Favourite Clans

I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, b) the best intercept, c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their stealth bleed decks) d) the crappiest clan. I'd have to say my favourite clan right now is probably the Tremere. Just a preference thing; while they do bleed nastily, they are extra hard to get into that second round and surviving (I just don't have enough shotgun rituals, I suppose, although that option's an expensive one!), but the ability to avoid fortitude makes em a beaut! That, combined with cool retainers and allies, and one of the best vamps around (Merill Molitor!) makes them a favourite in my books.

<umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:3ac35cfe...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca... > I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, > as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, b) the > best intercept, c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their > stealth bleed decks) d) the crappiest clan. > <...> My favourite clan: Ravnos. Why? I'm not sure but they have been my favourite ever since I saw them in the RPG player's guide. A kick-ass clan discipline (our Storyteller made it cheaper, sort of like 3th ed.), an interesting - albeit almost unplayable - path AND a fun clan weakness. Throw this together with the Rom background and all the old legends, result: my favs. other Q's a) depends on who you're fighting b) Tzimisce c) WTF is "wanky"? d) without doubt the Giovanni, bad discipline spread, too many useless vamps,...... Jeroen

<umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:3ac35cfe...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca... [ quoted text not captured ] I've always liked the Tremere, eventough I don't play them much at all. My favourite clan is !Tremere I think and then the Setites, because they have cool cards and allies (!Tremere). I've always like allies. Next to them I think Tzimisce, !Nos and !Gangrel, Ravnos and Assamites comes. Among the Camarilla I like Brujah the most. They have cheap and useful allies and good vamps at a low cost. The best intercept clan is definately the Tzimisce, because they have a lot of wake/untap cards and can always fight damn well :) The wankiest clan IMO are the Malkavians (not !Malk though) and Panders (heh). I think Giovanni is the crappiest clan. I've never thought Necromancy to be that good (lack of stealth makes the good cards hard ot play too) and without the Mabrosius/Talbot combo they're really very very hard to play I think. The setites are also very difficult to play because their sucky vampires, but their clan cards and serpentis cards are soooo cool :)

>I've always liked the Tremere, eventough I don't play them much at all. My >favourite clan is !Tremere I think and then the Setites, because they have >cool cards and allies (!Tremere). Although I'm a bit hesitant to admit it (since I'm the !Tremere Newsletter Editor), my favorite clan is actually Tremere (though !Tremere are a close second). I've always felt an affinity to the Tremere because of their concept and magical Thaumaturgy. And while I think they are the best clan in the WoD, in Jyhad, they ARE a bit lacking. In particular, Thaumaturgy isn't as useful as it seems. In the original base set, it was decent as a combat discipline (though not terribly effective). But compared to the newer disciplines like Quietus and Vicissitude, the Tremere can't really hold their own in combat IMHO. But they DO have lots of cool vampires and clan cards. Muaziz and Rebekka rock! And Chantry is SO useful in my combat-heavy (but rarely diablerizing) environment. >I've always like allies. I love allies as well. ::Fondly remembers my Tremere Mage Deck (which used all sorts of Mage allies):: After the Tremere/!Tremere, would be the Ventrue and Toreador. And Giovanni are definitely the crappiest clan, though I think they're pretty cool and have potential. Halcyan 2

>My favourite clan: Ravnos. Why? I'm not sure but they have been my >favourite ever since I saw them in the RPG player's guide. A kick-ass clan >discipline (our Storyteller made it cheaper, sort of like 3th ed.), an >interesting - albeit almost unplayable - path AND a fun clan weakness. Throw >this together with the Rom background and all the old legends, result: my >favs. > >other Q's >a) depends on who you're fighting >b) Tzimisce >c) WTF is "wanky"? >d) without doubt the Giovanni, bad discipline spread, too many useless >vamps,...... Wanky = cheap clan. One of those clans that has a really annoying combo of powers that is almost impossible to stop. From what I've seen so far, Malks take the cake on wank.

<CHOP> >I love allies as well. ::Fondly remembers my Tremere Mage Deck (which used all >sorts of Mage allies):: > >After the Tremere/!Tremere, would be the Ventrue and Toreador. > >And Giovanni are definitely the crappiest clan, though I think they're pretty >cool and have potential. > >Halcyan 2 Mage deck? Why the heck didn't I think of that?! Argh. And I have to agree with Giovanni being the suckiest clan. Necromancy is a pretty useless discipline... not enough stealth to make it a stealth power, not enough intercept for that, the combat powers lick, and bringing back retainers is rarely as useful as it seems. On the other hand, bringing out cheaper allies and retainers is a definite plus! (Regina)

In message <3ac3d897...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca writes >Wanky = cheap clan. One of those clans that has a really annoying >combo of powers that is almost impossible to stop. From what I've seen >so far, Malks take the cake on wank. Why are Malks almost impossible to stop? Bleed bounce. Banishment. Kindred Restructure/Dramatic Upheaval. Massive pool gain. Rush combat. Protected Resources. Telepathic Counter. Intercept walls. The old standard of "don't block" to clog hands with stealth A classic cheesy Malk deck can easily be brought down by common strategies and intelligent play. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "What's wrong with wanting more? If you can fly -- then soar! With all there is, why settle for just a piece of sky?"

<umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message news:3ac35cfe...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca... [ quoted text not captured ] My favourite clan is the Nosferatu. I don't know why, I just love them, maybe because nobody else will. a) Brujah/!Brujah hands down, no contest. b) Tzimisce c) Assamites - assassins? not with the current cards, maybe after final nights... d) !Ventrue - can stop anything, get stopped by everything

<umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> > I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, > as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, b) the > best intercept, c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their > stealth bleed decks) d) the crappiest clan. Are there a lot of players in Manitoba? Cool... Seems a lot of my fellow Canadian players are showing up here lately. My answers: a) Have to say !Brujah... I'd say Brujah, but they're Antedilluvean-sympathizin' Cammie scum-****s and don't count (just for you Skaffen!). Honourable mention goes to the Gangrel (and Country !Gangrel). While Potence and Celerity are a pretty nasty combination, a well-timed agg poke and a Skin of Steel will ruin any !Brujah's day. b) Although Tzimisce have the most potential for pure ability to intercept with Auspex and Animalism, they don't seem to *survive* all that they intercept (in my experience at least). Also, by 'intercept' I'm going to assume that you mean blocking other strategies in general rather than just blocking stealth. If that is the case, I'll give my vote for !Ventrue. They can block stealth actions with Auspex, deflect bleeds with Dominate and survive combat with Fortitude. Add their ability to hose politics and you have a pretty versatile anti-everything clan. Having said that, if you are able to do all that in one deck you won't have any offence to speak of. And since nobody has EVER written a newsletter for the clan, that might say something about their viability in general. Too bad really. c) Even though I've seen Malk S&B decks lose consistently, I have to say that they *still* make me taste bile whenever I see them. Probably just an irrational gut reaction from when we started playing back in '94 (?) but they still make me sick. My original playgroup in this area literally lost players *just* because the prevalence of these decks made the game boring as hell. They were so good (or seemed so) that we all had to agree not to play them as much. I've refused to even build a Malk S&B deck ever since then though a few local players are starting to build them again. d) With all due respect to Mr. Legbiter, I'd have to say !Gangrel, specifically the 'city' variety. Oddly, this was always a favourite of mine in the RPG, but in Jyhad the disciplines of Celerity, Obfuscate and Protean just don't seem to mesh as well as I'd like. They *should* though! I suspect with Final Nights this may change as the Assamites share Celerity and Obfuscate and suffer from similar problems. All three City Gangrel disciplines are perfectly acceptable in and of themselves, but it just seems that they don't complement each other that well. Obfuscate gives us stealth which doesn't help all that much with combat (though it should)... Celerity gives us additional strikes which is great except that with Protean a lot of those additonal strikes may be redundant. So despite how cool the City Gangrel *should* be, they often don't seem to be that great in practice (but again that's just from my own experience). Cheers, WES

>Mage deck? Why the heck didn't I think of that?! Argh. Well, my Mage deck wasn't really practical, but it was fun. Sort of neat to get out a bunch of allies that are normally never seen. I've always had a thing for Mage: The Ascension so... I had 2 Outcast Mages, 1 Thadius Zho, 1 Mehemet, 1 Order of Hermes Cabal, and 1 Vagabond Mystic in the deck. If I had them, I would add some Nephandi, Talaq (though he's not technically a Mage), and maybe another Vagabond Mystic. Although Tara is a Mage too, Clan Impersonating to Ravnos is a bit impractical. My deck probably wasn't focused too much. With Auspex, Dominate, and Thaumaturgy, it tried to do too much. If I revise it, I'll probably focus more on the Mages (Change of Targets are a must! And a lot of Fake Outs as opposed to MoM/Apportation). Not to say my Tremere Mage deck wasn't good... The most memorable game was one where I swept the table. This was mainly thanks to my prey desperately calling a Political Flux to 12 pool (there were three Methusalehs close to being ousted). I managed to get the 12 pool and steamroll everyone else. I ended up with 2 Outcast Mages, 1 Vagabond Mystic, Blythe, Dr. John Casey, Cassandra, Ulugh Beg, and Etrius in play. And Ulugh was fully loaded with a Rutor's Hand, Palatial Estate, Ankara Citadel, .44 Magnum, and Sport Bike. By the end of the game, I had a healthy 18 pool left. >And I have to agree with Giovanni being the suckiest clan. Necromancy >is a pretty useless discipline... not enough stealth to make it a >stealth power, not enough intercept for that, the combat powers lick, >and bringing back retainers is rarely as useful as it seems. Yep. Necromancy is too much hodgepodge. But it can really boost Ally decks. Halcyan 2

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:07:29 GMT umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca wrote: >I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, >as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, Nosferatu. Cheapish vamps with pot [usually POT], ani [usually ANI] and for who are also princes so if the worst comes to the worst they can play the Legacy of Power. b) the >best intercept, Nosferatu. Sheldon has superior aus and ani and he can also play the 2nd tradition. That's better than the Tzimisce. c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their >stealth bleed decks) Hmm, depends what you mean by wankiest. In Legbiterland wanky means shades of pretentious, self-regarding, pathetic. Step, or perhaps mince forward the Camarilla Toiletdoors. d) the crappiest clan. Wes is, of course, right to say that it's the !Gangrel, because of their FIVE clan disciplines. The individual city and country bloodlines are a different matter. > >I'd have to say my favourite clan right now is probably the Tremere. >Just a preference thing; while they do bleed nastily, they are extra >hard to get into that second round and surviving (I just don't have >enough shotgun rituals, I suppose, although that option's an expensive >one!), but the ability to avoid fortitude makes em a beaut! That, >combined with cool retainers and allies, and one of the best vamps >around (Merill Molitor!) makes them a favourite in my books. If you had had a hardest-to-play category i would have put the Tremere in that. Decent allies, a coupla good vampires [Cardano and Muaziz], Chantry, Arcane Library and then it kinda fizzles out. Good for unjamming a Ventrue-dominated metagame, otherwise seriously crappy IMO.

In article <3ac3d897...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca>, umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca says... [ quoted text not captured ] In that case, I'd say Ventrue. Way too strong in too many aspects of the game. And really versatile, also. The only thing they lack is stealth.

"Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in article <9a171...@enews4.newsguy.com> : > ><umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> > >> I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, >> as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, b) the >> best intercept, c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their >> stealth bleed decks) d) the crappiest clan. > My favorite clan? I used to play a lot with Ventrue, because they have so many differnent strategies to exploit. Then it was Nosferatu, they have some of the most interesting vampires. Right now it's Brujah, as I write the Brujah Newsletter. > >a) Have to say !Brujah... I'd say Brujah, but they're >Antedilluvean-sympathizin' Cammie scum-****s and don't count (just for you >Skaffen!). I knew it... Actually I have to say that effective combat decks are usually mixed clan affairs, so Brujah, !Bru, Nosferatu and !Nos all deserve to be mentioned here. My favorite clan for playing combat decks though naturally is Brujah. >b) Although Tzimisce have the most potential for pure ability to intercept >with Auspex and Animalism, they don't seem to *survive* all that they >intercept (in my experience at least). Still they can intercept most reliably, and they can actually do something in the resulting combat. !Ventrue are the best denial clan, but far from being my favorite clan for intercepting - although I just set myself the task to tweak the !Ven starter into something playable by using a limited card-pool from the occasional boosters I buy. Actually I don’t have a favorite clan in intercept decks, as I rarely play them... It would be Nosferatu, just because of Sheldon (2nd Tradition + Auspex + muscles). c) I find the concept of wankiness in a clan a bit weird. All non- or mono-.skill weenie hordes are "wanky", but they never make a clan deck. I think every clan has a decent wanky strategy, stealth bleed for Malks or Lasombra, KRC mayhem with Ventrue or Toreador... By the definition given "wanky" means: Wanky = cheap clan. One of those clans that has a really annoying combo of powers that is almost impossible to stop. There is no such thing. Any well designed deck should be annoying, but every strategy has it's counter - that's the beauty of this game. d) Crappiest clan? The Independents are all hard to play, because their vampires selection is crap, but hopefully Final Nights will change that. Out of these, so far Giovanni (because they can't really bruise and bleed, and Necromancy is so weak) and Assamites (because they should be the ultimate combat clan, but fail to live up to this - and they can't do anything else) are the worst. Regards Skaffen Chantry Elder Of Munich "I'm alive and bleeding for everyone Pull me from this mire Hold me till I'm home." (My Dying Bride, 'Der Überlebende') _______________________________________________ Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com

<Chop everything away> Legbiter, tell me how you can post from the future. Your post is dated on tomorrow. Or from your perspective: yesterday. Who sais/said/will have said that Temporis isn't overpowered. To all Trujah: can you go to june and buy a box of Final Nights for me? <confusion>mlsk jgmskf jposijslkf gnmovijpmovij stgqlfkvmo wiu gme </confusion> Me, I think

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:55:03 GMT someone <someone...@newsranger.com> wrote: ><Chop everything away> >Legbiter, tell me how you can post from the future. > >Your post is dated on tomorrow. Or from your perspective: yesterday. Well it IS British Summer Time here. We have to put our watches forward. Smaller-minded fiends put them on a paltry hour, but i like to do things PROPERLY doncha know. > >Who sais/said/will have said that Temporis isn't overpowered. It depends what you use it for. Nipping into the future to determine whether the person you're thinking of marrying is going to turn into a fat shrew or beer-bellied football bore is, i think/thought/ will think, ENTIRELY right. > >To all Trujah: can you go to june and buy a box of Final Nights for me? Haha, they already will have did and have taken them ALL back to the distant past where Cave men will have used them to invent bonfires. <snip>

theventrue wrote: > > <umur...@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote in message > news:3ac35cfe...@news.cc.umanitoba.ca... > > I'm curious as to people's favourite clans to play with, and why, > > as well as which clans are considered a) the best combat, b) the > > best intercept, c) the wankiest clan (I'm guessing Malks and their > > stealth bleed decks) d) the crappiest clan. > > My favourite clan is the Nosferatu. I don't know why, I just love them, > maybe because nobody else will. > > a) Brujah/!Brujah hands down, no contest. > b) Tzimisce > c) Assamites - assassins? not with the current cards, maybe after final > nights... > d) !Ventrue - can stop anything, get stopped by everything Well miy favourite clan is Ventrue for their political power ! But I like as well the Tzimisce ( I won my first tournament with them ), because they have a very good discipline spread and aggressive intercept is a good strategy mainly. Choosing your strike after your opponent did is very very useful !!! ( Thats the reason why a lot of Brujah combat decks have problems ! with S:CE or agg.Dam+Fort. ) a) Nevertheless Brujah is still best in combat ( to avoid the problem I mentionend you just have to grapple or dodge with additional strkes ! ) b) Tzimisce , no question ! c) I think no clan is wanky ! You can play all clans and they can all be stopped d) Maybe Ravnos . I didn't play them so i might be wrong but i think they have neither bleeding power nor combat power. They also lack in politics. Maybe their strength is their versatility .

>d) Crappiest clan? The Independents are all hard to play, because their >vampires selection is crap, but hopefully Final Nights will change that. Out >of these, so far Giovanni (because they can't really bruise and bleed, and >Necromancy is so weak) and Assamites (because they should be the ultimate >combat clan, but fail to live up to this - and they can't do anything else) >are the worst. Never got the original message. This seemed appropriate to respond to. Pander seem obvious as they currently have nothing to do that's clannish with the change in Legacy of Pander. But, I'll set them aside. Also, put aside City Gangrel. Instead, I want to comment on the independents. Starting with vampire selection, the FoS come out worst, IMO. Too much effort to get the disciplines you want from them. Most important, I think, are the discipline complements. Quite a few seem to think the Giovanni come out worst due to the weakness of Necromancy. Still, Nec offers intercept, stealth, and S:CE - three of the most desirable abilities a discipline could offer. With Dom, the best discipline in the game, the Giovanni can muster multiple stealth while bleeding. Then, there's Jar the Soul. Seems to me that the Giovanni discipline assortment fits a powerful archetypal strategy in the game, though I could see where groups used to +2 intercept at all times might disagree. With the Ravnos, it's often lamented how expensive Chimerstry cards are. But, besides Sensory Deprivation, why bother? Animalism gives intercept and combat. Fortitude offers awesome action modifiers and blood management. Moving on to AH, I will agree with anyone who believes the Assamites lack both offense and defense. Their disciplines are highly redundant. Could achieve a similar effect to long range Quietus strikes by using disguised guns with additional strikes. Or, could drop Obfuscate in a rush, long range combat deck and not notice a difference (except maybe the loss of Sacrificial Lamb). No intercept. No bleed control. No plus bleed (Spying Mission isn't sufficient). Troubles not only with S:CE but Dodge. No blood management discipline. I recall a time when one of my groups dreaded the introduction of the FoS. Stealth bleed with pool gain or stealth vote sounded frightening. While maybe that will come about once they get vampires who have those skills, they still lack a defensive discipline and/or the ability to control predators effectively with something like rush combat. All they seem to do is move forwards, which leaves them vulnerable to a strong predator. Anyway, if I had to pick the worst clan, I'd go with Assamites. Lacking good ways to oust a prey, any way to stop a predator except rush, and having combat hosed by common defenses just doesn't impress me.

Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010330151859...@ng-fj1.aol.com... > Anyway, if I had to pick the worst clan, I'd go with Assamites. Lacking good > ways to oust a prey, any way to stop a predator except rush, and having combat > hosed by common defenses just doesn't impress me. See http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html for an Assamite/!Gangrel deck to see how powerful the Assamites can be if focussed in the right direction... Read the Bureaucratic Overload and check out the deck listing. For fun, look at the pictures and see the minions of death that washed over all in its path. oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster VEKN Prince of Caledon

>> d) Crappiest clan? The Independents are all hard to play, because their >> vampires selection is crap, but hopefully Final Nights will change that. Out >> of these, so far Giovanni (because they can't really bruise and bleed, and >> Necromancy is so weak) and Assamites (because they should be the ultimate >> combat clan, but fail to live up to this - and they can't do anything else) >> are the worst. > > Never got the original message. This seemed appropriate to respond to. > > Pander seem obvious as they currently have nothing to do that's clannish with > the change in Legacy of Pander. But, I'll set them aside. Also, put aside > City Gangrel. > > Instead, I want to comment on the independents. Starting with vampire > selection, the FoS come out worst, IMO. Too much effort to get the > disciplines > you want from them. !Gangrel aside, of course, which you stipulated. But I'd like to add on to what Leggy said (or will say, depending on your newsreader, Trujah poster that he is =), that's City Gangrel aside, it's the !Gangrel as a whole that suck, since they have 5 disiplines. But, on top of that, they are THE most fragmented clan for out of clan disciplines, being all over the place; it's almost like having a whole clan of Rafales and Patrizias. Sabbat War did help to fix that, "cookie cutter" vamps or no. > Most important, I think, are the discipline complements. > > Quite a few seem to think the Giovanni come out worst due to the weakness of > Necromancy. Still, Nec offers intercept, stealth, and S:CE - three of the > most > desirable abilities a discipline could offer. With Dom, the best discipline > in > the game, the Giovanni can muster multiple stealth while bleeding. Then, > there's Jar the Soul. Seems to me that the Giovanni discipline assortment > fits > a powerful archetypal strategy in the game, though I could see where groups > used to +2 intercept at all times might disagree. Actually, the PILE of comments lamenting the Giovanni was going to be a large amount of this reply, but I've moved to a text file for cleaning up and entering into the next Giovanni newsletter. I was partially saved having to post a "full rebuttal" by Ian's pile of insightful comments, which damn near mirrors my own thoughts on the Independents. > With the Ravnos, it's often lamented how expensive Chimerstry cards are. But, > besides Sensory Deprivation, why bother? Animalism gives intercept and > combat. > Fortitude offers awesome action modifiers and blood management. Many people are hoping for a "Path of Paradox" or somesuch; If so, I'm actually guessing that many of the formerly expensive Chimerstry cards will *still* see little use, you'll just see Path/SensDep decks, and more Fata Morgana. Many of the cards just aren't worth a card slot. > Moving on to AH, I will agree with anyone who believes the Assamites lack both > offense and defense. Their disciplines are highly redundant. Could achieve a > similar effect to long range Quietus strikes by using disguised guns with > additional strikes. Or, could drop Obfuscate in a rush, long range combat > deck > and not notice a difference (except maybe the loss of Sacrificial Lamb). No > intercept. No bleed control. No plus bleed (Spying Mission isn't > sufficient). > Troubles not only with S:CE but Dodge. No blood management discipline. I've never really known a clan with Celerity to have a problem with Dodge, but maybe that's because I've been on the pointy end of Todd Bannister's Assamites, and Derek Ray's (insert celerity clan here) weekly. =) But, the Assamites can kill, but not so much as to actually get VPs, really. Certainly not to win tournaments; they can't vote, they can't bleed or defend against bleed, they can't really intercept, and while they can stealth anything through, nobody blocks them anyway. > I recall a time when one of my groups dreaded the introduction of the FoS. > Stealth bleed with pool gain or stealth vote sounded frightening. While maybe > that will come about once they get vampires who have those skills, they still > lack a defensive discipline and/or the ability to control predators > effectively > with something like rush combat. All they seem to do is move forwards, which > leaves them vulnerable to a strong predator. Actually, I find them vulnerable to a mediocre predator. They can push votes through, but not vote threatening votes down. They can't bounce bleeds, reduce bleeds, or afford to block bruise and bleed. They can't fight backwards (Mark of Damnation) or fend off rush. Basically, they require a predator playing a slow building or "trick" deck to get off the ground, and even then, usually just hemorrhage pool. > Anyway, if I had to pick the worst clan, I'd go with Assamites. Lacking good > ways to oust a prey, any way to stop a predator except rush, and having combat > hosed by common defenses just doesn't impress me. Well, the Giovanni can bleed with Dominate, the Setites can bleed with Presence, and the Ravnos can bleed with Fortitude and Chimerstry. The Assamites can't bleed at all. They can't vote, for damn sure. They can't intercept and wall up for 2 VPs, even. I'd have to put them as the worst, too (!Gangrel aside, since that is just about like saying Pander is the worst) . . . but I have to say that they are just frightening in combat. When Todd Bannister sits to your right, and brings out Parnassus or Abd Al-Rashid (trivia bit: coolest Assamite name ever, meaning, loosely translated, "Keeper of the True Faith" =), it just makes your face droop, and gets you digging for Sudden Reversals for the Contracts (not to mention Fame) that are about to drop. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

[ quoted text not captured ] Body count != VPs. !VPs = "Crappiest Clan Award." [ quoted text not captured ]

(snip) > Also, put aside City Gangrel. (snip) > !Gangrel aside, of course, which you stipulated. But I'd like to add on >to what Leggy said (or will say, depending on your newsreader, Trujah poster >that he is =), that's City Gangrel aside, it's the !Gangrel as a whole that >suck, since they have 5 disiplines. But, on top of that, they are THE most >fragmented clan for out of clan disciplines, being all over the place; it's >almost like having a whole clan of Rafales and Patrizias. Sabbat War did >help to fix that, "cookie cutter" vamps or no. > Why are everyone hacking on the Gangrel antitribu? I really love that clan! Munching vampires with Gangrel Conspiracy, defending with an earthmeld wielding Satyr, Hidden lurker and backstab with wolf claws, block and kill til hell freezes with Omaya, Draw out guns and shoot people with them with OBF/CEL... Voting! Who can stop Zachary from claiming the Cardinal title? The !Gan is perhaps not the best clan, but I don't think it's that bad! It's simply a cool clan!

In message <B6EB2245.31BA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > Many people are hoping for a "Path of Paradox" or somesuch; If so, I'm >actually guessing that many of the formerly expensive Chimerstry cards will >*still* see little use, you'll just see Path/SensDep decks, and more Fata >Morgana. Many of the cards just aren't worth a card slot. Oh, I don't know. 1 blood each for Horrid Reality and Mass Reality. That could be fun, especially if we get another couple of usable S:CE problem-cards. (i.e. not a complete a hoser, just something to make Ravnos combat a touch more viable) [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:xu+cWE4c...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <B6EB2245.31BA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > > Many people are hoping for a "Path of Paradox" or somesuch; If so, I'm > >actually guessing that many of the formerly expensive Chimerstry cards will > >*still* see little use, you'll just see Path/SensDep decks, and more Fata > >Morgana. Many of the cards just aren't worth a card slot. > > Oh, I don't know. > > 1 blood each for Horrid Reality and Mass Reality. That could be fun, > especially if we get another couple of usable S:CE problem-cards. (i.e. > not a complete a hoser, just something to make Ravnos combat a touch > more viable) > As well as Illusions of the Kindred....and then we have the Trick of Danya/Brainwash and Cairo Int'l deck that would become more competitive too. Apparition is certainly not bad together with a Trap either, or Ignis Fatuus (my fav card!).

>See http://www.geocities.com/tommyboy00269/vekn_cal.html for an >Assamite/!Gangrel deck to see how powerful the Assamites can be if focussed >in the right direction... Read the Bureaucratic Overload and check out the >deck listing. For fun, look at the pictures and see the minions of death >that washed over all in its path. I suppose I could do that. But, the question wasn't whether there was any clan that you couldn't make a good deck for. I have an Assamite deck that has swept every time I've played it, which, I think, is 3 times. It may not even be good, but it can't be that bad.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:34:41 +0200, "Henke" <d98...@stud.hh.se> wrote: >> !Gangrel aside, of course, which you stipulated. But I'd like to add >on >>to what Leggy said (or will say, depending on your newsreader, Trujah >poster >>that he is =), that's City Gangrel aside, it's the !Gangrel as a whole that >>suck, since they have 5 disiplines. But, on top of that, they are THE most >>fragmented clan for out of clan disciplines, being all over the place; it's >>almost like having a whole clan of Rafales and Patrizias. Sabbat War did >>help to fix that, "cookie cutter" vamps or no. > >Why are everyone hacking on the Gangrel antitribu? I really love that clan! I love them too. They can do all kinds of cool shit. But. >Munching vampires with Gangrel Conspiracy, defending with an earthmeld >wielding Satyr, Hidden lurker and backstab with wolf claws, block and kill >til hell freezes with Omaya, Draw out guns and shoot people with them with >OBF/CEL... Voting! Who can stop Zachary from claiming the Cardinal title? ...Totally failing to gain VPs, however. (As far as that last goes, any Sabbat Bishop can. The !Gangrel, shall we say... lack votes. :) Although it would be interesting to try to get a vote deck running with them... either stealth past, or use Acrobatics/Claws. Expensive on blood, but certainly a discouragement to people who want to block their actions. But really, I think they just come up short on table votes they can get to. They have three Bishops (Caitlin, Ellen, and Samantha) at 6, 8, and 10... and one four-vote Priscus, also at 10. Just not tidy. They do have City Gangrel Connections, and worse, they'll NEED it. They have three 7-caps (Zachary, Omaya, and Blaise) to serve as targets for Cardinal Benediction, but unfortunately, the disciplines are SO messed up that you are likely to end up with parts of your hand that you can't play with the acting vampire. And you're using all those big-ass vampires, meaning Minion Tap... and no visible way to refill them. It'll have to be LOTS of Con Boons in your deck, since this clan also lacks a viable bleed defense; you might have trouble ousting your prey just by sheer lack of actions. >The !Gan is perhaps not the best clan, but I don't think it's that bad! >It's simply a cool clan! I like 'em too. But really, they're STILL hurting as a whole. They got a LOT better with Sabbat War, but. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:10:52 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <B6EB2245.31BA%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >> Many people are hoping for a "Path of Paradox" or somesuch; If so, I'm >>actually guessing that many of the formerly expensive Chimerstry cards will >>*still* see little use, you'll just see Path/SensDep decks, and more Fata >>Morgana. Many of the cards just aren't worth a card slot. > >Oh, I don't know. > >1 blood each for Horrid Reality and Mass Reality. That could be fun, >especially if we get another couple of usable S:CE problem-cards. (i.e. >not a complete a hoser, just something to make Ravnos combat a touch >more viable) Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows isn't sufficiently offensive? =) With a Raven Spy and Ignorant Fatass, at least you can probably STOP a Presence action. (And you do get to save the Apparition until you actually take damage, so at least you're not potentially wasting blood.) [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Henke" <d98...@stud.hh.se> wrote in message news:9a4igj$7jn$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] I have to agree. Heck, I even put together a !Gangrel vote deck in Christmas and managed to get vote lock with 16 votes on the table and the only titled vamp I had in my crypt was Samantha! (whom I made regent) :) Although I dind't win wiht the deck but it was stilla lot of fun. Gangrel Conspiracy and RotBR is soooo fun to use as well, and Omaya intercept deck is too. Not to mention Black Spiral Buddy who can be pretty nasty too, or Shadow Court Satyr. Their Path helps them out quite a bit as well. Simply a very fun clan, even if they maybe don't collect VP's that easily.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 20:16:26 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >I have to agree. Heck, I even put together a !Gangrel vote deck in Christmas >and managed to get vote lock with 16 votes on the table and the only titled >vamp I had in my crypt was Samantha! (whom I made regent) :) Although I >dind't win wiht the deck but it was stilla lot of fun. Gangrel Conspiracy >and RotBR huh? Whats that last card there? T

-- <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ac868ba.506537705@news... [ quoted text not captured ] Ritual of the Bitter Rose

>>I have to agree. Heck, I even put together a !Gangrel vote deck in Christmas >>and managed to get vote lock with 16 votes on the table and the only titled >>vamp I had in my crypt was Samantha! (whom I made regent) :) Although I >>dind't win wiht the deck but it was stilla lot of fun. Gangrel Conspiracy >>and RotBR > >huh? Whats that last card there? Ritual of the Bitter Rose. Let's all your vampires gain the diablerie blood. Halcyan 2

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0t3cctc0ri4phv4qt...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think he meant a s:ce-hoser. After your combo you can stil play majesty.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:58:22 GMT, "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:0t3cctc0ri4phv4qt...@4ax.com... >> Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows isn't sufficiently offensive? =) With >> a Raven Spy and Ignorant Fatass, at least you can probably STOP a >> Presence action. (And you do get to save the Apparition until you >> actually take damage, so at least you're not potentially wasting >> blood.) >> >I think he meant a s:ce-hoser. After your combo you can stil play majesty. and Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows/Generic S:CE Hoser isn't ridiculously overpowered? Think about it... [ quoted text not captured ]

I love the Tories. My Favourite (love those Britishisms)! They have a way to get what they want and to avoid what they don't. Auspex and Presence are a very dastardly skill combo. Love the !Tories like Greta and Mercy, too bad they are on the wrong team. I kinda disagree with the posts about necromancy etc...By using nec and dom and forgetting potence, the Gio's CAN hang! I would say the Ravnos have the roughest time to win a game. The next set will help both a lot.....believe me... Beware of the Assamites too. I have found a way for the Nossies to actually win!!! They're my new fav at the moment. Blah blah blah, I am drunk, I'm outa here... Jeff Prince of Cleveland "Wake up sucker! We're thieves and we're bad guys, that's EXACTLY what we are!" Peter, "Dawn of the Dead"

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010331195112...@ng-cg1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Yes? That's the point..diablerie, play RotBR and when blood hunt is called you play Gangrel Conspiracy...voila, you gained lots of blood (hopefully) and no harm done to you :)~

In message <gpodct8tobn6720t8...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >and Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows/Generic S:CE Hoser isn't >ridiculously overpowered? Which is why I don't want an S:CE *hoser*. There are many ways to "annoy" S:CE, in potential mechanics. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >and Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows/Generic S:CE Hoser isn't > >ridiculously overpowered? > Which is why I don't want an S:CE *hoser*. > There are many ways to "annoy" S:CE, in potential mechanics. But even the "annoyance" that you suggest in another post (having it cost 1 blood/do 1 damage) still isn't all that great of an alternative. Ok, I just wasted a 3 or 4 card combo and you only lose 1 blood? Sure, I don't *have* to play the combo... but if they don't have a S:CE in hand, it's just as much of a waste. If not an actual *hoser*, then perhaps something that was suggested by (I forget the name; forget the thread; yes, I suck) where it would allow cards in play to remain in play (to a certain extent) in the event of S:CE. While S:CE could still trump combat but at least the cards and the blood would not have been the waste it otherwise would have been. Sorrow --- Through the screams of falling steel. By the light of flares and wisdom. All the doubts I could not face. All this time I wanted more. With a line I'll mark the past as a symbol of beginning. To the gods whose names we've lost and the names who gave in vain.

In message <aO2y6.765$Uu6....@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes >> Which is why I don't want an S:CE *hoser*. >> There are many ways to "annoy" S:CE, in potential mechanics. > >But even the "annoyance" that you suggest in another post (having it >cost 1 blood/do 1 damage) still isn't all that great of an alternative. >Ok, I just wasted a 3 or 4 card combo and you only lose 1 blood? As I said, the trick is to spot that there potential other mechanics for "annoying" S:CE. Making sure that S:CE can't be played (Dog Pack, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reactions, Thoughts Betrayed, Immortal Grapple, also Mind of a Child to some degree) and having more combat (Telepathic Tracking, Psyche!), or just cancelling it (Direct Intervention), aren't the only mechanics that could be invented. Drawing Out the Beast used to count (the damage thing, even if S:CE was played), and I'm ignoring the "weirdo" things like Weather Control. Assume that we want "normal" strike decks (that is, decks that strike during the strike phase, with strikes chosen either during Choose Range (guns, lids, gates etc.) or Choose Strike) to have a relative advantage over S:CE, compared to now.[0] - Stopping it being played is one option. (We have) - Keeping combat going is another. (We have) - Give S:CE a cost. ("All combat cards played to gain 'Strike: Combat Ends' cost an additional blood to play.") -Minor 'ignoring' of S:CE - like old DotB toned down. -Keep things in play, as you recount. -Require an S:CE to be declared early in the combat, so you don't waste all your cards: Best Laid Plans Combat Auspex 1 blood +1 intercept (S) Play before range is determined in the first round of combat. The opposing minion chooses his strike now instead of during the Choose Strike (or Establish Range) step. (Additional strikes are handled normally.) [1] - Non directly combat effects e.g. an action Psycho Action Dementation /Control of this card is determined as if it were a master card./ Place this card on a minion. The minion with this card cannot play "Strike: Dodge" as a strike. This card may be burned by that minion as a (D) action (S) As above, but this minion cannot play "Strike: Combat Ends" as a strike. - Re-arrange Strike Resolution Spit from the Shadows Quietus Combat 1 blood Strike: 2R damage, with First Strike (S) Strike: 2R damage. This strike resolves before Strike: Combat Ends. Or something like that. This is also a neat idea, because you tie up the ability to beat First Strike with a *particular* strike, not just a general one like Immortal Grapple. It can then be much harder to modify the strike, except through Dawn Op etc. (And that can be somewhat subdued by giving it to a "hard" discipline - qui/for isn't the easiest of combos.) It makes it much harder to "abuse", or over-power. - Improve weapons Magic Gun (Remote Targeting) Thaumaturgy 2 blood Action This is a +1 stealth action. Place this card on a gun this minion possesses. This gun now strikes with First Strike. (S) As above, but this gun's strike resolves before Strike: Combat Ends. Similar mechanic to above, achieved differently and still has a limiting side to it. Also, putting it in Thaumaturgy makes it more challenging to use effectively than if it were just a generic action, say. - Remember potential balances, like once per game. Something can be a touch more "powerful" (something like Reality Mirror) if it can't be done more than once and so therefore can't be the basis of a deck, or stuff too many in a deck. - Try the old suggestion for toning down S:CE. Something that turns S:CE into "When a Strike: Combat Ends strike resolves, move to the Press phase instead of ending combat." That's off the top of my head. The one's that "beat" S:CE, especially tied to a specific strike, are quite cute. You can still get out of combat but take some damage, but you get to stop them additional striking you etc. Obviously, these *all* need work (I'm the first to admit that), but you don't have to *hose* S:CE to give other decks other ideas. [0] This is one area where you can pull this down. If you don't think that S:CE is over-powered, too cheap or whatever. My personal thought is that S:CE should be good, but *less* good. Damage prevention, dodge and maneuvers should have more of a place. [1] This has many other possibilities, of course. Careful play-testing etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > Or something like that. This is also a neat idea, because you tie up > the ability to beat First Strike with a *particular* strike, not just a > general one like Immortal Grapple. It can then be much harder to modify > the strike, except through Dawn Op etc. (And that can be somewhat > subdued by giving it to a "hard" discipline - qui/for isn't the easiest > of combos.) It makes it much harder to "abuse", or over-power. I like the idea of giving First Strike more usefulness in the game in general. How many cards actually use First Strike? I can think of five or so... Maybe a slight alteration to the rules to make First Strike trump S:CE? I don't like the idea of complicating things any more than they are... but this would give celerity users a slight edge. Immortal Grapple would still be better than Backstab for the Brujah but at least the Assamites and gun-wielding Tories would have a chance. And realistically, well... as realistically as this game CAN be, shouldn't an assassin be able to get the occasional strike in with impunity? Of course this would also make Muddles WAY more useful... which isn't a good thing. Cheers, WES

-- "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aO2y6.765$Uu6....@monger.newsread.com... > > >and Trap/Apparition/Carrion Crows/Generic S:CE Hoser isn't > > >ridiculously overpowered? > > Which is why I don't want an S:CE *hoser*. > > There are many ways to "annoy" S:CE, in potential mechanics. > > But even the "annoyance" that you suggest in another post (having it > cost 1 blood/do 1 damage) still isn't all that great of an alternative. > Ok, I just wasted a 3 or 4 card combo and you only lose 1 blood? > Sure, I don't *have* to play the combo... but if they don't have a > S:CE in hand, it's just as much of a waste. > If not an actual *hoser*, then perhaps something that was suggested > by (I forget the name; forget the thread; yes, I suck) where it would > allow cards in play to remain in play (to a certain extent) in the event > of S:CE. While S:CE could still trump combat but at least the cards > and the blood would not have been the waste it otherwise would > have been. > > Sorrow Why just not make more use of Owl Companion/Aura Reading/Revelations? Then you will see if your opponent sits with S:CE on hand and can try force him to play it with as little loss of your own cards as possible.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 02:00:44 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <aO2y6.765$Uu6....@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow ><jcb...@yahoo.com> writes >>> Which is why I don't want an S:CE *hoser*. >>> There are many ways to "annoy" S:CE, in potential mechanics. >> >>But even the "annoyance" that you suggest in another post (having it >>cost 1 blood/do 1 damage) still isn't all that great of an alternative. >>Ok, I just wasted a 3 or 4 card combo and you only lose 1 blood? > >As I said, the trick is to spot that there potential other mechanics for >"annoying" S:CE. > Well you know I was just thinking how absolutely hosed 'First Strike' is by SCE. Supposedly FS is declared and resolved before any other strike, and yet if someone were to SCE or dodge after seeing the FS, they take precedence instead, utterly hosing the FSer. If FS were TRULY FIRST STRIKE, then it would hit and resolve before ANY other stirke, SCe or otherwise. That would be one clear solution to sce hoser decks, and help make cards like Backstab and the like actually useful. T

>Well you know I was just thinking how absolutely hosed 'First Strike' >is by SCE. > >Supposedly FS is declared and resolved before any other strike, and >yet if someone were to SCE or dodge after seeing the FS, they take >precedence instead, utterly hosing the FSer. > >If FS were TRULY FIRST STRIKE, then it would hit and resolve before >ANY other stirke, SCe or otherwise. > > >That would be one clear solution to sce hoser decks, and help make >cards like Backstab and the like actually useful. But then there would be the problem that the only real defense would be damage prevention (which isn't too common among disciplines). Most clans would literally have no defense against the Assamites. And as others have noted, the Muddled Vampire Hunter would be ridiculously overpowered. Who needs to bother building a standard Potence rush deck when all you need is a single MVH to whack off defenseless vampire after defenseless vampire... Halcyan 2

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010404073149...@ng-fi1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] A solution might be to allow FS to resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. That would make dodge more useful vs S:CE too.

Roger Carhult wrote: > "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:20010404073149...@ng-fi1.aol.com... > > >If FS were TRULY FIRST STRIKE, then it would hit and resolve before > > >ANY other stirke, SCe or otherwise. > > > And as others have noted, the Muddled Vampire Hunter would be ridiculously > > overpowered. Who needs to bother building a standard Potence rush deck > when all > > you need is a single MVH to whack off defenseless vampire after > defenseless > > vampire... > > A solution might be to allow FS to resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. > That would make dodge more useful vs S:CE too. Before S:CE is necessarily before Dodge, since S:CE resolves before Dodge. S:CE is TRULY S:CE - it ends combat before strikes resolve. Dodge is TRULY DODGE - it avoids the offensive effects of the opposing strike. See 6.4.5 for more details. This is the same as the 1995 V:TES rulebook handling [8.3]. The 1994 Jyhad rulebook was ambiguous on Dodge vs. FS, but included explicit handling of S:CE vs. FS. [15.3] -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote > A solution might be to allow FS to resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. > That would make dodge more useful vs S:CE too. And since Dodge is still sufficiently balanced, not to mention hosed by Skin Trap and Scorpion Sting (which do not hose S:CE) this seems acceptable to me. Of course, since none of us (except LSJ presumably) has any say in rules changes, this all amounts to nothing. The only argument I have against this is that I also hate rules changes *sigh*. Cheers, WES

In message <9afgk...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >Of course, since none of us (except LSJ presumably) has any say in rules >changes, this all amounts to nothing. One assumes that the Rules Team have some say as well. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:5Y$+LoBVO...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <9afgk...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > writes > >Of course, since none of us (except LSJ presumably) has any say in rules > >changes, this all amounts to nothing. > > One assumes that the Rules Team have some say as well. One would hope so :) But who are they? I assume some of the news-groupies? Whoever you are, thanks for your thoughtful rulings. Despite the occasional confusion, you've all done a fantastic job of making the game balanced IMHO. Cheers, WES

In message <9afsn...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> writes >One would hope so :) > >But who are they? I assume some of the news-groupies? Who knows? Presumably, White Wolf have some input too (though they may well be silent at the moment, recognising their inexperience). And Wizards before them? [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3ACB3231...@white-wolf.com... > Roger Carhult wrote: > > "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message > > news:20010404073149...@ng-fi1.aol.com... > > > >If FS were TRULY FIRST STRIKE, then it would hit and resolve before > > > >ANY other stirke, SCe or otherwise. > > > > > And as others have noted, the Muddled Vampire Hunter would be ridiculously > > > overpowered. Who needs to bother building a standard Potence rush deck > > when all > > > you need is a single MVH to whack off defenseless vampire after > > defenseless > > > vampire... > > > > A solution might be to allow FS to resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. > > That would make dodge more useful vs S:CE too. > > Before S:CE is necessarily before Dodge, since S:CE resolves before Dodge. > > S:CE is TRULY S:CE - it ends combat before strikes resolve. > Dodge is TRULY DODGE - it avoids the offensive effects of the opposing strike. > > See 6.4.5 for more details. This is the same as the 1995 V:TES rulebook > handling [8.3]. The 1994 Jyhad rulebook was ambiguous on Dodge vs. FS, but > included explicit handling of S:CE vs. FS. [15.3] Yes but it doesn't mean it couldn't be changed :P

In message <9aggog$koa$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >Yes but it doesn't mean it couldn't be changed :P The arguments against change, specifically Muddles, are quite persuasive when you examine them. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:+3FPgmD$q6y6...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <9afsn...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> > writes > >One would hope so :) > > > >But who are they? I assume some of the news-groupies? From the VTES FAQ (http://www.TheLasombra.com/vtes_faq.htm) section 4.1.1 4.1.1. Who is the Rules Team (RT)? As per LSJ's post on rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad - The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain anonymous. The RT has members from different play groups from a total of three continents. The protocol is discussion and playtesting among the members of the playgroups and reports of findings via e-mail. The topics for discussion are suggested by the Net.Rep (LSJ). Ideas for playtesting are culled from the newsgroup (by LSJ) and/or suggested by the members of the RT. Members of the RT are also free to add their own topics of discussion (well, not at first since we had a full itenerary already, but once the initial fixes were out of the way). No one has any votes. Changes come by consensus. The topics come from one or more of: the newsgroup/mailinglist, private e-mail to LSJ, or members of the RT. Mostly from the newsgroup. The solutions may be "rarely" seen on the newsgroup prior to the RT post, but the problems are almost always brought up on the newsgroup prior to being discussed by the RT.

legbiter<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote: >On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:55:03 GMT someone <someone...@newsranger.com> wrote: >>Who sais/said/will have said that Temporis isn't overpowered. > >It depends what you use it for. Nipping into the future to determine >whether the person you're thinking of marrying is going to turn into >a fat shrew or beer-bellied football bore is, i think/thought/ >will think, ENTIRELY right. >> >>To all Trujah: can you go to june and buy a box of Final Nights for me? > >Haha, they already will have did and have taken them ALL back to the > distant past where Cave men will have used them to invent bonfires. Do as I do. I have them delivered by TARDIS. Bleu

On 04 Apr 2001 11:31:49 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >>If FS were TRULY FIRST STRIKE, then it would hit and resolve before >>ANY other stirke, SCe or otherwise. >> >> >>That would be one clear solution to sce hoser decks, and help make >>cards like Backstab and the like actually useful. > >But then there would be the problem that the only real defense would be damage >prevention (which isn't too common among disciplines). Most clans would >literally have no defense against the Assamites. > I dont see a problem with that...people were just moaning over how the assamites werent as deadly as they should be anyways. >And as others have noted, the Muddled Vampire Hunter would be ridiculously >overpowered. Who needs to bother building a standard Potence rush deck when all >you need is a single MVH to whack off defenseless vampire after defenseless >vampire... > Er maneuver anyone?? T

Talo...@hotmail.com skrev i meddelandet <3acdbf21.921936192@news>... [ quoted text not captured ] Or having 4 blood? Or fortitude? Come on, guys, how dangerous is a Vampire hunter? /Henke

The Lasombra skrev i meddelandet <3NPy6.31615$wx.68...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>... >4.1.1. Who is the Rules Team (RT)? >As per LSJ's post on rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad - > >The Rules Team for VTES is composed of people who will remain > anonymous. The RT has members from different play groups > from a total of three continents. The protocol is discussion > and playtesting among the members of the playgroups and > reports of findings via e-mail. The topics for discussion are > suggested by the Net.Rep (LSJ). Ideas for playtesting are > culled from the newsgroup (by LSJ) and/or suggested by the > members of the RT. Members of the RT are also free to add > their own topics of discussion (well, not at first since > we had a full itenerary already, but once the initial fixes > were out of the way). I like this... It's like the mysterious Inconnu, always monitoring the world in silence. Secret meetings, probably filled with even more secretious rituals, blood offerings and chanting. Then they read the signs of the seasons (and the newsgroups) and summon the strenght to shape the world (Jyhad) according to thei secret masters wishes... Or something like that... ;o)

>>But then there would be the problem that the only real defense would be >damage >>prevention (which isn't too common among disciplines). Most clans would >>literally have no defense against the Assamites. >> > >I dont see a problem with that...people were just moaning over how the >assamites werent as deadly as they should be anyways. It's quite a big step going from barely playable to nearly unstoppable. I would like to see Assamite decks to be more feasible, but not given that much power. >>And as others have noted, the Muddled Vampire Hunter would be ridiculously >>overpowered. Who needs to bother building a standard Potence rush deck when >all >>you need is a single MVH to whack off defenseless vampire after defenseless >>vampire... >> > >Er maneuver anyone?? How about a muddled vampire hunter equipped with the Ivory Bow (or Flame Thrower). Automatically hits you for 1 or 2 agg (since you can't Dodge or S:CE). Works at close and long range. And unless you can prevent, you're going to torpor. Even most combat decks might have a bit of trouble dealing with such an ally... Halcyan 2

-- "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:VE31MCV0...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <9aggog$koa$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult > <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes > >Yes but it doesn't mean it couldn't be changed :P > > The arguments against change, specifically Muddles, are quite persuasive > when you examine them. > Muddled is just one card and IMO I don't think it's THAT powerful. I mean c'mon, there's many cards hosing him. Dodge+additional strike/dodge with carrion crows etc (or simply dodge to avoid him), Flesh of Marble...fortitude...Far Mastery, Lure of the Serpent..Entrancement...maneuver etc etc etc. Geesh :P

On 05 Apr 2001 22:35:36 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >> >>I dont see a problem with that...people were just moaning over how the >>assamites werent as deadly as they should be anyways. > >It's quite a big step going from barely playable to nearly unstoppable. > Thats over exxageration. Assamites dont have that much first strike, and its hardly unstoppable. > >How about a muddled vampire hunter equipped with the Ivory Bow (or Flame >Thrower). Automatically hits you for 1 or 2 agg (since you can't Dodge or >S:CE). Works at close and long range. And unless you can prevent, you're going >to torpor. Even most combat decks might have a bit of trouble dealing with such >an ally... As they should! We're talking about a 4 pool cost specefic clan ally that has been giving a 1-2 pool cost lethal or even unique weapon. He SHOULD be able to give anyone a 'bit of trouble'! We might even see cards like 'command' and the like enter mainstream play then. T

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010405183536...@ng-ch1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] No your wrong, the solution I made was: "A solution might be to allow FS to resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. That would make dodge more useful vs S:CE too" so dodge WOULD still help against him, then we have adaptability, fortitude, Fire Dance, leather Jacket, Flak Jacket, Cryptic Mission, Art of Love, Shadow Twin, Command bla bla bla. I bet you I can give at least 20 examples of dealing with him. Besides we need allies that are good an useful too.

[ quoted text not captured ] Extremely dangerous. You'll run out of maneuvers eventually. And it's not necessary to be stupid with him and rush the people who have more than 3 blood. (Malks having OBF is nice; they can Cloak his rush action so he doesn't get blocked incorrectly). If he also beat S:CE and Dodge, all of a sudden Muddles and his Ivory Bow put you in prevent-or-die land. Imagine that briefly. =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

>No your wrong, the solution I made was: "A solution might be to allow FS to >resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. I know you mentioned that FS should be foiled by Dodge. But I'm pretty sure that Talon was suggesting that FS should beat both and I was replying to *that* situation. (And in regards to Talon's last post, the Muddled Vampire Hunter only costs 2 pool, not 4. Which makes him much more playable. And even with an Ivory or Flamethrower, that's a total of 3-4 pool. Still within the range of replacing him and his weapon should he get killed). Halcyan 2

> If he also beat S:CE and Dodge, all of a sudden Muddles and his Ivory > Bow put you in prevent-or-die land. Imagine that briefly. =) I'd rather not, actually. :p It's kind of sad (and ironic, to some small extent) that it is the existance of one single ally (a classification of card that is inherently fragile) that is the biggest argument against First Strike working as it probably should have in the first place. I'd almost suggest Muddles get reprinted so that something could be done with "First Strike" but then that would make Muddles worthless so that's not something that would ever happen. That leaves us basically in a Catch-22. *shrug* Sorrow --- I keep telling them that I think they're out to get me. They ask me if I feel remose and I answer, "Why of course! There's so much more I could have done if they'd let me!" So it's Rorschach and Prozac and everything is groovy

-- "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:m6oqct060jvemn6g7...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Again, the suggestion was that Didge still hoses FS..... I don't find your other arguments convincing, read my other posts in the thread to see counterarguments.

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010406033324...@ng-cg1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] He mixed up the cost, a Falmethrower cost 4 and not 2 either. So a Muddled for 6 pool is pretty damn much I'd say, especially sinc eit can easily be stolen, the equipment can be burned (Anrach Revolt,, Peacy Treaty, Canine Horde etc). There's literally tons of ways to screw the MVH up if you jsut use your imagination. Besides, take into consideration that Dodge hoses FS then, you think he's too powerful??

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:27:26 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >He mixed up the cost, a Falmethrower cost 4 and not 2 either. So a Muddled >for 6 pool is pretty damn much I'd say, especially sinc eit can easily be >stolen, the equipment can be burned (Anrach Revolt,, Peacy Treaty, Canine >Horde etc). There's literally tons of ways to screw the MVH up if you jsut >use your imagination. Besides, take into consideration that Dodge hoses FS >then, you think he's too powerful?? Muddles costs 2. An Ivory Bow costs 1. Total: 3. Sure, there are literally tons of ways to screw him up. But how many of them are actually played? Keep in mind that if you don't kill Muddles, then he will KEEP COMING AT YOU, and eventually will get you. Trust me on this; the only effective ways to handle Muddles involve making him dead. Cryptic Mission decks are extremely rare, so please don't toss that around as a reasonable method of removing Muddles. It's a *possible* method; but 99% of decks won't have access to that method when Muddles hits the table and you realize that you need it. Far Mastery, Entrancement; are blockable actions, and oh look! the Malkavians have superior Auspex in spades. Without the Bow, you need a minion with 4 blood, or a minion who can prevent a strike for 4, a minion who can maneuver and strike at range, or a minion who can generate additional strikes after its Dodge. None of these are terribly uncommon, but a deck which intends to use Muddles is going to be careful about who it rushes, and will be doing the rushing at stealth. Not to mention that Muddles can use plain old disciplineless Dodge if he gets blocked by a minion with 4 blood. And Muddles only cost 2 to bring out; I habitually include 3-4 of him in decks where I intend to use him. He's CHEAP! WITH the Bow, half those options go away; you now have to prevent the damage, or dodge and use additional strikes. That's already getting pretty damn ugly. Granted, he now cost 3 and it won't be very easy to get him back with a Bow, but who cares? The "bowless" version of Muddles is still quite effective on his own. If you make Muddles beat S:CE, his utility is significantly increased; no longer does he have to run you out of S:CE cards. He can just get you on the first try. This is starting to push the limit, for me. If you make him beat Dodge too, he'll slaughter vampires wholesale. Prevent or die becomes the order of the day. But you weren't suggesting that, so fair enough. But I also don't see the logic that makes First Strike beat S:CE and not Dodge. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ccqrctsbfe460i22p...@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:27:26 +0200, "Roger Carhult" > <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: > > >He mixed up the cost, a Falmethrower cost 4 and not 2 either. So a Muddled > >for 6 pool is pretty damn much I'd say, especially sinc eit can easily be > >stolen, the equipment can be burned (Anrach Revolt,, Peacy Treaty, Canine > >Horde etc). There's literally tons of ways to screw the MVH up if you jsut > >use your imagination. Besides, take into consideration that Dodge hoses FS > >then, you think he's too powerful?? > > Muddles costs 2. An Ivory Bow costs 1. Total: 3. > > Sure, there are literally tons of ways to screw him up. But how many > of them are actually played? I can honestly say that in 90% of presence (bleed) or dominate (general) decks I make have at least one copy of Far Mastery or Entrancement in it. Simply because it's very useable. Far mastery lets u steal retainers if there's no allies outl and there's almost always a retainer out to steal in a metagame. Entrancement let's you bleed for one extra which is always good. > > Keep in mind that if you don't kill Muddles, then he will KEEP COMING > AT YOU, and eventually will get you. Trust me on this; the only > effective ways to handle Muddles involve making him dead. Cryptic > Mission decks are extremely rare, so please don't toss that around as > a reasonable method of removing Muddles. Huh? You don't need a deck *based* on CM to kill a MVH, when I play Tremere I usully toss in 1-3 CM's. Then we have Shadow Twin who works fine as well. Not that uncommon either. Besides MVH decks aint that common either, if they were, people would use Far Mastery etc even more. > It's a *possible* method; > but 99% of decks won't have access to that method when Muddles hits > the table and you realize that you need it. >Far Mastery, > Entrancement; are blockable actions, and oh look! the Malkavians have > superior Auspex in spades. Bringing out MVH is blockable too, when he equips it's blockable too. Sure, Malks can support him with obf though but there's still pelnty of ways to kill him once he's out and fully set. > > Without the Bow, you need a minion with 4 blood, or a minion who can > prevent a strike for 4, no preventing say 2 is enough too if you have 2 blood on the vamp. >a minion who can maneuver and strike at range, simple maneuver is enough coupled with a murder of crows, carrion crows etc. Not necessarily a strike needed. > or a minion who can generate additional strikes after its Dodge. None > of these are terribly uncommon, but a deck which intends to use > Muddles is going to be careful about who it rushes, and will be doing > the rushing at stealth. Not to mention that Muddles can use plain old > disciplineless Dodge if he gets blocked by a minion with 4 blood. And > Muddles only cost 2 to bring out; I habitually include 3-4 of him in > decks where I intend to use him. He's CHEAP! Yes he's cheap anfd very useful, I see nothing wrong with that since most allies suck too much. You know, a caitiff with a cap of 1 with an Ivory Bow and IR Goggles isn't much worse and he's even cheaper. Most of the things above still apply plus he's not burnt if he gets hit (which generally must be at long range). Only diff is that S:CE works against him which isn't THAT big of a difference. > > WITH the Bow, half those options go away; you now have to prevent the > damage, or dodge and use additional strikes. That's already getting > pretty damn ugly. Granted, he now cost 3 and it won't be very easy to > get him back with a Bow, but who cares? The "bowless" version of > Muddles is still quite effective on his own. > > If you make Muddles beat S:CE, his utility is significantly increased; > no longer does he have to run you out of S:CE cards. He can just get > you on the first try. This is starting to push the limit, for me. This only make a diff if your deck solely relies on S:CE as a defence. SO it will be a reason to include some dodges in the deck too, which I think would be a perfectly good thing. > > If you make him beat Dodge too, he'll slaughter vampires wholesale. > Prevent or die becomes the order of the day. But you weren't > suggesting that, so fair enough. But I also don't see the logic that > makes First Strike beat S:CE and not Dodge. > There doesn't need to be a real logic, there's already tons of things in the game that isn't logic. If you want logic you can say that when someone does a FS he's so fast that the oppsing minion can't put up Majesty or Meld into the Earth, while doing a dodge reasonably is faster to do if u imagine these things existed IRL. But as I said, logic is secondary, what is primary is that the game works well. I'll some list things that you can kill/hose/neutralise/hurt meth of/ [fill in your own] MVH with to show just what a plethora of options there are..... I am even counting on the MVH having Ivory Bow too. Fast Reaction/Hidden Lurker Leather Jacket Kindred Segregation (to some extent) Peace Treaty (even lesser extent) Blood Fury/Blood Rage Soul Burn Fortitude Cryptic Mission Shadow Twin Far Mastery Lure of the Serpent Art of Love (some extent, you can then transfer Ivory Bow, with rave you can even kill the MVH) Entrancement Command Dodge + (additional strike, murder of crows or whatever) Flesh of Marble (not for Ivory Bow though) Adaptability Weather Control Flak Jacket (for Ivory Bow) Blood of Acid Bloodform (not against Ivory Bow) Release of the Shackled Soul Thoughts Betrayed [inferior] (?? not sure) Corruption There's probably plenty of other ways I haven't mentioned as well. Do you REALLY think MVH is THAT powerful? Hardly. If yout hink he is, then I'd say say one thing that definately beats MVH in comparison; Ambrosius with Talbot's. It doesn't matter he doesn't have FS, he can do 6 dmg quite easily AND you can't harm him unless you make agg damage (even 2 needed to kill him, so Vagabond Mystic here can really be scary). Few clans can do agg damage, but all clans have access to dodge. If you can play VTES perfectly fine with Ambrious-combo then surely will MVH-combo be fine too even with an improvement of FS. I think it's redicilous if the reason for not changing FS is because of MVH!

On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:21:32 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Keep in mind that if you don't kill Muddles, then he will KEEP COMING >AT YOU, and eventually will get you. Trust me on this; the only >effective ways to handle Muddles involve making him dead. Cryptic >Mission decks are extremely rare, so please don't toss that around as >a reasonable method of removing Muddles. It's a *possible* method; >but 99% of decks won't have access to that method when Muddles hits >the table and you realize that you need it. Far Mastery, >Entrancement; are blockable actions, and oh look! the Malkavians have >superior Auspex in spades. Oh look, hidden lurker, fast reaction, carrion crows, weather control etc etc. T

On 06 Apr 2001 07:33:24 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >(And in regards to Talon's last post, the Muddled Vampire Hunter only costs 2 >pool, not 4. Which makes him much more playable. And even with an Ivory or >Flamethrower, that's a total of 3-4 pool. Still within the range of replacing >him and his weapon should he get killed). > >Halcyan 2 Block the equipping action and maneuver to long. C'mon, one unique card combo is hardly a legitimate excuse to violate the principle behind first strike. I actually played jyhad the way I see first strike for a long time until i noticed the discrepancy, it was nowhere nearly as powerful and unblancing as you think. T

On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:43:25 GMT, "Sorrow" <jcb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >It's kind of sad (and ironic, to some small extent) that it is the existance >of one single ally (a classification of card that is inherently fragile) >that is >the biggest argument against First Strike working as it probably should >have in the first place. I'd almost suggest Muddles get reprinted so that >something could be done with "First Strike" but then that would make >Muddles worthless so that's not something that would ever happen. Change the text to reflect the nature of the kine hunter. "This minion may attack a vampire controlled by another Meth as a D action, if he does so he gains first strike for the resulting combat" Thus you could jump on him on your own turn as 'night falls' as it were. T

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 17:24:03 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >Again, the suggestion was that Didge still hoses FS..... I don't find your >other arguments convincing, read my other posts in the thread to see >counterarguments. Well actually this began out of my frustration from First Strike not truly being 'First Strike'. And thus it should resolve before the opponents strike, regardless of whatever it is short of it also being First Strike imo. T

>You know, a caitiff with a cap of 1 with an Ivory Bow and IR Goggles isn't >much worse and he's even cheaper. Most of the things above still apply plus >he's not burnt if he gets hit (which generally must be at long range). Only >diff is that S:CE works against him which isn't THAT big of a difference. But the thing with the Caitiff is that you actually get to hit him back. A Theft, a Thrown Gate, an Aid From Bats, or even a Zip Gun will allow you to hit him back and either torporize him or keep him busy hunting next turn. But with the Muddled and an Ivory Bow you don't get to hit him back in any conventional sense. >This only make a diff if your deck solely relies on S:CE as a defence. SO it >will be a reason to include some dodges in the deck too, which I think would >be a perfectly good thing. So then we go back to the situation that Derek described where the MVH just has to wait to run his opponent out of dodges. Halcyan 2

>Oh look, hidden lurker, fast reaction, carrion crows, weather control >etc etc. The problem is many of those cards are require rather specific situations and become rather corner-case. It's often not putting them in because they just end up taking up space *unless* those specific situations are met. Well, most of those you mentioned can also be used to get around Dodge and S:CE. Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, and Weather Control all do their thing with either of those while Carrion Crows still gets around Dodge. Why do the Assamites need First Strike? If they *really* wanted to get around S:CE they should be using Hidden Lurker then? The answer is that Hidden Lurker is not efficient enough to commonly include in most decks, as is the case with many of the anti-MVH cards you mentioned. Halcyan 2

>Well actually this began out of my frustration from First Strike not >truly being 'First Strike'. > >And thus it should resolve before the opponents strike, regardless of >whatever it is short of it also being First Strike imo. > Here's an idea: Why don't we replace the name of "First Strike" to something like "Fast Strike." This way, it can still show that it's "fast," without confusing people who might think it goes "first." Personally, I think the only reason it was called "First Strike" was because they thought it would be convenient to use various M:tG terms (including tapping, etc.). Maybe if someone else had developed the game it would have had a less confusing term... Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] And dodge should be truly dodge. And thus protect from the opponents' strike, regardless of whatever it is (short of a dodge or S:CE) And S:CE should be truly S:CE. And thus end combat before the opponent's strike resolves, regardless of whatever it is (short of a S:CE). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

-- <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ad27c6d.1035949542@news... [ quoted text not captured ] But I think most people stilla gree it would be too powerful if it hosed all strikes. Thus I suggested this solution, which has the benefit of improving both FS *and* dodge. Which both needs to be improved in relation to S:CE IMO.

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010406232339...@ng-cg1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Which could take a while or also not. But remember that *anyone* on the table can try steal him with a Far Mastery for example, or kill him through other means if that Meth becomes too powerful. Sure MVH is good and I think that's just fine too but he'd not be overpowerful. Those times I've faced him I've actually rarely avoided him by S:CE since I don't play decks with S:CE that much and I'ce done fine sometimes, and not so fine other times but in the end someone has always killed him (and you can't do that with S:CE except Catatonic Fear/Oubliette which almost nobody owned/owns/uses here). Now he's not often had en Ivory Bow on himself either, but really there's so many ways as I already have shown I think this discussion is a bit redicilous. You haven't told how the Ambrosius combo is easier to kill (it definately isn't).

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010407040853...@ng-ch1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] A casual HL is never wrong really, but you rarely make a deck based around it. How can you say thse are specifc sitations really?? Any godo combat deck would kill the MVH easily, now let's see there's PLENTY of combat clans around that could do it, I wouldn't callt hat a "corner-case". On TOP of that there's all the other ways (cryptic mission, corruption, far mastery etc). Cailean with an Ivory Bow is definately much harder to kill, but it's still done occasionally, same goes with Ambrosius and *here' you can really talk about cornercase since you need agg damage and you need to do 3(!) of it (since Talbot prevents one) to kill him. How many clans can do that???

Cailean with an Ivory Bow is definately much harder to kill, but it's > still done occasionally, total cost: 11, MVH with Ivory Bow: 3 same goes with Ambrosius and *here' you can really > talk about cornercase since you need agg damage and you need to do 3(!) of > it (since Talbot prevents one) to kill him. How many clans can do that??? > Total cost :6, can be S:CE'ed, dodged and pressed to end against, which in the case of MVH with your interpretation of First strike can't be done. Also, the MVH has his 'rush' ability built in. If Ambrosius hasn't equipped with TC, he's not dangerous at all. Besides you need stealth to bring allies and equipment into play relyably. OBF for the Malks, Carlotta for the Giovani? Jeroen

-- <Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ace7a9d.1035485600@news... [ quoted text not captured ] I believe you, people are just exaggerating. You complain how FS sucks, and when suggests are med to improve it you think it's too powerful lol. Well if it hosed dodge it might be too good coz then there's no ways to avoid a strike in combat (say a Sacrificial Carnage with Increased Strength) so only fortitude/flesh of marble would save you. That would be too good since a lot of clans can muster up this kind of strike or similar deadly. But if it hosed S:CE and not dodge it would have 3 benefits: a) dodge becomes better compared to S:CE which is a good thing b) S:CE gets weakened a little, which seem to be what most people here wnat, yet it's not weakened too much and wills till be useful c) FS gets actually used and become decently good but not oeverpowerful since dodge gets around it and any clan can have dodge.

-- "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:6xEz6.19719$ii5.1...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be... > Cailean with an Ivory Bow is definately much harder to kill, but it's > > still done occasionally, > > total cost: 11, MVH with Ivory Bow: 3 Of course the cost diff is big, I was just showing that if you can bring down Cailean you can bring down MVH (and much easier too). > > same goes with Ambrosius and *here' you can really > > talk about cornercase since you need agg damage and you need to do 3(!) of > > it (since Talbot prevents one) to kill him. How many clans can do that??? > > > > Total cost :6, can be S:CE'ed, dodged and pressed to end against, Dodge and press to end isn't all that easy to muster, and with Mob Connections (reasonable to assume in this type of deck) Ambrosius can press again. He's much harder to deal with because a simple maneuver isn't enough since he can just press to go for another round, so TWO maneuvers would be needed or even three with Mob Connections out. which in > the case of MVH with your interpretation of First strike can't be done. > > Also, the MVH has his 'rush' ability built in. If Ambrosius hasn't equipped > with TC, he's not dangerous at all. But when he has it he's damn dangerous. > > Besides you need stealth to bring allies and equipment into play relyably. > OBF for the Malks, Carlotta for the Giovani? It can be tricky to get out, but certainly not impossible. A couple of Jar the souls before on vamps who might eb able to block should do. Or trick the playrs to use the intercept agaisnt other things before trying.

>Which could take a while or also not. But remember that *anyone* on the >table can try steal him with a Far Mastery for example, or kill him through >other means if that Meth becomes too powerful. Sure MVH is good and I think >that's just fine too but he'd not be overpowerful. Those times I've faced >him I've actually rarely avoided him by S:CE since I don't play decks with >S:CE that much and I'ce done fine sometimes, and not so fine other times but >in the end someone has always killed him (and you can't do that with S:CE >except Catatonic Fear/Oubliette which almost nobody owned/owns/uses here). >Now he's not often had en Ivory Bow on himself either, but really there's so >many ways as I already have shown I think this discussion is a bit >redicilous. You haven't told how the Ambrosius combo is easier to kill (it >definately isn't). Well, I have never encountered Ambrosius wielding a Talbot's thus far but since I usually play Tremere, he's really not much of a problem. A simple Theft of Vitae at superior will nullify him quite easily. A Blood to Water will also do. Many of the Lasombra decks often have Entombment. All the Gangrel plus the Tzimisce can do agg damage (and Tzimisce can Blood of Acid, Breath of the Dragon, etc. also). Assamites can just use Taste of Death at long (shouldn't be hard to manuever there). I suppose the Ravnos can Sensory Deprive him and the !Malks just have to place The Haunting on him or something. And although it's not terribly common, I know some Potence combat decks occasionally put in a Burning Wrath or two. But the main difference is that most of the cards I've mentioned are seen quite often in their respective decks (the less three might be a little less feasible). So if you encounter Ambrosius, your deck can eventually take care of him one way or another because it doesn't depart from what your deck does normally. But in regards to the MVH, the traditional methods fail. Note that most of the methods I just mentioned are completely useless against a Muddled with an Ivory Bow. Yes, there are cards that can deal with the Muddled, but unlike with the case of Ambrosius, many of those cards aren't normally found in those decks. So then to combat the Muddled, a deck has to go out of its way to include cards to deal with it (which it doesn't have to do with Ambrosius). Halcyan 2

>Cailean with an Ivory Bow is definately much harder to kill, but it's >still done occasionally, same goes with Ambrosius and *here' you can really >talk about cornercase since you need agg damage While Cailean with an Ivory Bow is a pain, it's not as serious a problem as the MVH with the Bow. So Cailean manuevers to long and shoots with the bow. At the very least you can hit back and hurt him a little. Traditional long range strikes (Quietus, Theft, Sewer Lids/Thrown Gates) and even environmental damage like Carrion Crows can whittle him down. But in the case of the MVH, none of that will help since you're going to torpor after First Strike. (And my comments on Ambrosius are in the other thread). Halcyan 2

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010407144009...@ng-md1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If you play Tremre you can kill MVH with Cryptic Mission or Weather Control, both quite common in a Tremere deck. And then there's Far Mastery too. If these cards aint common in your metagame they will be after people start playing MVH's. That's how metagames always adjust. The Haunting can be played on MVH as well, the Tzimisce can do Bloodform+Carrion Crows, or just Blood of Acid (if Ivory Bow) or Horrid Form. All very common in Tzimisce decks (maybe not Bloodform but the rest at least). The Lasombra can play Arms of the Abyss, or Shadow Twin. The Gangrel can prevent the dmg from MVH or Flesh of Marble or Adaptability. The Assamites won't have any problems either since dodge+additional strike. The Ravnos can prevent damage and Sensory Deprive. The brujah can dodge and play additional strikes. How can you possibly say it's HARDER to kill the MVH??? Every clan you counted up can often use same cards agaisnt the MVH as against AMbrosius, or else easily protect themselves trhrough other common means. I'm certainly not convinced here. > > But the main difference is that most of the cards I've mentioned are seen quite > often in their respective decks (the less three might be a little less > feasible). So if you encounter Ambrosius, your deck can eventually take care of > him one way or another because it doesn't depart from what your deck does > normally. As well as with the MVH as I've pointed out. > > But in regards to the MVH, the traditional methods fail. Note that most of the > methods I just mentioned are completely useless against a Muddled with an Ivory > Bow. Yes, there are cards that can deal with the Muddled, but unlike with the > case of Ambrosius, many of those cards aren't normally found in those decks. I just showed above you're wrong. >So then to combat the Muddled, a deck has to go out of its way to include cards to > deal with it (which it doesn't have to do with Ambrosius). Not at all.

-- "Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010407144434...@ng-md1.aol.com... > >Cailean with an Ivory Bow is definately much harder to kill, but it's > >still done occasionally, same goes with Ambrosius and *here' you can really > >talk about cornercase since you need agg damage > > While Cailean with an Ivory Bow is a pain, it's not as serious a problem as the > MVH with the Bow. > > So Cailean manuevers to long and shoots with the bow. At the very least you can > hit back and hurt him a little. Traditional long range strikes (Quietus, Theft, > Sewer Lids/Thrown Gates) and even environmental damage like Carrion Crows can > whittle him down. He happens to be a 10, so he needs to take much damage before brouhgt down, before then he can do vote captivation, festivo dello estinto or orther stuff. He can also dodge if needed and with Carrion crows he can still do damage. A brujah rush deck based on IG for example will stand no chance, since they don't have any long range damaging stuff. That's pretty tough for a deck solely built to easily kill people. > > But in the case of the MVH, none of that will help since you're going to torpor > after First Strike. Unless you play something as simple as a Sideslip. [ quoted text not captured ]

Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9an930$eu3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > which seem to be what most people here wnat, You seem to think you know a lot about what most people here want. How did you obtain that information? There are 35-40 regular posters, 350-450+ regular readers. The opinions of the posters will represent the majority at least as infrequently as they represent the opinions of the dissenters. Why should the game change after 7 years with regards to First Strike? There are only seven cards that use First Strike. Why should a rule be changed to affect them? Only two cards used Paralyze. The rules for Paralyze were dropped completely. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

-- "The Lasombra" <thela...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GC9A6.43478$wx.11...@typhoon.austin.rr.com... > Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message > news:9an930$eu3$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > > > which seem to be what most people here wnat, > > You seem to think you know a lot about what most people here want. And you seem to think the word "seem" means "I know". > > How did you obtain that information? Where do you think? > > There are 35-40 regular posters, 350-450+ regular readers. There haven't been 35-40 different people posting about this subject claiming their view. > > The opinions of the posters will represent the majority at least as > infrequently > as they represent the opinions of the dissenters. > > Why should the game change after 7 years with regards to First Strike? Because a lot of people are complaining. If you believe that your opinion doesn't count and can never affect anything then I don't know why you post on this forum at all other than for rule questions and deck exchange. I just simply refuse to reason like "if they haven't done it by now they never will". It may be true, but I don't think it's a reason for people to shut up? It's always so, that if enough people complain things WILL change. It's just about a matter of how many that complain. Even Milosevic had to give up due to the pressure. It's like that with everything, that's how the world works if you haven't noticed. > > There are only seven cards that use First Strike. > Why should a rule be changed to affect them? Because currently FS is quite useless?? I think that's a reaosng ood enough to change it. Whether that means an improvement of FS or a complete drop is up to the designers to decide, which probably will be affected by posts on the forum. > > Only two cards used Paralyze. > The rules for Paralyze were dropped completely. They could drop FS I wouldn't bother really. Whatever people like the most and what's best for the game.

> > Why should the game change after 7 years with regards to First Strike? > > Because a lot of people are complaining. If you believe that your opinion > doesn't count and can never affect anything then I don't know why you post > on this forum at all other than for rule questions and deck exchange. I just > simply refuse to reason like "if they haven't done it by now they never > will". It may be true, but I don't think it's a reason for people to shut > up? It's always so, that if enough people complain things WILL change. It's > just about a matter of how many that complain. Even Milosevic had to give up > due to the pressure. It's like that with everything, that's how the world > works if you haven't noticed. > Hey Roger ! I complained like you several months before Sabbat war came out ; maybe some people can remember, about the completely stupid combos around "Drawing out the beast"... Most people told me to shut up, but some other told me they saw very stupid decks with about 12 Drawin'out the beast played before range, thus torporizing full health inner circles... It enventually became a long thread, with everyone arguing about a change to avoid abuse from this card. What we couldn't know is... The card wording was finaly changed ! it became no more stackable, and the damage was now inflicted during press step. I believe that by talking together about this card, we all made the "rule team" re-word it. It's a proof our fellow players opinion can enhance the game. So don't give up and continue to speak freely about your favorite game, someone is watching us and will consider our discussions ! reyda

mmm.... i must also agree with Lasombra's observation : Roger's argumentation is not very clever on this point... =) but we are here for open discussion and all arguments are worth receiving i guess =) reyda

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:26:53 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >There haven't been 35-40 different people posting about this subject >claiming their view. There've been less, indicating that "most" is far from the appropriate word to use. >> The opinions of the posters will represent the majority at least as >> infrequently >> as they represent the opinions of the dissenters. >> >> Why should the game change after 7 years with regards to First Strike? > >Because a lot of people are complaining. If you believe that your opinion And? A lot of people have complained about a lot of things that didn't change. You need a better reason than "a lot of people don't like it." I will endeavour to guess that almost none of us would be SAD if First Strike were somehow made to be a larger part of the game. But we -did- go over this subject many moons ago, and the obvious solutions ("make it beat S:CE, etc.") turned out to have some not-so-obvious flaws with them. One of those is "what about Muddles?" >doesn't count and can never affect anything then I don't know why you post >on this forum at all other than for rule questions and deck exchange. I just >simply refuse to reason like "if they haven't done it by now they never >will". It may be true, but I don't think it's a reason for people to shut >up? It's always so, that if enough people complain things WILL change. It's >just about a matter of how many that complain. Even Milosevic had to give up >due to the pressure. It's like that with everything, that's how the world >works if you haven't noticed. I'll object to that line of reasoning on principle. "enough people complaining" should NOT, in and of itself, be a reason for things to change. Take a good look at America, where "enough people voting" gave us a choice between Bush and Gore, two of the least appetizing candidates for President ever to pass before my eyeballs. Mobs are sheep, and they're stupid sheep at that. Unless the issue is very simple and clear-cut ("should you be allowed to run over IRS auditors in crosswalks or not?"), true democracy is a POOR determinant, because there are always more sheep out there than people who've actually considered the issue. >> There are only seven cards that use First Strike. For future reference, let's list them out here: Muddled Vampire Hunter - assbeating ally Fast Hands - steal your stuff Shattering Blow - break your stuff Canine Horde - break your stuff Blessing of Durga Syn - steal your stuff Backstab - First Strike on blocks Silence of Death - First Strike on hand/melee weapons >> Why should a rule be changed to affect them? > >Because currently FS is quite useless?? I think that's a reaosng ood enough >to change it. Whether that means an improvement of FS or a complete drop is >up to the designers to decide, which probably will be affected by posts on >the forum. What good would changing First Strike do? Four of the seven cards which use it are directly related to equipment. The most common equipment is either weaponry, a Sport Bike, a Flak/Leather Jacket, or a Laptop. So in general, if you have equipment and are in combat, you aren't going to use S:CE in the first place... the equipment strikes being at First Strike are *ALREADY* as useful as they're ever going to be. Changing First Strike won't increase the proportions of equipment being played. One card, Backstab, costs 2 blood and requires that you block an action. Note that its superior version gets around plain old Dodge already. The clans with Celerity are the Brujah, Toreador, and Assamites (and the antitribu of the first two). Of those three, the Brujah need NO additional help against Combat Ends. The Assamites are weak against S:CE, but with Parnassus being the only guy with Auspex (and him at inferior), they ALSO can't reliably intercept any sort of serious stealth, so trying to make an Assamite Backstab deck is sort of pointless. So the only clans this would help would be the Tories/!Tories. The Toreador can't kill you once they catch you unless they get out some guns, and they have plenty of problems with that. The !Toreador CAN kill you once they catch you,... but now we run into yet another issue that's been bypassed completely, which is: Intercept decks don't need help against S:CE. Read it again. An intercept deck could generally care LESS if you end combat against it; in fact, it's likely to be somewhat pleased, since that means you're not killing its vampires. The primary purpose of any intercept deck is to stop actions it doesn't like, and stop a lot of them. The SECONDARY purpose of intercept/combat is to kill minions, but overall, stopping the action is good enough. They'll eventually run out of S:CE or dodge. If they DO care, they can always include some Telepathic Tracking, a much preferable option to Backstab. The sixth card, Silence of Death, is a Quietus toy. The vampire gets First Strike with hand or melee weapon strikes. Hmm. So if FS beat S:CE... the vampire with significant hand damage is Parnassus. He can hit you for two points with this card, and then combat ends. Not impressive. If he has a melee weapon, he could hit you with that... so assume Bang Knockers, and that's 3 points. Or Kali's Fang, for some agg. But really, unless you're using Kali's Fang, this card isn't exactly worth your time... and it also prevents the Assamites from using their strong cards such as Blood Sweat or Taste of Death. No matter what you do to First Strike, Silence of Death is just not going to see that much more use. The seventh card is Muddles, and making First Strike beat S:CE turns him into a real powerhouse. Aside from the issues of potentially making Muddles too good... does it make sense to change First Strike JUST to help the Malkavians, who are already in excellent shape as far as clans go? So tell me again why anyone should even CARE about First Strike? It's not useless because of S:CE, it's useless because there are no cards that MATTER. >They could drop FS I wouldn't bother really. Whatever people like the most >and what's best for the game. What's best for the game, I'll buy. Whatever people like most rarely, if ever, matches up to that. -- Derek "There's hands everywhere!" -- N. Stewart

-- "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9asdi5$7in$1...@news2.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ] Exactly my point. There's rarely changes made without causing a big debate first (because else the changed would already have been done) so to think people should just be quiet since nothing will be changed is just silly and counter-constructive. For example many people here doesn't like what Andrew S Davidson (is that is name?) writes, Much of it doesn't make much sense to me either, nonetheless I enjoy to read his posts because he show a different view on topics most people here else agree on. We need more different inputs to see what's best for the game as a whole. Not people who just sit and nod and agree with the RT just because it's the RT. But once the RT makes a decision it should be followed on tournaments at least (but in causal games you can use whatever houserule you want). That doesn't mean you shouldn't voice your opnion and try to get a change if you feel something could be changed for the better and argue your point for it. Basically the answers I've gotten as to why FS shouldn't be changed has been "MVH would be too powerful" (an arguement I've pointed out isn't true based on tons of examples how to deal with he MVH) and from LSJ who's reason to not change this was "Before S:CE is necessarily before Dodge, since S:CE resolves before Dodge." which I think is just easily changed by making an exception (after all there's so many exceptions already anyway, actually S:CE and Dodge is already an exception to FS, that says FS resolves before other normal strikes). The rules says S:CE resolves before any other strike even FS. Just changed it to say "before any other strike but First Strike". It's that simple. Dodge doesn't even have that wording, it only states it works against FS too and could be kept that way. It's THAT simple to change it. The real question should instead be if the change would be good or not. As you know I think so, but I'm open for other suggestions or ideas. I just don't think the MVH argument bites at all for the reasons I've provided already.

<snip> > >> Why should the game change after 7 years with regards to First Strike? > > > >Because a lot of people are complaining. If you believe that your opinion > > And? A lot of people have complained about a lot of things that > didn't change. You need a better reason than "a lot of people don't > like it." But then again some things HAVE changed, and you can't know if they would have been if nobody would have complained. > > I will endeavour to guess that almost none of us would be SAD if First > Strike were somehow made to be a larger part of the game. That's the conclusion I made too that Lasombra questioned above. But we > -did- go over this subject many moons ago, and the obvious solutions > ("make it beat S:CE, etc.") turned out to have some not-so-obvious > flaws with them. One of those is "what about Muddles?" > > >doesn't count and can never affect anything then I don't know why you post > >on this forum at all other than for rule questions and deck exchange. I just > >simply refuse to reason like "if they haven't done it by now they never > >will". It may be true, but I don't think it's a reason for people to shut > >up? It's always so, that if enough people complain things WILL change. It's > >just about a matter of how many that complain. Even Milosevic had to give up > >due to the pressure. It's like that with everything, that's how the world > >works if you haven't noticed. > > I'll object to that line of reasoning on principle. "enough people > complaining" should NOT, in and of itself, be a reason for things to > change. Take a good look at America, where "enough people voting" > gave us a choice between Bush and Gore, two of the least appetizing > candidates for President ever to pass before my eyeballs. That's because your electorial sucks. It wouldn't be like this if enough of people were protesting agaisnt the electorial system. As it is now none of the two major parties are interested in getitng competition and as long as there's no big demonstration against the system they won't change it. So there you go, it's the LACK of protests that leads your system to be unchanged. Mobs are > sheep, and they're stupid sheep at that. Unless the issue is very > simple and clear-cut ("should you be allowed to run over IRS auditors > in crosswalks or not?"), true democracy is a POOR determinant, because > there are always more sheep out there than people who've actually > considered the issue. You're right. But the problem is really that people lack the will to get themselves involved witht he issue. There's not enough of people caring, and also a lot of people feel that it won't matter what they say or do (a very big problem). This forum on the other hand have a lot of dedicated people that do care for the game's best, so it's not the same. The posts made here are made for what they think are good solutions to existing problems, to hamper that would IMO hurt the game in the long run. WW wouldn't sell that much if they didn't listen to customer needs at all. To listen to the customer is vital for *any* company that's not in a monopoly situation with a product everybody needs (which isn't the case here). > > >> There are only seven cards that use First Strike. > > For future reference, let's list them out here: > > Muddled Vampire Hunter - assbeating ally > Fast Hands - steal your stuff > Shattering Blow - break your stuff > Canine Horde - break your stuff > Blessing of Durga Syn - steal your stuff > Backstab - First Strike on blocks > Silence of Death - First Strike on hand/melee weapons > > >> Why should a rule be changed to affect them? Now it's this kind of argument I like. Much more constructive than "shut up"-type of arguments/attitudes that REALLY annoys me and that is pretty common on usenet. > > > >Because currently FS is quite useless?? I think that's a reaosng ood enough > >to change it. Whether that means an improvement of FS or a complete drop is > >up to the designers to decide, which probably will be affected by posts on > >the forum. > > What good would changing First Strike do? > > Four of the seven cards which use it are directly related to > equipment. The most common equipment is either weaponry, a Sport > Bike, a Flak/Leather Jacket, or a Laptop. So in general, if you have > equipment and are in combat, you aren't going to use S:CE in the first > place... the equipment strikes being at First Strike are *ALREADY* as > useful as they're ever going to be. It would be slightly more useful if S:CE wouldn't help, but generally I agree with you, it's not worth a change. > Changing First Strike won't > increase the proportions of equipment being played. > > One card, Backstab, costs 2 blood and requires that you block an > action. Note that its superior version gets around plain old Dodge > already. Getitng around dodge isn't the issue since I dind't suggest a change for FS vs Dodge. The problem is that sup of Backstab is useless if opponent strikes with S:CE. Also you include Backstab because you intend to bring down the vampire on that first strike, so why would you want an additional strike? If that was the case you're use blurs instead. I've never really understood the good of an additional strike on this card. A maneuver or something else would have been better. The clans with Celerity are the Brujah, Toreador, and > Assamites (and the antitribu of the first two). Of those three, the > Brujah need NO additional help against Combat Ends. They don't NEED more help but FS would open up for other strategies than the boring IG-decks that are more or less the only viable option that is now (unless you play with dom, I don't think Psyche! is good enough alternative to IG). And IG requires you to be at close range. With Backstab you could combat S:CE at long range which I think would be very good for the Brujah's. The Assamites are > weak against S:CE, but with Parnassus being the only guy with Auspex > (and him at inferior), they ALSO can't reliably intercept any sort of > serious stealth, so trying to make an Assamite Backstab deck is sort > of pointless. I agree with you in general. But there's decks that rely on S:CE that doesn't have much stealth, like the Toreador, Ventrue, !Toreador, Tzimisce (possibly). > So the only clans this would help would be the > Tories/!Tories. The Toreador can't kill you once they catch you > unless they get out some guns, and they have plenty of problems with > that. The !Toreador CAN kill you once they catch you,... but now we > run into yet another issue that's been bypassed completely, which is: > > Intercept decks don't need help against S:CE. > > Read it again. An intercept deck could generally care LESS if you end > combat against it; in fact, it's likely to be somewhat pleased, since > that means you're not killing its vampires. That depends on what type of intercept deck you make. If you make an Eagle's Sight deck you want to kill your prey's vampires since you won't have much bleed or vote power. So killing vamps would be the only way and the very reason to block, not really to stop your prey's bleed action for 1. >The primary purpose of > any intercept deck is to stop actions it doesn't like, and stop a lot > of them. The SECONDARY purpose of intercept/combat is to kill > minions, but overall, stopping the action is good enough. They'll > eventually run out of S:CE or dodge. If they DO care, they can always > include some Telepathic Tracking, a much preferable option to > Backstab. TT is preferrable simple because Backstab isn't useful as it is now. But with a change I think BS could be a good alternate option because if you played a maneuver it won't be wasted. If you play TT you won't have that maneuver next round and thus be open for damage. Probably only for one but there can be exceptions (Blood of Acid). Also it can make a difference if you focus on vampires with cel and don't have AUS on all vamps. Another thing is that BS can be good against other combat decks but it isn't included as it is now because it gets screwed against S:CE so it's not useful if your predator or prey aren't combat clans. Especially not when it also cost 2 blood. There's simply not many situations when you'll want to play it to make it worth including. If it was useful to play against S:CE on top of having its uses against comba decks maybe people would think the card is worht to have in a deck. > > The sixth card, Silence of Death, is a Quietus toy. The vampire gets > First Strike with hand or melee weapon strikes. Hmm. So if FS beat > S:CE... the vampire with significant hand damage is Parnassus. He can > hit you for two points with this card, and then combat ends. Not > impressive. If he has a melee weapon, he could hit you with that... > so assume Bang Knockers, and that's 3 points. Or Kali's Fang, for > some agg. But really, unless you're using Kali's Fang, this card > isn't exactly worth your time... and it also prevents the Assamites > from using their strong cards such as Blood Sweat or Taste of Death. > No matter what you do to First Strike, Silence of Death is just not > going to see that much more use. You also have Khabar: Honor and Blood Agony (2nd round) and Tethmes' agg hand dmg. If FS hosed S:CE why would it NOT be worht it? I'd definately use it a whole lot if it hosed S:CE. Play contract and jump in with Bang Nakh and be sure to make some damage unles sthey have fortitude or something similar. The card is even free with Path of the Blood and you get a maneuver at superior. I think it would be a great card! > > The seventh card is Muddles, and making First Strike beat S:CE turns > him into a real powerhouse. Aside from the issues of potentially > making Muddles too good... does it make sense to change First Strike > JUST to help the Malkavians, who are already in excellent shape as far > as clans go? No that wouldn't make sense. > So tell me again why anyone should even CARE about First Strike? It's > not useless because of S:CE, it's useless because there are no cards > that MATTER. Exactly, I agree with you. As it is now I don't think there's enough of incentive to change FS either. But I assumed that with a rule change there would also be made more cards making use of FS. Maybe the reason to why there's so few cards giving FS IS that FS is so useless?? So that's exactly why it needs to be improved, or else maybe dropped completely. > > >They could drop FS I wouldn't bother really. Whatever people like the most > >and what's best for the game. > > What's best for the game, I'll buy. Whatever people like most rarely, > if ever, matches up to that. > When I speak of what most people want I am talking about people who are dedicated to this game, dedicated enough to go to usenet and post. To say that these people don't know what's best for the game I think is giving the community undeserved mistrust. Also it's the people that play the game that make it possible to exist. To not listen to what they want is a big mistake IMO. But as I said that doesn't mean it must lead to a change. But WW should at least *listen* and it seems to me they do that too. So if you don't, that's fine. I mainly post for those who wants to listen and get an input of different ideas that might not come from people who always support what the rulebook currently says and leaves it at that.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:31:12 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >> And? A lot of people have complained about a lot of things that >> didn't change. You need a better reason than "a lot of people don't >> like it." > >But then again some things HAVE changed, and you can't know if they would >have been if nobody would have complained. That wasn't my point. My point was that you need reasons other than "Joe Brujah doesn't like it." CONCRETE reasons, not just "wouldn't it be nice if?" WIBNI is great for creating -new- things... but for fixing old ones? Bad idea. >> I will endeavour to guess that almost none of us would be SAD if First >> Strike were somehow made to be a larger part of the game. > >That's the conclusion I made too that Lasombra questioned above. Not quite. You claimed that most people wanted it to change. I wouldn't be displeased if it changed, but I don't particularly want it to; I think the game has plenty of other directions it can go other than towards a Magic-like "First Strike" concept. The negative is not always the inverse of the positive. :) >> I'll object to that line of reasoning on principle. "enough people >> complaining" should NOT, in and of itself, be a reason for things to >> change. Take a good look at America, where "enough people voting" >> gave us a choice between Bush and Gore, two of the least appetizing >> candidates for President ever to pass before my eyeballs. > >That's because your electorial sucks. It wouldn't be like this if enough of >people were protesting agaisnt the electorial system. As it is now none of >the two major parties are interested in getitng competition and as long as >there's no big demonstration against the system they won't change it. So >there you go, it's the LACK of protests that leads your system to be >unchanged. Actually, it's the lack of POWER that prevents it. Big demonstrations have happened frequently. Nothing changes because the two parties who don't want it to change are currently holding all the power. It's also totally beside the point, which is that "enough people complaining" is still not a good reason. Those people need to be complaining WITH a good reason. >Mobs are >> sheep, and they're stupid sheep at that. Unless the issue is very >> simple and clear-cut ("should you be allowed to run over IRS auditors >> in crosswalks or not?"), true democracy is a POOR determinant, because >> there are always more sheep out there than people who've actually >> considered the issue. > >You're right. But the problem is really that people lack the will to get >themselves involved witht he issue. There's not enough of people caring, and >also a lot of people feel that it won't matter what they say or do (a very >big problem). This forum on the other hand have a lot of dedicated people >that do care for the game's best, so it's not the same. The posts made here >are made for what they think are good solutions to existing problems, to >hamper that would IMO hurt the game in the long run. WW wouldn't sell that >much if they didn't listen to customer needs at all. To listen to the >customer is vital for *any* company that's not in a monopoly situation with >a product everybody needs (which isn't the case here). The key word in your above paragraph is "IMO". When you have an "O", you need to back it up with reasoning, not just restate the "O", but louder. Yes, most people here DO care a lot, and very few people here are just dumb sheep. But there have been some remarkably DUMB suggestions thrown out in the past that lots of people have complained about/supported, and that rightly weren't changed... or were changed anyway. >> >> There are only seven cards that use First Strike. >> >> For future reference, let's list them out here: >> >> Muddled Vampire Hunter - assbeating ally >> Fast Hands - steal your stuff >> Shattering Blow - break your stuff >> Canine Horde - break your stuff >> Blessing of Durga Syn - steal your stuff >> Backstab - First Strike on blocks >> Silence of Death - First Strike on hand/melee weapons >> >> >> Why should a rule be changed to affect them? > >Now it's this kind of argument I like. Much more constructive than "shut >up"-type of arguments/attitudes that REALLY annoys me and that is pretty >common on usenet. It's common because I know that personally, I've argued this issue twice before. I don't like having to go through it all every single time someone has a bright idea, either... as galling as it is to most people, sometimes it really DOES serve a purpose when we say "look, we've been over all this, it came out this way after weeks of debate, unless you have something new, dont bring it up again." The WWEF debate and the Card Limit thing are other examples. >> What good would changing First Strike do? >> >> Four of the seven cards which use it are directly related to >> equipment. The most common equipment is either weaponry, a Sport >> Bike, a Flak/Leather Jacket, or a Laptop. So in general, if you have >> equipment and are in combat, you aren't going to use S:CE in the first >> place... the equipment strikes being at First Strike are *ALREADY* as >> useful as they're ever going to be. > >It would be slightly more useful if S:CE wouldn't help, but generally I >agree with you, it's not worth a change. So we're down to three cards. As Lasombra mentioned, Paralyze was dropped, and it only had two cards that used it. >> Changing First Strike won't >> increase the proportions of equipment being played. >> >> One card, Backstab, costs 2 blood and requires that you block an >> action. Note that its superior version gets around plain old Dodge >> already. > >Getitng around dodge isn't the issue since I dind't suggest a change for FS >vs Dodge. The problem is that sup of Backstab is useless if opponent strikes >with S:CE. Also you include Backstab because you intend to bring down the >vampire on that first strike, so why would you want an additional strike? If >that was the case you're use blurs instead. I've never really understood the >good of an additional strike on this card. A maneuver or something else >would have been better. The additional strike at superior means that the card beats plain old Dodge without any assistance (since Dodge currently beats First Strike, and did when the card was designed). Considering this card was introduced in Ancient Hearts, along with the Assamites, it seems VERY likely that the Assamites were the intended recipients of this card. Bringing down the vampire on the first strike would be the prerogative of, again, the Assamites, who can both reliably get weapons like a Flamethrower, Ivory Bow, etc., and who can also just use Quietus for their first-round agg strike. It seems intended to allow them to not be hit by OTHER people packing things like Assault Rifles, Ivory Bows, or any other annoying first-round ranged strike such as guns or Sewer Lids. > The clans with Celerity are the Brujah, Toreador, and >> Assamites (and the antitribu of the first two). Of those three, the >> Brujah need NO additional help against Combat Ends. > >They don't NEED more help but FS would open up for other strategies than the >boring IG-decks that are more or less the only viable option that is now >(unless you play with dom, I don't think Psyche! is good enough alternative >to IG). And IG requires you to be at close range. With Backstab you could >combat S:CE at long range which I think would be very good for the Brujah's. Psyche! *is*, in fact, a suitable alternative; I've got a couple Brujah flung-junk decks that have consistently pounded decks that were attempting to rely on S:CE. Also, how would you bring down a vamp in a single strike with long-ranged Brujah? OK, sure, Increased Strength/Flash/Sewer Lid, but Dodge will get you out of that. Once you start chucking additional strike cards in, why did you even include the Increased Strength? Not to mention that the Brujah have almost as bad a time blocking actions as the Assamites, being equally as "fresh out" of intercept disciplines... and that the Brujah are DOING JUST FINE as a clan right now, what with access to Presence bleeds, Presence voting, and POT/CEL combat in any mix. > The Assamites are >> weak against S:CE, but with Parnassus being the only guy with Auspex >> (and him at inferior), they ALSO can't reliably intercept any sort of >> serious stealth, so trying to make an Assamite Backstab deck is sort >> of pointless. > >I agree with you in general. But there's decks that rely on S:CE that >doesn't have much stealth, like the Toreador, Ventrue, !Toreador, Tzimisce >(possibly). The Ventrue have access to Seduction; a Sport Bike won't help you here. The Toreador can use Alacrity; again, a Sport Bike won't help. And I've seen people gratuitously add Marijava Ghouls and Obfuscate skill cards to both these clans in order to provide serious stealth. Basically, what it comes down to is that an Assamite deck that intends to intercept actions as its defense is going to be highly vulnerable, and as a result is taking a big risk. They can include a Sport Bike or two and Market Square for *casual* intercept defense, but thinking they're going to catch any clan that INTENDS to get away with stuff is going to be a bunch of lost games. But above and beyond this question is: do the Assamites really NEED to be able to beat S:CE? They already beat Dodge just with things like Blur. They do unpreventable damage and can guarantee long range with Celerity. They're pretty much going to beat almost any clan except the Gangrel, who can play Drawing out the Beast and lock them into close; and even the Gangrel had better play Scorpion Sting and prevent, or they'll dodge and use the bonus hand damage from DotB on a Blur. Every clan has its weaknesses. The Assamites' happen to lie outside the combat realm entirely - no good way to bleed, and somewhat weak defense. If you make it possible for Assamites to slaughter everything with no escape, you'll make them entirely too good... which is bad. Also consider this: what is the Assamites' true flaw right now? Is it S:CE? Is it no bleed? Is it no defense?... or is it that their useful vampires are all expensive as hell and they don't have an easy method of gaining pool? >> So the only clans this would help would be the >> Tories/!Tories. The Toreador can't kill you once they catch you >> unless they get out some guns, and they have plenty of problems with >> that. The !Toreador CAN kill you once they catch you,... but now we >> run into yet another issue that's been bypassed completely, which is: >> >> Intercept decks don't need help against S:CE. >> >> Read it again. An intercept deck could generally care LESS if you end >> combat against it; in fact, it's likely to be somewhat pleased, since >> that means you're not killing its vampires. > >That depends on what type of intercept deck you make. If you make an Eagle's >Sight deck you want to kill your prey's vampires since you won't have much >bleed or vote power. So killing vamps would be the only way and the very >reason to block, not really to stop your prey's bleed action for 1. Why would you want to stop your prey's bleed action for 1? You have to oust that grandprey eventually, you know. Better to save the Eagle's Sight for the bleed action for 5. And why do you necessarily want to kill your prey's vampires? Intercept-and-run-away decks (aka the Toreador special, "I intercept, Majesty, and untap to block again") are QUITE viable on their own. And intercept combat is quite viable on its own too; I finished 6th in the Atlanta qualifier with an Omaya intercept-combat deck that consistently had rotten seating position (prey 1st round = Assamites. prey 2nd round = Gangrel bleed and poke. prey 3rd round = weenie bleed) to get anywhere... but it still managed to do OK. Besides, forward bleed decks are any intercept deck's true weakness (well, that and 0-stealth predators). You can't take away something that is the natural weakness of a deck, or you make the deck too powerful. >>The primary purpose of >> any intercept deck is to stop actions it doesn't like, and stop a lot >> of them. The SECONDARY purpose of intercept/combat is to kill >> minions, but overall, stopping the action is good enough. They'll >> eventually run out of S:CE or dodge. If they DO care, they can always >> include some Telepathic Tracking, a much preferable option to >> Backstab. > >TT is preferrable simple because Backstab isn't useful as it is now. But >with a change I think BS could be a good alternate option because if you >played a maneuver it won't be wasted. If you play TT you won't have that >maneuver next round and thus be open for damage. Probably only for one but Decks that will play S:CE are not decks that are going to kick your ass. If you attempt to worry about this sort of thing, you are going to drive yourself bonkers while building the deck. (Jeff: yes, I know, I have that damn !Brujah deck that uses Torn Signpost/Staredown/Blur, and can/will use the Staredowns for S:CE if it gets scared. But that's an EXCEPTION. :P) >there can be exceptions (Blood of Acid). Also it can make a difference if >you focus on vampires with cel and don't have AUS on all vamps. Another >thing is that BS can be good against other combat decks but it isn't >included as it is now because it gets screwed against S:CE so it's not >useful if your predator or prey aren't combat clans. Especially not when it >also cost 2 blood. There's simply not many situations when you'll want to There's the big reason. It costs 2 blood, and to make it TRULY useful you have to kill the vampire on the first strike... (shrug) Just not worth it. If it only cost 1 blood, it would be worth including a few of whether or not it beat S:CE; and it would be worth making the Victoria/Zoe/Dancin' Dave/Didi Meyers obf/cel/aus decks that intercept you, Disguised Weapon out some agg damage, and plink you with it at First Strike. But at 2 blood? No good. >play it to make it worth including. If it was useful to play against S:CE on >top of having its uses against comba decks maybe people would think the card >is worht to have in a deck. I doubt in its current form that it will EVER see much play, irrespective of whether First Strike is changed. >> The sixth card, Silence of Death, is a Quietus toy. The vampire gets >> First Strike with hand or melee weapon strikes. Hmm. So if FS beat >> S:CE... the vampire with significant hand damage is Parnassus. He can >> hit you for two points with this card, and then combat ends. Not >> impressive. If he has a melee weapon, he could hit you with that... >> so assume Bang Knockers, and that's 3 points. Or Kali's Fang, for >> some agg. But really, unless you're using Kali's Fang, this card >> isn't exactly worth your time... and it also prevents the Assamites >> from using their strong cards such as Blood Sweat or Taste of Death. >> No matter what you do to First Strike, Silence of Death is just not >> going to see that much more use. > >You also have Khabar: Honor and Blood Agony (2nd round) and Tethmes' agg 2nd round sort of ruins the whole "first strike" concept. Khabar: Honor is nice, but you have to have a Contract on the minion. Tricky. Thetmes is a 10-cap, and largely non-viable under the present state of the game because of his size. >hand dmg. If FS hosed S:CE why would it NOT be worht it? I'd definately use >it a whole lot if it hosed S:CE. Play contract and jump in with Bang Nakh >and be sure to make some damage unles sthey have fortitude or something >similar. The card is even free with Path of the Blood and you get a maneuver >at superior. I think it would be a great card! (shrug) Again, we also come back to whether or not the Assamites should be able to beat S:CE. But even if they could, I dunno; I just don't really see Silence of Death as being a big centerpiece of any decks. The Assamites' true strength lies in that first-round agg, and first-round unpreventable. The rest are sideline toys. >> The seventh card is Muddles, and making First Strike beat S:CE turns >> him into a real powerhouse. Aside from the issues of potentially >> making Muddles too good... does it make sense to change First Strike >> JUST to help the Malkavians, who are already in excellent shape as far >> as clans go? > >No that wouldn't make sense. > >> So tell me again why anyone should even CARE about First Strike? It's >> not useless because of S:CE, it's useless because there are no cards >> that MATTER. > >Exactly, I agree with you. As it is now I don't think there's enough of >incentive to change FS either. But I assumed that with a rule change there >would also be made more cards making use of FS. Maybe the reason to why >there's so few cards giving FS IS that FS is so useless?? So that's exactly >why it needs to be improved, or else maybe dropped completely. Why would you go out of your way to change the rules and print extra cards for something that doesn't matter? Why not just take the game in a new direction and let things that didn't work rot? As it is, if you give Celerity a generic First Strike card such as: Spirit of Zippy Celerity, 2 blood Combat (I) Maneuver, with an additional strike. (S) As above, and this minion gains First Strike for their initial strike this round. AND you make it beat S:CE, then sure, you give the Assamites a beautiful card, and they can spend 3 blood with QUI/CEL and hammer the hell out of most decks by just playing this and Taste of Death. And in fact, the card above is probably too good, because you can't S:CE out of it, and you can't Dodge, and and and... you get the idea. But you ALSO give this card to the Brujah, who absolutely positively don't EVER need to be able to play with this sort of thing. Zippy/Lid/Lid/Taste, and you've done 6 damage while spending none. Untidy. But even if you remove the maneuver and fix the wording, then you still give the Brujah a very neat toy. Just a bad idea. >> >They could drop FS I wouldn't bother really. Whatever people like the >most >> >and what's best for the game. >> >> What's best for the game, I'll buy. Whatever people like most rarely, >> if ever, matches up to that. > >When I speak of what most people want I am talking about people who are >dedicated to this game, dedicated enough to go to usenet and post. To say Have you SEEN what some of these dedicated souls have posted in the past? Dedication doesn't automatically guarantee clueful input. None of us are perfect, but STILL. >that these people don't know what's best for the game I think is giving the >community undeserved mistrust. Also it's the people that play the game that s/un// >make it possible to exist. To not listen to what they want is a big mistake >IMO. But as I said that doesn't mean it must lead to a change. But WW should >at least *listen* and it seems to me they do that too. So if you don't, >that's fine. I mainly post for those who wants to listen and get an input of >different ideas that might not come from people who always support what the >rulebook currently says and leaves it at that. Oh no. I always listen. I just also make sure that people listen to BOTH sides of the issue. And anyone who knows me knows better than to assume I automatically support what the rulebook says. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Roger Carhult wrote: > on tons of examples how to deal with he MVH) and from LSJ [whose] reason to > not change this was "Before S:CE is necessarily before Dodge, since S:CE > resolves before Dodge." which I think is just easily changed by making an > exception (after all there's so many exceptions already anyway, actually The post of mine to which you are referring contained no reason from me about FS not being changed. Someone suggested that FS should resolve before S:CE but not before dodge. I pointed out that that was not possible, since S:CE resovles before dodge and therefore "before S:CE" is necessarily "before dodge". > S:CE and Dodge is already an exception to FS, that says FS resolves before > other normal strikes). "FS beats dodge" would be an exception to dodge. "FS beats S:CE" would be an exception to S:CE. "FS beats normal strikes" is not an exception and has no exceptions, since S:CE and dodge are not "normal" strikes. > The rules says S:CE resolves before any other strike > even FS. Just changed it to say "before any other strike but First Strike". You'd also have to change the rules on FS. > It's that simple. Dodge doesn't even have that wording, it only states it It would also be simple to eliminate FS altogether. But simplicity doesn't mean that the idea is a good one. > works against FS too and could be kept that way. It's THAT simple to change > it. The real question should instead be if the change would be good or not. Then you have FS before S:CE before dodge before FS... a paradox. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 07 Apr 2001 08:08:53 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >>Oh look, hidden lurker, fast reaction, carrion crows, weather control >>etc etc. > >The problem is many of those cards are require rather specific situations and >become rather corner-case. It's often not putting them in because they just end >up taking up space *unless* those specific situations are met. > I think you need to design a few more combat decks. Except perhaps for weather control, the above cards are all 'must haves' and well worth it in my nosfer, assamite, tzimisce etc decks. T

On 07 Apr 2001 18:44:34 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > >While Cailean with an Ivory Bow is a pain, it's not as serious a problem as the >MVH with the Bow. > >But in the case of the MVH, none of that will help since you're going to torpor >after First Strike. > >Halcyan 2 Fast hands, canine horde, immortal grapple, damage prevention, thoughts betrayed, skin trap.... You really dont play combat decks do you? T

On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 06:52:16 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Well actually this began out of my frustration from First Strike not >> truly being 'First Strike'. >> >> And thus it should resolve before the opponents strike, regardless of >> whatever it is short of it also being First Strike imo. > >And dodge should be truly dodge. And thus protect from the opponents' >strike, regardless of whatever it is (short of a dodge or S:CE) > >And S:CE should be truly S:CE. And thus end combat before the opponent's >strike resolves, regardless of whatever it is (short of a S:CE). > But for a very few 'cannot play dodge/sce' cards, that is the case as it stands now. But not for first strike apparently. T

On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 14:06:16 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >But I think most people stilla gree it would be too powerful if it hosed all >strikes. Thus I suggested this solution, which has the benefit of improving >both FS *and* dodge. Which both needs to be improved in relation to S:CE >IMO. How many people do you know with first strikes that arent simply steal or destroy weapon cards? Very little. But wait! There is the very expensive backstab and the assamite blood to first strike cards....largely useless and not worth it if it can be just dodged or sce. First strike to me is so blindingly fast that the other vampire simply cannot react to it until that FIRST stiike has already been resolved. Hidden lurker and other cards already negate or remove completely the opponents strke. What is so wrong with having a strike simply resolve FIRST?? T

[ quoted text not captured ] ? You can't have both. If S:CE is "truly" S:CE and Dodge is "Truly" dodge (and First Strike beats "normal" strikes) then First Strike won't beat S:CE or Dodge. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:37:35 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >You can't have both. If S:CE is "truly" S:CE and Dodge is "Truly" dodge >(and First Strike beats "normal" strikes) then First Strike won't beat >S:CE or Dodge. > You can. SCE and dodge is a strike. First strike is not a 'strike' in itself, but rather an effect that makes a strike resolve first. Were a dodge or a SCE to be played with a first strike effect, then it would take effect against an opposing first strike strike. And thus all three effects would be true to their name. And that, imho, is how those combat effects should interact. T

[ quoted text not captured ] I have been known to occasionally play combat in the past, myself... and personally, I find it WELL WORTH the two pool to have Muddles draw out one of your Carrion Crows, Hidden Lurker, Fast Reaction, etc. etc., as opposed to having it played on one of my oh-so-combatty Malkavians. Especially when I can just recruit him again next turn (I've occasionally put 5 in a deck myself. You?) [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:24:47 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> On 07 Apr 2001 08:08:53 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >> >>>> Oh look, hidden lurker, fast reaction, carrion crows, weather control >>>> etc etc. >>> >>> The problem is many of those cards are require rather specific situations >>> and >>> become rather corner-case. It's often not putting them in because they just >>> end >>> up taking up space *unless* those specific situations are met. >>> >> >> I think you need to design a few more combat decks. Except perhaps >> for weather control, the above cards are all 'must haves' and well >> worth it in my nosfer, assamite, tzimisce etc decks. > > I have been known to occasionally play combat in the past, myself... DON'T tell me that message was directed at you, Derek?! Egad. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:02:07 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:24:47 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >>> I think you need to design a few more combat decks. Except perhaps >>> for weather control, the above cards are all 'must haves' and well >>> worth it in my nosfer, assamite, tzimisce etc decks. >> >> I have been known to occasionally play combat in the past, myself... > > DON'T tell me that message was directed at you, Derek?! Egad. it wasn't. it was aimed at Halcyan, i think. But I figured I'd leap in anyway... from my point of view, I'd much rather NOT have to waste 'special' cards just to kill a Muddles that will likely come back out anyway. And Carrion Crows -still- gets me hit for 4. =/ -- Derek "There's hands everywhere!" -- N. Stewart

>it wasn't. it was aimed at Halcyan, i think. But I figured I'd leap >in anyway... from my point of view, I'd much rather NOT have to waste >'special' cards just to kill a Muddles that will likely come back out >anyway. And Carrion Crows -still- gets me hit for 4. =/ Yeah, the comment was aimed at me. I think the main point here is that people have different metagames. It appears Talonz' playgroup tends to use a lot of cards that could kill Muddled's while in my play experience, I've haven't seen that many. In any case, I really don't think this thread is going anywhere. Roger and Talonz argue that the MVH isn't much of a threat, while myself and some others are a bit more concerned. Clearly, no one's managed to really convince anyone else so let's just agree to disagree... Halcyan 2

<Talo...@hotmail.com > And thus all three effects would be true to their name. And that, > imho, is how those combat effects should interact. > > T you know what ? i just realized how Talonz remarks and comments are clever and level headed. Guess we must throw LSJ out now this gift of nature is here among us ! hail to the King ! Hail to Talonz ! In fact, we are so worhtless, with our little thoughts, we should leave him the entire forum, maybe ?

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ad01a40.945267188@news... > On 05 Apr 2001 22:35:36 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: > > > >How about a muddled vampire hunter equipped with the Ivory Bow (or Flame > >Thrower). Automatically hits you for 1 or 2 agg (since you can't Dodge or > >S:CE). Works at close and long range. And unless you can prevent, you're going > >to torpor. Even most combat decks might have a bit of trouble dealing with such > >an ally... > > > As they should! We're talking about a 4 pool cost specefic clan ally > that has been giving a 1-2 pool cost lethal or even unique weapon. > > He SHOULD be able to give anyone a 'bit of trouble'! > > We might even see cards like 'command' and the like enter mainstream > play then. It has been stated again and again and again that, if X is so powerful that you MUST play anti-X, then X is overpowered. Your statement that Muddles is a 4 pool clan-specific ally that has been given a 1-2 pool-cost weapon doesn't really affect the fact that everyone would make that deck immediately, since under your First Strike rules the deck is A-MAZING. > > T Kevin J. Mergen, Prince of Madison, WI (remove PLEASENOSPAMME for direct reply) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, _The_Art_of_War_ "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

On 13 Apr 2001 21:16:04 GMT, halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote: >In any case, I really don't think this thread is going anywhere. Roger and >Talonz argue that the MVH isn't much of a threat, while myself and some others >are a bit more concerned. Clearly, no one's managed to really convince anyone >else so let's just agree to disagree... > >Halcyan 2 Well hang on, I never said he wasn't a threat.... =] There seemed to be some concern that a MVH with 'true' first strike would be unbeatable. That is the point I took exception to, and presented several means to defeat him with. I certainly agree that a MVH with ivory bow/flamethrower is a concern! Just not a gamebreaker. T

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:14:57 GMT, "Kevin M." <kjme...@PLEASENOSPAMMEhome.com> wrote: > >It has been stated again and again and again that, if X is so powerful >that you MUST play anti-X, then X is overpowered. > >Your statement that Muddles is a 4 pool clan-specific ally that has been >given a 1-2 pool-cost weapon doesn't really affect the fact that everyone >would make that deck immediately, since under your First Strike rules the >deck is A-MAZING. > >> Anh. You willing to build a deck around one clan-specefic ally? Be my guest. Prepare to be frustrated when you try to equip that MVH with equipment.... Anyways, the point is largely moot, but the facts remain as shown: 1)First Strike isn't 2)MVH is a threat regardless of how FS is played 3)There are numerous ways to deal with him 4)MVH probably shouldnt have FS when he himself is attacked 'at night'. His inherent FS relies on day attacks obviouslly. Were #1 and #4 adjusted appropriately, then #2 and #3 would likely fall into line just as before, if not more so. T

[ quoted text not captured ] LOL! Amusing. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3ad8d573.23382881@news... > On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 03:14:57 GMT, "Kevin M." > Anh. You willing to build a deck around one clan-specefic ally? Be > my guest. Prepare to be frustrated when you try to equip that MVH > with equipment.... Malks. Stealth recruit MVH. Stealth getting their own weapons/Disguised Weapon. Rave. > Anyways, the point is largely moot, but the facts remain as shown: > > 1)First Strike isn't Sure. > 2)MVH is a threat regardless of how FS is played Depends. > 3)There are numerous ways to deal with him Agreed. > 4)MVH probably shouldnt have FS when he himself is attacked 'at > night'. His inherent FS relies on day attacks obviouslly. I wouldn't say obviously. Maybe he has True Faith or something...is able to see through obfuscate, immune to minor applications of dominate/presence... HTH. Xian

Talonz wrote: >>Anyways, the point is largely moot, but the facts remain as shown: 1)First Strike isn't>> Well, it beats non dodge, non S:CE strikes. Making it as first as it needs to be. >>2)MVH is a threat regardless of how FS is played>> Only if you have no access to manuvers, dodges, S:CE, damage prevention, or vampires with more than 3 blood. >>3)There are numerous ways to deal with him>> Yup. >>4)MVH probably shouldnt have FS when he himself is attacked 'at night'. His inherent FS relies on day attacks obviouslly.>> ??? There are no "day attacks" or "night attacks" in VTES. There are only attacks. Muddles has First Strike 'cause he says he has First Strike. His First Strike works just like all the other First Strike in the game. Muddles works just fine, and does everything he needs to, as does his First Strike. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:58:35 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote: > >Malks. >Stealth recruit MVH. >Stealth getting their own weapons/Disguised Weapon. >Rave. > The rave will help, because otherwise the best MVH can do stealthwise when grabbing the equip is +2 with a cloak. > >> 4)MVH probably shouldnt have FS when he himself is attacked 'at >> night'. His inherent FS relies on day attacks obviouslly. > >I wouldn't say obviously. Maybe he has True Faith or something...is able to >see through obfuscate, immune to minor applications of dominate/presence... > Now there is a facet ofthe game that hasn't been represented yet iirc. True Faith. Wonder what kind of card would that be like? =] T

On 14 Apr 2001 15:20:31 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > >>>4)MVH probably shouldnt have FS when he himself is attacked 'at >night'. His inherent FS relies on day attacks obviouslly.>> > >??? > >There are no "day attacks" or "night attacks" in VTES. There are only attacks. >Muddles has First Strike 'cause he says he has First Strike. His First Strike >works just like all the other First Strike in the game. Muddles works just >fine, and does everything he needs to, as does his First Strike. > > Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his combat training? Not likely, although that might explain the 4 damage he does. If you were a hunter, would you hunt at day or night? Obviouslly, day gives you your best advantage. And likely, the first shot at a sleeping vampire before he can react. Thus FS. T PS Is this the same Peter B that is/used to be heavily involved in SFB? If so, howdy!

Talonz wrote: >>Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his combat training? Not likely, although that might explain the 4 damage he does.>> Ahh--yeah, I never think beyond the card. I look at VTES as an abstract strategy game, where things happen simply because the cards say so. I generally find looking for "real life"/logical reasons for things to be a fruitless exercise in this game. Too many things deeply abstracted. Clearly, I don't play the RPG :-) >>If you were a hunter, would you hunt at day or night? Obviouslly, day gives you your best advantage.>> Nah. I'd hunt as a +1 stealth directed action :-) >>PS Is this the same Peter B that is/used to be heavily involved in SFB? If so, howdy!>> Yup. Still am/do--where have we run into each other before? [ quoted text not captured ]

>> >>Malks. >>Stealth recruit MVH. >>Stealth getting their own weapons/Disguised Weapon. >>Rave. >> > >The rave will help, because otherwise the best MVH can do stealthwise >when grabbing the equip is +2 with a cloak. ? The equip action is at a natural +1 and then each untapped vampire with OBF can provide an additional +1 with a Cloak. Right? Halcyan 2

>>>Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' >attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his >combat training? Not likely, although that might explain the 4 damage >he does.>> > >Ahh--yeah, I never think beyond the card. I look at VTES as an abstract >strategy game, where things happen simply because the cards say so. I >generally >find looking for "real life"/logical reasons for things to be a fruitless >exercise in this game. Too many things deeply abstracted. Clearly, I don't >play >the RPG :-) While thinking in "real" or RPG terms may provide a framework for explaining things, remember one of the prime rules of all CCG's and games: Logic and the rules of reason don't always apply! Halcyan 2

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:30:19 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On 14 Apr 2001 15:20:31 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) >wrote: >>There are no "day attacks" or "night attacks" in VTES. There are only attacks. >>Muddles has First Strike 'cause he says he has First Strike. His First Strike >>works just like all the other First Strike in the game. Muddles works just >>fine, and does everything he needs to, as does his First Strike. > >Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' >attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his >combat training? Not likely, although that might explain the 4 damage >he does. No. Do not think beyond the card. This is a card game, not an RPG. There are many plausible reasons why Muddles could have First Strike, or why it would be appropriate for him to. Any of them count. Attempting to apply "think beyond the card" to the card for purposes of changing the card is a bad, bad idea though. The card is the card, no more, no less. Muddles has First Strike. He has 1 life, 0 bleed, and does 4 points of hand damage. That is all you need to know. -- Derek [generic .signature file]

Halcyan 2 <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010414171502...@ng-fi1.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Wrong. Each vampire with OBF can provide an additional +1 stealth with a Cloak the Gathering. In general, minions are already tapped when they play action modifiers, so their tapped/untapped status has no effect on whether or not they can play a Cloak the Gathering. Specific Rules Team Ruling quoted here: "Cloak the Gathering - Action Modifier (obf) The superior ability can be used to aid another minion even while the modifying vampire is tapped. [RTR 19941109] " http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/rulings.html You can easily get the Muddled Vampire Hunter up to 4-5 stealth with only a few vamps in play. Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

>> ? The equip action is at a natural +1 and then each untapped vampire with >OBF >> can provide an additional +1 with a Cloak. Right? > >Wrong. >Each vampire with OBF can provide an additional +1 stealth with a Cloak the >Gathering. (rest is snipped) Well, what I was primarily asking about was Talonz' assertion that you can only get up to +2 stealth total (which seemed to imply only one Cloak could be played) when I was pretty sure that different vampires could all help Cloak. But thanks for the clarification on the tapped/untapped situation. Halcyan 2

In message <tLQB6.3737$Ra.7...@news.uswest.net>, Xian <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> writes >Malks. >Stealth recruit MVH. >Stealth getting their own weapons/Disguised Weapon. >Rave. "+1 stealth action. Move as much blood (or life) and/or equipment from the acting minion to any ready vampires you control." ^^^^^^^^ :( -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1F What's the meaning when you speak with so much feeling? B457CA213D7E6 Is it over when you're sober? Is it junk? 68C3695D623D5D

In message <3ad8d573.23382881@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >Anh. You willing to build a deck around one clan-specefic ally? People do. It'd be an interesting bruise and bleed variant. Using Muddles to help take down blockers, a few Malkavians (say, the 3 cap ooga-chukka guy) to bring in equipment for him (or themselves), Rave and Heidelberg[0] to bring it across, some light stealth and bleed. And Revelations for added hilarity. Kinda kooky. Could be fun. [0] That is, you could consolidate them on one vampire, then only require one equip to move them all across to Muddles. If one of them's a leather jacket, he untaps at the end of turn for blocking duty. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010414112031...@ng-cb1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >There are no "day attacks" or "night attacks" in VTES. Indeed. And a vampire is generally pretty good at attacking when awake, regardless of time of day. The only effect night and day tend to have are things like Dawn Ops - sunlight etc. And if they're not awake, you just munch them. Hard. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3ad9973e.73000450@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' >attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his >combat training? Not likely, Why? >If you were a hunter, would you hunt at day or night? Obviouslly, day >gives you your best advantage. A vampire can hit back. Ergo, the vampire must be up. The earliest it could be is dusk. >PS Is this the same Peter B that is/used to be heavily involved in >SFB? If so, howdy! At a guess, yes. He certainly mentions SFB from time to time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:59:37 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 18:59:37 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>There are no "day attacks" or "night attacks" in VTES. > >Indeed. And a vampire is generally pretty good at attacking when awake, >regardless of time of day. Not entirely true. In VTM, the vampire that awakes during the day and tried to act has his dice pool limited by his humanity, IIRC. T

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 19:52:16 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3ad9973e.73000450@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Peter, think beyond the card. Yes there are no 'day' or 'night' >>attacks, but why would a Vhunter have first strike? Because of his >>combat training? Not likely, > >Why? Because FS is rare for starters. There is not a single vampire that has it as an inherent abilty for example. FS also only occurs on the superior version of some cards, or on a very few rare cards at inferior. Thus implying more of a supernatural or 'surprise' nature to FS, rather than training. > >>If you were a hunter, would you hunt at day or night? Obviouslly, day >>gives you your best advantage. > >A vampire can hit back. Ergo, the vampire must be up. The earliest it >could be is dusk. > No, vampires sleep after a fashion. And if you are staked while sleeping for example, you do not strike back. Cmon, havn't you watched any vampire films James?? ;) T

On 14 Apr 2001 19:43:01 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > >Ahh--yeah, I never think beyond the card. I look at VTES as an abstract >strategy game, where things happen simply because the cards say so. I generally >find looking for "real life"/logical reasons for things to be a fruitless >exercise in this game. Too many things deeply abstracted. Clearly, I don't play >the RPG :-) > Ah, you're on of 'those'. lol! > >>>PS Is this the same Peter B that is/used to be heavily involved in >SFB? If so, howdy!>> > >Yup. Still am/do--where have we run into each other before? > > We havn't. I just recognize your name as 'mr.kzinti' and wanted to say hi. =] T

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 20:26:30 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >No. Do not think beyond the card. This is a card game, not an RPG. >There are many plausible reasons why Muddles could have First Strike, >or why it would be appropriate for him to. Any of them count. >Attempting to apply "think beyond the card" to the card for purposes >of changing the card is a bad, bad idea though. The card is the card, >no more, no less. > >Muddles has First Strike. He has 1 life, 0 bleed, and does 4 points >of hand damage. That is all you need to know. > Gee thanks for clearing that up Derek. Seriouslly, if you're a fan of the game as I am, and wonder at times why the designers did X when Y would be better, logical, and balanced then yes you tend to ask yourself how Y would work in play and how it could be justified to go on the card. So thinking beyond the card is pretty much a pre-requisite. T

In message <3adcf068.43885205@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>A vampire can hit back. Ergo, the vampire must be up. The earliest it >>could be is dusk. >> > >No, vampires sleep after a fashion. And if you are staked while >sleeping for example, you do not strike back. However, there's been the whole maneuver/pre-range phase going on. Ergo, the vampire isn't asleep. [ quoted text not captured ]

Talonz wrote: >>Seriouslly, if you're a fan of the game as I am, and wonder at times why the designers did X when Y would be better, logical, and balanced then yes you tend to ask yourself how Y would work in play and how it could be justified to go on the card.>> While an understandable viewpoint, everything works the way it does for a reason, and that reason may have no connection to any sort of "real life" logic. As you pointed out in another post, First Strike is a rare abillity--there are, like, what, half a dozen cards that use it? Muddles is probably the most common First Strike in the game, and thus the only place where it comes up often enough to worry about. For whatever reason, it was determined that First Strike does not beat Dodge and S:CE--I don't know why that was, but that is how it was designed. At this point in time, changing First Strike would make all the cards with First Strike more powerful than they were designed to be (and make other cards less powerful than they were designed to be, considering how they were designed in a world where FS worked the way it does), and this isn't necessary. First Strike doesn't *need* to be any better than it is. As for Muddles, he doesn't need to be any better than he is either--he is one of the best (if not the best) allies out there (in that he is cost effective, useable, and useful). His first strike works fine--it gives him the ability to kill, with impunity, and vampire with 3 or less blood on him who does not have any significant combat ability. This is all he needs to be able to do, and he does it quite well. >>So thinking beyond the card is pretty much a pre-requisite.>> I'm not quite sure what it is a pre-requisite for. >>Ah, you're on of 'those'. lol!>> Yup. I appreciate that the RPG exists as source material for VTES, but other than that, I'm not really concerned about the connection. >>We havn't. I just recognize your name as 'mr.kzinti' and wanted to say hi. =]>> Cool. Hi! You gonna be at Origins this year? [ quoted text not captured ]

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3adaed78.43133158@news... [ quoted text not captured ] you know what, king Talonz ? we're talking about a *card game* called Vtes, as james stated in his previous post...

In message <3adef1e6.44267398@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >Seriouslly, if you're a fan of the game as I am, and wonder at times >why the designers did X when Y would be Because that's what *they* chose to do. For the vast majority of things, they've been shown to be right, IMO. 2nd round combat lacks real bite, but is still viable. (Now even more so.) Equipment has a low power:cost ratio. S:CE is a touch too powerful. Vote pushing was a bit too easy. That's it, really, from where I stand. [ quoted text not captured ]

>For the vast majority of things, they've been shown to be right, IMO. > > 2nd round combat lacks real bite, but is still viable. (Now > even more so.) > Equipment has a low power:cost ratio. > S:CE is a touch too powerful. > Vote pushing was a bit too easy. > >That's it, really, from where I stand. If I had to pick one thing to complain about in terms of the game as a whole, it would be that individual actions are not interactive enough. Far too many bleeds go unblocked. Far too many votes win without effort. Far too many combats are onesided. Course, there are lots of cards to complain about, even putting aside DS and AH.

In message <20010415205252...@ng-mm1.aol.com>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes >If I had to pick one thing to complain about in terms of the game as a whole, >it would be that individual actions are not interactive enough. Far too many >bleeds go unblocked. Far too many votes win without effort. Far too many >combats are onesided. This is the function of the metagame, not design. Design can't *make* people build decks that interact. >Course, there are lots of cards to complain about, even putting aside DS and >AH. Individual cards, yes. Mechanics, less so. [ quoted text not captured ]

>This is the function of the metagame, not design. Design can't *make* >people build decks that interact. ?? My belief is that it is up to the designers of a game to attempt to overcome the natural tendency of the best decks in CCGs to be the least interactive. On the player versus player level, this game does a pretty good job. That the individual cards don't encourage or require interaction is not anyone's fault but the designers of those cards. Still, I've seen proposals for making CCGs more interactive, and they often looked as bad or worse as any existing problem. For instance, B5 has gotten far more interactive and has not gotten any more enjoyable for it.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 19:09:10 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 20:26:30 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: >> >>No. Do not think beyond the card. This is a card game, not an RPG. >>There are many plausible reasons why Muddles could have First Strike, >>or why it would be appropriate for him to. Any of them count. >>Attempting to apply "think beyond the card" to the card for purposes >>of changing the card is a bad, bad idea though. The card is the card, >>no more, no less. >> >>Muddles has First Strike. He has 1 life, 0 bleed, and does 4 points >>of hand damage. That is all you need to know. >> > >Gee thanks for clearing that up Derek. Glad I could help. >Seriouslly, if you're a fan of the game as I am, and wonder at times rhetorical question, if you knew me at all. >why the designers did X when Y would be better, logical, and balanced Sometimes I do wonder. Often, I just put it down to "well, the designers really screwed up on that one"; example, Return to Innocence. I could waste an awful lot of time trying to figure out how a vampire (apparently) becoming mortal again causes a bleed for the capacity of that vampire, or I could just read the card text itself, say "jesus h. buddha, that's broken", and go from there. >then yes you tend to ask yourself how Y would work in play and how it >could be justified to go on the card. Occasionally I do, indeed, ask myself that. But I do not attempt to justify Y by using things that are not appropriate to V:TES itself. The card game is a card game. The RPG is the RPG. They draw from the same source material, but some things simply won't ever translate properly (Majesty), and so we can either waste a lot of time attempting to slavishly adhere to RPG canon, or we can accept some things in a working version and move on with it. Muddles having First Strike currently works. Why screw with it? >So thinking beyond the card is pretty much a pre-requisite. Absolutely not, and in fact will lead you down many wrong thought paths, causing much frustration when trying to understand the game. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 16 Apr 2001 00:52:52 GMT, cur...@aol.com (Ian Lee) wrote: >>For the vast majority of things, they've been shown to be right, IMO. >> >> 2nd round combat lacks real bite, but is still viable. (Now >> even more so.) >> Equipment has a low power:cost ratio. >> S:CE is a touch too powerful. >> Vote pushing was a bit too easy. >> >>That's it, really, from where I stand. > >If I had to pick one thing to complain about in terms of the game as a whole, >it would be that individual actions are not interactive enough. Far too many >bleeds go unblocked. Far too many votes win without effort. Far too many >combats are onesided. *boggle* not around here =) bleeds are blocked, bounced, etcetera'd. votes are debated (sometimes briefly) back and forth. Combats are FAR from lopsided. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:08:58 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3adcf068.43885205@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>A vampire can hit back. Ergo, the vampire must be up. The earliest it >>>could be is dusk. >>> >> >>No, vampires sleep after a fashion. And if you are staked while >>sleeping for example, you do not strike back. > >However, there's been the whole maneuver/pre-range phase going on. >Ergo, the vampire isn't asleep. > True on the sequencing. Which just goes to show how FS fails to live up to its ideal. T

On 15 Apr 2001 19:52:08 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: > >While an understandable viewpoint, everything works the way it does for a >reason, and that reason may have no connection to any sort of "real life" >logic. > Yup, game balance is always a concern. Striking a good balance between that and 'realisitic' play background is always a major game design concern. > At this point in time, changing First Strike would make all the cards >with First Strike more powerful than they were designed to be (and make other >cards less powerful than they were designed to be, considering how they were >designed in a world where FS worked the way it does), and this isn't necessary. >First Strike doesn't *need* to be any better than it is. > Need is subjective. FS simply fails to live up to what a FS should be, and thus is a disapointing aspect of the game for me. I agree that an positive change in FS makes it more powerful, but seeing as I also believe its a weak aspect as it stands, thats understandable. >As for Muddles, he doesn't need to be any better than he is either-- Here I utterly agree, and have presented a simple method of counteracting that (seeing as MVH was the most frequently used counterpoint). Ergo: Give him FS only on his successful attack a vamp action. At any rate, this is mostly just sheer speculation at this point, as LSJ etal havnt taken the bite as it were. But its still fun to speculate. >>>We havn't. I just recognize your name as 'mr.kzinti' and wanted to >say hi. =] > >Cool. Hi! You gonna be at Origins this year? > I wish! Its a long ways away for me and right smack dab in the high season for work. Now if only it would come back to the west coast. *sigh* T

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 00:50:55 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >you know what, king Talonz ? we're talking about a *card game* called Vtes, >as james stated in his previous post... > Some of us are talking about a card game, yes. Some of us are wasting time and energy on lame flames. T

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:06:27 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: <much snippety bits snipped> > >>So thinking beyond the card is pretty much a pre-requisite. > >Absolutely not, and in fact will lead you down many wrong thought >paths, causing much frustration when trying to understand the game. >=) > It is in fact necesary for what I wish to discuss. IE: How FS could be better designed and how the most frequent argument against it (MVH) can be altered to counteract that fear and at the same time better represent how a hunter would work in the first place. If it will help you, I do however realize how the discussion is largely academic, believe me. But please dont tell me that questioning and using reasoning about certain design aspects of a game is a 'wrong thought path'. I prefer to converse with an open mind. T

In message <20010416011208...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, Ian Lee <cur...@aol.com> writes >>This is the function of the metagame, not design. Design can't *make* >>people build decks that interact. > >?? My belief is that it is up to the designers of a game to attempt to >overcome the natural tendency of the best decks in CCGs to be the least >interactive. (Add liberal "IMO", "IMHO" etc. Just too many to put. None of this is canonical fact, just What I Think (tm).) It is, to a degree. Let me explain more completely what I meant. A game without any form of interaction allowable is a pointless one (in terms of a multiplayer game). Think of, say, two players sitting down and playing Patience or Solitaire or something. It takes a bit of skill to do, but it's only that player's skill. The other player's skill is in their game. Neither of them can interact. Winning would simply be who pulled off their game first. That sort of complaint was levelled by many at the X-Files card game. (I don't know, I never played it.) Almost no opportunities to interact, and it simply turned into a race. So, the function of the designers is to *allow* interaction. Let's look at Jyhad, then. Any action *can* be blocked, by either the target Methuselah in (D) actions, or the prey, then the predator. Eagle's Sight, Anneke and Enzo Giovanni are cards, rather than mechanics, which step outside these rules too. Stealth and intercept, as mechanics, facilitate interaction in taking actions/blocking actions. Any vote *can* be opposed (taking it on the level of voting, not an action). Other people can play vote decks, for a start. It's one of the great levellers for the Vote Deck archetype. You can never *guarantee* vote-lock. What if all five players are playing vote decks? The mechanic of throwing away vote cards helps, as does the mechanic of the Edge (allowing a good bleed deck to have a small bonus, or an intercept prey to *deny* the Edge to the vote deck). The vampire titles help facilitate anti-vote, too. It's not like titled vampires are *only* useful to vote decks. A big Nosferatu heavy vampire deck - the sort with bits of Auspex and Fortitude too - can pick up lots on the way, as could a Horse Brutality deck (Fifth Tradition/Minion Tap). A Dominate deck could have Pulling Strings or Kindred Co-ercion. A Presence deck can have Dread Gaze. Any deck can have Surprise Influence or Delaying Tactics. Here, the mechanics work well - everyone has the potential to oppose - and the cards that are created for the mechanics also have many possibilities. Any combat *can* be interactive. Two vampires can hit each other. I can run away with maneuvers. I can Shotgun Ritual you. If I play a Tremere bleed deck, I could make my "defence" out of Burst of Sunlights if I wanted. We have Dodge. We have S:CE (and this is where interaction is slightly neutered, hence my desire to *mildly* weaken it or strengthen other abilities). I can Carrion Crows you. I can gate you. I can even Lucky Blow you. I can play Coma. I can prevent. I can slap back with aggravated. I can Immortal Grapple you. I can..... Every clan has access to the potential for interaction somehow. And so on. At virtually every level, the potential for interaction is there. Some master cards don't have it - only Sudden Reversal would work. *Generally*, not a problem. Not a big one, anyway. So the designers give the potential for interaction. And they give the incentive for interaction too - the ability to properly defend yourself, go on a defence-offensive (intercept->bang type decks). But they can't *make* players do it. And we come back to the old "Toolbox" vs "One trick pony" debate. Some decks - like some of PDB6's combat decks - don't give a monkeys about interacting with you on your terms - I won't block you, I won't oppose you in votes (unless, by any chance, he put, say, Anvil in the deck). It does what it wants, and he does what he wants. A toolbox deck can interact at every level. Take a look at the Lazverinus All Skills All Stars deck from Rob Treasure, which one GenCon UK '98 (post 7/7 etc.) Bleed, prevent, attack, bounce, intercept, Freak Drive, Wake, equipment, miscellaneous masters etc. It can have a bloody good go at doing the interaction thang. And that's my point. Jyhad is a *superb* multi-player game. All the strategy is there. All the mechanics are there. A helluva lot of cards are there. All the potential for interaction is there. If players *want* to play "Race You" decks, that's up to them. But if you want to play a more interactive style, that's the function of the metagame. You stop their decks working, you slow them down. I recall once in Cardiff a superbly played Toreador deck which just halted the entire table. The best "Permission" deck I'd seen in play. Especially funny when his prey went for a bleed, and it got bounced back round to him (4/5 player table). *snigger*. The function of the designer, IMO, is to facilitate the style of play, even encourage it. If it can be seen that interactivity has benefits X, Y and Z over "race" decks (which have benefits alpha, beta and gamma), it can be a carrot to get the game played that way. But they can't and shouldn't, IMO, force people to play that way. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3adf6048.138076179@news... [ quoted text not captured ] No, you're not talking about V:tes, you're always arguing "but in the RPG"... A card game is different from a RPG, you know that, everyone knows that. Stop the bullshit and don't pretend you've got a better grip than us on the game because you play V:tm. There are plenty of veterans from V:tes here and before contradicting them, try to benefit for their experience of the game, as only seasoned players can learn you and me a lot. There are time for speaking, and time for listening the others. don't forget that.

In message <3adb5a6a.136573078@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>However, there's been the whole maneuver/pre-range phase going on. >>Ergo, the vampire isn't asleep. >> > >True on the sequencing. Which just goes to show how FS fails to live >up to its ideal So, First Strike should really work before combat is entered? Cool. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 23:28:14 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 12:06:27 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > ><much snippety bits snipped> >> >>>So thinking beyond the card is pretty much a pre-requisite. >> >>Absolutely not, and in fact will lead you down many wrong thought >>paths, causing much frustration when trying to understand the game. >>=) > >It is in fact necesary for what I wish to discuss. Except that what you wish to discuss is in the realm of airy speculation and "wouldn't it be nice if". Don't get me wrong, that's all nice and everything, but you're also representing your airy speculation as How Things Should Be(tm), and that ain't gonna cut it with any of us. We have discovered plenty of good reasons as to why it isn't HTSB, and until you counter those, we're going to treat your speculations like bat guano. >IE: How FS could be better designed and how the most frequent argument >against it (MVH) can be altered to counteract that fear and at the >same time better represent how a hunter would work in the first place. IE: How we can produce the maximum amount of errata to as MANY already-printed cards as possible, in order to bolster a mechanic that has almost no cards in the first place and isn't all that critical to how the game works to begin with. Errata is BAD. It was the only way to go when no new cards were being printed, but now that Sabbat War is here and Final Nights is on the way, there is absolutely no need to go making casual online errata to fix wallpaper. It has, in fact, been the Rules Team's policy even BEFORE Sabbat War was a glimmer on the horizon to not issue errata to improve wallpaper, but only to fix overpowered cards. >If it will help you, I do however realize how the discussion is >largely academic, believe me. Then quit with the "It SHOULD be like this, if it were a REAL First Strike". There have been multiple representations of First Strike in some form or other in many games. Sometimes it just means "you get to hit first every time instead of randomly determining". Sometimes it means "you get to hit before combat even starts". And in V:TES, it means "you get to hit first if the other guy is trying to hit back." >But please dont tell me that questioning and using reasoning about >certain design aspects of a game is a 'wrong thought path'. It is when you insist on applying RPG canon to a card game. Again, an RPG is an RPG, V:tM is itself, and V:TES is V:TES. They are NOT the same and things are NOT going to work the same in them. Mind if I hold up Majesty again for an excellent example? >I prefer to converse with an open mind. That was pathetic. You could also prefer taking your fingers out of your ears and not going "lalala" anymore, but I don't see that happening, myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:23:18 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3adb5a6a.136573078@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>>However, there's been the whole maneuver/pre-range phase going on. >>>Ergo, the vampire isn't asleep. >>> >> >>True on the sequencing. Which just goes to show how FS fails to live >>up to its ideal > >So, First Strike should really work before combat is entered? > >Cool. > Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really bother me that people can maneuver before FS. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3addd315.70505915@news... [ quoted text not captured ] So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can maneuver ??? stop contradicting yourself !!!!

Redya wrote: >>So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can maneuver ??? stop contradicting yourself !!!!>> Ok, dude, enough. Talonz here may not be saying things that you agree with, but he is saying it in a civil and perfectly reasonable manner. There is no need for you to follow him around harassing him for every post he makes. If you disagree with him, disagree with him civilly. If he irritates you to the point that you are incapable of responding civilly, don't respond. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> a écrit dans le message news: 20010418165613...@ng-cp1.aol.com... > Redya wrote: > >>So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can > maneuver ??? > stop contradicting yourself !!!!>> > > Ok, dude, enough. Talonz here may not be saying things that you agree with, but > he is saying it in a civil and perfectly reasonable manner. There is no need > for you to follow him around harassing him for every post he makes. > > If you disagree with him, disagree with him civilly. If he irritates you to the > point that you are incapable of responding civilly, don't respond. > Mmm... Peter, i don't really know you, i just read you when you post and i remember having visited your URL. You seem to be a nice guy. I just want you to know that i read everyone's thread, not only Talonz -for nearly two years. I didn't felt irritated by anyone's post before. It happens that some people just want to say nonsense, maybe beacause they want to be scolded -and above all they aren't looking for discussion at all. Read what he writes, and you'll find disguised taunts and pathetic contradictions : he's not here to find new deck ideas ot new strategies, he just wants to be spanked ! But, okay, Peter you're right, i told him what i wanted him to know, and now that it's cleat his behavior (or maybe his brain) won't improve, i won't point his stupid assertions anymore. But i'm sure other people will do. I'm sorry if my rude response offended other people. have a nice day.

In message <3addd315.70505915@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really >bother me that people can maneuver before FS. But it says "First" and we have to over-ride everything to let it go first. And besides, not only could you have "Dodge with First Strike" or "Strike: Combat Ends" with first strike, but we could have: - First Maneuver - First Before Range - First After Range is Determined - First Before Strike Resolution and so on. Then First would mean First, and First Strike would really mean First Strike. This seems infinitely preferable to a system where First doesn't really mean First, surely? [ quoted text not captured ]

>Mmm... Peter, i don't really know you, i just read you when you post and i >remember having visited your URL. You seem to be a nice guy. I just want you >to know that i read everyone's thread, not only Talonz -for nearly two >years. I didn't felt irritated by anyone's post before. It happens that some >people just want to say nonsense, maybe beacause they want to be >scolded -and above all they aren't looking for discussion at all. Read what >he writes, and you'll find disguised taunts and pathetic contradictions : >he's not here to find new deck ideas ot new strategies, he just wants to be >spanked ! > Hey Reyda! I just wanted to say that I've been reading all the posts for the past 2 (more like 2 1/2 -3 now) years as well. I do have to say that you're starting to get a bit harsh (however appropriate it may be). I also agree that Talonz has filled many of his posts with "disguised taunts and pathetic contradictions" and many of them have been rather offensive. This thread in particular seems to be on the verge of becoming a downright flame war! Not that we need it, but perhaps it's time once again for all of us to go over all the rules of netiquette. Never hurts to review them! =) Halcyan 2

Redya wrote: >>Mmm... Peter, i don't really know you, i just read you when you post and i remember having visited your URL. You seem to be a nice guy.>> I'm the nicest guy I know :-) >>I just want you to know that i read everyone's thread, not only Talonz -for nearly two years. I didn't felt irritated by anyone's post before. It happens that some people just want to say nonsense, maybe beacause they want to be scolded -and above all they aren't looking for discussion at all.>> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he is just coming from the game from a different viewpoint than most of us. Regardless, it rarely helps to harass folks. I greatly prefer to simply keep responding to them, saying the same simple thing over and over again until they lose their mind :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3addd315.70505915@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >>Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really >>bother me that people can maneuver before FS. >But it says "First" and we have to over-ride everything to let it go >first. >And besides, not only could you have "Dodge with First Strike" or >"Strike: Combat Ends" with first strike, but we could have: > - First Maneuver > - First Before Range > - First After Range is Determined > - First Before Strike Resolution >and so on. >Then First would mean First, and First Strike would really mean First >Strike. >This seems infinitely preferable to a system where First doesn't really >mean First, surely? Sorry, James but _I'm_ not playing with First Strike until they make it strike before the combat itself begins. In fact, before the master phase, even. Yeah, that's it...thats the ticket... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver First Strike Snob of Charlotte, NC ;-) Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> > Maybe, maybe not. Maybe he is just coming from the game from a different > viewpoint than most of us. Regardless, it rarely helps to harass folks. I > greatly prefer to simply keep responding to them, saying the same simple thing > over and over again until they lose their mind :-) Ok, you convinced me, your method is certainly the right one =) Sorry for being so rude. Sometime i just can't help... Next time i'll keep netiquette in mind for sure.

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:44:12 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >> Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really >> bother me that people can maneuver before FS. > >So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can >maneuver ??? >stop contradicting yourself !!!! *sigh* This isnt a contradiction. The basis for MVH having firs strike is because of his day attack imo. But changing the mechanics so it ocurrs before a maneuver is not worth the hassle. T

>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com ===== >On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:44:12 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >>> Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really >>> bother me that people can maneuver before FS. >> >>So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can >>maneuver ??? >>stop contradicting yourself !!!! > >*sigh* > >This isnt a contradiction. The basis for MVH having firs strike is >because of his day attack imo. I believe the contradiction is found by Reyda in the fact that such a "day attack" logic path would lead to the conclusion that the target (sleeping) vampire would not be able to maneuver. By hanging your argument on that "day attack" base and yet not being bothered by maneuvers is a difficult position to defend. > But changing the mechanics so it >ocurrs before a maneuver is not worth the hassle. Of course, changing the mechanics so it occurs before Dodge and before S:CE is not worth the hassle, either. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:46:26 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:44:12 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > >>> Um, no. Just before the other minion strikes. It doesnt really >>> bother me that people can maneuver before FS. >> >>So, in the case of muddled hunter, the target vampire is asleep but he can >>maneuver ??? >>stop contradicting yourself !!!! > >*sigh* > >This isnt a contradiction. The basis for MVH having firs strike is >because of his day attack imo. But changing the mechanics so it note "in your opinion" that you included. Your opinion is your opinion. It's all yours. Sometimes it won't be anyone else's. This is one of those cases. >ocurrs before a maneuver is not worth the hassle. Changing the mechanics so it beats Dodge and S:CE is also not worth the hassle. Perhaps you now finally see our point. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:19:43 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: > >Of course, changing the mechanics so it occurs before Dodge and before >S:CE is not worth the hassle, either. > I can understand that position, and it doesnt surprise me. Thus this is an 'academic' discussion as I have mentioned. As long as we're on the subject of contradictions though (and frankly, FS for MVH is offtopic imo, we could easily rewrite the card so it voided a vampires maneuvers and strikes in the first round) it is in fact the actual rules text on FS that led me to this quandry in the first place. The rules state that FS is declared and resolved before any other strike. When you read the dodge and SCE text, it says it voids the opponents strike. There the original contradiction lies. If FS is resolved first, its too late for a dodge or SCE (And rightly so imo) and yet it has been ruled that a dodge or SCE that ocurrs without FS and well after FS retroactively screws the FS. 'Logically', the ruling is on shaky ground, based on the actual rules text and plain real world physics, because the dodge/sce text assumes a normal exchange of simultaneous strikes. FS as a specefic effect above and beyond a normal strike exchange would overide that. Please, no righteous or silly flames. T

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:40:01 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Changing the mechanics so it beats Dodge and S:CE is also not worth >the hassle. Perhaps you now finally see our point. Actually Derek no one has said that until now. Its a reasonable point to make (hassle vs gain) but we do see things change all the time. Mostly card text, but occasionally game effects like aggravated damage, vote pushing, etc. T

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:40:01 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:46:26 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 02:01:21 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:40:01 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>Changing the mechanics so it beats Dodge and S:CE is also not worth >>the hassle. Perhaps you now finally see our point. > >Actually Derek no one has said that until now. Funny, I could've sworn I posted a four-page dissertation on exactly which cards used First Strike, what changing it would affect, and various and sundry other bits. I'm pretty sure that other people posted something more brief but to the same point. >Its a reasonable point to make (hassle vs gain) but we do see things >change all the time. Mostly card text, but occasionally game effects >like aggravated damage, vote pushing, etc. Yes. Aggravated damage changed because it was FAR too easy to burn vampires with things like the Ivory Bow, etc; now, you require some source of SIGNIFICANT agg to burn them. The effect of agg on the game is and has been exponentially greater than the effect of First Strike; hence, worth the hassle. Vote pushing changed because it was ridiculously easy to pass votes by just chucking tons of vote cards. The effect of voting on the game is and has been exponentially greater than the effect of First Strike; hence, worth the hassle. I see no inconsistencies here. [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com ===== >As long as we're on the subject of contradictions though (and frankly, >FS for MVH is offtopic imo, we could easily rewrite the card so it >voided a vampires maneuvers and strikes in the first round) it is in >fact the actual rules text on FS that led me to this quandry in the >first place. > >The rules state that FS is declared and resolved before any other >strike. Not true. Section 6.4.5, pg. 41: First Strike: A strike done with first strike is resolved before a normal strike. [...] A strike done with first strike will still not resolve before a combat ends effect (which always resolves first), and a dodge still cancels the effect of a strike done with first strike (see below). [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 07:31:38 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: >>===== Original Message From Talo...@hotmail.com ===== >>As long as we're on the subject of contradictions though (and frankly, >>FS for MVH is offtopic imo, we could easily rewrite the card so it >>voided a vampires maneuvers and strikes in the first round) it is in >>fact the actual rules text on FS that led me to this quandry in the >>first place. >> >>The rules state that FS is declared and resolved before any other >>strike. > >Not true. Section 6.4.5, pg. 41: > > First Strike: A strike done with first strike is resolved before > a normal strike. [...] A strike done with first strike will still > not resolve before a combat ends effect (which always resolves > first), and a dodge still cancels the effect of a strike done with > first strike (see below). > It does now. I meant to add that the original rules text was more ambiguous, and that a later ruling was added into the current text as shown to effectively add first strike to dodge and combat ends. But I don't have my old jyhad rulebook to confirm this. The contradiction is still kind of odd imo, having a dodge and SCE suddenly gain first strike. T