Fixing Anarch Revolt: A Proposition

Ladies and Gentlemen, Without expressing an opinion into the merits and flaws of anarch revolt decks, I had a thought about how the card could be made more... shall we say, balanced. It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. Suddenly, the incentive to leave it in place ("I took my damage, my prey should take his") is gone. People would be much more likely to call the votes necessary to get rid of them. It's a simple fix that doesn't change the effect, the cost, or anything else. It just shifts the incentives a little. -Legendre

Legendre wrote: > It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the > discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. > > Suddenly, the incentive to leave it in place ("I took my damage, my > prey should take his") is gone. People would be much more likely to > call the votes necessary to get rid of them. > > It's a simple fix that doesn't change the effect, the cost, or > anything else. It just shifts the incentives a little. I think the AR "incentive" is one of the best features of the card, to be quite honest. I'm personally fondest of the "Anarch Revolt costs X pool to play, where X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in play" fix. (The first one's always free, don't'cha know...) But, honestly, the problem isn't really AR. I played a master deck for the first time recently, and I did frickin' dandy, and I never had more than 1 AR out at a time (plus an Antedeluvian Awakening). --Colin McGuigan

[ quoted text not captured ] No, AR alone isn't the problem. Golconda is the keycard in the bloat heavy master decks. Golconda gives them a) bloat superior to other ways, barring tap'n'cap. b) a way to bring out that 2nd copy of Anson/Huitzilopochtli. Especially the "B" part in it makes it so friggin good. AR is a good card. Abusable, but good. Weenie AR will remain a problem, but I dont see fixing AR as "the way". I wasn't around when Temptation of Greater power got changed, and therefore - not knowing the exact reasons - I'd say that the same could work for Gehenna. Would not completely disable playing master decks, but would make them harder to play, and would most likely force master decks to start interacting with the table in the more "common" ways.

Otto Koskinen wrote: > No, AR alone isn't the problem. > > Golconda is the keycard in the bloat heavy master decks. > Golconda gives them > a) bloat superior to other ways, barring tap'n'cap. > b) a way to bring out that 2nd copy of Anson/Huitzilopochtli. I was thinking about Golconda. The problem was, anything that made it really bad to Golconda your own vamps made Golconda too potent when used on other people -- it has to be bad enough to be a disincentive to the Anson/AR decks, but it can't be so bad that Golconda becomes a "bleed for 2" card. The best solution I could come up with was something that kept the vampire in the game under the control of the Golconda-player, but unable to do anything (even, eg, vote or use special card text). Using that, Golconda'ing your own vampires means you couldn't influence out others (they would immediately burn due to the contest), but other people could influence out Golconda'd vampires (but then they'd have to contest with the Golconda-player). But the text was just too damn long, and really, really, really klunky. --Colin McGuigan

"Legendre" <mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu> wrote in message news:fb4469c.04081...@posting.google.com... > Ladies and Gentlemen, > > Without expressing an opinion into the merits and flaws of anarch > revolt decks, I had a thought about how the card could be made > more...shall we say, balanced. > > It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the > discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. It's only a fix if you see the problem with the card - if any - as it's been overpowered. I see a lot of people who complain about it for reasons other than the pure power of the card. For myself, I think there's no way in hell this card is overpowered. If you try to "fix" the card by weakening it, you'll only succeed in turning it into wallpaper, which I suspect is pretty close to what such a change would do. > It just shifts the incentives a little. It castrates the card. Fred

In message <fb4469c.04081...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: >Ladies and Gentlemen, > >Without expressing an opinion into the merits and flaws of anarch >revolt decks, I had a thought about how the card could be made more... >shall we say, balanced. > >It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the >discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. It's easier to just ban the card, because the card becomes worthless with this errata. Consider: I put out an Anarch Revolt. I take a pool damage from it. My prey can take an action to take no pool damage from it. This is a mind-numbing waste of a Master action and 1 pool. -- Derek a host is a host from coast to coast and no one will talk to a host that's close unless the host that isn't close is busy, hung, or dead

Otto Koskinen <O...@vedajabatumppuus.com> wrote in message news:<rsplh09sv343ihevb...@4ax.com>... > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:31:25 -0500, Colin McGuigan > <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote: > >But, honestly, the problem isn't really AR. I played a master deck for > >the first time recently, and I did frickin' dandy, and I never had more > >than 1 AR out at a time (plus an Antedeluvian Awakening). > > > >--Colin McGuigan > > No, AR alone isn't the problem. > > Golconda is the keycard in the bloat heavy master decks. Errata to Golconda: Text same, but with the addition: You may not Golconda a vampire of the same name as one which has been removed from the game. Once the first Anson is gone, no more Ansons will be seeking Golconda. ;)

mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) wrote in message news:<fb4469c.04081...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting proposition not entirely without its merit. I propose an alternate remedy though: The Slope Event Do not replace until a Master Card is played. Each methuselah is limited to the initial one Master Phase Action each Master Phase. Any additional Master Phase actions are lost. Bye, Daneel

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<l8slh017p86d0ni6q...@4ax.com>... > In message <fb4469c.04081...@posting.google.com>, > mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu (Legendre) mumbled something about: > > >Ladies and Gentlemen, > > > >Without expressing an opinion into the merits and flaws of anarch > >revolt decks, I had a thought about how the card could be made more... > >shall we say, balanced. > > > >It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the > >discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. > > It's easier to just ban the card, because the card becomes worthless > with this errata. > > Consider: I put out an Anarch Revolt. I take a pool damage from it. > My prey can take an action to take no pool damage from it. This is a > mind-numbing waste of a Master action and 1 pool. > > -- Derek Hey Derek, guess what, i agree!! :-) W

dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.0408...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] 2 Remarks 1. who would play this? Without another use it sucks. 2. It would hose trifles too.

Colin McGuigan <magu...@bgonespeakeasy.net> wrote: > > I'm personally fondest of the "Anarch Revolt costs X pool to play, where > X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in play" fix. But that's a completely new mechanic. (well maybe in some VtES set it's been used before, but how would I know) Adding something like 'Unique' would be a much easier and cleaner fix, without introducing a new mechanic. Or, as the OP proposed, change the timing so the incentive to kill the AR is greater. //Doc.

> > The Slope > > Event > > Do not replace until a Master Card is played. > > Each methuselah is limited to the initial one Master Phase Action each > > Master Phase. Any additional Master Phase actions are lost. > > > 2 Remarks > > 1. who would play this? Without another use it sucks. > 2. It would hose trifles too. Number 2 actually solves number 1. That is, if more trifles are printed that are playable.

The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote in message news:<411b8409$0$49711$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>... > Colin McGuigan <magu...@bgonespeakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > I'm personally fondest of the "Anarch Revolt costs X pool to play, where > > X is the number of Anarch Revolts already in play" fix. > > But that's a completely new mechanic. (well maybe in some VtES set it's > been used before, but how would I know) It's not, really - there exists a card (Sibyl's Tongue) whose cost is equal to the number of copies of that card in your ash heap. > Adding something like 'Unique' would be a much easier and cleaner fix, > without introducing a new mechanic. Certainly would fix the problem, but likely to a point where you'd rarely if ever see the card played. It certainly would remove it as a viable ousting method. Adding a new mechanic to the game is not automatically a bad thing; for example see the additions of concepts like 'going Anarch', 'Event cards', or even things like 'contesting city-based titles between Sabbat and Camarilla' etc etc. > Or, as the OP proposed, change the timing so the incentive to kill the AR > is greater. > > //Doc. -John Flournoy

"Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:621dd332.04081...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Is this official? oscar

"Oscar Garza" <oga...@nospam.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:cfggk2$1sc$1...@news.tamu.edu... > "Jeff Kuta" <jeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Errata to Golconda: > > > > Text same, but with the addition: You may not Golconda a vampire of > > the same name as one which has been removed from the game. > > > > Once the first Anson is gone, no more Ansons will be seeking Golconda. > > Is this official? No. This thread is about unofficial "fixes" to "problem" cards. Official errata is listed here: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/errata.html -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. V:TES homepage: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Though effective, appear to be ineffective -- Sun Tzu

In article <fb4469c.04081...@posting.google.com>, mlo...@mail.wesleyan.edu says... > It's an easy fix: change the damage from the untap phase to the > discard phase. You take the damage at the end of your turn. I'd rather see it changed to be like Army of Rats. You can stuff as many as you want into play, they'll all hit your prey before they hit you, but a player will only take 1 instead of 5. I do agree that "taking 5 crosstable every turn with nothing you can do about it" gets old real quick. -- -Snapcase

dan...@eposta.hu (Daneel) wrote in message news:<a23a105e.0408...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I kinda like that idea... How about this one: Protected Resources II Master, 2 pool During your untap and masterphase combined you can only lose 2 pool maximum. (costs of mastercards are reduced to your paying only 2, blooddolls can only be used if your net loss is below 2) Wording stinks ofcourse. But it would help against AR, and it still usable in decks that use expensive masters. If someone plays AR, your masters get cheaper. W

Wouter Kuyper wrote: > How about this one: > Protected Resources II > Master, 2 pool > During your untap and masterphase combined you can only lose 2 pool > maximum. > (costs of mastercards are reduced to your paying only 2, blooddolls > can only be used if your net loss is below 2) > > Wording stinks ofcourse. But it would help against AR, and it still > usable in decks that use expensive masters. If someone plays AR, your > masters get cheaper. I play this. Next turn, I play Temptation of Greater Power. I bid, uh, a million pool. --Colin McGuigan

Colin McGuigan <magu...@BGONEspeakeasy.net> wrote in message news:<yamdnTibJei...@speakeasy.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Or Secret Horde for a million pool, doubled. But even funnier: I put a ONE MILLION POOL BOUNTY on your vampire! And then rush him. -John Flournoy

On 13 Aug 2004 12:49:35 -0700, carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] at least Bounty might see play then. :D *mutter* stupid card...... salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

I agree that Golconda is the bigger problem in Anson decks than AR. I would simply propose that Golconda be limited in the same way Giant's Blood is: make it playable only once per game. Like Gian't Blood, Golconda make a whole hell of a lot of blood appear out of practically nowhere for the cost of 1 MPA. The ability to MT Anson to 0, Golconda, bring out another, rinse and repeat is the problem, not AR. If Golconda were a 1/game it would fix these decks, without making them unplayable, and wouldn't hurt any other deck archetype I can think of. The real question is whether Golconda is really powerful enough to warrant it being a 1/game, and I think that it is... Cthulukitty

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> schreef in bericht news:6c1c89ca.04081...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I think not. You're sacrificing your 8+ cap to get its capacity back. This is *only* worth the trouble if you somehow first took the blood off. By your logic, we could juyst as well limit Minion Tap to once per game. Or any other card that gains you massive amounts of pool (or blood for that matter). *I* personally don't think Gaint's Blood is strong enough to be limited to once per game; I'd rather see it to be limited to once per player, which would make it more playable and probably a good card for fatty decks, who still need help anyway. In the end, the only real problem in AR decks is Anson and his two master phases. It's the only free-of-charge, impossible to remove extra master phase in the game and on top of that it's on a Camarilla Prince with PRE and dom. Partenon can be removed or suddened. Neither of those require a lot of deckspace to be effective and there's always something useful or Arson or Sudden. Huitzi is infernal and his extra MPA costs you a pool. He's also a 10-cap without dominate. Rumors can be voted away. On most table there will be 2 votes to match Anson and the Edge will be the third to make it go away. Then again, Anson has been around since day one, so it's unlikely he'll ever change.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:10:56 +0200, "Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Huitzilopochtli has superior Dominate. >Rumors can be voted away. On most table there will be 2 votes to match >Anson and the Edge will be the third to make it go away. > >Then again, Anson has been around since day one, so it's unlikely he'll >ever change. > Yeah, Anson is critical. But the thing is; they cant get as good of a bloat to support their AR's, if they cant get rid of Anson as reliably as they can no, with Golconda. Anson in 1 blood, and 2 more in uncon. No probs, just Golc, and bring him up. Huzzah! netted 7 pool in theprocess.

carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<e904e39f.04081...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] he, yeah alright, wasn't thought out too good :-) But something to stop you from losing a lot of pool during this or that phase could be good...as long as it can be used in your own plans as well, and not just be anti-gear.... W

carn...@gmail.com (John Flournoy) wrote in message news:<e904e39f.04081...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ]

> You're sacrificing your 8+ cap to get its capacity back. That's not much of a sacrifice when you have another cued up to bring back out. The only sacrifice there is the crypt card, which costs 1 pool and 4 transfers. >This is *only* > worth the trouble if you somehow first took the blood off. *Somehow?* There are so many ways for a fatty to be depleted, including offensive rushes and spending blood. How often do you see a vampire remain at even close to full cap for more than a turn or two? >By your > logic, we could juyst as well limit Minion Tap to once per game. Or any > other card that gains you massive amounts of pool (or blood for that > matter). Incorrect. Minion Tap does not create any new blood or pool. It moves it from one place to another, which is the central mechanic of the game. Without a way to generate extra pool, MT is just a quick way to recoup your investment in a large vampire. It does not actually create any additional blood. Golconda on the other hand, like Giant's Blood causes a potentially huge amount of pool to appear out of nowhere for the cost of 1 MPA. The difference is huge. >*I* personally don't think Gaint's Blood is strong enough to be > limited to once per game; I'd rather see it to be limited to once per > player, which would make it more playable and probably a good card for > fatty decks, who still need help anyway. The difference is minimal IMO. It probably should be 1/player, but that wouldn't really make it (or presumably Golconda) any more or less powerful in the isolated context of an Anson master deck, which is what we're discussing here. > In the end, the only real problem in AR decks is Anson and his two > master phases. It's the only free-of-charge, impossible to remove extra > master phase in the game and on top of that it's on a Camarilla Prince > with PRE and dom. Partenon can be removed or suddened. Neither of those > require a lot of deckspace to be effective and there's always something > useful or Arson or Sudden. Huitzi is infernal and his extra MPA costs > you a pool. He's also a 10-cap without dominate. > Rumors can be voted away. On most table there will be 2 votes to match > Anson and the Edge will be the third to make it go away. Anson can be removed the same way any vampire can be removed. In fact, if these decks didn't plan on Golconda'ing Anson themselves they probably wouldn't have so many extras of him in queue, and would have more trouble getting another if you did burn him or torporize him. They also wouldn't be able to salvage a torporized Anson more than once per game (except by diablerie), again make Anson less "unremovable". > Then again, Anson has been around since day one, so it's unlikely he'll > ever change. Which is fine by me. I really do think that making Golconda 1/game is enough to tone these decks down. Cthulukitty

"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> schreef in bericht news:6c1c89ca.04081...@posting.google.com... > > You're sacrificing your 8+ cap to get its capacity back. > > That's not much of a sacrifice when you have another cued up to bring > back out. The only sacrifice there is the crypt card, which costs 1 > pool and 4 transfers. > > >This is *only* > > worth the trouble if you somehow first took the blood off. > > *Somehow?* There are so many ways for a fatty to be depleted, > including offensive rushes and spending blood. How often do you see a > vampire remain at even close to full cap for more than a turn or two? Not true. The only way to actually *gain* blood from Golconda is by Minion Tapping your vampire first. No other means will do or you will just end up getting back your initial investment to get him into play in the first place. If you're looking at a problem it's Minion Tap before Golconda. The latter is only a "problem" when combined with Minion Tap and, I'm saying this again, multiple Master Phases. Fixing a non-broken card because it's strong in a very specific combo is ridiculous. If Golconda was so good, how come you hardly ever see it outside of Anson/Revolt? > Incorrect. Minion Tap does not create any new blood or pool. It > moves it from one place to another, which is the central mechanic of > the game. Without a way to generate extra pool, MT is just a quick > way to recoup your investment in a large vampire. It does not > actually create any additional blood. Golconda on the other hand, > like Giant's Blood causes a potentially huge amount of pool to appear > out of nowhere for the cost of 1 MPA. The difference is huge. Neither does Golconda create blood out of nowhere. You first need to spend 8 pool to put Anson into play and if you don't somehow move the blood to your pool, playing Golconda on him has a net gain of 0. You're acting as if Golconda says: "gain 8 pool" > >*I* personally don't think Gaint's Blood is strong enough to be > > limited to once per game; I'd rather see it to be limited to once per > > player, which would make it more playable and probably a good card for > > fatty decks, who still need help anyway. > > The difference is minimal IMO. It probably should be 1/player, but > that wouldn't really make it (or presumably Golconda) any more or less > powerful in the isolated context of an Anson master deck, which is > what we're discussing here. Minimal? The difference is HUGE. Making Giant's Blood once per player would remove the enormous opportunity cost and make it actually a useful card instead of the blind shot it is now. If Golconda would be once per game it would be even more cornercase than Giant's Blood and nobody would ever play it again. If you're looking at wallpapering every card that is part of a strong combo, you might as well ban half the cards in the game. > > In the end, the only real problem in AR decks is Anson and his two > > master phases. It's the only free-of-charge, impossible to remove extra > > master phase in the game and on top of that it's on a Camarilla Prince > > with PRE and dom. Partenon can be removed or suddened. Neither of those > > require a lot of deckspace to be effective and there's always something > > useful or Arson or Sudden. Huitzi is infernal and his extra MPA costs > > you a pool. He's also a 10-cap without dominate. > > Rumors can be voted away. On most table there will be 2 votes to match > > Anson and the Edge will be the third to make it go away. > > Anson can be removed the same way any vampire can be removed. In > fact, if these decks didn't plan on Golconda'ing Anson themselves they > probably wouldn't have so many extras of him in queue, and would have > more trouble getting another if you did burn him or torporize him. > They also wouldn't be able to salvage a torporized Anson more than > once per game (except by diablerie), again make Anson less > "unremovable". Oh yeah, vampires are SO easy to remove. Especially if they're 8 cap and have PRE dom and have a deck behind them designed not to fight. It was already mentioned that beating Anson up would put their net gain to none. Fact of the matter is, Anarch Revolt/Golconda/Minion Tap decks are ALWAYS powered by Anson. He's the one making these decks so strong. Not Golconda, though it sure helps. > > Then again, Anson has been around since day one, so it's unlikely he'll > > ever change. > > Which is fine by me. I really do think that making Golconda 1/game is > enough to tone these decks down. I also really do think you're wallpapering Golconda into uselessness if you do that.

John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Adding a new mechanic to the game is not automatically a bad thing; > for example see the additions of concepts like 'going Anarch', 'Event > cards', or even things like 'contesting city-based titles between > Sabbat and Camarilla' etc etc. Ehm well, I consider all of those as bad, in fact. But let's get to that some other time :) //Doc.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Consider: I put out an Anarch Revolt. I take a pool damage from it. > My prey can take an action to take no pool damage from it. This is a > mind-numbing waste of a Master action and 1 pool. It would make people only play them if they have vote-lock. I can't say that would be a bad thing... //Doc.

>>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Consider: I put out an Anarch Revolt. I take a pool damage from it. >> My prey can take an action to take no pool damage from it. This is a >> mind-numbing waste of a Master action and 1 pool. >On 16 Aug 2004 01:17:26 GMT, The Doctor <D...@freemail.nl> wrote: >It would make people only play them if they have vote-lock. I can't say >that would be a bad thing... Delaying Tactics would be the required combo, not vote lock. You would never mind if the rest of the table voted it away as long as your prey took the damage. Delaying Tactics would prevent your prey from calling the vote to remove the Anarch Revolt, but it would be a 2 card combo that cost 1 pool and 1 blood to make your prey lose 1 pool. There are probably better choices for deck design than to play an Anarch Revolt changed to take the damge in any phase after the minion phase. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

In message <cfon8r$f5k$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>, "Izaak" <i.hav...@SPAMklg.nl> mumbled something about: > >If Golconda was so good, how come you hardly ever see it outside of >Anson/Revolt? Actually, I play at least one copy in any deck which uses/relies on minions which are eligible. It's a great way to recycle any of your "used" minions... ie Synesios has an accident, goes to torpor, and instead of rescuing him, just turn him back into 8 pool. Tasty. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wouter...@yahoo.com (Wouter Kuyper) wrote in message news:<44a2da05.04081...@posting.google.com>... > But something to stop you from losing a lot of pool during this or > that phase could be good...as long as it can be used in your own plans > as well, and not just be anti-gear.... > W Such a card would be a great help to help AR-heavy master decks, since they could include the card and then put as many AR in play as they like.