess. So getting rid of PTO is good enough... for now !! ;) > (like we'd hear nothing about getting rid of the withdrawal rule...) GET RID OF THE... wait, maybe in the new rules booklet ? And that's not a card so it doesn't count. ;) ---------- Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:42165b74$0$7846$636a...@news.free.fr... >> > The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;)) >> >> Eh, you don't fool me. I seem to recall your list was longer >> than that. ... > Yes, I hate all the "shut up" cards : Kiss of "shut up and go into torpor, > you didn't have For anyway" Ra, Röt "shut up and go into torpor, period" > beurk, Direct "shut up you card doesn't exist" Intervention, mainly. But > none is as bad as Protect "shut up and burn" your fucking Own. I wouldn't have designed PTO (with the advantage of hindsight) had I been the designers at that time. I don't hate it enough to think it bears removing at this point but I definitately understand your point of view. Let me give you an alternative thought on KoR and Rotschek, however. Kiss of Ra, especially, is a nice answer to the guys who design decks that say, "Shut up and *NEVER* *ACT*". People who need a million intercept because God forbid you should ever be allowed to do anything. I realize that "just-go- into-torpor" is very annoying but certain players really deserve that result. Besides, it costs 3 blood off of a superior FOR minion so it's not like it's something that can get pulled very often (like Archon Investigation). As for Rotschek, I think that falls right into line with other available combat options and I'm totally confused what your issue is with this. It would be nicest, of course, if the various combat options worked themselves out to being more or less a Rock/Paper/Scissors-type game where X tends to beat Y which tends to beat Z which in turn tends to beat X. But the truth is, given that one can stick an optional amount of combat into one's deck and so create an uber-combat-monster deck that beats everything else (almost), I think it totally makes sense to have something that beats *it* as well. The real rock/paper/scissors game in combat (IMO) is much more, combat beating non-combat; more combat beats just plain ol' combat; uber-combat monster beats more combat; and non-combat beats uber-combat monster because it just hand-jams it and out-acts to death. (Well, this analysis is VERY generalized and highly flawed, I realize. But it states my rose-colored- glasses view of the combat game to the best of my ability.) Having a Rotschrek-ignore-all-combat-and-send-it-torpor deck fits right in there somewhere. It's hard to stop and not really that combat-card intensive but it has definite limitations: only usable once per round and not on one's own turn. How is this worse than mister Brujah-rush-guy who rushes all your minions, has enough maneuver to always hit you at close range three times for total 12 damage, and then Taste of Vitae any blood it loses? Oh, yea, and plays Immortal Grapple so waxes any fancy non-hand strikes. Rotschrek is fine in my book. Fred

I agree mostly with the rest, so : > As for Rotschek, I think that falls right into line with other available > combat options and I'm totally confused what your issue is with this. Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for the right time / combo to move. You have For so you can prevent, or you equipped with an Elemental Stoicism. So you should be all right at least first round (in my Ignazio deck, it was usually more than enough). But : RÖTSHIT. You die anyway. No S:CE. No prevent. No dodge. You don't even take the guy to torpor with you. Shut up. Get my meaning ? I hate any one card which totally foils careful planning (yes, Direct too for the same reason). Of course, you can plan against that too, but it's getting mighty heavy, believe me. (snip) > Rotschrek-ignore-all-combat-and-send-it-torpor deck fits right in there > somewhere. It's hard to stop and not really that combat-card intensive but > it has definite limitations: only usable once per round and not on one's > own turn. Luckily it has some limits. Still is more than enough to screw a player or two royally, no matter if they play S:CE, prevent or fight. > How is this worse than mister Brujah-rush-guy who rushes all > your minions, has enough maneuver to always hit you at close range three > times for total 12 damage, and then Taste of Vitae any blood it loses? Oh, > yea, and plays Immortal Grapple so waxes any fancy non-hand strikes. Easy. Skin of Steel / Disarm and your Brujah dies from his own IG. > Rotschrek is fine in my book. Not in mine, as maybe you can now understand. ------------ Orpheus

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:421680d2$0$7829$636a...@news.free.fr... >I agree mostly with the rest, so : > >> As for Rotschek, I think that falls right into line with other available >> combat options and I'm totally confused what your issue is with this. > > Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for the right > time / combo to move. You have For so you can prevent, or you equipped with > an Elemental Stoicism. So you should be all right at least first round (in > my Ignazio deck, it was usually more than enough). But : RÖTSHIT. You die > anyway. No S:CE. No prevent. No dodge. You don't even take the guy to torpor > with you. Shut up. So you play Movement of the Slow Body and leave torpor, thank-you-very-much. I know it's not a bloody-likely choice but it's possible and it works and it would be seen more often if Rotschrek were more possible. I just don't see how the one is "careful planning" and the other is wrong. Some cards are the "end" of the wheels-within-wheels games because their self-limitations hose them (Rotschrek being an out-of-turn card is its self-limitation) rather than something the opponent might do. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Just wait for the next set. Probably you cannot burn anarchs in the new errata, uhm sorry reprint of PTO. LOL. -- johannes walch

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 00:57:15 +0100, "Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote: >Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for the right >time / combo to move. You have For so you can prevent, or you equipped with >an Elemental Stoicism. So you should be all right at least first round (in >my Ignazio deck, it was usually more than enough). But : RÖTSHIT. You die >anyway. No S:CE. No prevent. No dodge. You don't even take the guy to torpor >with you. Shut up. > >Get my meaning ? I hate any one card which totally foils careful planning >(yes, Direct too for the same reason). Of course, you can plan against that >too, but it's getting mighty heavy, believe me. I understand your reasoning and personally hate Rotschreck too (in a recent online poll made with local players, it came on top, and I included it on my top 5). But the same point could be used to describe, say, Aranthebes against a weenie deck. Sure, you have actions to spare trying to send Aranthebes back to your prey's library, but this is kinda conterproductive since the point of making weenie decks is using the advantage of extra actions to oust, not to be merely able to bleed for 1 with someone. Not that I'm suggesting Aranthebes is overpowered, broken or anything - it's one the best cards made in recent sets - just that your reasoning applies to a number of hosers. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Clan Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------- V:tES Brasil Site (only in Portuguese for now) http://planeta.terra.com.br/lazer/vtesbrasil/

Orpheus wrote: > Very simple : you know the guy is packing aggravs. So you wait for the right > time / combo to move. Absolutely wrong. You wait for an action, you can block. Very simple. No Rotshreck. Kill him.

x5m...@gmx.de a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Sure. If you play block. When you pack For, and / or S:CE, and wait to have them in hand before moving, you reduce the chances of dying by combat damage. With Rotshit, you die anyway. That's what I hate about it. -------- Orpheus

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in news:7TuRd.9212$ds.574@okepread07... > I wouldn't have designed PTO (with the advantage of hindsight) had I been > the > designers at that time. I don't hate it enough to think it bears removing > at > this point but I definitately understand your point of view. > I'll pick up here to comment on one thought that has recently crossed my mind regarding PTO, so as to avoid starting an entirely new "ban PTO" thread. The thought went something like: "PTO wallpapers almost every capacity 9/10/11 non-Camarilla vampire with less than 5 votes." There's a reasoning behind this thought, which goes something like this: "Okay, so it's possible to construct inner circle vote decks, which won't generally have a vampire in play before their 3rd turn, and which can use PTO. Now, here's this cool non-Camarilla cap 9/10/11 vampire which I'd like to build a deck around. He won't come into play until my third turn, either. How can I defend against an early PTO? 1. Rush the Inner Circle as soon as it shows? This option only even becomes available if my vampire gets to act before the IC member, and even then, I have to get past their combat defense (which might be tricky if I'm not cap 11 and they (5 out of 7 IC members, anyway) just Obedience me) an torporize them (11 cap, but fortunately, only 3 of 7 have for) in a single turn. Odds: Marginal. 2. Block their action? Unlike PTO (which can target me regardless of seating because it's not a (D) action), unless I'm in a predator/prey relationship, this might require a special card (most likely Eagle's Sight) to even be possible. Even then, must manage a successful block. 5 of 7 IC members have access to at least one card that will give them 2 extra stealth, so if I don't have Auspex, my chances of asuccessful block are slim at best. Even if I do have Aus, 4 of 7 IC members can Elder Impersonate to simply have my block attempt fail. Odds: Poor. 3. Delaying Tactics? Sure, and on the next turn? Am I supposed to play an all DT-deck? Of course maybe I can kill the IC member between turns, but that would require my deck to be rush combat and even then, there's the problems as discussed in #1. Odds: Insignificant. 4. Vote them down? That's 4+1 votes in favor, so unless I have 5 votes (no vampire so far released does), I can't put the vote down with just my vampire's voting power. Sure I could toss extra votes, and 4 of 7 IC members have superior Presence. I'll always need the rest of the table on my side to even have a chance. Odds: Insiginificant. 5. Play Camarilla. Sorry, I said non-Camarilla vampire. Odds: Nil. ... Oh great, I can't." Granted, there are other cards (like Kiss of Ra or Rötschreck) that can be best defended against by playing a particular type/style of deck (e.g. using for or intercept wall, respectively), but none of them are anywhere near as effective as PTO (e.g. Kiss of Ra is more expensive and less devastating; Rötschreck is harder to play and less devastating). Obvioulsy, one could argue that PTO has a fairly high opportunity cost, but honestly, "have a non-camarilla vampire worth targetting" doesn't sound that bad to me, with two or more non-Camarilla decks at a five player table being an odds-on bet by number of vampires ever printed. Then again, one could argue that EQ 1. Arika + Protect Thine Own = Freakin' totally Broken! After all, Arika has all four disciplines useful in obliterating defense strategies (see discussion above) at superior. The odds of a 10 cap non-Camarilla vampire stopping Arika from PTOing him are, first aprroximation, nil. That as and of itself seems like conclusive proof that, at the very least, one of the two cards named in EQ. 1 must be modified, because this is VTES and not the M-game, and we don't want "unstoppable" combos. Or so I hope. Thomas Pichler

Thomas Pichler a écrit : > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in > news:7TuRd.9212$ds.574@okepread07... > >>I wouldn't have designed PTO (with the advantage of hindsight) had I been >>the >>designers at that time. I don't hate it enough to think it bears removing >>at >>this point but I definitately understand your point of view. >> > > I'll pick up here to comment on one thought that has recently crossed my > mind regarding PTO, so as to avoid starting an entirely new "ban PTO" > thread. Yes, there have been enough of these, and my "little joke reminder" isn't supposed to start it all over. OTOH, I think that you summed up the things very, very well. > The thought went something like: > "PTO wallpapers almost every capacity 9/10/11 non-Camarilla vampire with > less than 5 votes." Agreed. I just hope there's an "anti PTO" card for indies in K:MW ? I heard of a "titled votes fail" which sure is nice. But it doesn't invalidate what you say the least. [ quoted text not captured ] My thoughts exactly. > Granted, there are other cards (like Kiss of Ra or Rötschreck) that can be > best defended against by playing a particular type/style of deck (e.g. using > for or intercept wall, respectively), Which is exactly the reason why I hate the very existence of these cards. > but none of them are anywhere near as > effective as PTO Agreed of course. >(e.g. Kiss of Ra is more expensive and less devastating; Yes, although it's always a bitch to lose a minion because of it. > Rötschreck is harder to play and less devastating). Let me tell you I've seen if being very, very devastating. > Obvioulsy, one could argue that PTO has a fairly high opportunity cost, but > honestly, "have a non-camarilla vampire worth targetting" doesn't sound that > bad to me, with two or more non-Camarilla decks at a five player table being > an odds-on bet by number of vampires ever printed. It does diminish without KR/DU : it was even worse when you could destroy a player's minions and put the guy where you wanted !! > Then again, one could argue that > EQ 1. Arika + Protect Thine Own = Freakin' totally Broken! > After all, Arika has all four disciplines useful in obliterating defense > strategies (see discussion above) at superior. The odds of a 10 cap > non-Camarilla vampire stopping Arika from PTOing him are, first > aprroximation, nil. > > That as and of itself seems like conclusive proof that, at the very least, > one of the two cards named in EQ. 1 must be modified, because this is VTES > and not the M-game, and we don't want "unstoppable" combos. Or so I hope. Yes, let's eliminate all 9-11 (no pun intended) non-Camarilla vampires !! Errr... Where did I go wrong ? > Thomas Pichler Nice job Tom.

PTO political action 1 blood Name a non-camarilla vampire. If this vote is successful, that vampire is Red List and you may search your library, hand or ash heap for a Trophy and put it into play.

"Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:<421647eb$0$7823$636a...@news.free.fr>... [ quoted text not captured ] Hi Orpheus , please can you stop crying againts card you say that are broken because you play only Giovanni ... Your last cry is Succubus club ---> ban KR et DU -----> ban Anarch revolt ----> fuc***g erratta that will make fu***g combo worsth than you havent never can immagine .... Now is PTO but pto is very good now with the errata on Anarch revolt. I have a new deck idéa with a lot of anarch and 25 PTO ----------- Lameth from The Eternal citée of Carcassonne ;)

Lameth the dark messiah a écrit : > "Orpheus" <orphe...@ERASERHEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:<421647eb$0$7823$636a...@news.free.fr>... > >>Only one left on my list of "really unbearable cards". >> >>The rest of my hate list, I can contend with hating... ;)) >> >>------------ >>Orpheus > > > Hi Orpheus , please can you stop crying againts card you say that are > broken because you play only Giovanni ... LOL. You should know better : I also play Lasombra ! ;) No, really, the GIos are my faves as everyone knows by now, but you know me well enough to know I despise playing the same things for too long. > Your last cry is Succubus club ---> ban Not just mine !! > KR et DU -----> ban I didn't complain about these, past the first surprise that every player had when discovering them. But I'm glad it went that way : they were way too powerful, and, tired of being abused by them, I abused them quite a few times too... ;) > Anarch revolt ----> fuc***g erratta that will make fu***g combo worsth > than you havent never can immagine .... LOL. Quite intersting I think. > Now is PTO but pto is very good now with the errata on Anarch revolt. > > I have a new deck idéa with a lot of anarch and 25 PTO I'll make an anti-deck just to burn you, you dirty Champion !:D > Lameth from The Eternal citée of Carcassonne ;) Orpheus, looking at your (beautiful but) young city from the ancient Port of Massilia.

Orpheus a écrit : you pack For, and / or S:CE, and wait to have them in hand before > moving, you reduce the chances of dying by combat damage. With Rotshit, > you die anyway. That's what I hate about it. make an alliance with the rotschrecker's predator or prey to make sure you'll be rescued.

reyda a écrit : [ quoted text not captured ] Sure, when possible. But anyway, now I live in TRANQUILITY !!! :) Errating a "bad" card is one way to do it. Making new counter cards is another. With Tranquility my favourite decks don't fear Rötshit anymore ; with the new Obf reaction (sorry, I don't have it so no name...), Protect and Parity go to hell. Way to go !! --------- Orpheus, Necromonger

>---card text Mata Hari Ravnos 7 cap group 4 OBF CHI Qui For Aus Independent, Red List: Mata Hari has 2 votes (titled). You and she may play cards that require a sect and/or clan as if she were of that required sect and/or clan. >---end card text Can she (and I) play cards that require Anarchs? I say yes because Anarchs are a subset of Independents (a recognized sect), which would make all Anarchs independents (but not vice versa, of course), but others in my playgrop disagree. Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or otherwise unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect restrictions?

> Can she (and I) play cards that require Anarchs? No, Anarch is not a Sect. > Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or otherwise > unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect > restrictions? > Yes, but since cards you play usually require *ready* minions, it's pretty useless while she's in Torpor. But she can Recure of the Homeland.

Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: >>Can [Mata Hari] (and I) play cards that require Anarchs? > No, Anarch is not a Sect. Correct. >>Secondly, is her text active even if she is in torpor or otherwise >>unready, but controlled, allowing me freedom from clan/sect >>restrictions? > > Yes, but since cards you play usually require *ready* minions, it's pretty > useless while she's in Torpor. But she can Recure of the Homeland. Correct. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Ankur Gupta" <agu...@cs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.62.05...@peso.cs.duke.edu... > So. . . I know that this is right, but I'm then curious why under the > "Sects" section in the rulebook, we have 4 major subsections. . . > Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, and Anarch. Without careful reading (say, > in the Anarch section), just this outline would suggest that Anarch is a > sect. Could we perhaps move this (and Black Hand and Red List and other > "similar" terms) to a new and/or separate section of the rulebook? The Anarch term has rules support that suggest the rules section should be where it is. Black Hand has no rules support. Red List has rules support, but it completely dissimilar to a sect (no titles, no sect ties, etc.) > Where would we suggest such changes anyway? Probably to the rulebook writer. Just a guess. Check the credits page of the rulebook to find the current rulebook writer. :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

> Gregory Stuart Pettigrew wrote: >>> Can [Mata Hari] (and I) play cards that require Anarchs? >> No, Anarch is not a Sect. > > Correct. So. . . I know that this is right, but I'm then curious why under the "Sects" section in the rulebook, we have 4 major subsections. . . Camarilla, Sabbat, Independent, and Anarch. Without careful reading (say, in the Anarch section), just this outline would suggest that Anarch is a sect. Could we perhaps move this (and Black Hand and Red List and other "similar" terms) to a new and/or separate section of the rulebook? Where would we suggest such changes anyway? Ankur

Orpheus wrote: > Errating a "bad" card is one way to do it. Making new counter cards is > another. With Tranquility my favourite decks don't fear Rötshit anymore > ; with the new Obf reaction (sorry, I don't have it so no name...), > Protect and Parity go to hell. Way to go !! > --------- > Orpheus, Necromonger If Tranquility does it, okay (I don't know the card yet). I'd suggest the good old Psyche! or Sire's Middlefinger. There are no shut-up cards in VtES. You always have an option against every card. It's not an answer to just lament, step up and think of a way to spoil tactics around them. Your pleas for banning cards have a connotation of please ban cards I don't like to play. I'm in favour of banning DU/KR as I now understood, what the reasons were. I like the change of Anarch Revolt, as I was annoyed by decks which were relying heavy on it. These three cards were spoiling regularly whole rounds. But hey, Rötschreck, please, is not a shut up card. There are so many drawbacks for it. Or Kiss of Ra, how often you like to play it in a deck? And then your enemies play some for. Ah come on. And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful. Don't just ban, be clever and play smart. And by the way: against PTO just play Confusion of the Eye ;o).

On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: > There are no shut-up cards > in VtES. You always have an option against every card. Having a counter to an overpowered card does not in itself make that card any less overpowered. It may cure the symptoms, but it falls short of being a remedy. > And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla > clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful. Going into extreme lengths to combat a card does not in itself make that card any less overpowered. It may cure the symptoms, but it falls short of being a remedy. > Don't just ban, be clever and play smart. A pretty universal piece of advice. Fails to address to root of the problem, though. > And by the way: against PTO just play Confusion of the Eye ;o). Indeed may help the [pre-KMW] 80 Non-Camarilla vampires with OBF. Falls short of addressing the remaining [pre-KMW] 352 Non-Camarilla vampires who do not have OBF. Also, forcing players to pack a module to cancel a single card or else risk being deprived of playing their game may not be the best solution. So while Confusion helps, it isn't a real remedy. -- Bye, Daneel

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1109149303....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >There are no shut-up cards in VtES. Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me ATM. And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent. And don't say: play with approximation of loyalty, because that would mean you can only play vote decks with presence. this is probaly not the place, but i would be happy with a small chance to these cards: DI: only usable on action cards and combat cards, not on action modifiers. DT: only usable BEFORE any votes are cast. Tap this reacting vampire. >Don't just ban, be clever and play smart. I heard -and still hear- people tell me that Return to Innocence wasn't broken because you could make a deck that protects you against it. You're using the same reasoning. only on a less extreme card :-) For the record, I don't REALLY mind PTO.

[ quoted text not captured ] All I'm saying is stop complaining and start to play against those cards. Is it a remedy, if all decks have at least one Fear of Mekhet? I bet you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament. Is it a remedy if everybody rushes you at a tournament because of fear of being the target of your PTO? I bet you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament. The same goes for strategies. If you fear to encounter many combatdecks at a tournament you won't play a pure S&B-deck because you don't stand a chance. DU and AR were hard to play against out of different reasons, so okay, change them. But if you are too lazy to come up with a solution don't just ask for banishment. Nobody complains about Warghoul even though it is unargueable the best ally in the game. But people learnt to pack some allyhosing cards in their decks. Just come up with a solution against other strong cards. And yes, just kill Arika when she shows her pretty face. And if your deck can't do it try to win before she PTO somebody of your vamps. And please don't tell me, only x can play Confusion of the eye. There are enough other antivotecards (in a recent posting Jeroen is sick about the many Delaying Tactics played in his playgroup. This card seems to help). The problem is nobody wants to use them because they might be unusable if there are no votedecks present at the table and then they fill up valuable place. But the same goes with other anticards like deflection. If there is no bleed deck at the table bad luck. Just because until now there are many bleeding decks present at tourneys nobody complains about the need of packing antibleed.

On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, "Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: >I'm in favour of banning DU/KR as I now understood, what the reasons >were. I like the change of Anarch Revolt, as I was annoyed by decks >which were relying heavy on it. These three cards were spoiling >regularly whole rounds. Yesterday we played two games using the new wording of Anarch Revolt. It was included in a vote deck with some Banishment to boost. At the first table it was generally useless until the endgame since everyone were able to quickly turn someone into anarchy. But it had a great deal of effectiveness when both the vote deck and a cross-table player got 1 VP each, one immediatelly after another. I was the unlucky one to be the vote deck's predator, got a clogged hand full of combat I couldn't use (bruise n' bleed, eh?) and my War Ghoul predator was ousted after torporizing half of my minions and reduce me to 3 pool. Facing two opponents with few pool, at least one less vampire lost on combat, with 3 Anarch Revolts on the table and saving the Banishments for the right moment, the vote deck's player had no trouble banishing the anarchs me and his prey controlled. He almost ousted the two in the same turn. At the second table, it had a very similar effect, but with the caveat that both me and my new prey (this time I got 1 VP) completely forgot to become anarch and we payed a very high price for it: the vote deck's player had 2 master phase actions and played two more AR's. I had 6 pool at the time, was about to Corrupt another minion (just 1 more counter needed), but a KRC punished me for being too harsh on stealing minions and not protecting my pool :-/ The vote player faced a new prey with around 15 pool and could not prevent him from becoming anarch, but his early 3 damage certainly helped along that path. General conclusion I've personally taken: careful planning and play still renders Anarch Revolt very useful and even powerful on a vote deck without harming everyone around, exactly like it was predicted. In fact, it seems less sketchy to pull out the AR/Banishment combo than I initially thought. Almost everyone used a low- or midcap vampire that could become anarch, and almost no one took some preventive measure like turning *two* vampires anarch since they needed the available actions to do something (perceived) better, even after seeing Banishment. best, Fabio "Sooner" Macedo V:TES National Coordinator for Brazil Giovanni Newsletter Editor [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Playing Return of Innocence wasn't restricted like PTO is. If you can't tell, what danger lurks you can't defend against it. So that is broken. You can imagine what deck awaits you if you see Arika, Alexandra or Leandro in the controlled region, can't you? Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and annoying, but not that decisive. Because of it's overall usefulness and it's power to destroy complicated combos a slight change of the card cost or a requirement like tapping a untapped vampire could be thought over. Try to convince your playgroup to play more Suddens in playing many suddens yourself and hosing their DI in a dire moment. I'm convinced they will learn not to rely too much on DI.

Daneel wrote: > On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hey Daneel, I think we were fooled by a KMW-joke of Orpheus. Maybe we should stop at once filling up the zillionth thread over PTO. I just wanted to tell my opinion about charging a ban instead of coming up with a solution in the game. You think there is no solution in the game against certain strong cards. I disagree but I don't think I can convince you.

Joscha wrote: >>> And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla >>> clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful. > Is it a remedy, if all decks have at least one Fear of Mekhet? I bet > you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament. > Is it a remedy if everybody rushes you at a tournament because of > fear of being the target of your PTO? I bet you think twice about > playing IC's at a tournament. Your remedies seem to rely on everyone else at the table feeling the same way you do, something which you have no control over. Anarch Revolt was never too much of a problem if everyone else at the table agreed to just put the game on hold and ban together to neutralize the AR player. However, all it takes is for one player to perceive a benefit to himself from the current situation, step out of line, and the entire edifice crumbles. If your strategy requires all or several players to ban together, forego the default flow of the game entirely, and put that deck down, your strategy is broken. > And yes, just kill Arika when she shows her pretty face. And if your > deck can't do it try to win before she PTO somebody of your vamps. I can't believe that kept slipping my mind. I'll remember it in the future. > And please don't tell me, only x can play Confusion of the eye. There > are enough other antivotecards (in a recent posting Jeroen is sick > about the many Delaying Tactics played in his playgroup. This card > seems to help). The problem is nobody wants to use them because they > might be unusable if there are no votedecks present at the table and > then they fill up valuable place. But the same goes with other > anticards like deflection. If there is no bleed deck at the table bad > luck. Just because until now there are many bleeding decks present > at tourneys nobody complains about the need of packing antibleed. This ignores the relative opportunity costs of the defenses (not that I'm saying anyone is entitled to ignore what they'd prefer not to deal with and then complain about getting creamed after the fact). -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: > Almost everyone used a low- or midcap > vampire that could become anarch, and almost no one took some > preventive measure like turning *two* vampires anarch since they > needed the available actions to do something (perceived) better, even > after seeing Banishment. AR is going to be most effective in an intercept wall deck--block all of your prey's attempts to go Anarch. Unless he is playing, like, Galaricks Legacy, he is hosed. And no one else gets damage by the AR, in theory. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

Joscha wrote: > Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness > and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do > to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and > annoying, but not that decisive. Your credibility just vaporized. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:_dZSd.18872$Zt1.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me ATM. And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent. You consider Delaying Tactics to be a problem card?!? *BOGGLE* (As they used to say in that old TV show, "Patience, Grasshopper...")

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:383l0gF...@individual.net... > Joscha wrote: > >> Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness >> and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do >> to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and >> annoying, but not that decisive. > > Your credibility just vaporized. Ooh, ooh, OOOOOoooohhhh!! MINE, TOO!!! Can MY credability be vamporized too?!? ...'cause I'm with him. I think the issue here is likely to be what you define as "decisive". If your prey has 2 pool left and you have Smudge the Ignored untapped, a Computer Hack in your hand might be 'decisive'. And a DI in anyone else's hand at that moment might also be. If you're going to make a big issue about a guy's credability over such a statement, I really think you're going to get yourself in a lot of unnecessary flame wars misinterpreting his point. The issue is how powerful and useful a card is DI in the long run. And I really think your evaluation of it is at the high end of the scale for most people. Fred

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BE42075A.1DB63%pd...@lightlink.com... > Fabio "Sooner" Macedo wrote: > >> Almost everyone used a low- or midcap >> vampire that could become anarch, and almost no one took some >> preventive measure like turning *two* vampires anarch since they >> needed the available actions to do something (perceived) better, even >> after seeing Banishment. > > AR is going to be most effective in an intercept wall deck--block all of > your prey's attempts to go Anarch. Unless he is playing, like, Galaricks > Legacy, he is hosed. And no one else gets damage by the AR, in theory. Then what do you do for your second VP? Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Ooh, ooh, OOOOOoooohhhh!! MINE, TOO!!! Can MY credability be > vamporized too?!? ...'cause I'm with him. Well actually, Fred, you seem like a great guy. Who's usually out to lunch. But that's just my opinion. > I think the issue here is likely to be what you define as "decisive". > If your prey has 2 pool left and you have Smudge the Ignored > untapped, a Computer Hack in your hand might be 'decisive'. And a DI > in anyone else's hand at that moment might also be. If you're going > to make a big issue about a guy's credability over such a statement, > I really think you're going to get yourself in a lot of unnecessary > flame wars misinterpreting his point. The issue is how powerful and > useful a card is DI in the long run. And I really think your > evaluation of it is at the high end of the scale for most people. It competes with Dreams as the most often played power card, one that lots of people feel compelled to put in all their tournament decks. Oh wait, you think Dreams sucks, too. This really isn't going to go anywhere..... [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > Then what do you do for your second VP? Wall up for the table win? [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrick Scott wrote: > Then what do you do for your second VP? some ideas: - eagles sight and block your new preys anarch - include few rushes to rush them - banish / PTO them another angle would be to use it in a rush deck and rush your preys anarchs. if you do so, he won't have the opportunity to get a new one before he has to pay for the AR.

[ quoted text not captured ] Okay... I'll almost let it drop. Just a clarification: There are defences against even the strongest of cards. What I'm saying is that you should not need to include defences against specific cards, only specific strategies. -- Bye, Daneel

Frederick Scott wrote: > Then what do you do for your second VP? Dude. You are an intercept wall deck. You are the last man standing. You get a 3 VP table win. Interecept walls always have trouble 'cause they can only get 2 VPs. Now that can get 3 off of the power of the new improved AR, without hosing the rest of the table. Kill your prey with AR. Gat a VP. Wall up and be thelast man standing. You win wit 3 VPs. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] That's pretty clear, I'd like to try it myself. But just as a reminder, I started this thread aiming the "AR was wallpapered" crowd. To me it was clear that even a vote deck was able to manage two GWs using it carefully with Banishment. Granted, it has been "tested" in only two games against non-voting, non-bloating decks with light intercept, but it is still a 100% success rate packing only a few of the two (maybe 5 of each, I'm not sure). And the use of AR was clearly decisive, striking as the "ousting blow" at least once in each game (as soon as Banishment came around). For the other VPs, the vote deck had to work as usual - KRC, enhanced bleeds when the opportunity was clear, bloating and such - which I find to be for the best (no monkey with a gun anymore :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <383mbvF...@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >Well actually, Fred, you seem like a great guy. Who's usually out to >lunch. But that's just my opinion. Ooh, can we all go? Fred, can you get lunch on expenses? I want a BIG sandwich. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

In message <1109173245.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, de...@hell.is writes: >another angle would be to use it in a rush deck and rush your preys >anarchs. >if you do so, he won't have the opportunity to get a new one before he >has to pay for the AR. Ooh. Can we merge this thread with that other thread and get the Assamite Anarch Web of Knives Potence Quietus Deck of Revolting Goodness? It'll be great. It'll be fantastic! And then the game will start and it will fall apart in a heap. But it'll have style! *struts* [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:7sJQtWE1...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <383mbvF...@individual.net>, David Cherryholmes > <david.che...@duke.edu> writes: >>Well actually, Fred, you seem like a great guy. Who's usually out to >>lunch. But that's just my opinion. > > Ooh, can we all go? > > Fred, can you get lunch on expenses? I want a BIG sandwich. LALALALALALALALALA!!!!! I'M NOT HEARRRRRING YOoooooouuu!!!! I'm out to lunch! :-) Fred

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Joscha wrote: > > >>> And PTO: If Arika pops up in our playgroup every non-camarilla > >>> clan plays against the Meth because she's so powerful. > > > Is it a remedy, if all decks have at least one Fear of Mekhet? I bet > > you think twice about playing IC's at a tournament. > > > Is it a remedy if everybody rushes you at a tournament because of > > fear of being the target of your PTO? I bet you think twice about > > playing IC's at a tournament. > > Your remedies seem to rely on everyone else at the table feeling the > same way you do, something which you have no control over. True! But isn't manipulating the other players to do what you think is best the core of VtES? At least that's why I play it, trying to convince others and forge alliances. That's my fun. > Anarch > Revolt was never too much of a problem if everyone else at the table > agreed to just put the game on hold and ban together to neutralize the > AR player. However, all it takes is for one player to perceive a > benefit to himself from the current situation, step out of line, and the > entire edifice crumbles. > True again. You have to be convincing ;o). > If your strategy requires all or several players to ban together, forego > the default flow of the game entirely, and put that deck down, your > strategy is broken. Sometimes you have to do that, especially against big dangers which you can't handle. And if you realize it you have to cry for help. And if you don't want to do that unhonorable behavior strengthen your defence (or die of course). > > > And yes, just kill Arika when she shows her pretty face. And if your > > deck can't do it try to win before she PTO somebody of your vamps. > > I can't believe that kept slipping my mind. I'll remember it in the future. > Your welcome. > (not that > I'm saying anyone is entitled to ignore what they'd prefer not to deal > with and then complain about getting creamed after the fact). There you go.

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Joscha wrote: > > > Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness > > and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do > > to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and > > annoying, but not that decisive. > > Your credibility just vaporized. Kewl :o). You are indeed annoyed by that card.

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:i91Td.13710$ds.10166@okepread07... > > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message > news:_dZSd.18872$Zt1.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me >> ATM. And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent. > > You consider Delaying Tactics to be a problem card?!? > > *BOGGLE* > in tournement play: yes I do. I've seen to many tables (esp. in some finals) where every deck is packing 2-4 DT. You try being the political deck on that table...(remember that most of these decks ALSO pack DI) in general: - enables a weenie to completely cancel an action by a bigger vamp AFTER he plays all his acton Modifiers. 1. this should not be possible and 2. Fatty decks need their actions to be succesfull. - 1 disciplineless card should not be an universal counter to a whole strategy. If such a card were printed against bleed, wouldn't that be overpowered (remember the: cannot take this political action again) - is even powerfull against cards that can only be played once per game. Reigns of power (+ Forgotten Labyrinth + BO + Awe) by Arika, no no, this 1 cap caitiff will delay that, try again next turn, oh no wait, You can't. And BTW, your Arika has used almost all of her blood... - even lengthens the amount of time people will discuss a vote. no votes on the table? no, but i have a DT in hand.... (works sometimes, especially if someone has already played one) the only upside to this card is that it discourages decks with only KRC.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:9YlTd.19824$eA6.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > in general: > - enables a weenie to completely cancel an action by a bigger vamp AFTER he > plays all his acton Modifiers. 1. this should not be possible and Given the power of referendum modifiers, that's highly debatable. > 2. Fatty decks need their actions to be succesfull. DT gives the Fatty his action back. DT untaps the acting minion. > - 1 disciplineless card should not be an universal counter to a whole > strategy. If such a card were printed against bleed, wouldn't that be > overpowered (remember the: cannot take this political action again) DT only restricts that particular action rather than some generic cardless action. > - is even powerfull against cards that can only be played once per game. > Reigns of power (+ Forgotten Labyrinth + BO + Awe) by Arika, no no, this 1 > cap caitiff will delay that, try again next turn, oh no wait, You can't. > And BTW, your Arika has used almost all of her blood... Lamenting the fate of "poor Arika" is not a good argument. :-) > - even lengthens the amount of time people will discuss a vote. no votes on > the table? no, but i have a DT in hand.... (works sometimes, especially if > someone has already played one) I don't see how that adds to the discussion time. > the only upside to this card is that it discourages decks with only KRC. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> schreef in bericht news:cvkqj0$dde$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... > "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message > news:9YlTd.19824$eA6.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >> in general: >> - enables a weenie to completely cancel an action by a bigger vamp AFTER > he >> plays all his acton Modifiers. 1. this should not be possible and > > Given the power of referendum modifiers, that's highly debatable. please explain... big cap has to play: a vote card, probably stealth, and referendum modifiers. Most referendum modifiers need a discipline, even the other reaction cards. Why would DT completely trump the complete combo AND be superior to almost every other discipine requiring reaction card against votes? > >> 2. Fatty decks need their actions to be succesfull. > > DT gives the Fatty his action back. DT untaps the acting minion. Yes, but does not give the fatty the action mods back or the blood spent on said modifiers. It also prevents him/ her from playing the same action again. It also destroys a 3-5 card combo. Making it eg easier to hand jam on voter caps and such. And as for doing it again next turn: it has to be a very good action for it to take a slot in my hand for a full turn. > >> - 1 disciplineless card should not be an universal counter to a whole >> strategy. If such a card were printed against bleed, wouldn't that be >> overpowered (remember the: cannot take this political action again) > > DT only restricts that particular action rather than some generic > cardless action. I know, but how much different usefull political actions do you normally have in your hand in a vote deck? > >> - is even powerfull against cards that can only be played once per game. >> Reigns of power (+ Forgotten Labyrinth + BO + Awe) by Arika, no no, this > 1 >> cap caitiff will delay that, try again next turn, oh no wait, You can't. >> And BTW, your Arika has used almost all of her blood... > > Lamenting the fate of "poor Arika" is not a good argument. :-) true, but it goes for any other big cap voter. I was using Arika because I wanted to emphasise the difference between one of the best vamps in the game vs being foiled by a 1cap. > >> - even lengthens the amount of time people will discuss a vote. no votes > on >> the table? no, but i have a DT in hand.... (works sometimes, especially > if >> someone has already played one) > > I don't see how that adds to the discussion time. people without votes usually don't have much to discuss during a vote. people who claim that they have a DT suddenly can. votes or no votes. > >> the only upside to this card is that it discourages decks with only KRC. > which it still would do if you had to play it before any votes are cast.

"Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht news:1109165405.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Jeroen Rombouts wrote: >> "Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht >> news:1109149303....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> > > Direct Intervention is a problem because of it's universal usefulness > and the lack of needed requirements. And there is not much you can do > to counter it, you're right. On the other hand it is strong and > annoying, but not that decisive. wait just a second. You're saying it's a/ generally useful b/ has no requirements c/ no counter (except for a crosstable SR) d/ strong and annoying isn't that enough???? >Because of it's overall usefulness and > it's power to destroy complicated combos a slight change of the card > cost or a requirement like tapping a untapped vampire could be thought > over. maybe... > > Try to convince your playgroup to play more Suddens in playing many > suddens yourself and hosing their DI in a dire moment. I'm convinced > they will learn not to rely too much on DI. It's not relying on, it's 'we'll toss it in every deck we'll play in a tourney.' eg, Jo's decks almost always include: 7-9 Bounce 2-4 Delaying Tactics 2-4 SR 2-4 DI handfull of cards, can defend against almost everything.

In message <XVoTd.19979$_B6.25...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> writes: >"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> schreef in bericht >news:cvkqj0$dde$1...@domitilla.aioe.org... >> "Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message >> news:9YlTd.19824$eA6.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... >>> in general: >>> - enables a weenie to completely cancel an action by a bigger vamp AFTER >> he >>> plays all his acton Modifiers. 1. this should not be possible and >> >> Given the power of referendum modifiers, that's highly debatable. > >please explain... big cap has to play: a vote card, probably stealth, and >referendum modifiers. Most referendum modifiers need a discipline, even the >other reaction cards. Why would DT completely trump the complete combo AND >be superior to almost every other discipine requiring reaction card against >votes? <IANALSJ> (And I'm not necessarily talking directly about what LSJ said, more about why anti-vote is hard.) When you get bled, you can attempt to block the same as against a political action. However, a political action starts at +1 stealth. Also however, a political action is blockable by two different people not just one, so this sort of evens out. So this isn't really an area for concern, IMO. You may need stealth on either. Once you get into the referendum, pro-vote cards tend to be significantly stronger than anti-vote (i.e. gain votes and vote it down) cards - the hot anti-vote cards are stuck in Presence, largely. It's unlikely that you'll play "all your action modifiers" - in many instances, a superior Bewitching Oration will do a lot, so you don't need to play the Awe in your hand, or whatever else you might be holding. (Telepathic Vote Counting, say.) So many times, the vote will be passing with relatively few cards played. If it's tight the other way, a big cap will often do well with Awe. Bear in mind that every blood Awe costs you could be sucked back up by a Voter Captivation - something you don't get on bleed actions! ("Oh yeah, I'll just burn these three or four blood to get some extra bleed, and suck it back up when done.") And Voter Captivation is a strong card which can turn all damage votes into pool gain votes - and pool gain votes into super pool gain votes! Once you start applying the action of the vote, you can get (say) 5 unbounceable pool theft (Parity Shift) or 3 pool damage (KRC) - unlike a bleed, where you could reduce the bleed, bounce the bleed or so on. Referendum modifiers give you the potential for that - unbounceable, unreduceable (ugh) pool loss. This isn't something that bleed can ever give you by itself. And, as others have expounded about stealth-bleed, repetitive actions for 3 bleed can be strong (even if 5 or 6 might be even better), so a well-played vote deck can still do a LOT of damage. Additionally, many decks will bleed incidentally (unless they have Protected Race-horses, which is a significantly double-edged card, even if potentially very good), whereas 90% of votes come much less frequently - they need to be in the deck, for a start. This means that pro-vote tech (Awe, BO etc.) is much less likely to find resistance and anti-vote tech is much riskier. Thus, when you do have anti-vote tech, it needs to be quite strong or you just don't put it in. Whereas you can happily put in Telepathic Counter (say) and not worry too much about it not being as great as some other bleed defence card, it can still be good enough and ranks high on the "likely to be a valid, useful play" scale. What I would like to see are more pieces of vote defence tech which are "good enough" but in different ways so that DT is not a no-brainer and other tactics may be stronger or more useful for different decks, but which don't unnecessarily hamper the vote deck either. </IANALSJ> [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I really just have one thing to say: Poison Pill and other antivote cards would see a heck of a lot more use if DT required a tap or something. I don't think DT is overpowered or even bad for the game, but it's got to be hard for the designers to print reasonably competitive cards. John

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 jnew...@difsol.com wrote: > I really just have one thing to say: Poison Pill and other antivote > cards would see a heck of a lot more use if DT required a tap or > something. I don't think DT is overpowered or even bad for the game, > but it's got to be hard for the designers to print reasonably > competitive cards. Is the nerfing of DU/KR even tourney legal yet? Regardless, I think it's been too short a time since this major change to assess how it will affect Delaying Tactics' goodness. It's still a powerful card that I'm sure will see play, but I also think Poison Pill becomes a much better choice now that the seat-switchers are gone. I'm reminded again of just how slowly I, at least, absorb the impact of new sets. It's on the order of years. And the game has gotten a lot of shaking up recently. A *lot*. I'd hold off on advocating this or that change until the dust settles and we see exactly what it is we've got. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:05:43 -0500, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote: > Regardless, I think it's been too short a time since this major > change to assess how it will affect Delaying Tactics' goodness. > It's still a powerful card that I'm sure will see play, but I > also think Poison Pill becomes a much better choice now that the > seat-switchers are gone. As much as I liked Poison Pill at first glance, the card failed to cost zero or negative card slots. That being the case, I'm going 70% Delaying Tactics, 10% Vox Domini and about 20% Loyalist. Thing is, I'm mostly packing against PTO - against which Poison Pill is rather useless. -- Bye, Daneel

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schreef in bericht news:Pine.LNX.4.58.05...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 jnew...@difsol.com wrote: > > > Is the nerfing of DU/KR even tourney legal yet? Regardless, I think it's > been too short a time since this major change to assess how it will affect > Delaying Tactics' goodness. It's still a powerful card that I'm sure will > see play, but I also think Poison Pill becomes a much better choice now > that the seat-switchers are gone. Free state rant and PTO will still screw you over. Poison pill will probably just make the referendum fail, unless the meth calling the vote choses to take the damage. problem is that HE can chose, not you. another nice solution, IMO, would be to print 'duplicates' of KRC and Cons ag. (with functional changes, of course) so that DT would become less usefull. > > I'm reminded again of just how slowly I, at least, absorb the impact of > new sets. It's on the order of years. And the game has gotten a lot of > shaking up recently. A *lot*. I'd hold off on advocating this or that > change until the dust settles and we see exactly what it is we've got. > thing is: DT was printed in the original Jyhad set which means: - political decks had like 70 political cards in their decks: losing the opportunity to play 1 specific vote for a turn was't that bad for a political deck. You had at least 4 or 5 of them in your hand at any time. - Awe didn't exist, so a DT couldn't be used to empty a vampire. and 5th tradition had its original wording, so it wasn't THAT bad that a vamp lost some blood.

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht news:ohwE+kaT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > > (And I'm not necessarily talking directly about what LSJ said, more > about why anti-vote is hard.) ok > > > When you get bled, you can attempt to block the same as against a > political action. However, a political action starts at +1 stealth. > Also however, a political action is blockable by two different people > not just one, so this sort of evens out. So this isn't really an area > for concern, IMO. You may need stealth on either. agreed. > > Once you get into the referendum, pro-vote cards tend to be > significantly stronger than anti-vote (i.e. gain votes and vote it down) > cards - the hot anti-vote cards are stuck in Presence, largely. It's > unlikely that you'll play "all your action modifiers" - in many > instances, a superior Bewitching Oration will do a lot, so you don't > need to play the Awe in your hand, or whatever else you might be > holding. (Telepathic Vote Counting, say.) sometimes you have too: either because you need the votes or because you want to cycle into you voter cap or your next vote card. >So many times, the vote will > be passing with relatively few cards played. If it's tight the other > way, a big cap will often do well with Awe. Bear in mind that every > blood Awe costs you could be sucked back up by a Voter Captivation - > something you don't get on bleed actions! ("Oh yeah, I'll just burn > these three or four blood to get some extra bleed, and suck it back up > when done.") And Voter Captivation is a strong card which can turn all > damage votes into pool gain votes - and pool gain votes into super pool > gain votes! yes. voter cap is strong. Just like Kindred Spirits (and Social Charm and Legal manipulation, to a lesser extend) is strong. both gain you pool by doing what you wanted to be doing in the first place. > > > Once you start applying the action of the vote, you can get (say) 5 > unbounceable pool theft (Parity Shift) or 3 pool damage (KRC) - unlike a > bleed, where you could reduce the bleed, bounce the bleed or so on. > Referendum modifiers give you the potential for that - unbounceable, > unreduceable (ugh) pool loss. This isn't something that bleed can ever > give you by itself. And, as others have expounded about stealth-bleed, > repetitive actions for 3 bleed can be strong (even if 5 or 6 might be > even better), so a well-played vote deck can still do a LOT of damage. yes, but 1 DT forbids you from playing the other do 3 damage card you may have in you hand. See my reply to David. > > > Additionally, many decks will bleed incidentally (unless they have > Protected Race-horses, which is a significantly double-edged card, even > if potentially very good), whereas 90% of votes come much less > frequently - they need to be in the deck, for a start. This means that > pro-vote tech (Awe, BO etc.) is much less likely to find resistance and > anti-vote tech is much riskier. Thus, when you do have anti-vote tech, > it needs to be quite strong or you just don't put it in. Whereas you > can happily put in Telepathic Counter (say) and not worry too much about > it not being as great as some other bleed defence card, it can still be > good enough and ranks high on the "likely to be a valid, useful play" > scale. but this is still no excuse for having a no requirements anti-vote card in the set. The only anti-vote card that comes close in power is Kindred Coercion. and that requires: *an older vampire and dom to force x vampires to abstain. *an older vampire and DOM to change the votes of x vamps. costs x blood. compare this too: no requirements whatsoever, cost 1 blood: try again next turn. And we all know that timing can be the difference between winning or losing AND that a turn is 1/14 to 1/12 of the game. for fatties (because of a slower start) this is closer to 1/10 of a game. > > > What I would like to see are more pieces of vote defence tech which are > "good enough" but in different ways so that DT is not a no-brainer and > other tactics may be stronger or more useful for different decks, but > which don't unnecessarily hamper the vote deck either. amen to that. but that requires that DT becomes less powerfull, otherwise everyone will just keep playing DT. > > </IANALSJ> neither am I :-)

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > - political decks had like 70 political cards in their decks: losing the > opportunity to play 1 specific vote for a turn was't that bad for a > political deck. You had at least 4 or 5 of them in your hand at any time. It seems unlikely that this was the case for the designers. Either they didn't design DT with vote pushing (the rules are ambiguous on that point), or they designed and tested it without the 70 PA versions of the political decks. > - Awe didn't exist, so a DT couldn't be used to empty a vampire. and 5th > tradition had its original wording, so it wasn't THAT bad that a vamp lost > some blood. DT still cannot empty a vampire (other than the one playing it). Awe-based voting decks are super at bloating, so it still isn't THAT bad, according to your 5th tradition point. If DT causes the bloating vote deck to have to excercise a little more prudence, then so much the better. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Daneel wrote: > As much as I liked Poison Pill at first glance, the card failed to > cost zero or negative card slots. That being the case, I'm going > 70% Delaying Tactics, 10% Vox Domini and about 20% Loyalist. Thing > is, I'm mostly packing against PTO - against which Poison Pill is > rather useless. Certainly there are still votes out there that are to be feared, yet don't generate pool loss. I'm not suggesting Poison Pill is a universal panacea (and I, of course, feel your PTO hate.... still get fried by that sucker left and right, but that's my playgroup). But it is getting played in our group, and I am seeing it make votes fail. Making it one element in a diverse vote defense package sounds like an indication that it's a good card, i.e. playable, but not exclusively so. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <n8ETd.20509$4z6.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> writes: > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht >news:ohwE+kaT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >> Once you get into the referendum, pro-vote cards tend to be >> significantly stronger than anti-vote (i.e. gain votes and vote it down) >> cards - the hot anti-vote cards are stuck in Presence, largely. It's >> unlikely that you'll play "all your action modifiers" - in many >> instances, a superior Bewitching Oration will do a lot, so you don't >> need to play the Awe in your hand, or whatever else you might be >> holding. (Telepathic Vote Counting, say.) > >sometimes you have too: either because you need the votes or because you >want to cycle into you voter cap or your next vote card. Oh, sure, this happens. But then, if your hand is jammed with crap you're trying to get rid off, that it got DT-ed means you didn't exactly waste them as seemed to be the original premise. You still managed to cycle them out your hand. > >>So many times, the vote will >> be passing with relatively few cards played. If it's tight the other >> way, a big cap will often do well with Awe. Bear in mind that every >> blood Awe costs you could be sucked back up by a Voter Captivation - >> something you don't get on bleed actions! ("Oh yeah, I'll just burn >> these three or four blood to get some extra bleed, and suck it back up >> when done.") And Voter Captivation is a strong card which can turn all >> damage votes into pool gain votes - and pool gain votes into super pool >> gain votes! > >yes. voter cap is strong. Just like Kindred Spirits (and Social Charm and >Legal manipulation, to a lesser extend) is strong. both gain you pool by >doing what you wanted to be doing in the first place. Ah, but Voter Captivation doesn't *just* gain you pool. It gains you blood back, and it gains you the pool too, and it offsets the cost of the cards you played before hand. If Kindred Spirits said, (D) Bleed <foo>..... and gain a pool and gain two blood back on this vampire (say), it'd be a significantly stronger card. The thing with blood coming back onto you means that your big cap vampire can do a LOT of Minion Tap/Voter Cap bloat pool gain. And the flexibility to keep the blood, if you need it for (say) combat defence. That is, Voter Cap not only gets you pool for doing what you want to do anyway (which not all decks have the flexibility for, of course), it also offsets the cost of doing it in the first place - your Awe and Forgotten Labyrinth (say) have just been paid for. That's a pretty serious card. >yes, but 1 DT forbids you from playing the other do 3 damage card you may >have in you hand. See my reply to David. Bad deck construction. You *know* that DT exists. And you have a wide variety of votes to call. The Camarilla have Parity Shift, as well as the standard KRC and Con Ag. You have a plethora of other votes that could be useful - Indies have Free States Rant, Con Boon may be useful, Rumors of Gehenna, Disputed Territory, etc. If the problem is that a deck with only KRCs in hand is screwed, well, that's not a huge issue to my mind. Either you got a REALLY bad shuffle (and got all of your KRCs in the first ten cards, and nothing else) or the deck could benefit with tweaking, to my mind. >but this is still no excuse for having a no requirements anti-vote card in >the set. No, I agree, Delaying Tactics is strong. I don't think it's *too* strong, but it's certainly a good card. For instance, a savvy player can use Cryptic Rider to force a vote through once an innocuous vote has got through. Other people have pointed out (e.g.) Psychomachia. In the right deck, using some sort of "peek" ability is good. Auspex turns up on a few obvious political clans (e.g. !Ven, Toreador) - useful for Revelations or, should you be so minded, Pulse of the Canaille (urgh). Maybe even Deep Cover Agent, if you're so minded for a BH deck. >> What I would like to see are more pieces of vote defence tech which are >> "good enough" but in different ways so that DT is not a no-brainer and >> other tactics may be stronger or more useful for different decks, but >> which don't unnecessarily hamper the vote deck either. > >amen to that. but that requires that DT becomes less powerfull, otherwise >everyone will just keep playing DT. Not necessarily. If the alternatives are strong but radically different, they could still be playable. Ages back, various people were talking about bounce and why it's so great - and I agree, bleed bounce is great. But it's possible to formulate other cards that are strong, without being bounce. I think I once suggested something like a reaction where the acting vampire took one damage for each bleed they inflicted. Not that that would be a good card to print, of course, but you can see the point - it's possible to have a good card that works very differently to bounce whilst not necessarily detracting from bounce. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1RnDCZpN...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes: >For instance, a savvy player can use Cryptic Rider to force a vote >through once an innocuous vote has got through. Other people have >pointed out (e.g.) Psychomachia. For reasons which are unlikely to become clear any time soon, I managed to confuse Psychomachia with Approximation of Loyalty. Normal service will be resumed as soon as I can work out what that is. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <n8ETd.20509$4z6.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Jeroen > Rombouts <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> writes: > > > >"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> schreef in bericht > >news:ohwE+kaT...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > >>So many times, the vote will > >> be passing with relatively few cards played. If it's tight the other > >> way, a big cap will often do well with Awe. Bear in mind that every > >> blood Awe costs you could be sucked back up by a Voter Captivation - > >> something you don't get on bleed actions! ("Oh yeah, I'll just burn > >> these three or four blood to get some extra bleed, and suck it back up > >> when done.") And Voter Captivation is a strong card which can turn all > >> damage votes into pool gain votes - and pool gain votes into super pool > >> gain votes! > > > >yes. voter cap is strong. Just like Kindred Spirits (and Social Charm and > >Legal manipulation, to a lesser extend) is strong. both gain you pool by > >doing what you wanted to be doing in the first place. > > Ah, but Voter Captivation doesn't *just* gain you pool. It gains you > blood back, and it gains you the pool too, and it offsets the cost of > the cards you played before hand. Direct Intervention also works great against Voter Captivation, just like vs Freak Drive, though now Forced March may offset some of those DI shenanigans. > >yes, but 1 DT forbids you from playing the other do 3 damage card you may > >have in you hand. See my reply to David. > > Bad deck construction. You *know* that DT exists. And you have a wide > variety of votes to call. > > The Camarilla have Parity Shift, as well as the standard KRC and Con Ag. > You have a plethora of other votes that could be useful - Indies have > Free States Rant, Con Boon may be useful, Rumors of Gehenna, Disputed > Territory, etc. Domain Challenge, Ancient Influence, Reins of Power, Political Stranglehold, Praxis/Crusade/Cardinal, PTO, Alastor, Anathema, Archon/Templar, First Tradition, Transfer of Power, Finding the Path... > >> What I would like to see are more pieces of vote defence tech which are > >> "good enough" but in different ways so that DT is not a no-brainer and > >> other tactics may be stronger or more useful for different decks, but > >> which don't unnecessarily hamper the vote deck either. > > > >amen to that. but that requires that DT becomes less powerfull, otherwise > >everyone will just keep playing DT. > > Not necessarily. If the alternatives are strong but radically > different, they could still be playable. If DT is such a problem for your vote decks, play combat. :) See how the wild side really lives. > I think I once suggested something like a reaction where the acting > vampire took one damage for each bleed they inflicted. Not that that > would be a good card to print, of course, but you can see the point - > it's possible to have a good card that works very differently to bounce > whilst not necessarily detracting from bounce. I think that card is called... Retribution? ;) Jeff

In message <1109374479....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, jeff...@pacbell.net writes: >Direct Intervention also works great against Voter Captivation, just >like vs Freak Drive, though now Forced March may offset some of those >DI shenanigans. Direct Intervention works great against pretty much any strong card in a combo, however. It's not generally an issue, in the sense that it's an issue any deck can face - responsible bleed decks finding their Spying Missions cancelled, or a rush deck finding it's just lots its Grapple. >> I think I once suggested something like a reaction where the acting >> vampire took one damage for each bleed they inflicted. Not that that >> would be a good card to print, of course, but you can see the point - >> it's possible to have a good card that works very differently to >bounce >> whilst not necessarily detracting from bounce. > >I think that card is called... Retribution? ;) Nowhere near as powerful as the card I was suggesting. :) But yeah, I think Retribution is cute and I'd like to see other similar cards make their way into the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > "Joscha" <joscha...@gmx.de> schreef in bericht > news:1109149303....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > >>There are no shut-up cards in VtES. > > > Joscha meet DI. DI, josha. That's the only real 'problem card' for me ATM. > And Delaying Tactics, to a lesser extent. And don't say: play with > approximation of loyalty, because that would mean you can only play vote > decks with presence. Well, DI is one of the really interesting cards left in the game. I think it adds a lot to the game, because it makes things less sure and calculatable, which is a good thing IMHO. -- johannes walch

Gah. DI simply reads in effect 'counter any card in the game. You don't need the actual counter, just this card'. Bleah. For petes sake this card adds nothing I want in my game thanks. Pure blanket no-brainer denail sucks ass. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1109669115.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Gah. > > DI simply reads in effect 'counter any card in the game. You don't > need the actual counter, just this card'. > Unless the card you want to counter is a Master card. Or an Event card. Or a Reaction or Combat card played during your turn. DI has a high opportunity cost (card slot, MPA), and a non-trivial "monetary" cost (1 pool), so it should be relatively powerful, but it's not all-powerful. > Bleah. For petes sake this card adds nothing I want in my game thanks. > Pure blanket no-brainer denail sucks ass. > > G - Pat

Pat wrote: > "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:1109669115.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Gah. > > > > DI simply reads in effect 'counter any card in the game. You don't > > need the actual counter, just this card'. > > > > Unless the card you want to counter... It kills any minion card outside of your own turn, yes. > > DI has a high opportunity cost (card slot, MPA), and a non-trivial > "monetary" cost (1 pool), so it should be relatively powerful, but it's not > all-powerful. > It pretty much is when its not your turn. All those 'once per game' cards? Poof. That single copy of action X in your hand? Poof. That critical freak drive or spying mission or etc.? Poof. Its cost is nearly trivial considering its effect. Were DI also usable only once per game or some such limitation, it wouldn't bother me nearly as much. > > Bleah. For petes sake this card adds nothing I want in my game thanks. > > Pure blanket no-brainer denail sucks ass. > > I stand by this statement still. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1109882876.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Pat wrote: >> "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >> news:1109669115.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> > DI simply reads in effect 'counter any card in the game. You don't >> > need the actual counter, just this card'. >> >> DI has a high opportunity cost (card slot, MPA), and a non-trivial >> "monetary" cost (1 pool), so it should be relatively powerful, but >> it's not all-powerful. > > It pretty much is when its not your turn. All those 'once per game' > cards? Poof. That's something DI is good for, granted. > That single copy of action X in your hand? Poof. Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, of course you can make a card look powerful. > That critical freak drive or spying mission or etc.? Poof. > > Its cost is nearly trivial considering its effect. One pool and and a critical master slot? Disagree. You've just listed times when DI has its greatest effect - and even then, it may not mean all that much. You've also conveniently ignored the cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, waiting around an unspecified amount of time trying to decide when to pull the trigger. I can make Skin of Rock look like a god card if I'm allowed to conjecture only situations where its play is critical and not have to suppose all those times where its of little relevance mean anything or that they never happen. Same with DI. Fred

James Coupe wrote: > Once you get into the referendum, pro-vote cards tend to be > significantly stronger than anti-vote (i.e. gain votes and vote it down) > cards - the hot anti-vote cards are stuck in Presence, largely. Uh, what? Since when? Presence has the somewhat potent Dread Gaze (the basic is exactly as good as Surprise Influence), Treachery (which almost never seems to see play), Madrigal (see Dread Gaze for how strong the [pre] level is) and... well, Iron Heart can mess with Voter Cap/Awe, if you also have Potence.. Dominate has Kindred Coercion, Pulling Strings - as well as Denial of Aphrodite's favor busting [pre] voters, if you have FOR and are bigger. A big chunk of this thread is talking about the hot anti-vote cards Delaying Tactics and DI, neither of which are 'stuck in Presence'. Several other anti-vote cards are also generic. Given that there are plenty of examples on the net of good Presence decks that would rather put Delaying Tactics in their deck than either Dread Gaze or Treachery, I'd say that the 'hot anti-vote cards' are almost entirely NOT stuck in Presence - otherwise, people would be actually choosing to play them. > James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual -John Flournoy

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: > Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, of > course you can make a card look powerful. I don't think having one copy of a particular action card in hand is that out there. I guess for Ye Olde Bleed Deck it might be. > One pool and and a critical master slot? Disagree. You've just > listed times when DI has its greatest effect - and even then, it > may not mean all that much. You've also conveniently ignored the > cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, waiting around an > unspecified amount of time trying to decide when to pull the > trigger. I think people make way too big a deal out of this. It is not the end of the world to hold a card in your hand for a few turns. It is not the end of the world to have an effective hand size of six. It's a cost, sure, but DI'ing something worth DI'ing is a hell of a payoff. -- David Cherryholmes

"David Cherryholmes" <d...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.58.05...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Frederick Scott wrote: >> Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, of >> course you can make a card look powerful. > > I don't think having one copy of a particular action card in hand is that > out there. I guess for Ye Olde Bleed Deck it might be. Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better than anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common. This is where I just go blank at your (and a few other folks') worship of this card. I tend to judge cards based on what I can do with them and how they get used against me. Of course, I don't use DI that much but when I do, it often doesn't turn out to be that critical. But never mind that - maybe I screw up trying to use it. On the other hand when people use it against me, it also doesn't make that much of a dent in my irritation level - which I think it would if it were as good as all that. I keep wondering what kind of a metagame you guys must be in where this imresses you so much. >> You've also conveniently ignored the >> cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, waiting around an >> unspecified amount of time trying to decide when to pull the >> trigger. > > I think people make way too big a deal out of this. It is not the end of > the world to hold a card in your hand for a few turns. I depends on what kind of a deck you're playing, I suppose. For me, no, it's not that hard. It's just that even in "a few turns" I often don't feel like I often don't see any plays that are the big slam-dunk-oh-YEAH- I've-GOT-to-DI-*THIS* made. So I wind up scratching my head wondering whether I should just play it or if the big one's about to come on the _next_ card. :-P > It's a cost, sure, but DI'ing something worth DI'ing is a hell of a payoff. I suppose. But I don't count the kind of cards talonz was talking about as being all the impressive. Not unless we're talking about a bounced bleed for 8 (Spying Mission), a Political Stranglehold that's going to net my prey 6 or more blood (once per game action), and you almost never know a Freak Drive is going to be critical at the moment it's played AFAICS. Fred

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:05:26 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better than > anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common. There are a number of high opportunity-cost, high-swing cards your deck may not be perfectly made for, like an IC PTO deck that circumvents the opportunity cost of PTO, but rather a Graverobbing in a BB deck, a Dominate Kine in a bleed deck, etc. DIing these cards when they would come up and possibly ruin your game due to their huge possible swing, is a pretty darn good ide worth 1 Pool and an MPA. The way I assess the "base" value of DI is what happens if you DI a Conditioning. You pay 1 Pool and 1 MPA, and you don't lose 4 pool (on that particular action). Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy Corporation. Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game, but it does have other uses. -- Bye, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 17:05:26 -0700, Frederick Scott > <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > Maybe. But having one copy of something that's critically better than > > anything else that minion can do at that moment isn't all that common. > > There are a number of high opportunity-cost, high-swing cards your deck > may not be perfectly made for, like an IC PTO deck that circumvents the > opportunity cost of PTO, but rather a Graverobbing in a BB deck, a > Dominate Kine in a bleed deck, etc. > > DIing these cards when they would come up and possibly ruin your game > due to their huge possible swing, is a pretty darn good ide worth 1 > Pool and an MPA. > > The way I assess the "base" value of DI is what happens if you DI a > Conditioning. > > You pay 1 Pool and 1 MPA, and you don't lose 4 pool (on that particular > action). > > Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy > Corporation. Saves you 2 pool right? Cause you still take the base 1 for the bleed, plus paying 1 for DI makes 2, instead of 4 for a conditioned bleed? Which makes it like a Dummy Corporation that you have to keep in your hand and only works on modified bleeds. > Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game, > but it does have other uses. Sure, the Conditioning effect (and other good, commonly played cards) are the best ways to measure DI (in general). John > -- > Bye, > > Daneel

On 4 Mar 2005 05:18:16 -0800, <jnew...@difsol.com> wrote: >> Net effect: saves you 3 pool for an MPA. Slightly better than Dummy >> Corporation. > > Saves you 2 pool right? Cause you still take the base 1 for the bleed, > plus paying 1 for DI makes 2, instead of 4 for a conditioned bleed? > Which makes it like a Dummy Corporation that you have to keep in your > hand and only works on modified bleeds. Yeah, right, sorry. It saves 2 Pool. Dunno what I was smoking. ;) So, the choice is a surprise reduction from X+3 to (basically) X+1 that clogs your hand, or a foreseen reduction from any X to X-2 that doesn't clog your hand (and is a Unique Location). >> Of cousse, you do not necessarily get to do a Conditioning each game, >> but it does have other uses. > > Sure, the Conditioning effect (and other good, commonly played cards) > are the best ways to measure DI (in general). Guess we agree in this then. ;) -- Bye, Daneel

In message <1109890094....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Once you get into the referendum, pro-vote cards tend to be >> significantly stronger than anti-vote (i.e. gain votes and vote it >down) >> cards - the hot anti-vote cards are stuck in Presence, largely. > >Uh, what? Since when? The bracketed text explains what I meant by anti-vote, in this context. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > news:1109882876.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > > It pretty much is when its not your turn. All those 'once per game' > > cards? Poof. > > That's something DI is good for, granted. > > > That single copy of action X in your hand? Poof. > > Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, of > course you can make a card look powerful. > We both know this happens. How many copies of sens dep or any other high cost high effect but low occurence cards will a given deck have? And what are the chances of that card coming up more than once in a given hand? DI kills those. > > That critical freak drive or spying mission or etc.? Poof. > > > > Its cost is nearly trivial considering its effect. > > One pool and and a critical master slot? Disagree. You've just > listed times when DI has its greatest effect Correct. > - and even then, it may not mean all that much. Make up your mind, greatest effect != 'may not mean all that much'. > You've also conveniently ignored the > cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, I havn't ignored it, I havn't mentioned it because its fairly obvious. By definition, a card that can only be played in reaction to another card and only when it is not your turn must sit in your hand for some period of time. > > I can make Skin of Rock look like a god card I seriouslly doubt that. I purposefully described some of the most powerful effects. Even in less desireable play opportunites, DI remains blanket dummy denial. On principle, I don't think such a card belongs in the game. G

Frederick Scott wrote: > > This is where I just go blank at your (and a few other folks') worship > of this card. I keep wondering what kind of a metagame you guys must be in where this imresses you so much. > I keep wondering what meta you are in that hasn't seen the full effect of DI yet. Its a meta-card. And by that I mean that it completely ignores standard rules for defeating most strategies (intercept, block, vote, defence yadda yadda) and simply bypasses all that by burning the offending action/action modifier/combat card(in most cases) before even getting to that step. And its no more specefic than non-master/event cards. Thus, its cost is trivial when it has such a broad range of targets and powerful meta-effect. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1109985309....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > I keep wondering what meta you are in that hasn't seen the full effect > of DI yet. > > Its a meta-card. And by that I mean that it completely ignores > standard rules for defeating most strategies (intercept, block, vote, > defence yadda yadda) and simply bypasses all that by burning the > offending action/action modifier/combat card(in most cases) before even > getting to that step. It doesn't defeat "most strategies". Like a lot of cards, it can be nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right time for it. That's about it. Maybe it's just a question of perspective. I see a lot of different plays in games that look like key plays at the moment that happen. But few games can be decided by one or just a few key plays ever. Someone's game may end on the play of card, but how did they get to the point where one card's play ousted them? And critical plays seldom ever happen in the early going either: usually subsequent play tends to adjust and counterbalance it. Fred

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1109984328.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> "talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >> news:1109882876.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > It pretty much is when its not your turn. All those 'once per >> > game' cards? Poof. >> >> That's something DI is good for, granted. >> >> > That single copy of action X in your hand? Poof. >> >> Single copy?!? Well, gosh, if you carn create your recipe JUST SO, >> of course you can make a card look powerful. >> > > We both know this happens. How many copies of sens dep or any other > high cost high effect but low occurence cards will a given deck have? Interesting you should ask. The only deck I ever built containing a single Sensory Deprivation had 12. (Here's your sign. :-) ) > And what are the chances of that card coming up more than once in a > given hand? I discarded them sometimes. Thanks! You've just saved me a DPA! >> > That critical freak drive or spying mission or etc.? Poof. >> > >> > Its cost is nearly trivial considering its effect. >> >> One pool and and a critical master slot? Disagree. You've just >> listed times when DI has its greatest effect > > Correct. > >> - and even then, it may not mean all that much. > > Make up your mind, greatest effect != 'may not mean all that much'. Yes. Both. "Greatest" - as in, the greatest ones you can imagine - which aren't very impressive compared to the build-up. >> You've also conveniently ignored the >> cost of holding a reactive card in your hand, > > I havn't ignored it, I havn't mentioned it because its fairly obvious. It's a significant cost of using the card and you didn't list it. You are undervaluing its cost as you analyze its use. > By definition, a card that can only be played in reaction to another > card and only when it is not your turn must sit in your hand for some > period of time. ...and that's a bad thing about them. >> I can make Skin of Rock look like a god card > > I seriouslly doubt that. Sure I can. I'm down to one minion with minor fortitude and one blood on it. I have one pool. I have intercepted my last opponent's Jost Werner - his only minion - with my last intercept card. He has one pool and no wakes. Neither of us has a combat card in hand, until I draw on my intercept play. ...top decked Skin of Rock! YAHOO! I'M GOD!!! Ain't Skin of Rock fantastic?!? Good thing I didn't draw that silly Disarm card. Or even a DI, heh! Fred

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 18:28:09 -0700, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> scrawled: > >"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message >news:1109985309....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> I keep wondering what meta you are in that hasn't seen the full effect >> of DI yet. >> >> Its a meta-card. And by that I mean that it completely ignores >> standard rules for defeating most strategies (intercept, block, vote, >> defence yadda yadda) and simply bypasses all that by burning the >> offending action/action modifier/combat card(in most cases) before even >> getting to that step. > >It doesn't defeat "most strategies". Like a lot of cards, it can be >nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right >time for it. That's about it. yeah. all the talk of the 'burning that key graverobbing' or whatever 1 or 2 copies of the card in your deck you have. well, umm, if there's so few in the deck, how's the DI'ing player going to know they're about to land? maybe they're all like 'ah shit, conditioning! no way! DI', then the next card is the PTO or whatever. Sure, DI is good. possibly a hint too good. But super-uber card of the decade? Nope. salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Frederick Scott wrote: > Interesting you should ask. The only deck I ever built containing a > single Sensory Deprivation had 12. (Here's your sign. :-) ) 12/90? You should get on deckbot sometime and see what a real random distribution looks like, as opposed to semi-stacking your deck with a IRL shuffle. I'm not saying you especially do this, I'm saying everyone pretty much does. And even if you had a perfectly even distribution through your deck, that's one SD about every 8 cards. You don't have two in hand. You must pick some card that you would include *more* than 12 of in a deck before you can realistically talk about playing another one. Where your argument does work is in the general sense of "I have 20 bleed boosters, cause I bleed a lot" or "I have 20 rush actions, cause I rush a lot". DI'ing an action is possibly only superseded by DI'ing a combat card (barring grapple and such) as the worst possible example of its use. But even that worst possible implementation can save your bacon and is worth throwing the card on, if you have nothing else. > I discarded them sometimes. Thanks! You've just saved me a DPA! And you talk about other people stacking their examples? > It's a significant cost of using the card and you didn't list it. > You are undervaluing its cost as you analyze its use. OK, but I did, and you didn't seem to have a reply to it. It's not much of a cost, and it can be -- no wait, to hell with this -- it overwhelmingly *is* a huge effect. Your whole bit about "yeah, but it took this and this and that other thing over there to get us to the game state we're at now" is completely irrelevant. Games evolve towards critical cusps. DI gives you the ability to nudge those cusps in a very non-interactive way. It's a game winner. I know baldly asserting that won't convince anyone who's not already convinced, but I see it game after game after game after game. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:38tv7kF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Interesting you should ask. The only deck I ever built containing a >> single Sensory Deprivation had 12. (Here's your sign. :-) ) > > 12/90? You should get on deckbot sometime and see what a real random distribution looks like, as opposed to semi-stacking your > deck with a IRL shuffle. I'm not saying you especially do this, I'm saying everyone pretty much does. And even if you had a > perfectly even distribution through your deck, that's one SD about every 8 cards. You don't have two in hand. You must pick some > card that you would include *more* than 12 of in a deck before you can realistically talk about playing another one. I'm not sure what all this is about. But they come up plentifully enough that if you DI one, I don't care. This is a classic case of where DI wouldn't be worth the cardboard. You can play it. You can DI my Sensory Dep. Once in a while it might turn out to be the critical last-one-for-37-cards just when I really needed to Sens Dep a minion. If so, I might mildly regret it. But USUALLY - the vast majority of the time - I'm fine with it. Meaning that as a reaction card costing you a pool and an MPA, you didn't come close to getting your money's worth. >> It's a significant cost of using the card and you didn't list it. >> You are undervaluing its cost as you analyze its use. > > OK, but I did, and you didn't seem to have a reply to it. I'm not sure what you want. I mean, it's a meaningful cost but I don't want to start embellishing it far beyond its value just to make my point. It's not a killer cost - if I have reason to use a reactive card, I'll sure use one. But I don't ignore the point, either. > It's not much of a cost, and it can be -- no wait, to hell with this -- it overwhelmingly *is* a huge effect. OK, I hear your opinion. I think it's a significant cost and NOT that big of an effect. Not much further we can go with this. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:38tv7kF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Interesting you should ask. The only deck I ever built containing a >> single Sensory Deprivation had 12. (Here's your sign. :-) ) > > 12/90? Actually only 11. (I misremembered.) But out of 75. > You should get on deckbot sometime and see what a real random > distribution looks like, as opposed to semi-stacking your deck with a > IRL shuffle. I'm not saying you especially do this, I'm saying everyone > pretty much does. And even if you had a perfectly even distribution > through your deck, that's one SD about every 8 cards. You don't have > two in hand. You must pick some card that you would include *more* than > 12 of in a deck before you can realistically talk about playing another > one. This analysis completely ignores the rest of the deck, how cards are played out of it (and how cards tend to get played out of your hand in ANY deck), and what causes the state of your hand to look like it does at any given moment. It's not like we're talking about: here's 90 cards, choose 7 at random, see if you have 2 Sensory Deprivations, and if you don't, Direct Intervention becomes a god card. Your hand is what it is because you've played the things you can play up to this point, discarded (to some extent) the stuff you didn't think you could use (either in this game or at least, anytime soon in this game), and here's what you have left. In this deck, the real bottleneck on playing Sensory Deprivations (aside from the stealth/intercept fights) tends to be having enough blood on a minion with superior chimerstry to play it. DI does nothing about aggravating that. With 11/75, if you DI my Senory Dep, I tend to giggle and - even if I don't have another right in hand - I'm pretty confident that another will be along soon enough. In the meantime, I usually have other things to do: bleed, equip with Laptop or Samadji, Restoration, or even HUNTING - per the above discussion - can be a critical alternative action. If my opponents are trying to hand-jam me on stealth, then DIing an action card can be a little more irritating, of course. If not, DIing my stealth might actually be the way to go as there's sometimes a limited amount of it. (People REALLY go all out trying to intercept a Sensory Deprivation so I often find myself using all the stealth I can get.) Trouble is (Revelations or something aside), you don't really know if I have more in my hand - plus, the deck has permanent stealth: Fortune Teller Shop, Rom Gypsies and such. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > It doesn't defeat "most strategies". Like a lot of cards, it can be > nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right > time for it. That's about it. > > Maybe it's just a question of perspective. I see a lot of different > plays in games that look like key plays at the moment that happen. I tend to think of Direct Intervention how I think of Counterspells in that other game. DI stops the *best* card in their hand at any time, or at least your perception of the best card. Therefore, in many situations, DI is the *best* (reactive) card in your hand. IMO 1 pool and an MPA is a small price to pay for this power. Jeff

Frederick Scott wrote: > > It doesn't defeat "most strategies". Can you please do me the favour of reading and understanding my post before replying. I did not say that. Allow me to quote myself; "it completely ignores standard rules for defeating most strategies " IOW, it steps outside of the rules and plays against them, in a flagrant and direct manner. A meta card. > Like a lot of cards, it can be > nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right > time for it. That's about it. That's stating the obvious, and it can be said about not just alot of cards, but any card. > > Maybe it's just a question of perspective. I believe we've already covered this, you havn't seen it have the effect in your meta that we have in ours. G

Frederick Scott wrote: > > > We both know this happens. How many copies of sens dep or any other > > high cost high effect but low occurence cards will a given deck have? > > Interesting you should ask. I didn't, actually. > The only deck I ever built containing a > single Sensory Deprivation had 12. An example that takes it more or less out of the above theorization. But even so, the odds of having 2 in hand are not high. The odds of you having a second minion with CHI and the blood to play the other sens dep? Not all that high in the mid to late game either. Need I point out that even if you do satisfy those requirements, then a player is looking at only 1 minion sens depped instead of 2 that turn, and that may be all he needs to oust his prey/burn the sens depper? But we're getting off track. The point remains that a given deck has a fixed amount of power card A. And a certain amount of cards to deliver that card. DI bypasses the delivery method when other defensive strategies largely don't, and simply burns the card. I'm really starting to feel that I'm repeating myself, and you just aren't getting it. Perhaps this is a good spot to end this. You will see what you want to see I guess. G

talonz wrote: > An example that takes it more or less out of the above theorization. > But even so, the odds of having 2 in hand are not high. The odds of > you having a second minion with CHI and the blood to play the other > sens dep? Not all that high in the mid to late game either. Need I > point out that even if you do satisfy those requirements, then a player > is looking at only 1 minion sens depped instead of 2 that turn, and > that may be all he needs to oust his prey/burn the sens depper? I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the first SD get's DI'd, and there's another one in hand, the original acting minion doesn't pay any blood cost, untaps, and is free to play another SD. NRA has not been breached. Maybe you knew that, but the example made me wonder. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > I'm not sure what all this is about. But they come up plentifully > enough that if you DI one, I don't care. You care if it's Arika you can either lock down now or lock down a turn from now. Ascendance is the benchmark of how good a master is, right? Having that DI played on you, unless you have gobs of SD and really do have another one in hand, just cost you [insert amount of pool damage Arika can inflict in one turn]. Hey, you're dead and it doesn't matter anymore when you were going to hit your next one. > This is a classic case of > where DI wouldn't be worth the cardboard. It's a classic case of thinking about the game like it's turn 3, or we all have 20 pool, or we all have 4 or more minions. Look, everybody knows vampires get low on blood in the end game. Well, that's just an example of *one* resource that gradually goes down over the course of the game. But they all generally tend that way. DI can just *plink* away at exactly the right element to tip a resource over from low to empty. And it does tend to smack into you laterally, bypassing most of the mechanics that govern that aspect/dimension/unit/whathaveyou of the game. I think that's what Talonz is getting at by calling it a meta card. > You can play it. You can > DI my Sensory Dep. Once in a while it might turn out to be the critical > last-one-for-37-cards just when I really needed to Sens Dep a minion. > If so, I might mildly regret it. But USUALLY - the vast majority of > the time - I'm fine with it. Meaning that as a reaction card costing > you a pool and an MPA, you didn't come close to getting your money's > worth. Wynn is rushing for the first of three times this turn. You DI his first freak drive. Weigh getting your ass smashed in by Wynn against "a reaction card costing one pool", and it seems like a pretty good deal to me. These aren't highly contrived examples, man. It's stuff that happens every game. > OK, I hear your opinion. I think it's a significant cost and NOT that big > of an effect. Not much further we can go with this. I sway you now. I swwwwwwaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy yyyyoooooouuuu. [ quoted text not captured ]

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1110042613.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> It doesn't defeat "most strategies". Like a lot of cards, it can be >> nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right >> time for it. That's about it. >> >> Maybe it's just a question of perspective. I see a lot of different >> plays in games that look like key plays at the moment that happen. > > I tend to think of Direct Intervention how I think of Counterspells in > that other game. DI stops the *best* card in their hand at any time, or > at least your perception of the best card. Well, yea, agree about the analysis in a kind of fuzzy, general sense. But I don't think the cost is all that small as some seem to, nor is the "best" card in someone's hand necessarily very good. A guy's holding a shit hand and you're waiting around with a DI to use an MPA and a pool to counter it - you'd probably be better off with a card that would help you build your position or do damage to your own prey. But perhaps the real illusion of this line of thinking is the assumption that you really *are* counterspelling the best thing. You get to see stuff come out one card at time - you have no idea what he's holding back. Then and again, you often let the best thing go through fearing something worse to come along. Fred

"talonz" <talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1110080127.0...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> It doesn't defeat "most strategies". > > Can you please do me the favour of reading and understanding my post > before replying. I did not say that. Allow me to quote myself; > > "it completely ignores standard rules for defeating most strategies " > > IOW, it steps outside of the rules and plays against them, in a > flagrant and direct manner. A meta card. All right then. If this "ignores standard rules for defeating most strategies but doesn't actually defeat them - whatever the HELL that might mean - I'm totally at a loss for what point you're trying to make. Please be more clear. "Meta card" sounds suspiciously like some meaningless fad concept to me. >> Like a lot of cards, it can be >> nice if played at just the right time - assuming there is a right >> time for it. That's about it. > > That's stating the obvious, and it can be said about not just alot of > cards, but any card. Exactly my point. Like any card, it has it's uses. Thus, it's not a great card. I didn't say it was a bad one, either. >> Maybe it's just a question of perspective. > > I believe we've already covered this, you havn't seen it have the > effect in your meta that we have in ours. Here's where you could do to understand *my* point before replying. (But misunderstandings happen a lot on Usenet, granted.) I wasn't refering to the metagame. I was referring to how you conceptulize the game internally. I'm real big on taking on the "long view" - not placing that much emphasis on the importance of individual key plays. I think David, by contrast, feels like individual plays frequently make or break a game - a notion born out by his emphasis on (for instance) a Dreams of the Sphinx allowing a player to bring up an uncontrolled minion one turn sooner. It doesn't have anything directly to do with DI, but I suspect that a tendency to focus on or not focus on a single event in a game may reveal how important something like a Direct Intervention appears to a given player. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:38vek7F...@individual.net... >>> You can play it. You can >> DI my Sensory Dep. Once in a while it might turn out to be the critical >> last-one-for-37-cards just when I really needed to Sens Dep a minion. >> If so, I might mildly regret it. But USUALLY - the vast majority of >> the time - I'm fine with it. Meaning that as a reaction card costing >> you a pool and an MPA, you didn't come close to getting your money's >> worth. > > Wynn is rushing for the first of three times this turn. You DI his first freak drive. Weigh getting your ass smashed in by Wynn > against "a reaction card costing one pool", and it seems like a pretty good deal to me. These aren't highly contrived examples, > man. It's stuff that happens every game. Sure. And I've been in games like that. One situation a year ago last November when I miscalculated a need for stealth in Sensory Depping a rush deck cost me ultimately any chance I had in that game. (In this case it was an SD that hit the ash heap because it didn't get stealthed through, but I think a DI might have had the same effect at that moment.) But how often does it happen? Differing metagames, I guess. >> OK, I hear your opinion. I think it's a significant cost and NOT that big >> of an effect. Not much further we can go with this. > > I sway you now. I swwwwwwaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy yyyyoooooouuuu. :-) As always, your opinions at least leave me with a more open mind - in this case to take note of situations where holding a DI might have made a telling difference as I play. Fred

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> schreef in bericht news:38vdc5F...@individual.net... > talonz wrote: > >> An example that takes it more or less out of the above theorization. >> But even so, the odds of having 2 in hand are not high. The odds of >> you having a second minion with CHI and the blood to play the other >> sens dep? Not all that high in the mid to late game either. Need I >> point out that even if you do satisfy those requirements, then a player >> is looking at only 1 minion sens depped instead of 2 that turn, and >> that may be all he needs to oust his prey/burn the sens depper? > > I'm not sure what you're saying here. If the first SD get's DI'd, and > there's another one in hand, the original acting minion doesn't pay any > blood cost, untaps, and is free to play another SD. NRA has not been > breached. Maybe you knew that, but the example made me wonder. > I think he is saying: if you don't DI the first SD, both SD will probably end up on 2 of your minions. So even DI-ing the first one while there is a second one in hand might be worth it.

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:vKKWd.31401$Sw6.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > I think he is saying: if you don't DI the first SD, both SD will probably end up on 2 of your minions. So even DI-ing the first > one while there is a second one in hand might be worth it. If true, then wrong. The deck was built to have enough Sensory Deprivations even if some get intercepted - or DIed, although that was not what I was concerned with when I overstocked the Sens Deps. As I mentioned elsewhere, the usual bottle neck is the amount of blood on a vampire possessing superior Chimerstry. If the first one gets off, then I'm not likely to be able to get a second one off the following turn because that minion won't have enough blood. Sometimes that means I can start right in on hunting or a Restoration or something to bring the minion's blood back up to where it can launch off another one (but in the meantime will likely have more chances to draw yet more Sensory Deprivations). Often, it means the second one will get chucked - being as how no one was kind enough to DI the first one and help solve my Sensory Deprivation choke problem. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > If true, then wrong. The deck was built to have enough Sensory Deprivations > even if some get intercepted - or DIed, although that was not what I was > concerned with when I overstocked the Sens Deps. As I mentioned elsewhere, > the usual bottle neck is the amount of blood on a vampire possessing > superior Chimerstry. If the first one gets off, then I'm not likely to > be able to get a second one off the following turn because that minion > won't have enough blood. You know, just as an aside, I'd say the Ravnos run a close second to the Assamites as my favorite clan (actually they are about even, but it's so easy to rant about Assamite stuff ;) ). I used to say that blood management was *the* design obstacle for a Chimestry deck, but I don't think it's much of a problem anymore. I found a mix of Gabrin, Paths, Perfectionist, and Blood Dolls pretty much covered it. Now there's that nutty new card, making it even less of an issue. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I tend to think of Direct Intervention how I think of Counterspells in > that other game. DI stops the *best* card in their hand at any time, or > at least your perception of the best card. Therefore, in many > situations, DI is the *best* (reactive) card in your hand. IMO 1 pool > and an MPA is a small price to pay for this power. > > Jeff Having been a counterspell player for about 10 years, allow me to explain why I do not think DI is good: PROS OF COUNTERSPELL 1.) Counterspell is cheaper than what your opponent does. Counterspell costs 2 mana. Unless they have a DANGEROUS spell which costs 1, your Counterspell will not cost more--and even if they have something which costs 1, it's still pretty good, because they will often not cast another spell before you untap. [DI will usually cost you MORE that your opponent's card, since it costs 1 MPA and is only usable on things which cost 0 MPA. Your opponent will probably do something else before you can play another one.] 2.) Playing a Counterspell requires only that your opponent play any spell which has the potential to kill you or your stuff--any creature, any removal spell, almost anything. In a tournament deck, most cards your opponent plays will be able to do damage or control the board in SOME capacity. Therefore, Counterspell will (almost) always be playable, and is always 1-for-1. [As Fred points out, Jyhad players often send multiple small threats, none of which are the heart of the problem, and none of which are obviously the thing to play DI on. Take Scouting-Lost-Cloak-Threats for example: Is DI any good against such piecemeal offense? And because we replace cards, "card economy" and "1-for-1" mean different things in Jyhad than in M:TG.] LIMITATIONS OF COUNTERSPELL Counterspell can't counter lands that will kill you (Mishra's Factory, etc.) I do think non-spells (in M:TG) and non-minion cards (in V:TES) are comparable here. However, although DI has the same (few) limitations as Counterspell, it does not have all of the pros--mainly, the fact that it usually costs more (because of the MPA). Additionally, having Counterspell in one's hand doesn't prevent one from having another card as well. (Blue likes to draw cards, so they can have Counterspell and other things.) But in V:TES, DI counts against your hand. Every DI you have means another card you can't have--how come a hand with 3 Counterspells is great, while a hand with 3 DI's is crap? And don't forget that if M:TG players always drew up to 7 cards, Counterspell decks would probably not exist at all. I think I should add that in 2-player games, attrition is great, whereas in 5 player games, attrition is less so. Lastly, perhaps most importantly, you can't DI everything. You CAN Counterspell everything. -- Brian North American Continental Champion 2003 I never play DI.

firstco...@aol.com wrote: <snip interesting comparison> > Every DI you have means another > card you can't have--how come a hand with 3 Counterspells is great, > while a hand with 3 DI's is crap? I actually don't think 3 DI's in hand is crap. I mean, it's not something I would try and build my deck to regularly do, but if they happen to clump into my hand together, I would hardly think it's a terrible deal. Consider that laying low and not looking like the bad guy, provided this is not the alpha and omega of your strategy, is generally a good thing. If I were to end up with the proverbial three DI's, I would likely (table specifics being accounted for) shift into low gear, pretty confident that between those three DI's and whatever else my 4 cards are that it's unlikely I'll get torn up too badly, or the Methuselah's on either side of me can lunge that heavily. Ideal? No. Necessarily a bad thing? Not that either. > -- Brian > North American Continental Champion 2003 > I never play DI. Uhm, noted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen Rombouts wrote: > I think he is saying: if you don't DI the first SD, both SD will probably > end up on 2 of your minions. So even DI-ing the first one while there is a > second one in hand might be worth it. Exactly. Especially if you are prepared to intercept one attempt, but not both attempts this turn. (which neatly demonstrates how DI metas against the standard defense mechanisms) G

On 6 Mar 2005 19:42:08 -0800, <firstco...@aol.com> wrote: > PROS OF COUNTERSPELL > 1.) Counterspell is cheaper than what your opponent does. Counterspell > costs 2 mana. Unless they have a DANGEROUS spell which costs 1, your > Counterspell will not cost more--and even if they have something which > costs 1, it's still pretty good, because they will often not cast > another spell before you untap. > > [DI will usually cost you MORE that your opponent's card, since it > costs 1 MPA and is only usable on things which cost 0 MPA. Your > opponent will probably do something else before you can play another > one.] With respect to actual card cost, DI always costs more than the opponent's card - especially since opponent's card never gets paid. ;) However, the purpose of DI is not so much to destroy that particular card (considering they have 4 or less in the deck, or considering they spend 2k+l mana on it). It is to destroy that particular cog in opponent's strategy. It works fine against most prayer cards, being able to DI the card opponent has 1 copy of just-in-case. It also works against cards opponent cannot currently play another copy of (like Deflection, Daring the Dawn, etc.) > 2.) Playing a Counterspell requires only that your opponent play any > spell which has the potential to kill you or your stuff--any creature, > any removal spell, almost anything. In a tournament deck, most cards > your opponent plays will be able to do damage or control the board in > SOME capacity. Therefore, Counterspell will (almost) always be > playable, and is always 1-for-1. > > [As Fred points out, Jyhad players often send multiple small threats, > none of which are the heart of the problem, and none of which are > obviously the thing to play DI on. Take Scouting-Lost-Cloak-Threats > for example: Is DI any good against such piecemeal offense? And > because we replace cards, "card economy" and "1-for-1" mean different > things in Jyhad than in M:TG.] In VTES you try to do combinations. They are most effective. Taking out a crucial element of the combination means a drastic reduction in its effect. That drop - from the full combo effect to the wrecked, partial effect - may be worth your while. > LIMITATIONS OF COUNTERSPELL > Counterspell can't counter lands that will kill you (Mishra's Factory, > etc.) > > I do think non-spells (in M:TG) and non-minion cards (in V:TES) are > comparable here. Yes. > However, although DI has the same (few) limitations as Counterspell, it > does not have all of the pros--mainly, the fact that it usually costs > more (because of the MPA). Additionally, having Counterspell in one's > hand doesn't prevent one from having another card as well. (Blue likes > to draw cards, so they can have Counterspell and other things.) But in > V:TES, DI counts against your hand. Every DI you have means another > card you can't have--how come a hand with 3 Counterspells is great, > while a hand with 3 DI's is crap? It isn't exactly crap per se, but it isn't ideal, true. Different game - you probably put 1-3 /90 DIs in most decks and not 4 /60 Counterspells. > And don't forget that if M:TG players always drew up to 7 cards, > Counterspell decks would probably not exist at all. Dunno, the whole tactic would probably shift towards smaller effects; summoning a bunch of elves and dryads may be just fine if you replace them immediately. The game would change a lot. > I think I should add that in 2-player games, attrition is great, > whereas in 5 player games, attrition is less so. Au contraire. Attrition is perfect in 5-player games - especially since the players can (and do) interfere with the play of other players. Chewing off bits and pieces of your prey is better in the long run than ousting them in one go. > Lastly, perhaps most importantly, you can't DI everything. You CAN > Counterspell everything. No, you mentioned it yourself. Approximately the same niches (land on one side, masters/events on the other) can't be countered with Counterspell / DI. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsm9e4a...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] Huh? Why is _that_ a reason that "attrition is great"?!? > Chewing off bits and pieces of your prey is better in the long run > than ousting them in one go. I think you misunderstood the thrust of Brian's point. Two people pay for attrition: the player causing it and his victim. In a two- player, there's no one left so it's a reasonable enough tool, at time. (If you're ahead, you use this to strange the other player and make sure he has no resources at all with which to "come back" from.) In a five-player game, there are three other players who are getting off free so both the involved players are disadvantaged on the deal compared to the other three. Fred

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 07:53:45 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> Chewing off bits and pieces of your prey is better in the long run >> than ousting them in one go. > > I think you misunderstood the thrust of Brian's point. Two people > pay for attrition: the player causing it and his victim. In a two- > player, there's no one left so it's a reasonable enough tool, at > time. (If you're ahead, you use this to strange the other player > and make sure he has no resources at all with which to "come back" > from.) In a five-player game, there are three other players who > are getting off free so both the involved players are disadvantaged > on the deal compared to the other three. You are right, I did misunderstand the point. -- Bye, Daneel

[ quoted text not captured ] People build their decks around good cards. The chances of any opponent having nothing worth DI-ing on a given turn are fairly low, especially at a competitive event. If I have "countered" a card that would have cost me more than 1 pool or perhaps a minion, say a strong Action Mod, Reaction, once per combat or once per game card, I certainly count that as more beneficial to me, and worth the MPA. > But perhaps > the real illusion of this line of thinking is the assumption that you > really *are* counterspelling the best thing. You get to see stuff come > out one card at time - you have no idea what he's holding back. Then > and again, you often let the best thing go through fearing something > worse to come along. In VTES there are only a few truly significant events--inflection points if you will--in any game. The biggest one is the oust and DI can certainly change the timimg of this event in a big way. The second biggest one is the seat switch which has thankfully gone away (and some might argue this was even bigger than an oust). The third is the loss or torporization of a minion via combat because that affects what a player can do on their turn. It is clear that a well placed DI can significantly affect these crucial inflection points in ways that no other single card can because it is so flexible. Jeff

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1110216510.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... (about Direct Intervention) > People build their decks around good cards. The chances of any opponent > having nothing worth DI-ing on a given turn are fairly low, especially > at a competitive event. That's a strange general statement, and one that if I understand what you mean (there are many potential valid interpretations), I disagree. At least to a point. SOME people build decks around "good cards". Some - and I tend to be one of them - build more around finding some effect that's difficult to resist en masse. Like the Sensory Depriviation deck I referred to in another part of this thread. I mean, Sensory Deprivation is a "good card", it's true. But why put just two or three in a deck? Not the way I build. I built the deck to be able to play Sensory Deprivations, so god damn it, I'm GOING to DRAW THEM!!! Even if it means I have enough to discard, which I frequently do. As I stated in that other part of the thread, the overstock means that I'll often have copies I can't play because the one or two minions with superior chimestry don't have enough blood to play another one after getting one off. An opponent who'd seen the deck enough times might be clever enough to DI the Restorations, which aren't plentiful at all and are sometimes key plays. But then and again, I could just hunt, which is slower but will eventually get the job done (especially if I can get or keep a Path of Paradox out as the Sens Deps get played). Although I imagine there are a lot of decks built in such a way as to lean on the play of a few "good" cards and that are recognizable as such when played, not all decks fall into that category by a long shot. > If I have "countered" a card that would have > cost me more than 1 pool or perhaps a minion, say a strong Action Mod, > Reaction, once per combat or once per game card, I certainly count that > as more beneficial to me, and worth the MPA. ...and the handspace for however long you held it. All of which may still be worthwhile, it's just that a lot of times it isn't. Also, I'll note that I tend to value MPAs more than a lot of people, I guess. >> But perhaps the real illusion of this line of thinking is the >> assumption that you really *are* counterspelling the best thing. >> You get to see stuff come out one card at time - you have no idea >> what he's holding back. Then and again, you often let the best >> thing go through fearing something >> worse to come along. > > In VTES there are only a few truly significant events--inflection > points if you will--in any game. The biggest one is the oust and DI can > certainly change the timimg of this event in a big way. Yea, but where do I start in listing all the reasons this isn't very significant in terms of using DI: 1) How much of the game is played NOT during a period when an oust is immenient? Quite a bit. If you draw a DI during any arbitrary draw in your game, how long would you have to wait around to use it to affect an oust in a way that's beneficial to you? Your hand size is 6 for that period of time. 2) If you _can_ use it to affect an oust. The DI-philes around here seem to think there's endless opportunities to use these things in dramatic ways but my experience with it is otherwise. You DI the "critical" stealth and the guy instantly pulls another stealth out of his ass. Or likewise for a plus-bleed card. Or you DI the action card and he pulls out an identical one, or close enough to do the trick. I've seen all kinds of miscarries with DI where the play of the card ultimately achieved little or nothing - but still costs the MPA and pool. You CAN lose on this bet. > The second > biggest one is the seat switch which has thankfully gone away (and some > might argue this was even bigger than an oust). Yea, agreed on that. I tended to prefer Vox Domini for that because it punished the seat-switch guy since he can't have his action back. But DI was good for stopping that, too. (And I use it in some weeny decks for stopping Ancilla Empowerments, Domain Challenges, etc. for more or less the same reason.) > The third is the loss > or torporization of a minion via combat because that affects what a > player can do on their turn. It is clear that a well placed DI can > significantly affect these crucial inflection points in ways that no > other single card can because it is so flexible. Again, that hasn't been my experience. It _can_ do that - but it also frequently fails to do so and you still pay its costs whether it succeeds or fails. The combat example is perfect: most all combat cards can be freely played multiple times in a combat, like action cards. Sometimes it works, sometimes the evil opponents pulls out another. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > <jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:1110216510.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > (about Direct Intervention) > > People build their decks around good cards. The chances of any opponent > > having nothing worth DI-ing on a given turn are fairly low, especially > > at a competitive event. > > That's a strange general statement, and one that if I understand what > you mean (there are many potential valid interpretations), I disagree. It's a general statement, but not strange in the least. Some cards are better than others. People use those. Good cards help you try to win. DI is as good as *any* of those minion cards because it stops any one of them. > At least to a point. SOME people build decks around "good cards". Some - > and I tend to be one of them - build more around finding some effect that's > difficult to resist en masse. Like the Sensory Depriviation deck I referred > to in another part of this thread. I mean, Sensory Deprivation is a "good > card", it's true.... > > Although I imagine there are a lot of decks built in such a way as to > lean on the play of a few "good" cards and that are recognizable as > such when played, not all decks fall into that category by a long shot. Ok. Suppose I'm playing Assamite rush combat with very little intercept, Fatima perhaps. You try to Sense Dep Fatima and I have little recourse except to block and fail. Or... I could play DI and stop that from happening. Cold. Hopefully I'll have enough time to rush and torpor your minions, or take them low enough that they don't have blood to do what they need to. Sure, we're looking at a specific example here but if I'm losing a minion, *almost permanently* it is worth burning 1 pool and an MPA to try and make that not succeed. > > If I have "countered" a card that would have > > cost me more than 1 pool or perhaps a minion, say a strong Action Mod, > > Reaction, once per combat or once per game card, I certainly count that > > as more beneficial to me, and worth the MPA. > > ...and the handspace for however long you held it. All of which may > still be worthwhile, it's just that a lot of times it isn't. Also, > I'll note that I tend to value MPAs more than a lot of people, I guess. Much of the time it is. The opportunity cost of having a DI in hand is really much less than having a Deflection in hand because you can play it in multiple situations, not merely a bleed. People play with good cards remember. DI stops any single one of them. > > In VTES there are only a few truly significant events--inflection > > points if you will--in any game. The biggest one is the oust and DI can > > certainly change the timimg of this event in a big way. > > Yea, but where do I start in listing all the reasons this isn't very > significant in terms of using DI: > 1) How much of the game is played NOT during a period when an oust is > immenient? Quite a bit. If you draw a DI during any arbitrary draw in > your game, how long would you have to wait around to use it to affect > an oust in a way that's beneficial to you? Your hand size is 6 for > that period of time. Having a hand size of 6 and being able to maintain my game position by sitting on a DI is very strong. I am much less vulnerable to "surprises" with one in hand. > 2) If you _can_ use it to affect an oust. The DI-philes around here > seem to think there's endless opportunities to use these things in > dramatic ways but my experience with it is otherwise. You DI the > "critical" stealth and the guy instantly pulls another stealth out of > his ass. Or likewise for a plus-bleed card. Or you DI the action card > and he pulls out an identical one, or close enough to do the trick. > > I've seen all kinds of miscarries with DI where the play of the card > ultimately achieved little or nothing - but still costs the MPA and > pool. You CAN lose on this bet. Certainly you can miscarry, but most DI-philes have learned to use the card properly. I can't recall ever losing a game with a DI in hand--I always tried to use it before getting ousted. Ok, maybe there was that one Anarch Revolt debacle... ;) > > The second > > biggest one is the seat switch which has thankfully gone away (and some > > might argue this was even bigger than an oust). > > Yea, agreed on that. I tended to prefer Vox Domini for that because > it punished the seat-switch guy since he can't have his action back. > But DI was good for stopping that, too. (And I use it in some weeny > decks for stopping Ancilla Empowerments, Domain Challenges, etc. for > more or less the same reason.) > > > The third is the loss > > or torporization of a minion via combat because that affects what a > > player can do on their turn. It is clear that a well placed DI can > > significantly affect these crucial inflection points in ways that no > > other single card can because it is so flexible. > > Again, that hasn't been my experience. It _can_ do that - but it also > frequently fails to do so and you still pay its costs whether it > succeeds or fails. The combat example is perfect: most all combat > cards can be freely played multiple times in a combat, like action > cards. Sometimes it works, sometimes the evil opponents pulls out > another. Of course, but if you're playing a light combat deck, a DI in hand might save your ass so you can take that one extra action that guarantees you a VP, or maybe it's simple as guaranteeing you can rescue someone from torpor, or Minion Tap for a lot rather than a little, etc. DI's flexibility is key. Ya know, it's a "crutch." ;) Jeff

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1110224068.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> <jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:1110216510.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> (about Direct Intervention) >> > People build their decks around good cards. The chances of any >> > opponent having nothing worth DI-ing on a given turn are fairly low, >> > especially at a competitive event. >> >> That's a strange general statement, and one that if I understand what >> you mean (there are many potential valid interpretations), I disagree. > > It's a general statement, but not strange in the least. Some cards are > better than others. People use those. Good cards help you try to win. Great! Then why not use *ALL* "good cards"?!? DI any one you want - I have more. I'm sure you have an answer to that. But the point is, this is not a useful way of looking at deck construction and describing DI's ability to disrupt what an opponent is trying to do. OF COURSE we all play with "good cards". They're *ALL* "good cards" or we wouldn't play with them. But that doesn't mean peoples' decks all automatically have readily identifiable cards that can be DIed to good effect. > DI is as good as *any* of those minion cards because it stops any one > of them. Sorry, no. Specific response cards are often much superior to paying a pool and an MPA. The down side is usually that specific response cards are more narrow and DI is very generalized but even so, often the more specific response is the one I'd rather carry. >> Although I imagine there are a lot of decks built in such a way as to >> lean on the play of a few "good" cards and that are recognizable as >> such when played, not all decks fall into that category by a long > shot. > > Ok. Suppose I'm playing Assamite rush combat with very little > intercept, Fatima perhaps. You try to Sense Dep Fatima and I have > little recourse except to block and fail. Or... Sure. *OR* I could have another one in my hand due to overstocking the card in my Ravnos Sens Dep deck. (Again - see elsewhere in the thread for explaination of why the SDs in the deck tend to be DI-impervious or occasionally I even *like* it to get DIed.) Or I might not have anything at all that's worth DIing given the particular matchup of decks. Usually, rush decks tend to like to be proactive and not risk getting hand-jammed on reactive cards that don't have a good use at the moment. It all just depends - which is why it's a good card but not the slam dunk some people think. > The opportunity cost of having a DI in hand is > really much less than having a Deflection in hand because you can play > it in multiple situations, not merely a bleed. People play with good > cards remember. DI stops any single one of them. So? It's still a larger cost than a bounce card and in the case of a bleed, doesn't have the significant benefit of causing your predator to find himself bleeding your prey - frequently AFTER he's committed stealth and/or plus bleed cards to the action. Your looking at the way you insist is going to give you a warped notion of the card's value. I don't care if I can dump it any time any player plays a card. The price is signficant enough that you don't want to be put in a position where you're using it on things that don't decidely help your position. If you commit to using a DI and find yourself using them on your cross-table ally's Regaining the Upper Hand just to dump it, you're hurting yourself. If you use it on your predator's Lost in the Crowds and later discover he was hand jammed with stealth if anything, you're hurting yourself. >> > In VTES there are only a few truly significant events--inflection >> > points if you will--in any game. The biggest one is the oust and DI >> > can certainly change the timimg of this event in a big way. >> >> Yea, but where do I start in listing all the reasons this isn't very >> significant in terms of using DI: >> 1) How much of the game is played NOT during a period when an oust is >> immenient? Quite a bit. If you draw a DI during any arbitrary draw >> in your game, how long would you have to wait around to use it to affect >> an oust in a way that's beneficial to you? Your hand size is 6 for >> that period of time. > > Having a hand size of 6 and being able to maintain my game position by > sitting on a DI is very strong. I am much less vulnerable to > "surprises" with one in hand. ...meaning it makes you feel good. But it isn't DOING anything in your hand like that - however you may feel about it. Sorry, I don't buy that you suddenly become god-like and awesome because of an inert card in your hand. Best you can say is that it gives you a bit more freedom to risk things you might be reluctant to risk otherwise and helps your game that way. Myself, I'd rather have the hand space to keep my cards flowing. >> I've seen all kinds of miscarries with DI where the play of the card >> ultimately achieved little or nothing - but still costs the MPA and >> pool. You CAN lose on this bet. > > Certainly you can miscarry, but most DI-philes have learned to use the > card properly. I can't recall ever losing a game with a DI in hand--I > always tried to use it before getting ousted. Poor logic. I could put a Paris Opera House in a deck with no Daughters of Cacophony and you know what? I'll bet I'd never lose a game with *THAT* card "in hand" either - 'cause I'd burn it the instant I drew it (or the first discard phase thereafter). All it means is the card is easy to dump when necessary. That doesn't make it a good card. It also has to be useful to you. Or rather, more useful to you more of the time than an alternative card you might otherwise carry in that slot. As for "DI-philes" learning to use the card effectively, I haven't necessarily seen that, either. Really good players I've seen do tend to use them well - but then, really good players will often impress you with their sudden, useful play of Gird Minions or Brain Wash. They play well - that's why they're good players. And who knows how long they sat around with the card in their hands that game or indeed, in other games, taking up space. And I've also seen other people playing the card to dump it and/or in a situation where it ends up making no difference, thus shooting themselves in the foot. So I don't think it's just me. > Of course, but if you're playing a light combat deck, a DI in hand > might save your ass so you can take that one extra action that > guarantees you a VP, or maybe it's simple as guaranteeing you can > rescue someone from torpor, or Minion Tap for a lot rather than a > little, etc. DI's flexibility is key. Ya know, it's a "crutch." ;) Sure. As always with a balanced card, some times it's really good. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Agreed, it's just one particular deck. The general point I'm > disputing is this fawning, overstated, rose-colored attitude about > DI that goes like, "Well, SHUCKS guys! DI is just ALWAYS wonderful! > There's never a time you can't use this puppy in some way that's > more helpful than a Labrador Retrevier who can do housework!" > Bullshit. Sometimes it is and sometimes it sits and rots in your > hand for several turns until you meekly use it to cancel some minor > card just because you're tired of looking at it. And sometimes when you went to bleed for 15 with Return to Innocence, you just got bounced. Or Archon Investigated. Or blocked. It's not up to me to prove to you that every single time any DI is played, anywhere, it results in an immediate game win. Not if the point I'm trying to make is just that it generally generates a huge swing in the game state. Or, perhaps more weakly, that it clearly *can* generate that much of a swing. I'd also assert that it's a bad card to have in the game, but that gets further into a matter of opinion and less one of proof. -- David Cherryholmes david.che...@gmail.com "OK. So be it. It's not my view, but whatever makes you happy, right? I'm all about making you happy, Dave. :-)" -- LSJ, V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.

<jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:1110233716....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Frederick Scott wrote: >> OF COURSE we all play with "good cards". They're *ALL* "good cards" >> or we wouldn't play with them. >> But that doesn't mean peoples' decks all automatically have readily >> identifiable cards that can be DIed to good effect. > > I think that most do in fact. At various points in the thread, there > have been citations of cards that can be DI'd to good effect. And you > know what? Those are some of the most commonly seen cards in VTES. They > are the "good cards" and they are almost all stopped by one > card--Direct Intervention. By definition, popular, useful cards get played a lot, sure. And they would "all be stopped" by a version of Direct Intervention that costs 15 pool instead of one pool - so that's not really a good argument, either. Not by itself. I think you're focusing on the upside of DI and ignoring the fact that it _does_ have a non-trivial cost. And that cost - along with just its opportunity cost in terms of taking up a valuable master card slot in your deck - has to be considered as you use it. It means the thing isn't risk-free and that even getting a minor benefit from it isn't enough to make the payoff worthwhile. If you could have a major effect on the game whenever you played it - or even most times - I'd agree with you. But I think people are overstating the opportunity for that. >> Specific response cards are often much superior to paying >> a pool and an MPA. > > Certain clans and disciplines tend to have more specific response cards > available to them. Often, you'll see those incorporated into decks. AND > STILL, a large portion of those decks pack Direct Intervention to deal > with situations they may not foresee, or perhaps those they foresee and > don't have the means to deal with other than DI. There's lots of answer to that depending on the specific situation: 1) Some decks may have access to specific response cards but fear some popular card or cards frequently used by other players anyway. Fair enough. 2) Some people rely on DI too much and it hurts their game. 3) What does a 'large portion' even mean? It's a popular, general card; it should be in an unusually large portion of decks in comparison to, say, Call the Great Beast. Maybe it should even be an uncommon, though I suspect that's overdoing things. >> Sure. *OR* I could have another one in my hand due to overstocking >> the card in my Ravnos Sens Dep deck. (Again - see elsewhere in the >> thread for explaination of why the SDs in the deck tend to be >> DI-impervious or occasionally I even *like* it to get DIed.) > > Overstock all you want. If that card is worth it, then play it. If I > still need a counter to your strategy, DI is actually it. Cool! I'd be delighted if you thought DI was the answer to this deck. It really isn't but if my opponents are so misguided as to think so, I'm fine with that. They'll suffer for their arrogance. >> I don't care if I can dump it any time any player plays >> a card. The price is signficant enough that you don't want to be put >> in a position where you're using it on things that don't decidely >> help your position. If you commit to using a DI and find yourself >> using them on your cross-table ally's Regaining the Upper Hand just >> to dump it, you're hurting yourself. If you use it on your predator's >> Lost in the Crowds and later discover he was hand jammed with stealth >> if anything, you're hurting yourself. > > If you use a DI in either of those situations, you're a fool (unless > either was going to lead directly to your ouster). Then sometimes you can't use it - because those might be the best opportunities you get. A moment ago, you were claiming it's opportunity costs are meager. Bull. Chances to use it for something which is more of beneifit than its costs aren't near as common as you claim. >> > Having a hand size of 6 and being able to maintain my game position >> > by sitting on a DI is very strong. I am much less vulnerable to >> > "surprises" with one in hand. >> >> ...meaning it makes you feel good. But it isn't DOING anything in >> your hand like that - however you may feel about it. Sorry, I don't >> buy that you suddenly become god-like and awesome because of an inert >> card in your hand. Best you can say is that it gives you a bit more >> freedom to risk things you might be reluctant to risk otherwise and >> helps your game that way. Myself, I'd rather have the hand space to >> keep my cards flowing. > > No, actually it means I'm much less vulnerable to "surprises" with one > in hand. If I like how the game is going, it's may seem like a dead > card in hand, It you don't play it, it *IS* a dead card in your hand. You could be playing with some other card that advances your position as opposed to being stagnant. Your "less vulnerable to surprises" notion is a meaningless one except for what I said: it gives you the ability to risk. Otherwise, it's only worth the play you can make it with it - and at a non-trivial cost. > One DI can stop a single instance of something really bad > (tm) from happening. One lottery ticket can make you 200 million dollars richer. That doesn't make it worth 100 million dollars merely because it has that potential. Another case of bad reasoning: justifying a conclusion with an non-sufficient reason. >> > I can't recall ever losing a game with a DI in hand--I >> > always tried to use it before getting ousted. >> >> Poor logic. I could put a Paris Opera House in a deck with no >> Daughters of Cacophony and you know what? I'll bet I'd never >> lose a game with *THAT* card "in hand" either - 'cause I'd burn >> it the instant I drew it (or the first discard phase thereafter). >> >> All it means is the card is easy to dump when necessary. That >> doesn't make it a good card. It also has to be useful to you. >> Or rather, more useful to you more of the time than an alternative >> card you might otherwise carry in that slot. > > More absurdity. The fact that you can use it in a wide variety of > situations is one of the reasons it is a great card. Still insufficient. Here's a card you could use in a wide variety of situations: Jack of all Trades Action/Action Modifier/Reaction No cost and no requirements You may play this card as an action to enter combat with another player's minion. You may also play it as action modifier to either increase the stealth, bleed, or strength of the acting minion by one. You may also play it as reaction card in order to (your choice) reduce or increase an acting minion's stealth by one or reduce or increase an actinng minions bleed by one. Roll two 10-sided dice: if both come up zero, this card takes effect. Otherwise discard it with no effect. Do not replace until your next untap phase either way. There. Such a card CAN be used in a wide variety of sitatuions. There really should be no excuse for ending the game with it in your hand. (I suppose I should have thrown in some voting effects, too - but I think you get the point). Again, your reasoning is insufficient. JUST being useful at any given moment without stopping to consider cost and how much effect it can have is not a good enough reason to wave your hand over it and annoint it a great card. > I'm going to start putting > all my DI's in the same deck just to see how badly I can screw with > people. I bet it's useful far more often than it might not be. Look out > PB:SF tomorrow night. ;) Cool. Go to town. I'm pretty sure if it were a good tactic, you'd see TWDs with 10+ DIs in them. But I guess there's no point in arguing down that road. I don't want to discourage you from being a DI-ing fool. > Or was that good play on the other person's part, DI-baiting? Still, > the person who DI'd usually thinks it is a worthwhile situation. Not necessarily. Just more worthwhile than continuing to hold onto it. > And as > I mention above, it may be the *only* answer they have to certain > cards. Not to lament playing Assamites, but if you spend a lot of time > playing clans and strategies with glaring weaknesses, your opinion of > cards that can be the "answer" for you does go up. I'm not going to claim it isn't sometimes the only reasonable answer to some things. I'll give you that point. I'm just going from the point of view that it isn't a 'god card' - not that it doesn't have its uses. >> > Of course, but if you're playing a light combat deck, a DI in hand >> > might save your ass so you can take that one extra action that >> > guarantees you a VP, or maybe it's simple as guaranteeing you can >> > rescue someone from torpor, or Minion Tap for a lot rather than a >> > little, etc. DI's flexibility is key. Ya know, it's a "crutch." ;) >> >> Sure. As always with a balanced card, some times it's really good. > > There's not a lot to say after that comment. DI is way on the high end > of the power curve. It's flexible, powerful, and can be used by anyone > in any deck. Actually would have been better worded, "As with ALL BALANCED CARDS, sometimes it's really good." That sort of came out awkward the first way I said it. > I guess I need to heed one of my rules about r.g.t-c.j a bit more: > > * Don't get into an argument with Fred. Even if you achieve a > stalemate, you've still lost by attrition. :) Hmmm. Guess, I'd have to give you that point, too. :-) Fred the unrelenting

I replied to this last night and darnitall, it isnt here.....will repost relevant points that I can remember. Frederick Scott wrote: > > I'm totally at a loss for what point you're trying to > make. Please be more clear. "Meta card" sounds suspiciously like > some meaningless fad concept to me. > "meta" as in, 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. All cards do this to a certain degree (ie the golden rule) but DI is so far above the rest in what it can do and circumvent, that I think of it as a meta card. It voids the usual procedure for blocking/foiling most cardplay. > > Exactly my point. Like any card, it has it's uses. If thats 'your point', I don't see how if usefully adds to this discussion. > Thus, it's not a great card. That conclusion does not logically follow from the above statement. > >> Maybe it's just a question of perspective. > > > > I believe we've already covered this, you havn't seen it have the > > effect in your meta that we have in ours. > > Here's where you could do to understand *my* point before replying. > (But misunderstandings happen a lot on Usenet, granted.) I wasn't > refering to the metagame. I was referring to how you conceptulize > the game internally. I'm real big on taking on the "long view" - > not placing that much emphasis on the importance of individual key > plays. Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the chain of plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps substantially so. DI can do this like no other card can. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1110243127....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >I replied to this last night and darnitall, it isnt here.....will > repost relevant points that I can remember. > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> I'm totally at a loss for what point you're trying to >> make. Please be more clear. "Meta card" sounds suspiciously like >> some meaningless fad concept to me. > > "meta" as in, 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. Hmm. Looking at webster.com doesn't show this definition at all. But then, webster.com can really suck ass sometimes so that doesn't impugn it. Still, the sense of "meta" = "overarching" is more along the lines of defining a relationship of superior/inferior as well as by being (as you say) 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. For instance, the choice of a deck archetype is 'above, outside, over' the rules of play once play begins yet helps to determine player success in the game. Thus, the craft of making this choice to gain advantage is called 'the metagame'. But by the same token, it has no meaning to, for instance, call one deck a "metadeck" because its success or failure operates by different rules than most decks. (I suppose Anarch Revolt would be an example of that.) > All cards do this to a certain degree (ie the golden rule) but DI > is so far above the rest in what it can do and circumvent, that I > think of it as a meta card. It voids the usual procedure for > blocking/foiling most cardplay. I think you're fooling yourself through self-applied semantics. I agree, it has a little bit different way of reckoning costs vs. the effect you want to get from it to make it worthwhile. Nothing in all of this suggests the term "above" to me. Just different. It still has a cost; that cost still needs to be taken into account. A better example than this that I can think of is actually Storage Annex. That card has just about ZERO downside that I can find. (You can only access the card every master phase and it can be lost through burning or losing the SA - but these are really hardly anything.) Yet, it's not a god card, even so. It's a likable card, to be sure. But even for decks that need the storage, it can hard to squeeze in. Its upside has trouble getting above its opportunity cost (Blood Dolls and such). >> Exactly my point. Like any card, it has it's uses. > > If thats 'your point', I don't see how if usefully adds to this > discussion. > >> Thus, it's not a great card. > > That conclusion does not logically follow from the above statement. Just that if you're limiting your praise of it to, 'it has its uses', then I'm fine with that. If you're suggesting it's 'great' - no, it doesn't rise to that level, IME. >> >> Maybe it's just a question of perspective. >> > >> > I believe we've already covered this, you havn't seen it have the >> > effect in your meta that we have in ours. >> >> Here's where you could do to understand *my* point before replying. >> (But misunderstandings happen a lot on Usenet, granted.) I wasn't >> refering to the metagame. I was referring to how you conceptulize >> the game internally. I'm real big on taking on the "long view" - >> not placing that much emphasis on the importance of individual key >> plays. > > Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the chain of > plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps substantially > so. Actually, not necessarily - especially in a multiplayer game. Of course, it always depends on the players, their personalities and objectives, their decks, the metagame interaction between their decks, and luck. But quite often in a game, an event will tend to be equilibrated over time as players gang up on the leader and cross-table cooperation props up a weak player who's allies feel is required to hold down his predator and prey. Ergo, often quite the opposite turns out to be true: something early and significant tends to get lost in subsequent play, like a boat's wake getting lost in random waves. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: >> "meta" as in, 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. > > Hmm. Looking at webster.com doesn't show this definition at all. But > then, webster.com can really suck ass sometimes so that doesn't > impugn it. "Meta", in an academic sense, means "one level above" (this came to me by virtue of my pal the Philosophy PHD student, who is pretty much ground zero for that term...). Webster.com is likely just sucking. "Meta-game" is "the game one level above the game". And I in no way accept the use of "Meta" as a viable term in and of itself. Except in a humerous, totally ironic sense. But that is me. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "How does this end?" "In fire." Emperor Turhan and Kosh

"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> schreef in bericht news:nR5Xd.5073$Ru.5023@okepread06... > > <jeff...@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:1110233716....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... >> Frederick Scott wrote: >>> ...meaning it makes you feel good. But it isn't DOING anything in >>> your hand like that - however you may feel about it. Sorry, I don't >>> buy that you suddenly become god-like and awesome because of an inert >>> card in your hand. Best you can say is that it gives you a bit more >>> freedom to risk things you might be reluctant to risk otherwise and >>> helps your game that way. Myself, I'd rather have the hand space to >>> keep my cards flowing. >> >> No, actually it means I'm much less vulnerable to "surprises" with one >> in hand. If I like how the game is going, it's may seem like a dead >> card in hand, > > It you don't play it, it *IS* a dead card in your hand. You could > be playing with some other card that advances your position as opposed > to being stagnant. I think you're waaaay overvalueing the dead card in hand thing, IME EVERY reaction card in your hand is a dead card during your turn, just as EVERY action or action mod is a dead card in other meth's turns and every not-OOT master is outside of your own master phase. And the funny thing is: the card that fixes this problem is on your Most Overrated List. :p

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 16:06:53 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> We're talking about one particular deck though. One that expressly >> risks hand jam to avoid running low on Deps. Other decks may not >> have the luxury of being able to afford such an overdose. > > Agreed, it's just one particular deck. The general point I'm > disputing is this fawning, overstated, rose-colored attitude about > DI that goes like, "Well, SHUCKS guys! DI is just ALWAYS wonderful! > There's never a time you can't use this puppy in some way that's > more helpful than a Labrador Retrevier who can do housework!" > Bullshit. Sometimes it is and sometimes it sits and rots in your > hand for several turns until you meekly use it to cancel some minor > card just because you're tired of looking at it. > >> DI *can* be discarded. > > So can any other card. So what? So, your entire previous paragraph is pointless. You argue for DI: "...sometimes it sits and rots in your hand for several turns until you meekly use it to cancel some minor card just because you're tired of looking at it...". Which is - as is most of the paragraph - a strawman built for your wind machine. The reason people like DI so much is the fact that it is so useful in so many situations. You can win a game thanks to DI more often than thanks to most other cards. It's not that useful in every setup. But then you can just discard it. Otherwise, you hold onto it and use it for something good. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnbmm6...@news.chello.hu... >>> DI *can* be discarded. >> >> So can any other card. So what? > > So, your entire previous paragraph is pointless. You argue for DI: > "...sometimes it sits and rots in your hand for several turns until > you meekly use it to cancel some minor card just because you're tired > of looking at it...". Which is - as is most of the paragraph - a > strawman built for your wind machine. The reason people like DI so > much is the fact that it is so useful in so many situations. You can > win a game thanks to DI more often than thanks to most other cards. Well, OK - but only because you're slipping in some assertions about DI that I don't complete agree with and - more importantly - ignoring some other points that need to be taken into account. Both documented further back up the thread. So we're just sniping around in circles here, I guess. Fred

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:tQeXd.32540$Xi2.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... [ quoted text not captured ] If you consider what Jeff is trying to say, this is beside the point and I'm not overvaluing the dead-card-in-hand. The above was in response to his assertion that DI is helping him JUST BECAUSE IT'S IN HIS HAND. I'm saying, a card can't help you that much just because it's in your hand. For the most part, it really has to be played to help you. As for the question of "How much does the card actually HURT you because it's taking up hand space for a period of time?", I am taking note that different people will reckon that differently. And, yes, I suppose you're right: a card that can be played during your turn will take up hand space during other peoples' turns. For what it's worth. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah, it feels like that. ;) Is there anything we can agree on? Like any of the following statements: 1. DI is good as a "universal antidote" card. 2. DI can interfere with other players' play in a way that sometimes allows you to tip the scales of any given table in your favor. 3. DI costs an MPA and a pool - which, if you assume to cancel a Conditioning, puts its swing roughly at par with Dummy Corporation for that particular use. 4. DI has the illusion of being so universally good that people might hold onto it even in situations where its use may not seem to be worthwhile enough. 5. DI is apparently overrated because it is a universal card, and it is good (even if not necessarily great or needed) in many decks. 6. DI can break powerful combos by canceling a crucial part of a multicard combo. 7. DI has the best effect when it is used to cancel a card that is impossible to be played immediately again. 8. DI is good against high opportunity-cost, high-power prayer cards. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opsnb4qz...@news.chello.hu... >> So we're just sniping around in circles here, I guess. > > Yeah, it feels like that. ;) > > Is there anything we can agree on? Like any of the following > statements: > > 1. DI is good as a "universal antidote" card. Sure - with the caveat that the point doesn't automatically make it worthwhile. And a bit about it not being a COMPLETELY univerisal antidote card - such as my "particular deck" with the Sense Deps and all. But I expect most would conceed that. > 2. DI can interfere with other players' play in a way that sometimes > allows you to tip the scales of any given table in your favor. Well, OK, sure. But a lot of cards _can_ do that. "Can" is a very generic word. Presumedly, you wanted to make a point about DI doing it a lot more often or something on that order. And that would be correct - but at a fixed price that's higher in most cases than having a card which is specifically tuned to interfere as suggested. The issue then tends to be, how worthwhile is it to pay the cost in exchange for the flexibility? > 3. DI costs an MPA and a pool - which, if you assume to cancel a > Conditioning, puts its swing roughly at par with Dummy Corporation > for that particular use. I'm not sure I want to get into comparing DI use-for-use. Others might have some boilerplate play they feel defines the utility of DI but I feel like exploring down that road only tends to obfuscate, not clarify, a card's uses. > 4. DI has the illusion of being so universally good that people might > hold onto it even in situations where its use may not seem to be > worthwhile enough. No - that doesn't seem to me to describe the situation exactly. It's more like, DI has this fixed cost which tends to demand that in order to be a useful card, it needs to have a certain minimum payoff. Also, a player's perception of what the future dangers on the board might look like also figures into things. I do agree with what you're getting at,though - that some players might wind up holding on to the DI longer than is ultimately beneficial to them - probably happens a fair amount. > 5. DI is apparently overrated because it is a universal card, and it > is good (even if not necessarily great or needed) in many decks. > > 6. DI can break powerful combos by canceling a crucial part of a > multicard combo. > > 7. DI has the best effect when it is used to cancel a card that is > impossible to be played immediately again. > > 8. DI is good against high opportunity-cost, high-power prayer cards. Yea. The last four I certainly agree with. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > "meta" as in, 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. > > Still, the sense of "meta" = "overarching" is more along the lines > of defining a relationship of superior/inferior as well as by being > (as you say) 'above, outside, over' the regular rules. I guess that's about as close to an agreement as I'll get out of you. Fair enough. (snipped more here as it speaks to the meta-game and not meta-effect that I am using) > > > All cards do this to a certain degree (ie the golden rule) but DI > > is so far above the rest in what it can do and circumvent, that I > > think of it as a meta card. It voids the usual procedure for > > blocking/foiling most cardplay. > > I think you're fooling yourself through self-applied semantics. How so? I am directly speaking to the mechanics of responding to other players cardplay. Mechanics that DI voids and shortcuts through. Mechanics, not semantics. > Nothing in all of this suggests the term "above" to me. Just > different. Or both, in that it does things differently (no argument there!) but so well and so outside the regular means of doing so that is above or outside those means. > It still has a cost; that cost still needs to be > taken into account. > No argument, but as previouslly mentioned the cost is negligible imo. > A better example than this that I can think of is actually > Storage Annex. As a meta-effect card you mean? I don't see it. It adds 1 to your hand size in essence, many cards do that. It 'protects' that one card at the cost of it being accessed only at certain times, and only in a location that can be burnt. Yes it voids normal hand size rules. Theres that golden rule again. But it doesnt kill what other people are doing and it doesnt void the means of defending against what they are doing. It has a pretty negligible effect on the X indivudal plays that makeup the game. In short, its an ok card duplicated by other similar cards. DI is a very strong card that is not duplicated by other cards. > > Just that if you're limiting your praise of it to, 'it has its > uses', then I'm fine with that. If you're suggesting it's 'great' - > no, it doesn't rise to that level, IME. > I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out saying its a powerful card, one with an effect that doesn't belong in the game. I think we've established that you don't see it, thanks. > > > > Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the chain of > > plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps substantially > > so. > > Actually, not necessarily As I said, perhaps. But when it does, its killer. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1110324198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... All cards do this to a certain degree (ie the golden rule) but DI >> > is so far above the rest in what it can do and circumvent, that I >> > think of it as a meta card. It voids the usual procedure for >> > blocking/foiling most cardplay. >> >> I think you're fooling yourself through self-applied semantics. > > How so? I am directly speaking to the mechanics of responding to other > players cardplay. Mechanics that DI voids and shortcuts through. > Mechanics, not semantics. Mechanics don't all favor DI, though. >> Nothing in all of this suggests the term "above" to me. Just >> different. > > Or both, in that it does things differently (no argument there!) but so > well and so outside the regular means of doing so that is above or > outside those means. How "well" it does its job is precisely the point. You seem to think so but I don't. So it's no use throwing the word "meta-card" around and displaying the resulting argument as self-justified. This is circular. First, prove it's that good, then...well, then the argument's over. But not before then. >> It still has a cost; that cost still needs to be >> taken into account. > > No argument, but as previouslly mentioned the cost is negligible imo. Well, NOT in mine. MPA's are precious, not "negligible". A pool is certainly not negligible. Hand space may be negligible or may not, depends on how long it holds the space. And this is all above and beyond "opportunity cost", which should not be written off as ignorable, either. >> A better example than this that I can think of is actually >> Storage Annex. > > As a meta-effect card you mean? Just to demonstrate thinking about opportunity cost of a master card. It demonstrates how a card can have universal utility similar to how DI has it. It's always just GOOD to have a space to store an extra card - yet the card itself doesn't find it's way into many decks. Not the same benefit, I'd concede. But it sheds light on why it's insufficient to just look at card as being "all good" without actually quantifying how much good it really does. I don't want to go too nuts with the comparison. I realize the analogy has limited value because it's a very different thing in certain ways. I just noted it to point out a few things. > I'm not suggesting, I'm flat out saying its a powerful card, one with > an effect that doesn't belong in the game. I think we've established > that you don't see it, thanks. Sure. >> > Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the chain >> > of plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps >> > substantially so. >> >> Actually, not necessarily > > As I said, perhaps. But when it does, its killer. You mean, whenever DI affects a game it's always "killer"? No. A player can - and I frequently see it done - DI something which has little overall effect. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > >> I think you're fooling yourself through self-applied semantics. > > > > How so? I am directly speaking to the mechanics of responding to other > > players cardplay. Mechanics that DI voids and shortcuts through. > > Mechanics, not semantics. > > Mechanics don't all favor DI, though. > Ah. So not semantics then, thank you. > So it's no use throwing the word "meta-card" > around and displaying the resulting argument as self-justified. This > is circular. No, you asked me what I meant, I explained. > First, prove it's that good, then...well, then the > argument's over. But not before then. > *shrug* I believe I have. Lead a horse to water and all that.... > > No argument, but as previouslly mentioned the cost is negligible imo. > > Well, NOT in mine. MPA's are precious, not "negligible". *sigh* I didnt SAY mpas are negligible. I said DI's cost was negligible (in comparison to its effect). > >> > Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the chain > >> > of plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps > >> > substantially so. > >> > >> Actually, not necessarily > > > > As I said, perhaps. But when it does, its killer. > > You mean, whenever DI affects a game it's always "killer"? No. Gah. No. "when it does...alter the game...substantially" it is a killer, due to its broad spectrum of targets and ability to void normal card interaction mechanics. Thats it in a nutshell right there. Either you see it or you don't. If not, I can't accomplish anything more here. G

Many things have been said already, I won't address them directly, just add my opinion for what it's worth, and maybe point out some things that haven't been addressed in exactly this way, or just put together some of the most pertinent things (IMO) already said : - I do not believe that 1 pool and a MPA are HIGH opportunity cost : a DI can "kill" a PTO / Banishment (cards with enormous effects but that few decks are full of) better than a Delaying Tactics ; it can kill a Deflection on your face, a War Ghoul (always good to gain time), a Conditionning, a rush, an IG... Many cards which have a huge impact on your game. 1 pool and a MPA aren't "high cost" for any of these things, let alone the wide choice of uses. - There are cards that are good in a deck even if you put 1 or 2 of them. How many Kine Dominance or Far Mastery will one include in a deck ? But it's the difference between losing your Hunting Ground / War Ghoul / Whatever or not. - Many good decks are a little toolboxy (the Eurobrujah being a tournament winning example : it may include fight, bleed, reactions, maybe votes...). It will be slowed down a lot if it looses an Anathema, a Govern, a Deflect, an IG, a Graverobbing, etc. - Some decks will rely heavily on a few copies of an important object, say, the Eye of Hazimel. DI will delay the working of such a deck considerably. - Sure, playing DI requires some skill, as did the change of places ; but this is a game of skill, isn't it, and good cards are really good in the hands of good players ; a bad player will make mistakes on rushes, bleeds, reactions, as well as DI. So I won't go any further in that useless angle of the discussion. - To succeed in an action at Jyhad isn't playing one card, but several : the action, probably some stealth and other modifiers ; a good player will find the weakest element and DI it. For instance, the player has been stuck on stealth for a while, and has patiently waited to get what he needed. He thought it all, now it could work, he does it... DI !! Start all over again. This happens all the time. - Yes, DI is the most efficient on cards playable only once. This includes : reaction cards playable by the same minion (redirections of all kinds from your predator...), the dreaded Immortal Grapple (and one less may be one more minion for you), Conditionning (yes, I've lost or won more than a few games because of a DIed bleed modifier at the right timing), and of course Ancient Influence, Reins of Power... It's a lot already, and doesn't mean it's not useful on other cards !! - there are some ways to get the DI when you most need it and not keep it in hand ; the more frustrating use I saw is with the Ercyies fragment, when my prey took it from my grand' prey's ash heap at the very moment she needed it, and countered my killing bleed by cancelling one of the cards of my combo (I didn't have the chance to get it back and Time Limit took its toll). - I had a luck to make it this year to the finals of the biggest french tournament, where I was the only one to die, LOL. One of the best players in the country, and incidently among the best 10 in the world, told me "it's normal, you didn't pack enough defenses : most of the players on this final table have 6 DI and 6 DT, that's what's needed at this level in the current metagame" (please Kamel feel free to correct me it these aren't your exact words). As of me, I had the place for only 2 DI in the deck, and please believe I always found use for them. All these elements have concurred over the years to make me hate DI : it does way too many crucial things, and its very existence affects the game in a bad way. It exists, I'd rather not, but as it does I must take it into account with every card I play, which isn't normal IMO, and certainly makes it a very, very overpowered card. Yours Deadly, Orpheus

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in messagenews:1110367045.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> So it's no use throwing the word "meta-card" >> around and displaying the resulting argument as self-justified. This >> is circular. > > No, you asked me what I meant, I explained. Well, the way you used the word sort of comes out sounding like self- justification. Anyway, my misunderstanding, no matter... >> > No argument, but as previouslly mentioned the cost is negligible >> > imo. >> >> Well, NOT in mine. MPA's are precious, not "negligible". > > *sigh* I didnt SAY mpas are negligible. I said DI's cost was > negligible (in comparison to its effect). Is there an MPA in it's cost? Well - then the cost is not negligible, is it? But of course, the REAL argument in the quote above got snuck into the parenthesis. So, for future reference, we could do to just take a pass on the preliminaries and get down to the nitty-gritty. There's no point in quibbling about whether the cost ITSELF is "neglible" if we both agree that it's not negligible. And you just admitted that it's not: "I didnt SAY mpas are negligible." Or at least, you signalled a willingness to accept that they aren't for argument's sake. So the point here is about comparing cost to benefit, not pretending the cost is negligible. And clearly, the part of THAT calculation that we seem to disagree most on is the benefit. >> >> > Any game is made up of X individual plays. If you alter the >> >> > chain of plays at a significant point, you alter the game, perhaps >> >> > substantially so. >> >> >> >> Actually, not necessarily >> > >> > As I said, perhaps. But when it does, its killer. >> >> You mean, whenever DI affects a game it's always "killer"? No. > > Gah. No. "when it does...alter the game...substantially" it is a > killer, due to its broad spectrum of targets and ability to void normal > card interaction mechanics. So your sum total point here is: When DI alters the game substantially, it's always "killer". That seems very unprofound to me. I think that's something that could be said of all cards, including Brain Wash. And if it seems like I'm throwing up nits in response to the point you're trying to make, it's not just to be as irritating as I can be. I don't like it when others do that to my arguments either. But in this case, it's for a good reason. I believe that this line of defending the value of DI - or rather, the extremely high value you seem to place on it - this line of argument essentially reduces to a semantic ZERO when it's totally analyzed. It means nothing. It's like saying, "I like the cards I like because when I win games with them, they win games for me." I suspect you're trying to say something else about DI but haven't gotten around stating exactly what it is in a way that's meaningful and profound. So I can't respond until I've identified what it is. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > When DI alters the game substantially, it's always "killer". Sure, just like when Twisting the Knife lands that last point of damage that happens to send just the right minion to torpor, it too is "killer". Forest. Trees. You've lost it, man. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message news:422f482a$0$27245$636a...@news.free.fr... ...many things about the use of DI. And all of them are true, to one extent or another. Some them are quite good points and state eloquently what I *like* about Direct Intervention. But this is the most interesting thing, right here: > - I had a luck to make it this year to the finals of the biggest french tournament, where I was the only one to die, LOL. One of > the best players in the country, and incidently among the best 10 in the world, told me "it's normal, you didn't pack enough > defenses : most of the players on this final table have 6 DI and 6 DT, that's what's needed at this level in the current metagame" > (please Kamel feel free to correct me it these aren't your exact words). As of me, I had the place for only 2 DI in the deck, and > please believe I always found use for them. I have issues with this. One is that, much though I like to hear the opinions of accomplished players, I don't automatically assume everything they say about how they play the game is something that makes sense for me to replicate in my game. I have no idea why a really good player would advocate "6 DI and 6 (Delaying Tactics)". A lot depends on the metagame, I suppose. I also think some things can be explained by player personalities - and I don't have the same personality so trying to use the same tools wouldn't work for me. Another issue is that it may be that Kamel himself may be misidentifying the reason he's successful. I'm not sure effective people always know. Some just instictively do what they do that makes them successful and aren't always aware of why they did well. It's not completely necessary, as long as they continue to do it. Anyway, other great players in other parts of the world _don't_ insist on using 6 DI and 6 DT. So the debate goes on, I guess... > All these elements have concurred over the years to make me hate DI : it does way too many crucial things, and its very existence > affects the game in a bad way. Again, differing metagames, differing experiences. I don't see DI played with overwhelming effect, so I don't hate it, and don't assume it's all that good. I would think there'd be ways to build decks and play the game which takes advantage of the knowledge that many players will be using lots of DIs. (E.g. avoid "toolbox" kinds of philosophies and go for tactics that tend to overwhelm with the same thing over and over.) But then, personality affects the effective choices you make, too, I suppose. Fred

Frederick Scott a écrit : > "Orpheus" <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote in message > news:422f482a$0$27245$636a...@news.free.fr... > ...many things about the use of DI. > > And all of them are true, to one extent or another. Some them are quite > good points and state eloquently what I *like* about Direct Intervention. Which can be summmed up as : "it's very efficient", right ? Well, for me it means "too efficient", so I guess it's a question of personal belief, and no amount of argument will make either of us change his viewpoint. At least we agree on the cards characteristics, and it's up to each of us to determine if that makes it loveable or hateable. > But this is the most interesting thing, right here: > >>- I had a luck to make it this year to the finals of the biggest french tournament, where I was the only one to die, LOL. One of >>the best players in the country, and incidently among the best 10 in the world, told me "it's normal, you didn't pack enough >>defenses : most of the players on this final table have 6 DI and 6 DT, that's what's needed at this level in the current metagame" >>(please Kamel feel free to correct me it these aren't your exact words). As of me, I had the place for only 2 DI in the deck, and >>please believe I always found use for them. > > > I have issues with this. One is that, much though I like to hear > the opinions of accomplished players, I don't automatically assume > everything they say about how they play the game is something that makes > sense for me to replicate in my game. I have no idea why a really good > player would advocate "6 DI and 6 (Delaying Tactics)". A lot depends on > the metagame, I suppose. Certainly. Also, the fact that votes can really change the face of a game (even now without the 2 cards which did so the most), and I played non-camarilla so a single PTO could screw my game, as many other player's (ERRATE PTO !!!!) ;) > I also think some things can be explained by > player personalities - and I don't have the same personality so trying to > use the same tools wouldn't work for me. Agreed, which is why, despite my knowledge that winning decks in France had heavy defense, I stayed with scarce defense and heavy offense, and played "only" 2 Direct. And without them I wouldn't even have made it near the finals. > Another issue is that it may be that Kamel himself may be misidentifying > the reason he's successful. I'm not sure effective people always know. > Some just instictively do what they do that makes them successful and > aren't always aware of why they did well. It's not completely necessary, > as long as they continue to do it. Kamel never said he won because he played DI !!!! Kamel won because he's a great player, period. What he said is that including [a variable amount of, preferably many] DI in a deck is a must-do, as much as Blood Dolls, (following is my interpretation) because it's the best defense there is against any kind of offense, even the sort that can kill you ; another reason is that it allows you to play cross-table a lot, and that is what allows good / great players to make a real difference on a table. That's one thing I didn't mention, and maybe the most important of all !!!! > Anyway, other great players in other parts of the world _don't_ insist > on using 6 DI and 6 DT. So the debate goes on, I guess... And on, and on... (Iron Maiden music in the background, Gustave Doré's illustrations...) >>All these elements have concurred over the years to make me hate DI : it does way too many crucial things, and its very existence >>affects the game in a bad way. > > > Again, differing metagames, differing experiences. I don't see DI played > with overwhelming effect, so I don't hate it, and don't assume it's all > that good. You are welcome to come to any important tournament here, or in Europe, if your metagame is different. I note that we were, maybe, the most eager to get rid of Succubus Club, because it had been abused so much here, and that our suppliques were useless until LSJ and Steve W. witnessed at the EC how much abuse could be done (maybe this was just coincidental timing, maybe not ; LSJ ?). I don't think DI is abuseable in such an obvious way, it's more insidious precisely because each use is different. But it certainly has way too much importance in the games we see. I would think there'd be ways to build decks and play the > game which takes advantage of the knowledge that many players will be > using lots of DIs. (E.g. avoid "toolbox" kinds of philosophies and go > for tactics that tend to overwhelm with the same thing over and over.) Anything that condems an otherwise very valid way of playing cannot be good. > But then, personality affects the effective choices you make, too, I > suppose. On this we do agree, of course, and I don't think you'll se ME packing as many DIs. We play as we are, and it is well. Greetings from the Grave, Orpheus

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:3993foF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> When DI alters the game substantially, it's always "killer". > > Sure, just like when Twisting the Knife lands that last point of damage that happens to send just the right minion to torpor, it > too is "killer". Forest. Trees. You've lost it, man. ??? Now, you've lost me. I was just paraphrasing what I got from what Geoff said. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > ??? Now, you've lost me. I was just paraphrasing what I got from what > Geoff said. I'm saying that you are getting all jiggy with the tautologies, but missing the fact that some cards have a decisive effect once in a blue moon (Twisting the Knife) while others have a decisive effect all the time (DI). I begin to suspect that what you lack is sufficient exposure to the card. You hardly play with it. Apparently the people you play with hardly play with it. So it's no wonder that, *in your experience* it's no big thing.... because you lack the experience (not as a player generally, of course, but with respect to this card). Try sitting down in the middle of an 8 DI sandwich. Try playing at a table where everyone's packing 4+. Never mind whether, by your own logic, they should or shouldn't. Just try it, if you can arrange for that to happen. Then get back to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:399mqkF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> ??? Now, you've lost me. I was just paraphrasing what I got from what >> Geoff said. > > I'm saying that you are getting all jiggy with the tautologies, but > missing the fact that some cards have a decisive effect once in a blue > moon (Twisting the Knife) while others have a decisive effect all the time > (DI). I begin to suspect that what you lack is sufficient exposure to the > card. You hardly play with it. Apparently the people you play with > hardly play with it. So it's no wonder that, *in your experience* it's no > big thing.... because you lack the experience (not as a player generally, > of course, but with respect to this card). Try sitting down in the middle > of an 8 DI sandwich. Try playing at a table where everyone's packing 4+. > Never mind whether, by your own logic, they should or shouldn't. Just try > it, if you can arrange for that to happen. Then get back to me. > > -- > > David Cherryholmes > david.che...@gmail.com > Out of curiosity, have you ever tried packing 6-8 SRs in every deck? You're still outnumbered, of course, but if the play group is that much into DI as a counter-strategy, it seems like SR as a counter-counter strategy wouldn't be that far behind. If you & your x-table buddy cooperate, you could put a big hurt on the DI players. Do people in your group own that many DIs? or just lots of proxies? - Pat

I went to m-w.com (same as webster.com) and found an entry for "meta-". Perhaps you entered it incorrectly? 3 [metaphysics] : more comprehensive : transcending <metapsychology> -- used with the name of a discipline to designate a new but related discipline designed to deal critically with the original one <metamathematics> It's there. I posted this particular sub-definition because it seems to be the one used in the familiar term "metagame". I don't think there is a such thing as a "meta-card", as no card can be 'a card in a different way from standard cards, but designed to deal with them'. Unless V:TES does something like Sensei cards in L5R, which was a horrible idea, which they did away with. Direct Intervention isn't above or beyond, in fact I'd say it goes right for what it does--no frills, no fanciness, very direct. More than any other card, it gets right to the point. "Direct" is this card's first name. :) DI isn't above or beyond, because cancelling another card is a big part of the game--Undead Strength vs. Skin of Rock, Enhanced Senses vs. Lost in Crowds, Threats vs. Telepathic Misdirection, Maneuver vs. Maneuver, etc. DI has them all covered, without any requirements--and also costs way more. If there was a combat card that gave a vampire a maneuver, a press, +1 strength, prevent 2 damage, or an additional strike, but cost a MPA, I would likewise think it was no "meta-card", and also versatile, and also overcosted. DI has never been a big part of my game. I don't play it, and when it gets played on me, it never affects me in a huge way, since pretty much if you cancel my card, I'll play another. Works for combat cards, actions, even +intercept and -stealth cards, since they're mostly interchangeable. Other than bounce, I probably don't care. -- Brian

Pat wrote: > Out of curiosity, have you ever tried packing 6-8 SRs in every deck? You're > still outnumbered, of course, but if the play group is that much into DI as > a counter-strategy, it seems like SR as a counter-counter strategy wouldn't > be that far behind. If you & your x-table buddy cooperate, you could put a > big hurt on the DI players. Honestly, no I have not tried to foil DI's by playing a lot of Suddens. Sudden can't save you on your own turn, which you obviously considered. The idea of consuming that many masters, on top of packing your own DI's, further eats into the limited number of masters (bringing me back to the point I made recently about the fierce competition for a small number of slots). On top of that, now you're *planning* to use these slots to help out the guy across the table rather than yourself, hoping he'll do the same... the idea just doesn't grab me. But, I've been trying to include more Suddens anyway, and that's just one more reason to make the effort. > Do people in your group own that many DIs? or just lots of proxies? Most own enough for any one given deck, but we do proxy quite a bit. Shuffling "the football" from deck to deck is a pain. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: I begin to suspect that what you lack is sufficient exposure > to the card. You hardly play with it. Apparently the people you play > with hardly play with it. So it's no wonder that, *in your experience* > it's no big thing.... because you lack the experience (not as a player > generally, of course, but with respect to this card). > Try sitting down > in the middle of an 8 DI sandwich. Try playing at a table where > everyone's packing 4+. This seems like the crux of the issue. I don't often play with the card nor do I see it played that often. I can see how it allows you to be "table cop" and stop the big actions or interaction. But when I'm building decks it doesn't strike me as a card that makes ME win. And so it gets left out. Unless everyone is doing it, the one guy at the table with 3+ DIs doesn't seem to have a big advantage. But, I don't think I've ever sat at a table with 15+ DIs spread around it (or even one with 5+). I can see how I would quickly learn to loathe it and imagine the combined effect would be very disruptive to the game in a way that, say, 15+ Deflections is not. -Ben Swainbank

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:399mqkF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> ??? Now, you've lost me. I was just paraphrasing what I got from what >> Geoff said. > > I'm saying that you are getting all jiggy with the tautologies, but missing the fact that some cards have a decisive effect once > in a blue moon (Twisting the Knife) while others have a decisive effect all the time (DI). You're touching what has been my precise point: that people exspousing the use and power of DI seem to *ASSUME* that everybody accepts that point. But it's far from given (in my part of the world, anyway). (Well, OK, I'll give you DI is better than Twisting the Knife. But how high up on the list? - That's another question.) > I begin to suspect that what you lack is sufficient exposure to the card. You hardly play with it. Apparently the people you > play with hardly play with it. So it's no wonder that, *in your experience* it's no big thing.... because you lack the experience > (not as a player generally, of course, but with respect to this card). Possibly. There's no way to resolve that. Unspoken but present in this conumdrum is whether the card is not used and seen because the people I play with are unaware of its utility or because they simply aren't impressed with it, as I'm not. Welcome to the eternal "our-metagame-is-better-than-yours" debate - the thing that keeps me away the HELL away from debating individual cards and decks whenever possible. But I have trouble at certain point when I see someone push their estimation of some card far beyond its value in any play I ever witness. > Try sitting down in the middle of an 8 DI sandwich. Try playing at a table where everyone's packing 4+. Never mind whether, by > your own logic, they should or shouldn't. Just try it, if you can arrange for that to happen. Then get back to me. I think it's kind of difficult to just ask folks to throw X number of card Y in their deck, never mind what it's for or why the should do that. I suspect until I see otherwise, we'll just have to disagree about it, as an alternative. It would help if I saw TWD lists by great players constantly doing that, 4+ DIs. Then I would tend to have the suspicion that the problem is me. As it is, I suspect great players use it more often that I do - but not all that much more often. Fred

<firstco...@aol.com> wrote (apparently about my comment about being unable to find "meta" at webster.com) >I went to m-w.com (same as webster.com) and found an entry for "meta-". > Perhaps you entered it incorrectly? www.webster.com - there's no 'm' in mine. None of those entries seem to relate to the thing Geoff was getting at with his reference to a "meta-card". No matter though. I believe I now understand what he meant and I think it's a reasonable enough concept. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > Possibly. There's no way to resolve that. Unspoken but present in this > conumdrum is whether the card is not used and seen because the people > I play with are unaware of its utility or because they simply aren't > impressed with it, as I'm not. But how can you be impressed with something you never see? And you never see it because you aren't impressed with it? It seems like a self-serving, circular form of argument to me. > Welcome to the eternal "our-metagame-is-better-than-yours" debate - the > thing that keeps me away the HELL away from debating individual cards > and decks whenever possible. But I have trouble at certain point when I > see someone push their estimation of some card far beyond its value in > any play I ever witness. I'm not trying to say my metagame is "better" than yours. Actually, mine sucks because there's DI's flying left and right. > I think it's kind of difficult to just ask folks to throw X number of > card Y in their deck, never mind what it's for or why the should do > that. I suspect until I see otherwise, we'll just have to disagree > about it, as an alternative. Look, you've got this whole theoretical edifice built up, and I'm just saying actually expose yourself to what I'm talking about. Hell, agree to allow 94 card decks for a few games, and have everyone proxy in 4 DI's. What can it hurt? You might learn something. Or, alternitavely, I might learn something. But your abstract reasoning has convinced me of nothing, as I suppose mine has failed to convince you. > It would help if I saw TWD lists by great players constantly doing that, > 4+ DIs. Then I would tend to have the suspicion that the problem is > me. As it is, I suspect great players use it more often that I do - > but not all that much more often. I almost went looking for the numbers. But then I recalled how, when we were talking about Dreams, an occurrence of about 33% meant diddly and squat to you. But actually I couldn't resist. I quick eyeball of the first ten decks or so looks to be about half. Half, man. Are you suspicious the problem is you yet? No, of course not. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:39celvF...@individual.net... > Frederick Scott wrote: > >> Possibly. There's no way to resolve that. Unspoken but present in this >> conumdrum is whether the card is not used and seen because the people >> I play with are unaware of its utility or because they simply aren't >> impressed with it, as I'm not. > > But how can you be impressed with something you never see? And you > never see it because you aren't impressed with it? It seems like a > self-serving, circular form of argument to me. Ah, it's not like I never try this out. Nor should my comments be construed to mean I absolutely NEVER see this card. I think you've read too much into my protestations non-involvement with the thing. Besides, we CAN read the text and decide how we feel about it. I'm even less impressed with Tortured Confession and I truly never have used that card nor been present in a game when anyone else used it, either. How about you? (And assuming the answer is "no"...) Are either one of us an authority on it? Ah, well, if you think my lack of sufficient respect for the card is born merely out of lack of experience, you may be right. Or at least partly right. >> Welcome to the eternal "our-metagame-is-better-than-yours" debate - the >> thing that keeps me away the HELL away from debating individual cards >> and decks whenever possible. But I have trouble at certain point when I >> see someone push their estimation of some card far beyond its value in >> any play I ever witness. > > I'm not trying to say my metagame is "better" than yours. Actually, > mine sucks because there's DI's flying left and right. Not sure what you mean here. "Our metagame is better than yours" is the cry you hear when Joe says, "That card sucks" and Frank responds, "The card is GREAT - it's used in the (insert-clever-deck-archetype-name- here) deck which is just the BOMB around here!" And Joe says, "The deck would get its ass handed to it around HERE!" And then the two procede to talk shit to each other about what incompetant jerks must be playing in the other's neck of the woods to pick 1: (allow clever-deck-archedtype- name deck to win game) or (not be able to win a game with clever-deck- archetype-name deck). So anyway, I'm not sure if you're saying your folks are using DI too often for their own good (in which case you should be able to find ways to take advantage of it) or are just frustrated trying to play the types of decks you like to play with people using DI so much. Since you seem to think DI is a good card, I would assume the latter - which was not what I meant by "worse metagame". That is, "worse" does not equal "more frustrating". >> I think it's kind of difficult to just ask folks to throw X number of >> card Y in their deck, never mind what it's for or why the should do >> that. I suspect until I see otherwise, we'll just have to disagree >> about it, as an alternative. > > Look, you've got this whole theoretical edifice built up, and I'm just saying actually expose yourself to what I'm talking about. > Hell, agree to allow 94 card decks for a few games, and have everyone proxy in 4 DI's. What can it hurt? Well, it throws my already overstock set of masters cards out of kilter for one. I'll tell you what though: post a deck here or I'll send you my E-mail address (I don't like posting it at all with the spammers running around) and you can E-mail me one. Make it one you think demonstrates the power of DI best you can figure and I'll build it and play it. (Multiple decks if you like. But the more decks the less time I'll have to spend on each.) The way I like to build decks, master card slots tend to be huge issues, so a master card that I don't think it positively crucial to a deck tends to get 86ed. So my lack of experience with DIs in my own decks has a lot to do with my deckbuilding personality. (Doesn't explain why I don't see other people playing it more, given how powerful you suggest it is.) > But your abstract reasoning has convinced me of nothing, as I suppose mine has failed to convince you. You're overly despondent about that. People don't tend to change their opinions just from seeing someone disagree with them. But it's always interesting to see someone who's clearly not an idiot disagree with my opinion and I think most open-minded people are somewhere in that vicinity. It means someone somewhere is having a far different experience with it than I'm having and there's got to be a reason for that. It there's a LOT of someones somewheres then it's probably a good idea to assume I'm the one who's missing something. As it is, I see you're not the only one who loves this card - however, there seems to be good players on both sides of it, I think. So I don't know. > I almost went looking for the numbers. But then I recalled how, when we were talking about Dreams, an occurrence of about 33% > meant diddly and squat to you. No, it doesn't mean diddly squat. It means more people like it better than I do. But I already *knew* that - or I wouldn't have put it on my "overrated card list". > But actually I couldn't resist. I quick eyeball of the first ten decks or so looks to be about half. Half, man. Are you > suspicious the problem is you yet? No, of course not. What, half have 4+ DIs on that? Here's the sequence I'm seeing - beginning with: Aldo Bosmn's Constructed Rol Tsunami deck: 2 Aldo Bosmn again: 1 Francois Morand: 0 Robin: 0 Matt Morgan: 0 Dr. Gomez: 0 (good to see he got straightened away with Jeff eventually) David Wilson: 1 Jose Vicente Coll: 3 Jeff Kuta: 1 (THAT'S a surprise! :-) ) and Colin McGuigan: 0 (not a good sign from a deck named "Dangerously Cheesey") So yes, five. Of the next 10, only two had a DI if I counted right and didn't miss one. This may be a tad higher than I see in my tournaments but not far off. I'm not sure what you want. I didn't say the card was shit or that no one plays it. It's a popular card. It's a good card, albeit one I don't use as much as I "should" because of my particular and probably unhealthy tendencies of using master slot to do something I deem "neat". So I don't know what you think I should be convinced of from this that I'm not already convinced of. Fred

Joscha a écrit : > Daneel wrote: > >>On 23 Feb 2005 01:01:43 -0800, Joscha <joscha...@gmx.de> wrote: >> > > > Hey Daneel, I think we were fooled by a KMW-joke of Orpheus. Maybe we > should stop at once filling up the zillionth thread over PTO. LOL. Hadn't read that one yet !! Yes, it was a sort of joke, and most of what had to be said about PTO already had. No intention to trick anyone into anything, though. And I also wanted to point out that it was the most controversial card left in the game. Apparently, equally with DI. Tricked you, tricked you !! ;) Orpheus

Frederick Scott wrote: > "David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:39celvF...@individual.net... > > Frederick Scott wrote: > So anyway, I'm not sure if you're saying your folks are using DI too > often for their own good (in which case you should be able to find ways > to take advantage of it) or are just frustrated trying to play the types > of decks you like to play with people using DI so much. Since you seem > to think DI is a good card, I would assume the latter - which was not > what I meant by "worse metagame". That is, "worse" does not equal > "more frustrating". The best way to take advantage of a metagame with a high prevalance of Direct Intervention is to play a deck which has a zillion interchangeable parts where none of them really matters more than the other. That's right. I'm talking about weenie vote or bleed. But you see, Dave already has that *IN ADDITION* to his DI situation too. And besides, what satisfaction does one really get from breaking out a sleazy weenie deck in "casual" play? I remember a post not too long ago--I think regarding the Euro Champs--where someone claimed there were like 12 DIs played in single game. I think that's probably fairly common in high-level tournament play. Perhaps now that the seat-switchers are gone, that number will be lower, but I really don't think so. Jeff

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:07:11 +0100, Orpheus <orphe...@DEADfree.fr> wrote: > Tricked you, tricked you !! ;) Let's call PTO and burn Orpheus with it. I hear he is non-Camarilla... -- Bye, Daneel

<jeff...@pacbell.net> schreef in bericht news:1110528422.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > >Perhaps now that the seat-switchers are gone, that number will be > lower, but I really don't think so. > the seat switchers were imo not the real reason to play DI (there's delaying tactics for that or Vox Domini) Over here most people I have argued with about this card say something along the lines of: with a combination SR, DI, bounce and DT you can forgo almost any other defence (in a tournement environment) and (important for bleed decks) have more table control.* It's probably a play style thing, but most good players i know play the table instead of purely concentrating on their prey. Also, it alows decks with low defence to be able to play the waiting game. IMHO, what I think will lower the number of DI's, is the appearance of new kinds of cards. There's no room in the above defence package to also include Black Hand Ritual and/ or Not to Be. * except for some decks, who really need it. like a 65 card War Ghoul deck. DI's stop those pesky Entrancements, Far masteries and Restructures who are unlikely to turn up often in the same game.

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsng09z...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] probably not, but I don't think you're Arika either :p

[ quoted text not captured ] Don't worry Orpheus, I'm packing Confusion of the Eye. John

"Jeroen Rombouts" <jeroen....@NOSPAMpandora.be> wrote in message news:sEiYd.35244$S66.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be... > IMHO, what I think will lower the number of DI's, is the appearance of new > kinds of cards. There's no room in the above defence package to also > include Black Hand Ritual and/ or Not to Be. Well, events are too specialized to bother defending against. Also, I don't see any event-based deck archetype that isn't fairly resistable by some other more practical and useful means than canceling the event. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Right. An example of a practical and useful card that cancels nearly everything you want it to is called...wait for it... Direct Intervention. ;) Jeff

David Cherryholmes wrote: > Most own enough for any one given deck, but we do proxy quite a bit. > Shuffling "the football" from deck to deck is a pain. > > -- David, have you tried playing with tourney rules only? IE: no proxies? It bothers me when people can't be bothered to bring actual cards to the table. G

firstco...@aol.com wrote: > > I don't think there is a such thing as a "meta-card", as no card can be > 'a card in a different way from standard cards, but designed to deal > with them'. That...is exactly what DI is. > > DI isn't above or beyond, because cancelling another card is a big part > of the game--Undead Strength vs. Skin of Rock, Enhanced Senses vs. Lost > in Crowds, Threats vs. Telepathic Misdirection, Maneuver vs. Maneuver, > etc. Note that there is NO cancellation in the examples given, they are simply matched, not cancelled, by their opposite counterpart. Also note that DI doubles as everything you mentioned above. It also doubles as individual cards, adding to the stack without violating the 'once/action' limit. Hmm, there's that over and above action again... > > DI has never been a big part of my game. I don't play it, and when it > gets played on me, it never affects me in a huge way, since pretty much > if you cancel my card, I'll play another. Except chosen at the right time, you can't. Reaction, action mod, once/game, once/combat, or heck you simply don't have that card again. Sure you can play something similar, but you can't play *that* card again if you have a duplicate in hand. (or ever, in the case of 1/game cards) G

talonz wrote: > David, have you tried playing with tourney rules only? IE: no proxies? No. We are more interested in understanding the game in its full depth than testing who owns the most cards. Then there is the slippery slope of, once allowing any proxying at all, determining who can and can't, and when. Easiest to just have an open policy. > It bothers me when people can't be bothered to bring actual cards to > the table. It can generate overhead. But, most games involve glancing at the cards around you and then recalling the effects of those cards from memory. Provided it doesn't get confusing what card represents what, it isn't that much different from a non-proxied game. [ quoted text not captured ]

David Cherryholmes wrote: > talonz wrote: > > > David, have you tried playing with tourney rules only? IE: no proxies? > > No. We are more interested in understanding the game in its full depth > than testing who owns the most cards. Card availability in a ccg is part of the game. Dropping those restrictions makes deck construction less of an exercise than it should be. If I spend the time to buy, trade and collect my card collection, the experience is cheapened by those using proxies. > Then there is the slippery slope > of, once allowing any proxying at all, determining who can and can't, > and when. Easiest to just have an open policy. > Easiest to play with no proxies imo. G

On 13 Mar 2005 13:32:31 -0800, talonz <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote: >> > David, have you tried playing with tourney rules only? IE: no > proxies? >> >> No. We are more interested in understanding the game in its full > depth >> than testing who owns the most cards. > > Card availability in a ccg is part of the game. Dropping those > restrictions makes deck construction less of an exercise than it should > be. If I spend the time to buy, trade and collect my card collection, > the experience is cheapened by those using proxies. The only time I don't mind others using proxies is during a "test" game (testing a tournament or play deck before seeing how many copies of a card one needs). That said, I don't really proxy myself. If a card's missing, since there are so many cards lying around, you can almost always just find someting else that's good for the deck. -- Bye, Daneel

>> No. We are more interested in understanding the game in its full > depth >> than testing who owns the most cards. > > Card availability in a ccg is part of the game. Dropping those > restrictions makes deck construction less of an exercise than it should > be. If I spend the time to buy, trade and collect my card collection, > the experience is cheapened by those using proxies. When I read your message, it smacked of "Card-Warlord" or someone who has a virtually complete collection of cards. Now, I , myself, am a self-titled "Card-Warlord" with just about enough cards to make any conceivable deck. I also have a playgroup full of new players. It would be a horrific advantange to press if I told them that they couldn't proxy/borrow cards. I try to encourage my players to build whatever they can think of with proxies/loaners being part of that. I can't imagine how you think the experience is cheapened by proxies. Can you explain to me how it does? -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1110749551.4...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > David Cherryholmes wrote: >> talonz wrote: >> >> > David, have you tried playing with tourney rules only? IE: no >> > proxies? >> >> No. We are more interested in understanding the game in its full >> depth than testing who owns the most cards. > > Card availability in a ccg is part of the game. Dropping those > restrictions makes deck construction less of an exercise than it should > be. If I spend the time to buy, trade and collect my card collection, > the experience is cheapened by those using proxies. No. Card availability in a CCG is part of a creating a "privilege stratification" in playing the game. It contributions nothing to that actual act *of* playing the game. With sufficient money, you can own 90 of every rare card and 12 of every vampire, thus there's no strategy or anything like that. The person applying this amount of money or any of his friends may play any deck in creation. Thus, the issue is simply one of money privilege. It may be uncomfortable for you admit you play and enjoy such a game. (As do I and everyone else in this group.) But it's the truth. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote: > > No. Card availability in a CCG is part of a creating a "privilege > stratification" in playing the game. Whatever that means. > It contributions nothing to > that actual act *of* playing the game. Dead wrong. Card availability determines what you can play with during the game. > With sufficient money, you can > own 90 of every rare card and 12 of every vampire, thus there's no > strategy or anything like that. Wrong again. The richest dumbest person can have whatever expensive and weak deck he wants. In the best games, card availability does not determine strategy, only choice. > It may be uncomfortable for you admit you play and enjoy such a game. > (As do I and everyone else in this group.) But it's the truth. > BS. G

XZealot wrote: > I > also have a playgroup full of new players. It would be a horrific > advantange to press if I told them that they couldn't proxy/borrow cards. Proxy/borrow are 2 different things. I don't have a problem with borrowing. I also regularily try to get new players into the game. I repeatedly point them in the direction of starters/boosters/online singles sellers so as to focus their new collection to what they want their deck(s) to do. As for trying out different decks, I gladly offer mine. Also based on what they want to play, i will try to trade them what they want for cards they are not using, and add some cards from my collection to spice the deal as freebies, just to add more to their options/deck. I don't think proxies are necesary for new players for the most part. Just a minimal investment and the same effort in targeted collecting/trading/singles purchasing that I do, albeit on a larger scale in my case. Testing strategies is another thing. I have often lent out cards for a player testing something, but nobody has asked to proxy anything yet. If they had, and it was a short term and unique test, I could understand that. For regular play, there is no reason to allow proxies imo. > I can't imagine how you think the experience is cheapened by proxies. Can > you explain to me how it does? > What is all my effort put into collecting/trading/singles hunting for if somebody can just jiffy up whatever card they want? Collecting is part of the game, proxies are not. G

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1110959762....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Frederick Scott wrote: >> >> No. Card availability in a CCG is part of a creating a "privilege >> stratification" in playing the game. > > Whatever that means. It means player A can build deck X and player B can't. On a strategy level, the point is meaningless. >> It contributions nothing to that actual act *of* playing the game. > > Dead wrong. Card availability determines what you can play with during > the game. Nope, absolutely right. If you have a group of players who own enough money not to have to worry about it, card availability is a meaningless no-op in terms of affecting choice. Ergo, card availability does not affect strategy, it's only a capracious influence on when certain players can pursue certain strategies. >> With sufficient money, you can >> own 90 of every rare card and 12 of every vampire, thus there's no >> strategy or anything like that. > > Wrong again. The richest dumbest person can have whatever expensive > and weak deck he wants. In the best games, card availability does not > determine strategy, only choice. Huh? Sorry, this comment makes no sense and fails to address the point. "Dumb" rich people are neither here nor there. I don't think you've really thought this philosophy of connecting card ownwership to play strategy through very well. Fred

"talonz" <talo...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:1110960305.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > XZealot wrote: >> I >> also have a playgroup full of new players. It would be a horrific >> advantange to press if I told them that they couldn't proxy/borrow > cards. > > Proxy/borrow are 2 different things. I don't have a problem with > borrowing. To me they are the same, if you want to play a deck that you don't own the cards for then you can borrow mine or if I don't have them, which happens, then you can proxy. This is key for decks like Augustus Giovanni mulit-rush, or Mythical Form !Gangrel. I know I don't have those cards. > I also regularily try to get new players into the game. I repeatedly > point them in the direction of starters/boosters/online singles sellers > so as to focus their new collection to what they want their deck(s) to > do. As for trying out different decks, I gladly offer mine. I think getting new players into the game is great! I think players borrowing my decks is bad as they were not involved in the creation process at all. I would also like to point to at least 2 players who qualified for National using one of my decks instead of me. :( > Also based on what they want to play, i will try to trade them what > they want for cards they are not using, and add some cards from my > collection to spice the deal as freebies, just to add more to their > options/deck. I have an easier time giving away card that I have a lot of rather than trading. > I don't think proxies are necesary for new players for the most part. > Just a minimal investment and the same effort in targeted > collecting/trading/singles purchasing that I do, albeit on a larger > scale in my case. I am not a big singles fan as I would rather buy more cards from WW for the same amount I am spending on a large group of singles, but that is just me. > Testing strategies is another thing. I have often lent out cards for a > player testing something, but nobody has asked to proxy anything yet. > If they had, and it was a short term and unique test, I could > understand that. For regular play, there is no reason to allow proxies > imo. If someone wants to build an exotic deck then they should be allowed to try it and tweak it before buying a bunch of singles (i.e. choir deck). >> I can't imagine how you think the experience is cheapened by proxies. > Can >> you explain to me how it does? >> > > What is all my effort put into collecting/trading/singles hunting for > if somebody can just jiffy up whatever card they want? Collecting is > part of the game, proxies are not. See that is where the difference lies. The game is no different irregardless of the "money barrier" that is artificially created by rarity patterns. That is just my point of view though. Your mileage may vary. [ quoted text not captured ]