I hope there are no S:CE hosers in Final Nights

Just had to post the counter -point, and have pro-combat advocates mull over the following thought... Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption, negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a (not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly interested in playing (How about you?) I encourage small change ;-) What's your $0.02? Where's the balance point for you? If combat is too weak, how do you change it without making other tactics too weak in the process? What's your favorite fruit? Regards, R. David Zopf guenh...@mindspring.com Atom Weaver

In message <9a7jc4$a72$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, R. David Zopf <guenh...@mindspring.com> writes > Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at >least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. And this is where it falls down. Immortal Grapple is *the* S:CE hoser. You have to be at close range, sure, but it *completely* stops it. Telepathic Tracking is a useful power level to consider. It doesn't *stop* it. You can still play it. Hand jam is thus hard to create. And they can still escape again. But it gives you a much better shot at it. Consider something like this: Psychic Taunt Dementation Combat Play before range is determined. If the opposing minion selects a "Strike: Combat Ends" effect for their strike, that minion takes 1 damage at the end of the Choose Strike phase. (S) As above, but this damage is not preventable. Okay, this card may not be perfect. It may not even be good. But it's an alternate mechanic that gives S:CE a cost. It doesn't hose it. It doesn't stop it. But it does make it less "cheap". I think most people would agree (feel free to shout at me if I'm wrong) that S:CE is very, very cheap. Giving it some minor costs doesn't hose it, but it does make it less of a no-brainer in 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?"

>Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at >least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that >the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented >themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption, >negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there >are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a >(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric >form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly >interested in playing (How about you?) S:CE not only deals with 90% of combat, it also eliminates other combat defenses by being strictly better. Remove S:CE (all together, which I don't think is likely) and you should see more reliance on dodging and damage prevention and less use of Immortal Grapple (as it ceases to become "necessary"). There's nothing necessary about S:CE from a play standpoint (it was a good interpretation of Majesty, though). By its existence as a common combat defense it removes the viability of numerous strategies. I'd much rather see the combat metagame framed by a variety of offensive and defensive combat options then see it come down to S:CE v. IG, both of which bore me immensely.

"R. David Zopf" <guenh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:9a7jc4$a72$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net... [ quoted text not captured ] We don't need another S:CE hoser. If anything we need to de-power Majesty. Make it only work at close range. It makes sense (not that i play the RPG) that a vamp would have more presence at close range than long range. It may even give weapons a boost as maneuvers would become more important. you'd no longer be able to simply rely on majesty for combat defense, you'd need to get in close to be able to use it and risk being grappled.

>>Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at >>least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that >>the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented >>themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption, >>negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there >>are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a >>(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric >>form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly >>interested in playing (How about you?) > >S:CE not only deals with 90% of combat, it also eliminates other combat >defenses by being strictly better. Remove S:CE (all together, which I don't >think is likely) and you should see more reliance on dodging and damage >prevention and less use of Immortal Grapple (as it ceases to become >"necessary"). > I somewhat agree with Mr. Zopf's statement. I myself don't really play with S:CE clans (I usually go with Tremere), but it's probably just my conservative side not wanting to completely "revolutionalize" the game. I do however think that S:CE does play a valuable role in the game. Yes, it is powerful, but I think it's necessary. For example, Mr. Lee suggested that dodging and damage prevention would be relied upon more. But take dodging for example. 1. Dodging (like S:CE) is completely hosed by Immortal Grapple and/or Thoughts Betrayed. 2. Even more importantly, any sort of additional strikes (mainly Celerity) completely destroys the defense. Unless I also have additional strikes (and additional dodges), celerity is going to just about crush anything it goes up against. I don't mind the damage prevention angle, but the problem is that this is much more limited. With Dodge, there is the "Dodge" card so anyone can dodge. But damage prevention is pretty much only for Fortitude (though Protean's Flesh of Marble, Chimerstry's Apparition, and various Vicissitude cards may help). And Precognition and Sideslip won't be much use since they can only prevent one. Looking at it this way, think how powerful the Assamites would be without S:CE. You can't prevent (if they rely on Blood Sweat or something). If you dodge, that's fine. They'll just hit you with Blood Sweat with their two other strikes. Your only hope is to try to outmanuever them which may be just as hard... So to conclude. Damage prevention is only available to a few clans. And Dodge is not sufficient to defend against anything with additional strikes. Thus S:CE helps keep the combat decks from becoming overly prevalent. Halcyan 2

I think James Coupe is along the right track on making S:CE cost more. I'd like to see an Animalism card that doesn't so much destroy Majesty's usefulness but makes it easier for their opponent to recover somewhat from any wasted combos played. I've noticed when playing my Animalism weenie deck lately that S:CE is a pain. I don't mind that so much... what I mind is that I play three or four cards and then all become useless when the opposing minion simply 'opts' out of combat. So, how about a card that doesn't prevent the opponent from ending combat, but allows the other minion to somehow keep their card-combo for another round? Maybe stack the combo next to the minion in question and allow them to play each card as if it were played that round? Not sure if I'm explaining that well enough so I'll give an example. ROUND 1 Devin Bisley bleeds for two with Computer Hacking. Gideon Fontaine blocks. Devin Bisley plays Trap, Carrion Crows and Song of Serenity. Gideon Fontaine plays Majesty to end combat. Devin plays 'Animal loyalty' (dumb name) to keep Trap, Carrion Crows and Song of Serenity for use in her next combat. ROUND 2 Devin Bisley bleeds. Gideon Blocks. Devin Bisley sacrifices 'Animal Loyalty' to play Trap, Carrion Crows and Song of Serenity again. Gideon panics when he realizes his Methuselah master has run out of Majesty cards. Gideon goes to torpor. Sound reasonable? Powerful, but give it a cost and a rarity that makes sense. I'd say maybe 2 blood cost and an Uncommon rarity. This would give the Ravnos, Gangrel, Nosferatu and Tzimisce a slight edge against S:CE though not without drawbacks. Sure, Gangrel have 'Dog Pack' but I've never found that card to be worth its cost or common enough. Nossies have 'Immortal Grapple' and wouldn't need this card (unless they focus on ANI maybe). Tzimisce and Ravnos could benefit but since both are liable to lose a lot of blood for many of their 'nasty' cards, they'd have to be more conservative with its usage. It wouldn't help the Assamites out at all (who are also vulnerable to S:CE), but you can always give them Potence or Animalism I guess. Cheers, WES

Sorry, forgot to put my moniker on the first message. [ quoted text not captured ] i yield to almost no-one in my liking for combat but i still agree with you completely. More anti-SCE is not the way to go. Gradually phasing Majesty superior out of the game IS, IMO [i've no problem with it being replaced by an identical card that only works for big vampires]. Off topic, best wishes to you and Amy on your upcoming wedding. Remember you're welcome to stay with us if your honeymoon plans include Europe.

-- "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9a8v2...@enews1.newsguy.com... > I think James Coupe is along the right track on making S:CE cost more. > > I'd like to see an Animalism card that doesn't so much destroy Majesty's > usefulness but makes it easier for their opponent to recover somewhat from > any wasted combos played. > I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested (and even more). Although it's a rare...

The game is inherently balanced in this... effectively: S:CE is messed up by immortal grapple & things like hidden lurker Immortal grapple is messed up by damage reduction and manuevers Damage reduction is messed up by Thaumaturgy & having to have an excessive number of cards in your deck Thaumaturgy is hosed by dodges Etc... the truely greatness of the game to me is that one strategy, no matter how solid is always able to be pasted by another deck strategy out there somewhere. The game _needs_ S:CE to keep from combat decks from running wild. Now, I also really like the way the game limits these things to, basically, keep from having one clan have access to more of these abilities than others. (Gangrel actually have Protean/Fortitude with dog pack being the closests to all of the above).. but then trying to ever bleed or vote your opponent becomes very hard since all of your cards help with combat. Great game from a balance stand point. Daniel-Tig [ quoted text not captured ]

> Etc... the truely greatness of the game to me is that one strategy, no > matter how solid is always able to be pasted by another deck strategy > out there somewhere. The game _needs_ S:CE to keep from combat decks > from running wild. Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running wild. It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult to actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck. With that said, let's take a look at the current S:CE hosers: Immortal Grapple: _The_ premier hoser. Though it works only at close range, it is useful at both inferior and superior Potence. And with most clans that have potence, it's not that hard to stay at close. Hidden Lurker: not that great because people generally stop blocking after their vamp gets hosed. See Todd's recent post in response to an Assamite deck. It's an ok card, but it doesn't end up seeing much use. Fast Reaction: see above. A bit more useful as you generally control the blocking but unless you can get a really good strike right off, the fact that the opposing vamp can't S:CE is of no consequence. As soon as you press to the second round, S:CE can be played. Telepathic Tracking: requires superior Auspex. While there are alot of vamps that have AUS (73; 33 at <= 7 cap), there aren't that many that have combat support disciplines: Disc - Num of Vamps (Capacity/ies) Vic - 5 (5, 6 x2, 7 x2) Tha - 3 (4, 6 x2) Obt - 2 (6, 7) Pro - 3 (6, 7 x2) Cel - 12 (3, 4, 5 x3, 6 x4, 7 x3) Ani - 8 (5, 6 x3, 7 x4) As you can see, somewhat expensive vamps - something which combat decks can ill afford. Thoughts Betrayed: requires superior Dominate and also has a pretty steep cost. Unless you have a way of getting the blood back fast, you can only play a few of these. Now, let's take a look at the vamp selection we have that can use this one right off the bat: Tha - 8 (5, 6 x3, 7 x4) Pro - 2 (6, 7) Cel - 3 (5, 6 x2) Ani - 1 (6) You have an even smaller selection of vampires. The reason why I have the vamps start out with AUS or DOM is because though you can add skill cards, unless you can get some really close to the start of the game, TT or TB is totally useless and allows S:CE to completely shut down your deck. And I have the capacity <= 7 because, as I say above, combat decks cannot afford really large vampires unless they have a major source of pool gain. When you add this aspect to a deck (large vamps, pool gain), it slows the combat deck down and this may or may not be a really bad thing. > Now, I also really like the way the game limits these things to, basically, keep > from having one clan have access to more of these abilities than others. (Gangrel > actually have Protean/Fortitude with dog pack being the closests to all of the > above).. Problem with Dog Pack is that it can be blocked and has a high cost. > but then trying to ever bleed or vote your opponent becomes very hard since > all of your cards help with combat. > Great game from a balance stand point. I disagree. Even decks using IG have a very, very difficult time winning games. Not impossible to do, but it's very difficult. So when you see decks using _the_ premier S:CE hoser not winning all the time, why is it a safe assumption to believe that combat will overrun the meta game if another high tier S:CE hoser, like IG, were introduced? Of all the archetypes, combat needs the most help to become as viable as bleed and politics are in a tournament setting. I think that TT went a ways to help but I don't think it went far enough. In short, I, for one, do hope there is a S:CE hoser in Final Nights. Something still needs to be done to help the combat archetype. Just my 2 pool. Sorrow --- "I am Jack's wasted life." - Narrator

Sorrow wrote: > Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running wild. > It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult to > actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck. I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with. There's an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who told you a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire into torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat deck" - should be any different? What is of importance is that all the cards have uses. Some cards were simply misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever be useful without errata. When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty makes them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned. I don't think it's accurate to say cards like "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush" are useless because rush decks are difficult to win. One could still use a few of them with a bruise and bleed deck to take out the occasional problematic minion (similar to using Beast, Leatherface, for instance). Other combat cards like Disarm and aggravated damage cards can be mean "throw-ins" to decks that have other focuses. The ones that actually worry me are some of the things used by Assamites and Gangrels, which IMHO are clans that find striking back against S:CE very difficult. If S:CE were just a niche tactic, then I'd be OK with that. As it is, S:CE is a pretty major part of the game, so Gangrel and Assamite combat seems pretty useless. (No, I don't consider Dog Pack to be a worthwhile answer to S:CE. It's too expensive and vulnerable. If Dog Packs cost 1, you might have something...) So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so that all of the major combat clans can do something about it. Fred

> > Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running wild. > > It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult to > > actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck. > I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any > importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with. There's > an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who told you Are you using "you" in a generic sense? Or "you" to address me personally? > a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire into > torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat deck" - > should be any different? I believe this archetype should not be any more difficult (or perhaps moderatly more difficult; certainly not as difficult as it is currently) to win with as your average bleed or political deck. I'm not talking about specific deck types (a la, !Gangrel/Gangrel Conspiricy, Giovanni/Ambrosius/Talbot's Chainsaw, etc). I'm talking about the combat archetype as a whole. Yes, there are even bleed and political decks that are difficult to win with right now. But on average, they are significantly easier to win games with than using a combat deck. > What is of importance is that all the cards have uses. Even "Twising The Knife", as crappy as it is, has a use. This is moot when discussing archetypes as a whole, as I was. > Some cards were simply misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever > be useful without errata. This goes without saying. > When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty > makes them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned. And this is what is currently happening in the game. > I don't think it's accurate to say cards like "Bum's Rush" and "Ambush" are > useless because rush decks are difficult to win. I did not say this. BR and Ambush are extremely useful and are effective 100% of the time, even in a high S:CE environment. Regardless of what happens, you get into combat with a/the vampire. That's not the point. Whether that entire combat is effective is the point. And right now, S:CE makes it so that the odds are relatively high that the combat will not be effective in most cases. > deck to take out the occasional problematic minion (similar to using Beast, > Leatherface, for instance). Other combat cards like Disarm and aggravated > damage cards can be mean "throw-ins" to decks that have other focuses. The > ones that actually worry me are some of the things used by Assamites and > Gangrels, which IMHO are clans that find striking back against S:CE very > difficult. If S:CE were just a niche tactic, then I'd be OK with that. As it is, > S:CE is a pretty major part of the game, so Gangrel and Assamite combat > seems pretty useless. (No, I don't consider Dog Pack to be a worthwhile answer > to S:CE. It's too expensive and vulnerable. If Dog Packs cost 1, you might have > something...) Unlike the rest of the post, this makes it out as if you were agreeing with me...? > So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so > that all of the major combat clans can do something about it. I don't want it to be majorly hosed. I just would like it so that the combat archetype had an almost even footing with the other 2 archtypes with regards to the possiblity of building a deck that won almost as much. Of the 84 tournament winning decks archived at TheLasombra's site, only 8 were dedicated combat decks of which 3 or 4 were intercept combat. Then there were 10 that had a bruise aspect to them with their primary focus was either Bleed or Politics. 2 of those 10 were bascially the same deck reworked (Rob Treasure's "I'll be your dog" deck). So that is roughly 9% (I believe) of the archived tourny winning decks that are dedicated combat and roughly 18% (again, I believe) that have combat in them. Compare against the other 91% or 82% that are Politics and Bleed. Combat decks are not played in tournaments because of this Sure, they are played in casual games but even then, the don't win that much. The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be addressed. This is the point that I was trying to make. [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Except that even given the current S:CE hosers, combat *isn't* running > > > wild. It may have a decent time beating up vamps but it is extremely difficult > > > to actually win a given game (most VPs) with a combat deck. > > > > I don't know about others but it isn't that clear to me that it's of any > > importance that "combat decks", per se, be easy to win games with. > > There's an infinite number of decks with which you can not win a game. Who > > told you > > Are you using "you" in a generic sense? Or "you" to address me personally? You were the one (apparently) expressing the indirect concept that it's important to allow combat decks to win the game. The question was addressed to you. > > a deck that mainly only allows you to rush and beat an opposing vampire > > into torpor or oblivion - what I believe you mean you refer to a "combat > > deck" - should be any different? > > I believe this archetype should not be any more difficult (or perhaps moderatly > more difficult; certainly not as difficult as it is currently) to win with > as your average bleed or political deck. I'm not talking about specific deck types > (a la, !Gangrel/Gangrel Conspiricy, Giovanni/Ambrosius/Talbot's Chainsaw, > etc). I'm talking about the combat archetype as a whole. Yes, there are > even bleed and political decks that are difficult to win with right now. But on > average, they are significantly easier to win games with than using a combat deck. This doesn't answer the question or respond to my problem with your position. I so note that you are not referring to a specific type of deck. None the less, of what benefit is it to the game that a "combat deck", even taken as an archetype, be made viable? I repeat, there are an infinite number of decks that aren't viable and won't likely get you a win. I'm sure any number of them can be grouped into a major (unsuccessful) group archetype. You seem to care about the particular group of them you call "combat decks". Since you say they're not easy to win with, I'd say they must be "bad decks". What I want to know is, what differentiates the decks you're talking about from any other grouping of bad decks. Why should the game be altered (using new cards or by any other means) to make these decks into viable decks. > > What is of importance is that all the cards have uses. > > Even "Twising The Knife", as crappy as it is, has a use. This is moot when > discussing archetypes as a whole, as I was. That's misrepresenting my point. I mean, it is important that as many cards as possible have real, true useful uses. I doubt it's possible to bat a thousand on that score but that should be the goal. I am not referring to just theoretical uses in the perfect situation which for all practical purposes never comes up. > > Some cards were simply misdesigned from the start and are unlikely to ever be useful > > without errata. When whole lines of cards have no function because a card like Majesty > > makes them too difficult to use, then I'm concerned. > > And this is what is currently happening in the game. But not on the level you seemed to be talking about. When you refer to as large a category as "combat decks", which has a meaning that can vary greatly from player to player, you're likely sucking in large numbers of cards which can be used effectively in winning decks. To the extent that's true, I don't care about what S:CE does to their use in combat decks. If a Vampiric Speed can be used to good effect in a Brujah deck or a Toreador deck, I couldn't care less that it can't be used in an Assamite deck. I'm specifically worried about cards like Weakness or Blood Sweat or Body Flare, which are geared for use by clans that are pretty much helpless against S:CE IMHO. That's a far cry from worrying about the fate of "combat decks" in general. > Unlike the rest of the post, this makes it out as if you were agreeing with > me...? > > > So I don't want S:CE majorly hosed. I'd just like see it tinkered with so > > that all of the major combat clans can do something about it. > > I don't want it to be majorly hosed. I just would like it so that the > combat archetype had an almost even footing with the other 2 archtypes with > regards to the possiblity of building a deck that won almost as much. I'm not sure where we're failing to communicate. What I consider to be the "combat archetype" is of no particular interest to me. Just certain combat cards that are not likely to ever have a use, whether in a deck that exists purely to get into combat and do horrible things to the other guy's minion or just to support tactics (e.g. vote and bleed) that win you the game in a more direct fashion. > The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even > footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be > addressed. This is the point that I was trying to make. And I disagree with it. Nothing is bad about the combat archetype not being on an even footing with whatever other archetypes you feel exist in the game. What's bad about S:CE to me is causes a lot of other cards that have been printed to exist in a state that they won't reasonably get used in viable decks. And I do not believe the number of such cards is all that large. Fred

How about a card that allows you to get back all your cards played before your opponent played a S:CE (one blood per card maybe). Or maybe a card that gives back the blood to the vampire who played combat cards with a blood cost then had a combat ends played against them. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> > I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested > (and even more). Although it's a rare... Terror Frenzy only costs the opponent a blood if they play S:CE IIRC... not that much of a cost seeing as you ALSO have to pay a blood and then combat ends anyway.

>> The Combat archetype is not even close to being on an even >> footing as the other two archtypes and this is something that needs to be >> addressed. This is the point that I was trying to make. > > And I disagree with it. Nothing is bad about the combat archetype not being > on an even footing with whatever other archetypes you feel exist in the game. > What's bad about S:CE to me is causes a lot of other cards that have been > printed > to exist in a state that they won't reasonably get used in viable decks. And > I > do not believe the number of such cards is all that large. > > Fred Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION. Unfortunately, the last time someone did it was Andrew Davidson, so it seemed best to let it lie, since siding with him in an argument tends to get you reamed here, even when he's right. Now, I know this is a wide, commonly held belief that "The three deck archetypes" are Bleed, Vote, and Combat, generally viewed in descending order of power, though it's more like a 9, an 8, and a 4, respectively, on a 1 to 10 scale of "winningness." Several players, (notably, pure combat deck players) even go so far as to assume that the game designers had this in mind, but just botched the implementation, speaking as if this "3 legged table" metaphor were canon or something. About all that makes this idea plausible is the inherent describability of these archetypes. Bleed deck: "I make a bunch of bleeding actions, removing all my prey's pool, ousting him." Vote deck: "I pass a bunch of votes, removing all my prey's pool, ousting him." Combat deck: "I kill a bunch of guys, removing all my prey's minions. Then I hope he spends more pool to bring out more guys for me to kill, and in the mean time, I bleed him." Really, every* pure combat deck is, inherently, a Bruise and Bleed deck, just REALLY heavy on the Bruise (or Beats, if you prefer). But, they're easy to build, easy to describe, and easy to play. DAMN hard to win with, though. Which is the issue. Well, WHY are they hard to win with? Is it because S:CE hoses them? Is it so painful to point to the fact that combats remove minions, and not pool? A Methuselah with no minions is pretty helpless. However, a Methuselah with no pool is not only helpless, he's ousted. Not to mention also out of minions, then. Now, to be fair, if you can remove all of your prey's minions, and that Methuselah wants his deck (that isn't "all masters") to DO anything, he has to spend pool to bring out more guys. If he can't, he's not long for this world. That's a bit different than "Bruise and Bleed" if you mean "Bleed your prey, and if he blocks, kill him," where the Bruise is primarily used to discourage blocking. In "pure combat" decks, the goal is to actually kill ALL the minions, so your prey must either bring out more guys (spending pool) or sit tight until his combat-playing predator is ousted. This is also the goal for, say, a Cryptic Mission/Society of Leopold deck. Not a deck people are clamoring need more help. This is also very similar for "lockdown" decks, that make minions unable to be used, such as all your prey's minions Haunted and hunting, or Sensory Deprived. This is also similar to a pure Shadow Twin deck, which tries to do what the combat deck does, just skipping over the combats and going straight to the damage part. Really the "deck type" for combat decks is "minion removing deck," just using combat at the way to do it. It's most obvious, most easily built, most varied and largest "subclass" of these types of decks, but it has the same ousting strategy: Stack the bodies, and force them to spend pool and/or die. But that doesn't make it "the third leg." Now, when you open up your cards, you get a pile of Masters, and bunch of vamps, a whole lot of Politics cards, a bunch of cards about stealth and intercept, and a whole asston of combat cards. You also get a lot of equipment, allies, and retainers. Why aren't "Ally decks," or "Gun decks" one of the "table legs?" Well, because they don't oust people by themselves. Allies and guns are just part of some larger strategy to oust people, and are cards to assist that goal. NO combat card says "remove X pool from your prey." Because combat isn't an ousting strategy. It's an assistance, a vehicle, a means to an end, just like allies, or equipment. There's a LOT of combat cards, probably larger than any other single category. But those numbers don't change the fact that no combat card will oust your prey. (Let's quickly discuss Fame: A *great* card that lets combat decks actually do pool damage. Not the original intent, much less wording. It's change makes an interesting side effect to help combat decks oust, but it's Uniqueness still limits the viability of "yo-yo" combat decks. It certainly gives NO support to the assumption that Bleed, Vote, and Combat were ever intended to be 3 equal Pillars.) Now, the three words that stymie the combat deck approach are "Strike: Combat Ends." Somewhat worse off is that Presence, that can both Bleed and Vote, has one of the best (common) S:CE cards in the game, Majesty. Meaning, of course, that unless you can stop it, they can go about their business of bleeding and voting, and cheesily removing their prey's pool, instead of taking it in the teeth like a man. It also means a great deal of cards that dodge, press to end, maneuver away, etc, don't get used (especially the "press to end" cards) since combat never gets even to damage resolution in one card. Now, I HAVE to agree with Fred here. The fact that there are many cards that just don't see much or any use because S:CE *is* a shame. But, hosing S:CE doesn't solve the problem of combat decks winning or losing. Peter Bajika and James Hamblin have both effectively used Potence Immortal Grapple and blow-your-head-off in-one-hit rush decks to get VPs and even win tournaments, but even they can tell you it's tough. (But not impossible, as many people will argue) If S:CE was *banned*, that doesn't change that fact that "pure combat decks" still have to Rush every minion of their prey, and to be effective, need to torporize or burn that minion THAT combat almost every time, and (without Fame, a Unique card) they still aren't doing any pool damage when they Rush someone. The inherent strategy "Remove all Minions" is simply difficult to win to begin with. THAT is a different issue, caused by the existence of ONE card, Fame, that rewards a combat deck with pool damage, assisting the strategy in ousting your prey (commonly agreed upon as the object of the game; some upstreamers and Malk-role-playing twits disagree). If you want combat to become a viable strategy for winning, making it "on par" with Bleed and Vote to fulfill that flawed prophecy, you should have hooted and hollered more when Ben Swainbank proposed his War Council: War Council Master Unique Location Tap when a Vampire is burned to force the controller of the burned Vampire to burn 2 pool. (I personally thought it should have been "burned in combat" or somesuch, or tap for 1 pool "when a vampire goes to torpor or is burned," but the idea is in the right direction.) Of course, that is all under the assumption that V:TES *should* allow for a strategy that allows beating up your prey's vamps to lead directly (instead of indirectly) to their ousting. That is, that it become a "viable strategy." Here I have to waffle. A whole lot of (combat) cards are considered a waste because they're never played; the reasoning given is that S:CE hoses them, so you'll never see them. This of course missed the point that if S:CE were nonexistent, those many cards still wouldn't oust people, just fight combats. But, if S:CE were gone, and you wanted to defend against combat, you'd a lot more to defend against combat (well, putting aside the Daddy-MacDaddy, Obedience), or you'd have to fight back, which might well result in a whole cornucopia of combat, seeing Body Flare and even Quick Exit played. Beating up vamps can be fun and all, but that reduces the game to "king of the hill" of combats, and then, well, bleeding for one a lot. Moves the game toward the ideal that if you lose all your minions, you're out of the game. To borrow from another part of the thread: > Say your favorite clan did, in fact, get a S:CE hoser that was at >least as good (easy to play) as Immortal Grapple. What I fear is that >the game would swing more and more toward solely combat oriented >themes, with all the juicy intrigue, politics, corruption, >negotiation, etc. taking a back seat. Yes, it might be neat if there >are a few more limited ways to beat a Majesty. Take that concept to a >(not too) distant point, though, and the game devolves into a vampiric >form of Rock'em Sock'em Robots. _Not_ something I'm particularly >interested in playing (How about you?) How about me? Not interested at all. If people want to try, they can invent their own S:CE hosers. Better yet, just BAN all S:CE cards in their local playgroup, and see how the games turn out. Can't convince them to give up S:CE? Is it because they're afraid of getting beat up? Or just wanting to play a game where you do more than just fight? * A "pure combat deck" does exactly as I said. Extraneous examples of specific combat decks you've played that torp all the vamps and then take some other cardless pool-removing action besides bleeding that I've forgotten can be stuck in your ear. Those that take actions requiring cards to remove pool aren't "pure" combat decks, and are, in all likelihood, a "Bruise and X" deck. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

[ quoted text not captured ] <snip> Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however, agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table- destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks. But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument, but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment; Bleed Vote Bloat Combat Intercept Swarm Takeover Shutdown Poison Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot. Bleed: Offense: Reduce Prey's Pool by bleeding Defense: Speed Weak Spot: Bleed bounce, rush combat, Politics Vote: Offense: Reduce Prey's Pool by voting Defense: Various, but often vote-based bloat Weak Spot: Intercept, not getting vote dominance Bloat: Offense: Poke-bleeds, Surviving longest Defense: Too much pool for opponents to whittle down Weak Spot: Rush-combat, politics Combat: Offense: Wipe out prey's minions, bleed for 1 Defense: Wipe out predator's minions Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing victory to A.N. Other. Intercept Offense: Stop everything your prey does. Defense: Stop everything your predator does. Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing victory to A.N. Other. Swarm Offense: have too many minions for your prey to stop Defense: Have too many minions for your predator to get through Weak Spot: Failing to achieve effective swarm. Takeover Offense: Take over your prey's minions Defense: Take over your predator's minions Weak Spot: Expensive and/or slow Shutdown Offense: Hamstring your prey's minions Defense: Hamstring your predator's minions Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing victory to A.N. Other. Poison Offense: Turn your prey's minions into liabilities Defense: Speed Weak Spot: Politics, relies on rares. Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame is a combat/poison deck. ToGP is a Bloat/Takeover deck. But these are all real STRATEGIES and the tactics of putting in guns, allies, action modifiers or whatever are not IMO to be lumped in with the strategic package. As you and Fred point out, there is no intrinsic reason why all the above have to be equal, and i'd certainly agree that any strategy whose weak point is that it's table-destabilising should NOT be boosted without a long, hard think about the consequences. As for whether it's desirable or designed to be as i've described, i think one of the many great things about this game is that it is bigger than any of us - it is a WORLD within which we are continually discovering new stuff. One of the implications of this is that the list i've given above is CERTAINLY wrong - not just because there are many different incarnations of the strategies with different weaknesses, but because there WILL be other strategies that remain to be discovered. i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others, completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular. One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist.

> I disagree. Even decks using IG have a very, very difficult time winning > games. > Not impossible to do, but it's very difficult. So when you see decks using > _the_ > premier S:CE hoser not winning all the time, why is it a safe assumption to > believe > that combat will overrun the meta game if another high tier S:CE hoser, like > IG, > were introduced? Of all the archetypes, combat needs the most help to > become > as viable as bleed and politics are in a tournament setting. I think that > TT went > a ways to help but I don't think it went far enough. > > In short, I, for one, do hope there is a S:CE hoser in Final Nights. > Something > still needs to be done to help the combat archetype. I hope there's won't be many more S:CE hosers actually. Maybe one for Chimerstry and Quietus but that's about it. There's already pretty many and if more are introduced S:CE simply won't be very useable. Why not? Because any combat deck will have a version of a S:CE hoser and then S:CE becomes pretty pointless. It will only be useable agaisnt non-fighting decks, so then what's the point of S:CE? You don't exactly invclude them ebcause you fear non-fighting clans, you want them against decks that beats the crap out of you. Nowadays they still usually do (unless you also have fortitude but that's nto Majesty's fault). That combat decks doesn't gain VP's that much isn't really because of S:CE as I see it. Brujah has both IG and access to plenty of maneuvers, and they STILL don't get that many VP's compared ot other decks. Obviously that's not the fault of S:CE. I think what makes S:CE slightly too good still might be the Majesty, Ventrue becomes very powerful with this since they can bleed, untap and then vote AND they have fortitude (which also includes Freak Drive). The rest of the S:CE hosers aint THAT powerful really. So Maybe a card that only hoses Majesty would be a solution and make poeple consider to include some other type of S:CE card as well. I think it was Sorrow that made a post about alternative (new) ways to hose S:CE (can't find that post now again dangit) that had some new and very interesting ideas though. At least some of them could be nice to be seen in new cards, such as the effect that if someone S:CE then you play this card you jump to press phase instead of ending combat. Maybe at inferior it would give the opposing minion a press to end combat, while at superior he won't get that. I think that's a kind fo solution I'd like to see, but not much more powerful than that, except for Assamites that could have a good card (quietus, so that other clans can't use it easily) because they're supposed ot be KILLERS and they can't bleed as good as Brujah's either so they need to be better fighters than them.

[ quoted text not captured ] The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them? I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help. So creating S:CE hosers isn't the problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO hosers, IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding more hosers help?? It won't, because the problem is that the combat decks doesn't bleed for much, so you just don't block them and you can play Secure Haven on a very important vampire and you can make use of Obedience, Elysium or weenie blockers etc etc.

-- "Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3AC92C8A...@netcom.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I completely agree with your points Frederick. I also wonder why combat decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem gaining VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them there's nobody who wants to improve? IMHO it's equally important to improve them as well as the combat decks then since I see intercepting as an important (and fun) part of the game. just like bleed, combat and voting.

-- "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote in message news:9abjc...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] But the suggestion was of a card that the opponent could play to make S:CE cards cost more if played in cmabt, and TF does exactly that already. I dind't quite get the last part of your sentence...?

must... wade... in... On 4 Apr 2001 05:01:16 -0500, legbiter<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:42 -0400 Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: (some stuff which I snipped) >Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however, >agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the >undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i >think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table- >destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky >guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've >played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold >the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something >pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups >which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks. Possibly elitist it may be, but I can certainly UNDERSTAND the position. Anyone who's ever been on the wrong end of an "ah, screw it, i'm gonna fuck up... THAT crucial minion of yours cross-table" deck can also certainly sympathise. And realistically, it's not possible to forbid noobies from playing combat; so that adds yet another factor to consider when creating. >but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed >to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the >following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment; > >Bleed >Vote >Bloat >Combat >Intercept >Swarm >Takeover >Shutdown >Poison > >Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot. >Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame I'd almost go ahead and pitch out the concept of deck "archetypes" altogether. I think the original idea was to attempt to classify decks by the manner in which they ousted their prey; ie bleed, vote, or beat guys up and hope they bring one out. It now seems likely that that system of classification simply isn't going to be adequate, and you'll have to swap back to something like the above; defining briefly what the deck DOES. Although again, the mix is best. I think you have to just treat it like a big set of checkboxes; "my deck does X, Y, and Z". It's not uncommon to see a deck that mostly bleeds, but occasionally hits you for something, and carries just enough light intercept to stop very offensive things from happening. As I wrote in a post that never made it here (was written at 4am, and i reread it this morning and said "thank god i didn't send that"), each of these types is simply a leg of the cow to be considered when building one's deck. A cow with one leg (weenie dominate bleed) is unstable and can be tipped over easily, but is easy to make, faster to start, and can give just as much milk (VPs) as any other cow. And if you put both legs on the same side (trying to mix combat and shutdown), you might find your cow tipping over of its own accord, such as when you kill the guy you just Sense Depped. ...and now you know why I didn't send the other one. >is a combat/poison deck. ToGP is a Bloat/Takeover deck. But these are >all real STRATEGIES and the tactics of putting in guns, allies, action >modifiers or whatever are not IMO to be lumped in with the strategic >package. As you and Fred point out, there is no intrinsic reason why >all the above have to be equal, and i'd certainly agree that any >strategy whose weak point is that it's table-destabilising should >NOT be boosted without a long, hard think about the consequences. And this is a large bit. Intercept carries this problem with it, and the Tzimisce just got a HUGE boost in Sabbat War. As a result, there are an awful lot of Tzimisce intercept-and-explode decks running around out there, and the state of the game has been affected. If you head to a tournament, you need to consider that you may sit next to something with more intercept than God, and nothing to do with it all except stop everything you do. Fortunately, the Tzimisce are capable of building a deck that not only intercepts, but also ousts people, so the potential problem ends up being merely a mirage. But any potential problems were also of smaller scope, since only one clan needed to be considered. Providing some sort of global S:CE weakener would be MUCH more risky, and would need to be considered against the clans that can already make use of S:CE stoppers. Consider the Assamites, everyone's favourite target. Obfuscate isn't appropriate. Celerity would affect the Toreador and !Gangrel, which could be seen as being a good thing; but it would also affect the Brujah, who simply don't need another way to thump people. Quietus? possibly.. but then you get back to the point that the Assamites simply don't NEED to be able to stop S:CE with only one discipline. You're already in the position of fighting a clan that can't be dodged (Celerity), can't be prevented (Blood Sweat), and can't be easily fought back against (long range and possible "dodge" for initial strike). The only defense starts to end up BEING S:CE. Frustrating for the Assamites? Yes, but is there a good alternative? Also consider this: the problem as defined is partly that there are a great number of cards that sit by the wayside; presses, guns, numerous nifty "strike" cards, etc. Will hosing S:CE provide more use for those cards, or will it simply make the existing S:CE-proof strategies just that much better, and STILL leave those cards on the side? Immortal Grapple's strength isn't solely in its ability to zap S:CE. It's also in its ability to stop weapon strikes, Coma strikes, and all kinds of other annoying non-hand-strikes... and all you have to do is stay at close range. Why don't we see more Fleshcraft decks? It seems like a perfect tool for the Tzimisce; free, and it makes it even easier for them to do their own job. You should be able to spend intercept to catch them once, and then just include lots of untap as opposed to lots of intercept as they frantically take -1 stealth actions to remove the card. Except that Fleshcraft loses to S:CE, Dodge, *and* IG... three of the most common combat effects. Then it becomes "why waste the card slot on it?". >i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in >new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others, >completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of >discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks >how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this >can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking >a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to >achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people >were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular. >One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you >guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays >them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see > how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical > resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist. There is a lot to be said for "playing the clan properly", as opposed to just looking at the disciplines and making something according to the disciplines. Sure, the Assamites have OBF/CEL/QUI, but is it necessary to include lots of OBF when making the deck? Do you WANT to stay out of combat that much? There's also a lot to be said for beating Legbiter with a stick and taking his pint away from him. I'm in favour of that, preferably on a webcam. :P -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

>Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however, >agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the >undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i >think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table- >destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky >guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've >played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold >the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something >pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups >which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks. I don't think it is necessarily true that removing S:CE promotes combat. Players adjust in unpredictable ways. Anyway, there are (as usual) a variety of arguments going on. On the one hand, I hate what S:CE does in the game. On the other, I find rush combat as it is done now to be incredibly boring and, as you say, potentially highly destabilizing. The two relate but not directly. My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty) defeats 90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and should be minimized. So, what I'd like to see is less lethal combat but more combat cards played. Of course, one way to achieve this is to print more combat cards but make them defensive oriented. For instance, Personal Scourge could have been interesting if it prevented a point of damage (at damage resolution) as a strike. While it won't happen by rule (though I could see some interesting cards based on it), capping damage would be preferred. Openended damage is yet another reason not to play high cap vamps as they go down just as easy, often enough.

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Now, I HAVE to agree with Fred here. The fact that there are many cards > that just don't see much or any use because S:CE *is* a shame. But, hosing > S:CE doesn't solve the problem of combat decks winning or losing. Peter > Bajika and James Hamblin have both effectively used Potence Immortal Grapple > and blow-your-head-off in-one-hit rush decks to get VPs and even win > tournaments, but even they can tell you it's tough. (But not impossible, as > many people will argue) If S:CE was *banned*, that doesn't change that fact > that "pure combat decks" still have to Rush every minion of their prey, and > to be effective, need to torporize or burn that minion THAT combat almost > every time, and (without Fame, a Unique card) they still aren't doing any > pool damage when they Rush someone. The inherent strategy "Remove all > Minions" is simply difficult to win to begin with. Yea. You said a lot of the things I was thinking. To add to this, one thing that bothers me about both rush combat and especially intercept combat are the way these decks simply do not work well for purposes of gaining victory points yet they still hose their neighbors. (Or in the case of intercept, they tend to hose their predator and, if their prey is a bleed deck which doesn't need to do non-directed actions, will often let their prey run free and easy.) This is the Jyhad equivalent of a "dog-in-the-manger" attitude. You have a deck which is very difficult to win with yourself yet you effectively destroy your neighbor's chances of winning. The VPs tend to fall to other players, such as your grandpredator in the case of rush combat or your prey in the case of intercept. I'm not that interested in hosing S:CE just so decks like these will be even worse news to their neighbors yet probably not do that much better in terms of victory points themselves. People need to recognize bad/ineffective decks for what they are. And if classic bleed decks or vote decks need more hosing, then create cards that hose them a little more directly than simply making rush combat or intercept combat more effective. > THAT is a different issue, caused by the existence of ONE card, Fame, > that rewards a combat deck with pool damage, assisting the strategy in > ousting your prey (commonly agreed upon as the object of the game; some > upstreamers and Malk-role-playing twits disagree). If you want combat to > become a viable strategy for winning, making it "on par" with Bleed and Vote > to fulfill that flawed prophecy, you should have hooted and hollered more > when Ben Swainbank proposed his War Council: > > War Council > Master > Unique Location > Tap when a Vampire is burned to force the controller of the burned > Vampire to burn 2 pool. > > (I personally thought it should have been "burned in combat" or > somesuch, or tap for 1 pool "when a vampire goes to torpor or is burned," > but the idea is in the right direction.) To reward the kind of play I'd like to see rewarded, my preference would be for a card like this to do something like, "Tap when a vampire in combat with a vampire you control goes into torpor. That vampire does not go into torpor. Combat ends. Its controller must burn 3 pool." That would be a way to convert combat advantage into pool loss yet not totally screw the victim from ever having a chance to come back (as long as he can afford the pool loss). Fred

legbiter wrote: > But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like > putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument, > but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed > to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the > following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment; > > Bleed > Vote > Bloat > Combat > Intercept > Swarm > Takeover > Shutdown > Poison > > Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot. > ... > Combat: Offense: Wipe out prey's minions, bleed for 1 > Defense: Wipe out predator's minions > Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing > victory to A.N. Other. > > Intercept Offense: Stop everything your prey does. > Defense: Stop everything your predator does. > Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing > victory to A.N. Other. ... > Shutdown Offense: Hamstring your prey's minions > Defense: Hamstring your predator's minions > Weak Spot: Table-destabilising - may just end up handing > victory to A.N. Other. The problem I have with looking at the game on this level is that besides table-destabilization being a disadvantage to the deck type that features it, it also tends to build in a random fuck-factor into the game I don't personally care for. I'll concede, this may just be my tastes, but I don't think the game needs more ways of losing that don't have much to do with how you personally play the game. Granted, even without this effect, random fucks exist in the game (I choose stealth-bleed and my opponent has a ton of deflections in his deck) and cannot be eliminated. I just don't care to encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame. > i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in > new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others, > completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of > discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks > how we might integrate them better into the game. It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done. Fred

Ian wrote: >>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty) defeats 90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and should be minimized.>> But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as a viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others lose their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their vampires. The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well. As the game stands, IG can be hosed by manuvers, fortitude, Obediance, agg damage, and more Potence, and IG is the pre-eminent combat option. I suspect that the only S:CE hoser that folks are looking for at this point out of the next expansion is something to help the Assamites out, which if comes to pass, adds yet another option to use against the IG decks--if Assamite decks become viable (which they currently really aren't, as Psyche isn't really that good of a S:CE hoser), this makes combat more interesting. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Ian wrote: > >>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty) > defeats > 90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is > Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck > annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing > possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and > should be minimized.>> > > But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as a > viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others lose > their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only > way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their vampires. Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the game, without that great a benefit to yourself. I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses what you're trying to do including bleed your prey. But if it's your predator's minion, it also can't be used to defend himself against his predator as needed. And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that), you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the start. That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that, perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat. (Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.) > The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can > actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B > decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well. Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to be. However, if they can solve the problem of giving combat ways to win that aren't so destabilizing, I don't mind it having that side effect. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, as Leggy noted, combat should almost be restricted to skilled players. Sure, you can make combat more types of combat effective by making a "generic" S:CE hoser, or even make the Assamites more effective by giving them a Quietus S:CE hoser. But that doesn't mean they oust people more effectively, just makes more "table-unbalancing" decks viable. If combat becomes even harder to defend against, it makes it easier for Bozo T. Twit to run rampant at whoever he wants. The counterargument is that these people will either learn or give up. If you make a card that says "Master. This card cannot be burned by playing another Master Card. You and your prey and predator are both ousted, but your predator gains 2 VPs instead of 1, and you and your prey both gain none," people WILL play it. Tournaments have plenty of sore losers, poor players, and people who think that having a "vindictive reputation" is a useful goal if you can't win. Making a strategy that is capable of being table-unbalancing MORE capable of it being unbalancing doesn't seem the right way to go. It seems exactly the WRONG way to go. The Assamites don't need to win every combat guaranteed, just so people will play them more. More people would just be playing tournament-losing Assamite decks. They need ways to survive and ways to oust. [ quoted text not captured ] I like that better, too. Notably, it doesn't "stack" with Fame, but I also like the reasoning that it allows the target to keep playing their deck, not unlike unblocked and passed votes or unblocked bleeds. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however, > agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the > undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i > think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table- > destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky > guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've > played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold > the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something > pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups > which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks. > > But i don't agree with you when you say combat is only a tactic like > putting guns in your deck [sorry if i've misunderstood your argument, > but i don't believe i am being unfair]. No, you really shouldn't agree with that; I don't quite believe that myself, and was getting to the "half-baked" part of the post. But, I let the point stand just to take things "outside the box." Combat doesn't DO anything by itself. Combat is what happens when one vampire blocks another. Now, Bum's Rush DOES something. It *deliberately* gets you into combat. Now, the point, usually, is to torporize the target minion, but it's the combat cards that help you do that. But if you equip with a Hawg, 2 sets of IR Goggles, and an RPG Launcher, you can Rush people, and never play a combat card, and torp damn near anyone who *doesn't* play a combat card. Really it's a "Rush Combat" deck. Sometimes you hear them called "Rush decks" or "Combat Decks." The first is correct, and about as explicit as it needs to be. There really aren't any Rush decks that aren't Rush Combat. But there are Combat decks that don't Rush. Notably, Intercept decks. It's just another vehicle for getting into combat. The question new players find themselves asking (as I asked myself and the group long ago) is "what do you do, playing an intercept dog, when you actually *catch* the mailman?" Tear him a new one is certainly one option. This leads to Tzimisce intercept decks. But you can actually just leave him alone, and just stop him; in fact, that's sometimes the best thing against your predator. This leads to Tory/!Tory run-away-Majesty-untap intercept decks. The first is an "Intercept Combat" deck, where the latter is not, but is still an Intercept deck. As several people have noticed, Intercept decks can be as equally unbalancing to the table as Rush Combat decks. But you don't find as many people pointing out that "pure" Intercept (Combat) decks ALSO don't win as many tournaments as vote or bleed. Why not? Same reason as Rush Combat; because the deck doesn't remove pool from it's prey. But it's an equally valid deck "archetype" as Combat, Vote, and Bleed. Among other things, it's as good a counter to Vote and S&B as Rush Combat is. Though, I agree with Derek that the whole "archetype" thing is pretty pointless, but I want to take explicit attention to the fact that the idea of deck archetypes is artificial, and it's painfully artificial, not to mention wrong, that Combat, Bleed, and Vote are, or were ever meant to be, the "3 equal legs." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9a9ibh$cud$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested >(and even more). Although it's a rare... Certainly, though Animalism isn't the only place to act, nor is this mechanic the only necessary one. -- 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?"

-- "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:XSYV5pGL...@cooling-towers.freeserve.co.uk... > In message <9a9ibh$cud$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult > <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes > >I agree but there's already Terror Frenzy that does what James suggested > >(and even more). Although it's a rare... > > Certainly, though Animalism isn't the only place to act, nor is this > mechanic the only necessary one. > No but a lot of the combat clans who doesn't naturally have access to IG och TT och Psyche have Animalism. Thus may not be the best solution but it's always somehting :) I really don't want to see more S:CE hosers för disciplines used by more than one clan...as stated many times by now (and yet hasn't gotten a good counter argument) hosing S:CE won't give combat decks more VP's, which is what they'd need.

>Obviously that's not the fault of S:CE. I think what makes S:CE >slightly too good still might be the Majesty, Ventrue becomes very powerful >with this since they can bleed, untap and then vote AND they have fortitude >(which also includes Freak Drive). Well, right now there's Charnas the Imp and The Treatment. Though they're clan specific for requirements, they inflict damage *each* time the minion untaps. Thus untapping with Majesty costs the blood and then also does a damage. While there are plenty of cards that do damage during the untap phase or requires blood to be spent to untap during the untap phase, perhaps we could see more cards that deal damage each time the vampire untaps? Alternatively, Majesty's untap power becomes unusable if the vampire doesn't have the blood. Vampiric Disease and Society of Leopold can help with that. And if Ventrue I really causing problems, you can always add some Cultivated Blood Shortage to whittle them down... Halcyan 2

Fredrick wrote: >>Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the game, without that great a benefit to yourself.>> Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting ousted). I'm a little unclear as to what you see as a possibility for combat *other* than destroying minions--yeah, Fame is useful, but only in the context of a deck that can reliably torporize vampires (thus the Destroying is of firstmost importance, and the Fame secondmost). More cards like Fame would be useful, sure (say an action modifier that says something like "If a vampire goes to torpor during this action, that vampire's controller loses 1 pool"), but still you need to be able to torporize. What other possible use could there be for combat? >>I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses what you're trying to do including bleed your prey.>> The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps you alive. Killing your prey's vampires gets him ousted. This is the aim of any strategy in VTES--keeping yourself alive while ousting your prey. Rush decks do this just like any other deck. >>But if it's your predator's minion, it also can't be used to defend himself against his predator as needed.>> You may have to do that for him. Rush decks are all about table control. >>And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that), you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the start.>> How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference. I fully accept that Rush decks, in the hands of the foolish, *can* destabilize the game through completely random actions (random cross table rushes or whatever), but the exact same can be said about a vote deck (who can randomly oust people across the table with KRC/ConAg) or, say, a TotGP deck, who can cripple people across the table by stealing all of their vampires. Pretty much *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes actions that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. This is not the sole province of a Rush deck. >>That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that, perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat. (Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.)>> But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are destroying minions. >>Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to be.>> No it isn't, but it is the most effective thing that keeps it in check. It is Rock to S+B's Scisors. Deflection and Intercept are much less effective at stopping S+B than combat decks on the whole (as they are passive stratigies rather than active ones). >>However, if they can solve the problem of giving combat ways to win that aren't so destabilizing, I don't mind it having that side effect.>> Combat decks, when played intelligently, aren't any more destabilizing than any other deck strategies. They keep themselves alive while weakening their prey. Just like every other deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B6EEEE2D.3230%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone >intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION. Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been a design decision. If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have permanently lost it now.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9ado2f$o0p$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >hosing S:CE won't give combat >decks more VP's, which is what they'd need. An interesting assertion. Consider: A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction, perfect card flow, perfect play etc.) Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That would give them more VPs. Is this a good thing? [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9acm38$bpv$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >I completely agree with your points Frederick. I also wonder why combat >decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem gaining >VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them there's >nobody who wants to improve? Intercept decks are, very often, combat decks. In general terms, intercept decks *can* (but don't have to) fall under the category of combat decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3ACA1D65...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >> i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in >> new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others, >> completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of >> discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks >> how we might integrate them better into the game. > >It sure is. And, in some ways, this is what "we" are doing. Consider all the combat decks that get hosed by S:CE tactics e.g. Tzimisce combat. Assuming that, on consideration, we decide that S:CE is "too" powerful against Tzimisce combat, we can argue about potential mechanics to over-ride such. As I said, the predominant feeling on the newsgroup, so far as I could grasp it (prior to this thread and others going on now), was that the initial consideration (that S:CE was "too" powerful) was a fairly accepted point. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <9ado2f$o0p$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult > <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes > >hosing S:CE won't give combat > >decks more VP's, which is what they'd need. > > An interesting assertion. > > Consider: > > A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but > having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction, > perfect card flow, perfect play etc.) > > Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That > would give them more VPs. ...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have laptops. More importantly (I guess), it means bleeding out the prey 5 actions earlier, if that makes a difference. And assuming they don't discover they desperately need the actions to cross-table rush their grandpredator or do other table management operations to fend off impending disaster. And it also means they're 5 actions ahead of the game on their grandprey, too. Though with the number of actions they have to spend destroying their grandprey's minions and bleeding their grandprey out whilst continuing to fend off disaster behind them, 5 extra actions may be a drop in the bucket. (Though by that time, if their grandprey is not able to use S:CE as well, the savings may also accumulate.) It's complicated to figure, exactly. No doubt the elimination of S:CE would make combat decks more viable to some extent. How *much* more viable is the question. I still think this part of the equation is not that important in helping decks that use combat to gain more VPs (except for decks based on clans that can do next to nothing about it), compared to other stuff you could do for them. And as for whether it's a "good thing", I don't think it's good enough and I think it has a definite downside. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > >>Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with > combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the > game, without that great a benefit to yourself.>> > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting > ousted). I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. > I'm a little unclear as to what you see as a possibility for combat *other* > than destroying minions--yeah, Fame is useful, but only in the context of a > deck that can reliably torporize vampires (thus the Destroying is of firstmost > importance, and the Fame secondmost). More cards like Fame would be useful, > sure (say an action modifier that says something like "If a vampire goes to > torpor during this action, that vampire's controller loses 1 pool"), but still > you need to be able to torporize. What other possible use could there be for > combat? Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires. What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting the same vamp in and out of torpor. Compared to running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except their absence, the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is practically nil. > >>I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses > what you're trying to do including bleed your prey.>> > > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps > you alive. I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run. I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various opponents - harms the game in general. > >>And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that), > you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off > because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the > start.>> > > How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck > say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all > over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was > weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference. That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B operate. Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would. He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game. > I fully accept that Rush decks, in the hands of the foolish, *can* destabilize > the game through completely random actions (random cross table rushes or > whatever), but the exact same can be said about a vote deck (who can randomly > oust people across the table with KRC/ConAg) or, say, a TotGP deck, who can > cripple people across the table by stealing all of their vampires. Pretty much > *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes actions > that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. This > is not the sole province of a Rush deck. Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be successful. Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment you go over the top - if you ever do. > >>That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that, > perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat. > (Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.)>> > > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are > destroying minions. No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious. > > >>Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to > be.>> > > No it isn't, but it is the most effective thing that keeps it in check. It is > Rock to S+B's Scisors. Deflection and Intercept are much less effective at > stopping S+B than combat decks on the whole (as they are passive stratigies > rather than active ones). Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well. I'm much more keen to find another rock. They are *not* "just like any other deck". Fred

>===== Original Message From pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) ===== >Ian wrote: >>>My interest is in interesting combat. S:CE (which isn't just Majesty) >defeats >90% of the possible combat offenses. The predominant corrective answer is >Immortal Grapple rush. Assuming the Immortal Grapple gets played, the deck >annihilates minions. Minion loss, in my mind, is the single most destabilizing >possibility (including through minion theft or Banishment or whatever) and >should be minimized.>> > >But if you minimize minion loss, you completely neutralize the combat deck as a >viable strategy option. The whole point of a combat deck is to make others lose >their minions--if you aren't doing this, you will *never* oust them. The only >way to oust someone as a Rush deck is to torporize/burn all of their vampires. Currently this is absolutely right. But i'd be in favour of more cards templated on monomancy - eg rush a minion of your predator. The targetted minion may avoid combat by accepting a minus to bleed, loss of a vote or inability to take a D action. Other cards could be targetted at your prey - eg the rushed minion may avoid combat but becomes tapped and will not untap in its controller's next untap phase. Cards of this kind could refocus new people on the paramount importance of actually ousting their prey, and they would IMO reduce the tendency for the rush-combat deck to make things easy for everyone who is not its predator or prey. >The harder this becomes to do, the more unlikely it is that a combat deck can >actually survive, let alone win. If combat decks become less useful, then S+B >decks become *more* useful, and the game ceases to work well. > >As the game stands, IG can be hosed by manuvers, fortitude, Obediance, agg >damage, and more Potence, and IG is the pre-eminent combat option. I suspect >that the only S:CE hoser that folks are looking for at this point out of the >next expansion is something to help the Assamites out, which if comes to pass, >adds yet another option to use against the IG decks--if Assamite decks become >viable (which they currently really aren't, as Psyche isn't really that good of >a S:CE hoser), this makes combat more interesting. i think classic rush-combat is a fine strategy and i like it that it's difficult to play. i'd like more people [good players] to play rush-combat and i think if this happens that clans like the assamites will suddenly not need fixing at all, because the assamites are REALLY good in a high-combat environment. What i DON'T want to see is rush-combat becoming easy, because there's a danger of recreating the immensely boring counterspell deck which is one of the main things wrong with Magic IMO. > > > >Peter D Bakija >PD...@aol.com >http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 > >"Why so many swords?" >"I must kill many." >-Kikuchiyo ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

>===== Original Message From Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> ===== >must... wade... in... > >On 4 Apr 2001 05:01:16 -0500, legbiter<legb...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:42 -0400 Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >(some stuff which I snipped) > >>Hmmm, just for once i don't fully agree with you, Pat. i do, however, >>agree with you and Fred PARTIALLY, and even with Andrew davidson, about the >>undesirability of boosting combat. i hold this position because i >>think combat, unintelligently played, is no more than a table- >>destabilising factor, which can result in the winner being the lucky >>guy/gal who just happens to avoid the worst combat damage. If you've >>played in an all-combat tournament you will know what i mean! i hold >>the [possibly elitist] view that rush-combat should be something >>pretty much restricted to experienced players and/or unjamming playgroups >>which have got stuck on malky bleed/deflect/counter decks. > >Possibly elitist it may be, but I can certainly UNDERSTAND the >position. Anyone who's ever been on the wrong end of an "ah, screw >it, i'm gonna fuck up... THAT crucial minion of yours cross-table" >deck can also certainly sympathise. > >And realistically, it's not possible to forbid noobies from playing >combat; so that adds yet another factor to consider when creating. PRECISELY my point, but better put. > >>but i don't believe i am being unfair]. Whether this was designed >>to be the case or not i don't know, but i think the >>following deck-types are viable in VTES at the moment; >> >>Bleed >>Vote >>Bloat >>Combat >>Intercept >>Swarm >>Takeover >>Shutdown >>Poison >> >>Each deck type has an offense, a defense and a weak spot. >>Most of these strategies can be mixed. For example, rush-combat/Fame > >I'd almost go ahead and pitch out the concept of deck "archetypes" >altogether. I think the original idea was to attempt to classify >decks by the manner in which they ousted their prey; ie bleed, vote, >or beat guys up and hope they bring one out. It now seems likely that >that system of classification simply isn't going to be adequate, and >you'll have to swap back to something like the above; defining briefly >what the deck DOES. Fair enough, but the natural historian in me WANTS to categorise and analyse with a view to assessment and prediction. i'm not laying down laws but sharing an opinion or perhaps hypothesis. > >Although again, the mix is best. I think you have to just treat it >like a big set of checkboxes; "my deck does X, Y, and Z". It's not >uncommon to see a deck that mostly bleeds, but occasionally hits you >for something, and carries just enough light intercept to stop very >offensive things from happening. As I wrote in a post that never made >it here (was written at 4am, and i reread it this morning and said >"thank god i didn't send that"), each of these types is simply a leg >of the cow to be considered when building one's deck. A cow with one >leg (weenie dominate bleed) is unstable and can be tipped over easily, >but is easy to make, faster to start, and can give just as much milk >(VPs) as any other cow. And if you put both legs on the same side >(trying to mix combat and shutdown), you might find your cow tipping >over of its own accord, such as when you kill the guy you just Sense >Depped. See, now YOU are analysing. If Faery stories an italian recipes turn out to conform to basic archetypes [check out KM Briggs' Dictionary of Fairies and Alan Davidson's Meditteranean Seafood for evidence that they do] that's useful information which makes it easier for you to tell good stories or cook good food. Similarly, my interest in analysing deck-types is just me feeling my way to designing better decks. [ quoted text not captured ] >>i think it's legitimate to wonder about whether we should plug in >>new strategies, boost some strategies at the expense of others, >>completely abolish some strategies and so on, but the kind of >>discussion i would rather have focusses on neglected cards, and asks >>how we might integrate them better into the game. Sometimes this >>can be done within the existing rules and card-set just by thinking >>a bit harder. Other times perhaps we need new cards or rules to >>achieve the same end. That's where this discussion started - people >>were thinking aloud about how to make the Assamites more popular. >>One idea is that they should get an anti-SCE card. i'd prefer that you >>guys get a web-cam up so that EVERYONE can see how Todd plays >>them, which would have the additional plusses that people could [a] see >> how YOU play the Giovanni, and [b] marvel at the uncanny physical >> resemblance of Derek to Angel's Evil Childe in Somnambulist. > >There is a lot to be said for "playing the clan properly", as opposed >to just looking at the disciplines and making something according to >the disciplines. Sure, the Assamites have OBF/CEL/QUI, but is it >necessary to include lots of OBF when making the deck? Do you WANT to >stay out of combat that much? Sacrificial Lamb, Swallowed by the Night and concealed weapon? i take the point, of course. > >There's also a lot to be said for beating Legbiter with a stick and >taking his pint away from him. I'm in favour of that, preferably on a >webcam. :P NOOOOO .... not the BEER ..... Spookily enough, TWO, erm, close friends have recently had nightmares about me being beaten up or tortured. Perhaps this is the place, and time, to testify that Angel's Evil Childe is a dam' handsome fellow, and SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than you are. > >-- Derek > >"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, 1871 ------------------------------------------------------------ [ quoted text not captured ]

> The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them? A majority, I believe. > I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these > have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help. Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help? > problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO hosers, > IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding > more hosers help?? Potence combat wins more often than other combat decks, it seems. This is most likely due to IG. So how would a hoser for another clan/skill not help other combat decks? Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

> >I completely agree with your points Frederick. I also wonder why combat > >decks should be improved with S:CE hosers because they have problem gaining > >VP's while intercept decks have problems gaining VP's too but them there's > >nobody who wants to improve? > Intercept decks are, very often, combat decks. Indeed. A few of the combat decks that I included in my post when listing the tournament winners were intercept/combat. Sorrow --- "...but you know, evil is an exact science..."

> > Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone > >intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION. > Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been > a design decision. Indeed. > If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have > permanently lost it now.) I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:58:30 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >James Coupe wrote: >> >> An interesting assertion. >> >> Consider: >> >> A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but >> having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction, >> perfect card flow, perfect play etc.) >> >> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That >> would give them more VPs. > >...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have Indeed. So bleeding for 5 isn't necessarily the answer. It still comes down to the fact that a Rush deck's use of resources is aimed directly at a Methuselah's SECONDARY resources, instead of primary. And directly after that (as you note below), number of actions is critical. The simple 'equip with a bleed retainer' action, which is worth it in almost every single deck, is NOT worth it in a Rush deck, which relies on all its actions to simply survive at first, and later relies on its actions to survive its OWN actions in destabilizing the table. Once it tips the balance of the plate, it has to keep moving or the balance keeps going. (Speaking of, did you ever see an animated short called "Balance"? If you can find it on the web, it illustrates this situation excellently.) >laptops. More importantly (I guess), it means bleeding out the prey 5 >actions earlier, if that makes a difference. And assuming they don't >discover they desperately need the actions to cross-table rush their >grandpredator or do other table management operations to fend off >impending disaster. And it also means they're 5 actions ahead of the >game on their grandprey, too. Though with the number of actions they >have to spend destroying their grandprey's minions and bleeding their >grandprey out whilst continuing to fend off disaster behind them, 5 >extra actions may be a drop in the bucket. (Though by that time, if >their grandprey is not able to use S:CE as well, the savings may also >accumulate.) So you've got a drop in the bucket. OK,... how about THIS card? Careful Preparation Action Modifier (discipline symbol) 1 blood (I) Only usable after a combat where the opposing minion played Combat Ends as a strike. The opposing minion takes one point of unpreventable damage. (S) As above, and untap this acting vampire. What does this card do to the game? It doesn't directly hose S:CE, so you can't automatically make vampires dead with it, and this is a good thing. It provides something very important to combat decks, however: a non-wasted action, which is the truly crippling effect of S:CE on combat. Since NRA is still in effect, you can't use the same Rush card again; and if you want to mix Bum's Rush, Ambush, Monomancy, and the like, then you could, with the associated risks. So you have a card that doesn't visibly help make vamps dead. And if you include it in your deck and players don't play S:CE against you, then you have some automatic discards handy. But you could use those untapped vampires for a number of things... (a) blocking - it's much more worth it to put a KRCG in your deck (b) bleeding for 1 or more (c) getting a weapon, retainer, etc. (d) ?? I don't include the discipline because, with Telepathic Tracking out, it's not so immediately obvious as to which clans need help anymore. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4u4mct8epc4h7t2so...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>> Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That >>> would give them more VPs. >> >>...but likely not. That's 5 pool. Or maybe 10 pool if they all have > >Indeed. So bleeding for 5 isn't necessarily the answer. True. The point is, if just *1* of those "failed" combats could be utilised for something else, you get slightly closer to victory - however you might choose to achieve that. Perhaps, rescuing someone from torpor to use Fame again? With an upped action success count, you have 1 action "free". Bleeding would be the lowest common denominator. -- 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:E5ihTzPi...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <9ado2f$o0p$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult > <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes > >hosing S:CE won't give combat > >decks more VP's, which is what they'd need. > > An interesting assertion. > > Consider: > > A combat deck rushes 10 times, torporising 5 minions in 5 combats, but > having the other five S:CE-ed. (Assuming perfect deck construction, > perfect card flow, perfect play etc.) > > Those 5 actions could, instead, be used to bleed their prey out. That > would give them more VPs. > > Is this a good thing? > Since IG decks still doesn't win all that often, I consider it proved that S:CE hsoers doesn't make combat deck that good. Of course without the hosers they'd suck, but once again, the problem for combat decks not gaining VP's isn't because of S:CE, it's because of their lack of bleed ability and that you have to spend a lot of actions to bring the vampires down (even if you do it successfully with every rush action). Derek Ray made a good post below about this.

>===== Original Message From James McClellan <legb...@MailAndNews.com> ===== >Currently this is absolutely right. But i'd be in favour of more cards >templated on monomancy - eg rush a minion of your predator. The targetted >minion may avoid combat by accepting a minus to bleed, loss of a vote or >inability to take a D action. Other cards could be targetted at your prey - >eg >the rushed minion may avoid combat but becomes tapped and will not untap in >its controller's next untap phase. Cards of this kind could refocus new >people >on the paramount importance of actually ousting their prey, and they would >IMO >reduce the tendency for the rush-combat deck to make things easy for >everyone >who is not its predator or prey. > It would be tricky to make this sort of card very attractive. Predator minions can do too many nasty things that you need to stop - bleed, vote, bounce, various unpleasant D actions. Being in torpor deals nicely with all of this but cards which cover only one function PER MINION rely on good luck in the particular predator's focus to be useful. Now if you could rush a minion and restrict the METHUSELAH, that would be worthwhile. Obviously "Meth can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for x turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile. Tom [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:tcm3slj...@corp.supernews.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Sorry was a bit unclear, but what I mean is that is IG would help so much the combat decks would win more than just 9%. They still fail to win often despite IG and such a like. I base this on the reasonable assumption that there's combat decks with S:CE hosers in every tournament (since almost all combat decks have S:CE hosers nowadays, and there's always at least one combat deck in tournaments).

[ quoted text not captured ] Now this is a card I like! Something like this would still let S:CE stay good but also make combat decks better. Hmm I think it would be nice witha Quietus card that allows the vamp to hose S:CE but he cannot then strike with hand.

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> escribió en el mensaje news:9afcn6$a6q$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Well, indeed there are many ways. Just don't focuse your deck on a heavy combat objective. Since in tournaments there are not so many combat decks, you shouldn't build yours with 50% combat cards. Just rely on combat and strength cards as a kind of "intimidatory stealth", and build a bruise & bleed deck with more enphasis on the bleed side. For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla Grandes, art of pain and guns. And a bunch of presence action cards. Fast Reaction just bypases that S:CE, and you just play your additionals cards when opposing minion has no S:CE to play. Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or Nosfi Justicar potence deck. Though it's still obvious that a combat deck hasn't the same chance to win any tournament. A combat deck uses 40-70% of their deck in combat focused cards. Other decks focuses that amount of their deck in bleeding/voting cards. To kill a 7th capacity vamp you spend 4-9 cards. A simple Sensory Deprivation does the same work. I makes me remind... But, well, combat decks are, usually, funnier to play. Sunbeam

In message <9afbe5$8pj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >Since IG decks still doesn't win all that often, I consider it proved that >S:CE hsoers doesn't make combat deck that good. Consider: 1) The popular perception is that combat doesn't win -> people don't play combat, therefore combat *can't* win very often because it isn't played very often. 2) The received wisdom is that clever and useful play of a combat deck can only be performed by experienced and talented players. The standard S&B can be put together by anyone and played to a relatively good level quite quickly. Combat requires more thought, skill, planning, diplomacy and strategy. 3) A number of people like to vary the decks they play, for an added surprise element. Okay, I'll play my Brujah IG Pound for Pound deck, but sometimes I might want to play with my Malkavian Derange deck. Thus: We have a large set of V:TES players. (A) We have a smaller set of player who play combat decks. (B. B is a subset of A.) We have a smaller set of players who play combat decks and are also of a high skill level. (C. C is a subset of B.) And at any given point, not all of C will be playing. The jump between A and B is large, but can be "controlled". That is, players can be encouraged to play combat decks. The jump between B and C is hard to control. It is hard to make players "good" (in the current environment). Comparatively, I would assert that few people believe that politics decks can't win, so the drop-off at B is smaller. Similarly, I would assert that the level of experience, skill etc. needed to play politics is less than that required for rush combat (in the current environment). Similarly, I would assert that similar claims can be (rightly) made regarding stealth and bleed. However, stealth and bleed is hampered by an additional factor - players dropping out because of perceived cheese. However, I would still suggest that, globally[0], the set C (players playing the deck style regularly and having the necessary skill) is such that C for politics is larger than C for combat, and C for bleed is larger than C for combat. (I make no such assertion regarding C bleed vs C politics.) I would suggest, therefore, that there are two points: 1) Combat decks don't win very often (I will grant that, of course) 2) S:CE hosers don't make combat good (a point under debate) The reasons behind 1) are very complex, not solely that of 2) even if it is true. [0] Groups function somewhat more anecdotally. A group of 20 people may have certain leanings, another group will do other things. These will all be influenced by meta-game, relative skill level, card pool, card availability, creativity, what the "good" players like (that is, if *all* the good players really, really like Hostile Takeover, a circle will adjust around that). -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3AD8...@MailAndNews.com>, Tom Kassel <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes >Obviously >"Meth >can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for >x >turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile. Trial by Combat Action You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the acting vampire. (D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase. If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat, burn 2 pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In message <B6EEEE2D.3230%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >> Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone >> intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION. > > Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been > a design decision. > > If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have > permanently lost it now.) Which book? I've got "both," I think, from various tournament prizes. If you mean "not the green book, but the other one, the hardback with the tassels" then I've got "both." (Sorrow seemed to refer to two separate books, and makes the same assertion that you do, that the "3 legged table" is/was a design decision from the start.) I don't recall reading that, ever, except on this newsgroup, but I'll give the books another gander and see if I see counter-evidence to my counter-claim. [ quoted text not captured ]

> In message <3AD8...@MailAndNews.com>, Tom Kassel > <TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes >> Obviously >> "Meth >> can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for >> x >> turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile. > > Trial by Combat > Action > You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the > acting vampire. > (D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If > that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all > bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase. > If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat, > burn 2 pool. Now THAT'S more like it. (I'd change the wording to "all bleeds by that Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted Racehorses card text. I'm sure the "weenie potence and nothing else" players won't like the "titled" part, but I'd recommend some of the cheap Bishops with Potence for those players. Also, you need the flavor text: "Two men enter, one man leave." --The Crowd, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome [ quoted text not captured ]

Sorrow wrote: > > > > Thank you, thank you, thank you. About freaking time someone > > >intelligently challenged the "3 legs" assumption. Yes, ASSUMPTION. > > Richard Garfield's writings suggest otherwise. It appears to have been > > a design decision. > > Indeed. > > > If I could find my copy of the book, I'd cite. (I appear to have > > permanently lost it now.) > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_. Well, hey, let's see the cite first. Not that I doubt such a thing exists. But actually seeing what Garfield *said* will shed light on what you're talking about. For instance, stating that combat is supposed to be the third leg of three archetypes the way it's currently understood and expressed on the newsgroup may turn to out to be a misunderstanding or misstatement of Garfield's ideas. Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > OK,... how about THIS card? > > Careful Preparation > Action Modifier > (discipline symbol) > 1 blood > > (I) Only usable after a combat where the opposing minion played Combat > Ends as a strike. The opposing minion takes one point of > unpreventable damage. > (S) As above, and untap this acting vampire. Yep. Very interesting. (Though I'd probably change the name to something that "felt" a bit more like what it did for aesthetics' sake.) This is another way you could go that would make basic combat more interesting. It would hose S:CE (sort of, kind of) in a way that doesn't destabilize the game as much and practically forces the combat deck to get on to its true objective: ousting its prey. Or at least varying the rush cards it uses, as you say. Fred

> Trial by Combat > Action > You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the > acting vampire. > (D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If > that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all > bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase. > If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat, > burn 2 pool. Huh, what? Unless I'm misreading this, if you rush a vamp and that vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help combat decks? It makes them even *more* vulnerable against S:CE in that if the combat fails, you not only waste the action but also have to burn 2 pool. The bleed reduction is ok, but not worth the two pool if S:CE is played. Sorrow --- If you're frightened of dying and... and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the earth.

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to > > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to > > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting > > ousted). > > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce, by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense measures influce my game tremendously. > Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying > a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and > minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires. > What am I not seeing here? You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to destroy its prey's vampires. "But," I hear you say, "any decks #1 priority should be to oust its prey." You're right. But the _way_ the deck does that is by _first_ destroying all of its prey's vampires. Getting a little pool loss in there is just a bonus. > Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting > the same vamp in and out of torpor. Not necessarily. It's very possible that by concentrating your efforts on the Famous vampire, you're allowing the other vampires to set up something which can really hurt you. If, for example, my prey is playing a deck with guns and I'm light on maneuvers, I don't want them to be able to get any guns. So my #1 priority is to kill all the vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action. > Compared to running around blowing up minions > for no particular gain except their absence, the amount of table destabilization of > the former tactic is practically nil. No one is claiming that winning with a Rush deck is easy. You are right that completely destroying any player's minions is destabilizing. The successful rush player controls that destabilization as much as they can. But sometimes you can't control it. If my predator is a fast S&B deck, I pretty much have to destroy every vampire they bring out. If my prey is playing with a 5th/Tap deck, I need to kill the fatty titled vampires to keep them from gaining lots of pool. A Rush deck defends _actively_, which sometimes means destroying all of someone's vampires. > > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps > > you alive. > > I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table > destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run. It's hard for a Rush deck to survive until the long run; a lot of things have to go right for you. Rarely will you want to destroy all of your predator's vampires. As you say, that usually just gives you a new, stronger predator. But sometimes you have no choice but to eliminate your predator. > I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win > using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the > amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various > opponents - harms the game in general. Well, I don't know what to tell you. Anyone can play randomly and give unexpected benefits to the wrong person. A Malk S&B deck which uses Malkavian Pranks to keep cross-table allies (and future victims) in the game is doing the same kind of thing. If I have a heavy bleed deck, and a Deflection makes me accidentally oust my grand prey, I've "destabilized" the table, and given my prey an "undeserved boon." > > How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck > > say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all > > over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was > > weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference. Or because your prey had to keep vampires up to try to block, or had to get out fewer vampires to conserve pool. I agree with this analogy. > That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B > operate. You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that some people aren't convinced by your arguments? > Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after > he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going > sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would. > He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. > Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of > desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the > other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can > bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game. Smart players who realize that their predator is a Rush deck will influence so as to get out 3-4 vampires on a single turn. This way, unless the Rush predator is very lucky, the prey will be able to take actions and "participate." If you bring out vampires one at a time, the Rush deck can kill them one at a time, while simultaneously handling their predator. Bleed decks versus Rush decks... both decks are denying their prey resources. A bleed deck directly removes pool, which is more directly effective, but it's also (relatively) easy to defend against. There's no "Deflection hoser", and there shouldn't be. Combat (well-constructed and in the right environment) is better at completing its task, but that task doesn't directly oust people. It's a trade-off. > Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment > you go over the top - if you ever do. Of course losing pool has direct consequences. I think you are the one being deliberately dense. If I'm at 15 pool, I'm more willing to buy things (Hunting Grounds, etc.) which I think will strengthen my position, or gain me pool in the long run. I'm more willing to tap out, or feign defenses I don't have in order to affect my prey. If I'm at 3 pool, I can't do these things. If I tap out or pretend to have defenses I don't have, I'm risking being ousted. > > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards > > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are > > destroying minions. > > No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize > it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious. The difference being you allow your prey to take actions and build up. While this might have the long-term benefit of having them weaken your grandprey for you, it usually has the short-term anti-benefit of them either ousting their prey (which hurts your position by giving your prey more pool and giving you a new, strong grandprey) or setting up defenses which hamper your abilities. Keeping their vampires alive lets them equip bad things, call votes which damage you, steal your vampires, etc. Why give them the option to hurt you, in the vain hope that they'll hurt their prey more? James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "What drives you on can drive you mad. A million lies to sell yourself is all you ever had." -- Garbage

Frederick Scott wrote: > > I just don't care to > encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to > no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to > defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see > such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame. I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit, I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there are Papers. > It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck > archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us > why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done. I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be bad? I can't really play my Gangrel +strength combat deck because I don't have any way to deal with S:CE. If there's some anti-S:CE Animalism card, say, in Final Nights, how will that affect things? Majesty will be just as screwed against this new card as it is against Grapple, Psyche! and Tracking. It doesn't make the Tzimisce any better; they can already deal with S:CE. It just means that the game will have more diversity. There will be more _kinds_ of combat decks -- there may not be any more combat decks per se. And, even if combat decks become more prominent, the metagame envrionment will adjust. Ventrue decks with huge amounts of combat defense will become prominent. And then those decks will get screwed when the metagame shifts away from combat. How is this a bad thing? [ quoted text not captured ]

An aside: Does any one here know what eventually became of Dr. Garfield? Does he still design games? Does he still involve himself with any of the games he invented? Just curious... Cheers, WES

"Tom Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> > For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla > Grandes, art of pain and guns. Both Palla Grande and Art of Pain are uniques (not to mention rares). Having six or more might be counter-productive. > Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey > minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it > is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or > Nosfi Justicar potence deck. I'm looking at Anathema for a theme deck as we speak. It's an ana-theme-a deck, uh yeah... It seems a bit hard to set up though and if your predator ends up burning the Anathemed guy before you do, problems could arise. Still, it bears closer examination. Cheers, WES

Fredrick wrote: >>I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.>> And bleeding your prey for 5 provides a free benefit for your grand prey--the five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand prey, but because you took that pool, you have denied your prey this opportunity, and consequently, provided a free benefit to another one of your opponents. Any action you take against your prey or predator indirectly helps someone else at the table. Bleeding someone for 5 (denying them a possible 5 point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the difference. >>Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires.>> No, no, responding to the following comment: >>The games needs something *else* you can do with combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions>> about wanting combat to be useful for something other than destroying minions. I was pointing out that even *with* Fame, you still need to destroy minions--Fame does not minimize the need to destroy minions. Fame encourages you to destroy minions. >>What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting the same vamp in and out of torpor.>> Not for the Rush deck it doesn't. You are spending 3 actions to cost your prey 6 pool. If you spend those three actions torporizing more than 6 pool worth of vampires, the three Rush actions are more effective than the Lather, Rinse, Repeat Fame manuver. Pool loss is pool loss. I fail to see how it is more beneficial for anyone for this pool loss to be in the form of loose pool than pool tied up in minions for the same amount. Yes, torporizing a vampire of your prey gives your grand prey a free bonus (one less vampire to deal with). Bleeding someone for the same amount does the same thing. >>Compared to running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except their absence, the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is practically nil.>> I still fail to see where the "no particular gain" comes in. I play Rush decks all the time. I do very well with them. I get into the finals of pretty much every tournament I play in. Sometimes I win. What defines "particular gain" in VTES more than getting VPs? If killing vampires gets me VPs, I am gaining something in particular. Victory points. >>I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run.>> And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well. Again, please detail the difference. This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's position is weakened, another player benefits. This is what all decks do. If I am playing a bleed deck, every pool I remove from my prey is one less pool for my prey to spend ousting *his* prey. Thus, my grand prey gets a free benefit from my actions. If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different? >>I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various opponents - harms the game in general.>> What chaos do they cause? They weaken their prey (just like any other deck) and slow down their predator (just like any other deck). If by "chaos", you are referring to folks who randomly Rush folks across the table for no good reason, and take actions that run contrary to their own best interest, and do so with no concern as to their ability to win or lose, I again point out that pretty much *any* deck can do this, and isn't the fault of the Rush deck. It is the fault of a bad player. A bad player using a vote lock KRC deck can do the exact same thing--kill folks across the table for no good reason, destabilize the whole game for no personal gain, and just play stupid. Again, this is not the fault of the Rush deck. Or of the rules for combat. It is the fault of bad players. >>That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B operate.>> How? How is it dense? Please explain to me the difference between: A) I bleed you for 6. You now are now denied 6 points of resources. B) I burn a 6 point vampire. You are now denied 6 points of resources. Please explain the difference in a strategic sense. >>Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would.>> You only have so much pool to spend. How is denying your prey that pool before he uses it to buy vampires any less destabilizing than denying them that pool after they bring out vampires? >>He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the other side.>> So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you for 5, you are denied a 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5, you can make that 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5 you can make that 5 point vampire that you desperately need to use against me and the guy on the other side. If I do bleed you for that 5, you can't. How is this any different than you making that 5 point vampire and me killing it? >>You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game.>> How? How does it imbalance the game? I am denying my prey resources. A bleed deck does the *exact* same thing. I am denying my predator resources. An intercept deck does the *exact* same thing. >>Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be successful.>> Again with the destabilization. A Rush deck weakens its prey and slows down its predator. Just like any other deck. >>Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment you go over the top - if you ever do.>> No direct consequences? Wha? If I am bled for 12 pool, I am denied 12 pool worth of resources I would have had otherwise. How is this not a direct consequence? >>No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.>> Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a deck around it is mostly pointless. >>Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well.>> Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their minions destroyed before they take a single action. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Certainly. But, in practice, it has too many moving parts. Hard to guarantee vote lock AND combat dominance in one deck, not to mention having all the cards come up in the right order. And still defend itself. But, really, the biggest problem is that big vamps=votes!=Anathema passing. Small vamps = Anathema being not worth it. You're better off playing Govern the Unaligned twice to gain the 6 pool you'd get out of killing a 4 cap and a 2 cap. But, I understand. I'm getting the itch to play one, too. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Now THAT'S more like it. (I'd change the wording to "all bleeds by that >Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted >Racehorses card text. In addition, I'd like to add the clause that it only reduces bleeds to you. If it does reduce all bleeds by that Methusaleh, it has the potential to greatly destabilize the game. Currently, the only things you can do to reduce others' bleeds are DI, Eagle's Sight and block, and Ignis Fatuus, all of which are rather limited. But this new card has the potential to completely shut down any swarm decks (even cross-table). While I think it's good that this might help discourage weenie decks, I think it would give the combat decks way too much table control. And think of the havoc it would cause if some vindictive or unreasonable Methusaleh was playing. I'd be pretty annoyed if I was cross-table and about to oust my prey when my "ally" decides to reduce ALL of my bleeds by one! Halcyan 2

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:tcm4ihl...@corp.supernews.com... > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_. "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma refers to the third version of the game as it was being designed. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3ACABF11...@netcom.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: [snip] [rushing your predator's minions] > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. Hmm. I'm detecting a strong pro-bleed bias here. Oh well, I'll provide the rebuttal. > > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires > > keeps you alive. > > I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table destabilization > makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run. Yet it still keeps you alive. Who knows? Maybe your grand-predator is being hammered on by his predator, so he hasn't been doing anything to yours? As Peter mentioned elsewhere, table control is very important with a Rush deck. [comparing S&B to combat] > That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B > operate. Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after > he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early Hardly. They both reduce pool, in the long run. How is nuking a 5-capacity vampire immediately after it's brought out, before it has a chance to act any different from a bleed for 5? It's still an expenditure of 5 pool that can't be easily regained. And how often is a S&B deck *not* able to pound out a huge bleed early on? Usually they have trouble a little later, when something starts jamming up their hand... > sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would. > He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. A bleed is a pre-emptive rush. You've eliminated the pool before he can get the vampire out. A rush is an after-the-fact bleed. You've eliminated the pool after he spent it, but he can no longer get it back with a Minion Tap or Blood Doll. > Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of > desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the It's a tactic. Deal. > other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can > bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game. So I deflect all of your bleeds for 5 after I let you stealth them. This is just as imbalancing, but it works the other way around the table. > > *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes > > actions that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. > >This is not the sole province of a Rush deck. > > Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush > deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be > successful. Depends on what you call destabilization, I suppose. Vote decks often have to make table-stabilization compromises in order to get their votes through, though. It happens. > Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the > moment you go over the top - if you ever do. Prevents the victim from bringing out the full force that they might have otherwise. Hmm. I think I've heard that before. [Fame deck] > > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards > > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are > > destroying minions. > > No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize > it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious. It's also not all that efficient, unless you're playing with agg damage and making the victim pay for the rescue. Otherwise, you're using lots of your own resources to do that pool damage. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B6F0D950.32AB%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > I don't recall reading that, ever, except on this newsgroup, but I'll >give the books another gander and see if I see counter-evidence to my >counter-claim. Xian's post should help here. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <20010404164814...@ng-me1.aol.com>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> writes >And bleeding your prey for 5 provides a free benefit for your grand prey--the >five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand >prey BUT if they get *another* vampire out, you have to spend more cards on killing it, which is also a "free benefit" for your grand-prey (assuming you oust your prey), since you have fewer cards to kill her with. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <T_Jy6.1150$Uu6.1...@monger.newsread.com>, Sorrow <jcb...@yahoo.com> writes >Huh, what? Unless I'm misreading this, if you rush a vamp and that >vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help >combat decks? The idea was to replace Bum's Rush with this (not all, obviously), and pile other cards in on top. (From my point of view.) People were saying that combat needed to be helped in other ways, with a suggestion of a card along those lines. I merely crystalised a potential card text for argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

Xian wrote: > > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > news:tcm4ihl...@corp.supernews.com... > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released > > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain > > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed > > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_. > > "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat > monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma refers > to the third version of the game as it was being designed. OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote, as well. Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view the game in these terms." This would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter, it really isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also refer to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) instead of using it to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy opposing minions. We don't know. Fred

In message <3ACBB206...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote, as well. >Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might >theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view the game >in these terms." It's not. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Huh, what? Unless I'm misreading this, if you rush a vamp and that > >vamp S:CEs, you burn 2 pool. If this is correct, how does this help > >combat decks? > The idea was to replace Bum's Rush with this (not all, obviously), and > pile other cards in on top. (From my point of view.) > People were saying that combat needed to be helped in other ways, with a > suggestion of a card along those lines. I merely crystalised a > potential card text for argument. Perhaps, but if there was ever a chance that I had to burn 2 pool for an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would never use this card. As it is, I *might* only ever include 1 or 2 in a Pot/IG deck. The -1 bleed for a single turn isn't worth *that* much. Sorrow --- "Happiness sucks" -me

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to > > > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to > > > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting > > > ousted). > > > > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit > > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, > > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. > > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce, > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense > measures influce my game tremendously. That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is all that wonderful. It's the same problem I have with things like Sudden Reversal. You burn a card and an MPA and your opponent does likewise. It's good because it was a master you _really_ didn't want him to play. But you're not his only opponent and you're not even his only directly-opposed opponent (weird way to put that but I mean "as opposed to a cross-table/somewhat allied opponent") so someone else on the table likely benefits even more than you do. I give red marks to "benefits" that work like that. If you truly need them, OK. But let's not pretend this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. > > Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying > > a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and > > minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires. > > What am I not seeing here? > > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to > destroy its prey's vampires. This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work. > > Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The > > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works > > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting > > the same vamp in and out of torpor. > > Not necessarily. It's very possible that by concentrating your efforts > on the Famous vampire, you're allowing the other vampires to set up > something which can really hurt you. If, for example, my prey is > playing a deck with guns and I'm light on maneuvers, I don't want them > to be able to get any guns. So my #1 priority is to kill all the > vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action. Sure. But this way of looking at the game and how to handle your opposition is using a total bludgeon to respond to the unknown. You eliminate the possibility that your opponent can ever do anything to harm you but you necessarily do a whole lot of other, not necessarily good things at the same time. If you can make it work, I suppose that's fine. I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know. You might survive it with a fortitude deck or some such but you never actually *win* that metagame in terms of gaining by outguessing it. Someone else always "wins" - from having the thing show up elsewhere on the table in a position that's not next to him. I don't like strategies that set up these kinds of deals. > > I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win > > using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the > > amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various > > opponents - harms the game in general. > > Well, I don't know what to tell you. Anyone can play randomly and give > unexpected benefits to the wrong person. A Malk S&B deck which uses > Malkavian Pranks to keep cross-table allies (and future victims) in the > game is doing the same kind of thing. If I have a heavy bleed deck, and > a Deflection makes me accidentally oust my grand prey, I've > "destabilized" the table, and given my prey an "undeserved boon." Of course. But the fact that these things happen unavoidably is no reason to encourage decks which are much more egregious causes of the problem, which combat decks undoubtedly are. If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the game so that _that_ worked, either. > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that > some people aren't convinced by your arguments? I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated. I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat. If he wasn't trying to defend the necessity of rush combat decks - which I'm guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim. Arguing about this is a waste of time, IMO. There's a lot of chaos in the game, period. Combat causes more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning and let's get down to our real differences. (Rest of the post snipped as it just continues to rehash the comparison.) Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I just don't care to > > encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to > > no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to > > defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see > > such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame. > > I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit, > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there > are Papers. Combat is usually always bad news to sit next to. Or at worst, mediocre news if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones sitting on the other side of the table. > > It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck > > archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us > > why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done. > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be > bad? Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd have more combat decks. I don't like what they do to the game. And fully admitting, that's a matter of my personal taste. I don't like decks that are just a total screw factor to their neighbors. I'd like to have answers to S & B in the game. I'm just looking for a different answer. Fred

I wrote: > > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was released > > > for Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm almost certain > > > that is where I read it). And this is coming from the guy who designed > > > the game. So no, it is not an _*ASSUMPTION*_. Xian wrote: > > "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat > > monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." Note that Gamma refers > > to the third version of the game as it was being designed. Fred wrote: > OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the quote, as well. > Just as a potential example of why you need that, his next sentence might > theoretically be, "But it turned out to be completely misleading to view the game > in these terms." This would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter, > it really isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also refer > to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) instead of using it > to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy opposing minions. We don't know. Ok, thanks to Xian's quote, I was able to find it. This text is from "The Eternal Struggle: A Players Guide to Jyhad" taken from the forward written by Richard Garfield. Copyright, all rights reserved, reproduced without permission, a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, yadda, yadda. Starting on page 14: "The Beta version of Jyhad(tm) had few political cards relative to what was eventually published. The political cards were being tested to see if the flavor they added justified the complexity they added to the rules. I knew we had to have princes and Justicars, the only question was whether they added the depth of a political system or were just more of the same. The political cards were greatly loved and served to throw some curveballs in the two major strategies that were evolving: the combat monster strategy and the sneak-and-bleed strategy. "The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires were so deadlyl in combat that no one dared to block them, you could just waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she might have to face one of your servance in combat. The two major clans used for this purpose were the Gangrel and the well-armed Brujah, though the Tremere could give a run for the blood. The Gangrel had the edge in combat over the others, because of their claws and fortitude. After all, the Brujah do have Presence. "The sneak-and-bleed strategy was build about the premise that if you can't catch my minions then I don't have to worry about giving them combat skills at all. Just needing stealth cards for this gives me plenty of room in my deck to devote to enhanced bleedings. This strategy was used most effectively with Malkavians who had Obfuscate for stealth and Dominate for the bonus bleeds. "After Gamma I was pretty sure that I wanted to equalize the pursuit of the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, or political decks. Ideally the best decks would have elements of at least two of these pursuits. After all, a few enhanced bleed cards in a Brujah combat deck can be an improvement. "The political cards were even wilder than I anticipated. Sometimes they were near meaningless while other times you cannot win without political influence. The political deck has wierd tricks and traps whereas the others are fairly straightforward, at least in their purest forms." --Richard Garfield Straight from the horses mouth. Sorrow --- I don't want to be alone | I hurt, therefore I am anymore |-------------------------------- I don't want to be anyone | "What are you looking at...? anymore | you never seen anyone try to I don't need a reason to kill myself | commit suicide before?" - Anon ------------------------------------------------------------------------

In message <tcndjpc...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >Perhaps, but if there was ever a chance that I had to burn 2 pool for >an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would >never use this card. Certainly, but I felt it needed a down side, whatever that might be, otherwise it would be quite a lot better than Bum's Rush. (Maneuvers are had in spades. Anvil etc. are not hard to access.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Perhaps, but if there was ever a chance that I had to burn 2 pool for > >an action, especially with how S:CE trumps most combat, I would > >never use this card. > Certainly, but I felt it needed a down side, whatever that might be, > otherwise it would be quite a lot better than Bum's Rush. (Maneuvers > are had in spades. Anvil etc. are not hard to access.) How about putting the card on the acting vampire and you burn the card during the next untap phase instead of untapping the vampire. Or making the acting vampire burn 2 or 3 blood. Something other than a pool loss. Pool is already difficult to come by for a combat deck. Sorrow --- "This is my costume. I'm a homicidal maniac. They look just like everyone else." -- Wednesday Addams

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce, > > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to > > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat > > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has > > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have > > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense > > measures influce my game tremendously. > > That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is > all that wonderful. Benefit of what? The benefit of playing a combat deck vs. a bleed deck? It depends on what you think is going to be at the tournament. In my experience, tournament-goers tend to over-prepare for bleed and under-prepare for combat. That gives combat an edge. > > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to > > destroy its prey's vampires. > > This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not > arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong > one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work. What should the combat deck do instead? You keep suggesting the "Fame loop", which is relatively inefficient, and dangerous in ways that I've explained. > > So my #1 priority is to kill all the > > vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action. > [snip] > If you can make it work, > I suppose that's fine. It _is_ tough to make work, I admit. > I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's > never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know. In my experience, many decks are unfazed by having a combat deck on either side of them. Against Potence at least, it's not incredibly difficult to have some kind of defense; very often a bunch of maneuvers is enough to keep you alive long enough to oust your combat prey. > If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of > pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the > game so that _that_ worked, either. Has someone told you that combat doesn't work very well? It certainly wasn't me. The reason some people would like to see a new S:CE hoser is just so that MORE KINDS of combat decks can be played, not so that "combat" (as a genre) can be more effective. > > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree > > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you > > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that > > some people aren't convinced by your arguments? > > I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone > tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated. As opposed to compare two identical situations? It's an _analogy_. Sheesh. > I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted > to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat. Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey. Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_ prey. > If > he wasn't trying to defend the necessity of rush combat decks - which I'm > guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the > current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim. You're guessing wrong. Me and Peter (back me up here) have no problems with the effectiveness level of combat decks. We both play combat decks frequently and have success with them. I don't know where you're getting the idea that we're trying to make combat (as a whole) better. It's already quite good. Difficult to win with, yes, but that's due to the indirect nature with which it kills people. > Combat causes > more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede > that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying > to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning > and let's get down to our real differences. Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1: put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree, you quit arguing. Why do you even bother? > (Rest of the post snipped as it just continues to rehash the comparison.) Yeah, you wouldn't want to acknowledge anything which might (a) be correct and (b) disagree with you. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

Fredrick wrote: >>I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated.>> As I requested in another post, please explain the realistic difference between denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by bleeding them for 6 and denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by burning a 6 point vampire. >>I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat.>> I am debating that combat, played intelligently, causes "destabilization" at all--I maintain that combat, when played with actually winning in mind (as opposed to just playing an idiot rogue) has the same effect on the table as any other viable strategy--it ousts its prey and slows down its predator. >>- which I'm guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim.>> I have no problem with combat decks in the current card set. They work just fine. Again, I play them all the time and do quite well with them. I never claimed that they needed to be improved. I simply debated the concept that A) they are in some way more "destabilizing" (whatever that means) than, say, S+B deck and B) combat should be tailored to be capable of doing something other than destroying vampires (your assertion). >>Arguing about this is a waste of time, IMO.>> Arguing about everything is a waste of time. Yet here we are on usenet... >>There's a lot of chaos in the game, period. Combat causes more than the other types of decks.>> I'm not quite sure what kind of players you are playing with and what kind of combat decks you are playing with, but where I come from combat decks are used to A) oust their prey and B) slow down their predator. Just like every other deck in the game. If you are playing with people who regularly Rush across the table, act irrationally, take actions that don't further their own victory,and generally act chaotically, then that is the players you are playing with, not the decks they are using. >>If you or Peter aren't willing to concede that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying to communicate about this.>> Apparently we are. Again, I play combat decks all the time. I do very well. I regularly win games with them. I play to get VPs. I rarely Rush across table. I primarily act to destroy my prey and secondarily act to slow down my predator. I fail to see how my decks are "destabilizing" anything (especially as more often than not, I win a game where I am capable of killing folks with reliability). I fail to see how my decks are any more damaging to the game or environment than a standard S+B deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

I wrote: > > > I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was > > > released or Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm > > > almost certain hat is where I read it). And this is coming from > > > the guy who esigned he game. So no, it is not an > > > _*ASSUMPTION*_. Xian wrote: > > "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit > > of the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." > > Note that Gamma refers to the third version of the game as it was > > being designed. Fred wrote: > OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the > quote, as well. Just as a potential example of why you need that, > his next sentence might theoretically be, "But it turned out to be > completely misleading to view the game in these terms." This > would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter, it really > isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also > refer to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) > instead of using it to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy > opposing minions. We don't know. Ok, thanks to Xian's quote, I was able to find it. This text is from [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <tcng0rk...@corp.supernews.com>, Sorrow <cbo...@apdi.net> writes >How about putting the card on the acting vampire and you burn the >card during the next untap phase instead of untapping the vampire. >Or making the acting vampire burn 2 or 3 blood. Certainly possible; all sorts of potential downsides can be had. I just definitely wanted one on there, so thought of something that seemed "reasonable" off the top of my head. [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > > So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you for 5, > you are denied a 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5, you can make > that 5 point vampire. If I didn't bleed you for 5 you can make that 5 point > vampire that you desperately need to use against me and the guy on the other > side. If I do bleed you for that 5, you can't. How is this any different than > you making that 5 point vampire and me killing it? The difference is that in reality, that vamp usually doesn't cost 5 pool, because he'll be able to drain off some pool from it through blood doll, or take actions with it gaining him pool (enchant kindred etc) before it gets killed. It takes one action to bleed for 5, while killing a vamp only at best takes one action (plus a lot of more cards). <snip>

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A > > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat > > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There > > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit, > > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there > > are Papers. > > Combat is usually always bad news to sit next to. Do you realize how absurd this statement is? > Or at worst, mediocre news > if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by > packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones > sitting on the other side of the table. Speaking as someone who has played rush combat decks a lot, I can tell you that this just isn't true. Your deck doesn't have to be 50% combat defense to foil a combat deck. You just need to know that effective combat decks are out there, and plan for it. If your prey is a combat deck which is bashing its head against your defensive wall, there's nothing stopping you from ousting them quickly. Combats decks generally don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone across the table win? > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But > > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be > > bad? > > Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons > all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd > have more combat decks. Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat decks at tournaments will increase. > I don't like decks that > are just a total screw factor to their neighbors. It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed. It happens a lot; maybe in your local group combat reigns supreme or something. I don't know. > I'd like to have answers > to S & B in the game. I'm just looking for a different answer. Huh? What does combat have to do with S&B? There are plenty of ways to deal with S&B without turning to a combat deck. Bounce, intercept, AI... James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> ===== >In message <3AD8...@MailAndNews.com>, Tom Kassel ><TomK...@MailAndNews.com> writes >>Obviously >>"Meth >>can't bleed you" is a little (ok, enormously) too good, but can't bleed for >>x >>turns or for more than x or more than once a turn, etc might be worthwhile. > >Trial by Combat >Action >You must control a ready titled vampire. This vampire need not be the >acting vampire. >(D) Enter combat with a vampire controlled by another Methuselah. If >that vampire goes to torpor (or is burned) during this combat, all >bleeds by that Methuselah are reduced by 1 until your next untap phase. >If that vampire remains in the ready region at the end of this combat, >burn 2 pool. > That would do nicely. I'd certainly replace a few Bum's Rush with this one. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:20:19 -0500, Sorrow wrote: >taken from the forward written by Richard Garfield. >... >"The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires >were so deadly in combat that no one dared to block them, you could just >waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other >hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she >might have to face one of your servance in combat. This combat monster archetype seems fine to me. It roughly corresponds to the bruise-and-bleed and intercept decks, right? It's the Rush deck which is sick and wrong - a degenerate concept based on overuse of one card. The new card that I'd like to see would have the effect of deflecting an "enter combat" action onto another minion. Call it "Mistaken Identity" or "The Wrong Box". This would hose the Rush deck while sparing the original combat monster archetype. As for Garfield, I saw a recent press release from the WotC brand manager for Magic which, apart from explaining away 2001 budget cuts, said that Garfield was still working on that game. I don't know if anyone here has his ear but it would be good to send him some of the new cards and solicit a state-of-the-nation review. Andrew

>===== Original Message From halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) ===== >> Now THAT'S more like it. (I'd change the wording to "all bleeds by that >>Methuselah'S MINIONS are reduced by 1..." or whatever matches the Protracted >>Racehorses card text. > >In addition, I'd like to add the clause that it only reduces bleeds to you. > >If it does reduce all bleeds by that Methusaleh, it has the potential to >greatly destabilize the game. > I disagree. The effect on one's prey is beneficial and stabilizing not the reverse. A rush deck must first neutralize his predator for safety before turning to his prey. This gives his prey free rein for a while. If his bleeds can be reduced at the same time you are killing his minions, this restores the balance. [ quoted text not captured ]

> But, really, the biggest problem is that big vamps=votes!=Anathema > passing. Small vamps = Anathema being not worth it. You're better off > playing Govern the Unaligned twice to gain the 6 pool you'd get out of > killing a 4 cap and a 2 cap. > But, I understand. I'm getting the itch to play one, too. =) > > -- > Pat Ricochet > Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta > The point is that Anathema referendum is more likely to pass than Banishment- Even Malkav decks will try to get that price. The best thing of Anathema isn't the blood-gaining aspect: The best is that you don't need to disarm-decapitate or do massive amount of aggravatted damage to remove from the game that annoying vamp when it comes to 0 blood. Also, such a rush deck isn't vote-lacking (4 Princes, a Justicar and 2 primogens). Indeed it's really prone to be killed by a Propaganda Deck

-- "Tom Mad&Co" <t...@almadrava.net> wrote in message news:9afi4e$2p5$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net... > > "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> escribió en el mensaje > news:9afcn6$a6q$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > > > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > > news:tcm3slj...@corp.supernews.com... > > > > The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them? > > > A majority, I believe. > > > > I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of > these > > > > have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help. > > > Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help? > > > > problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO > hosers, > > > > IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would > dding > > > > more hosers help?? > > > Potence combat wins more often than other combat decks, it seems. This > > > is most likely due to IG. So how would a hoser for another clan/skill > not > > > help other combat decks? > > > > > > Sorrow > > > --- > > > "Are they dead?" - Pugsly > > > "Does it matter?" - Wednesday > > > > > > > Sorry was a bit unclear, but what I mean is that is IG would help so much > > the combat decks would win more than just 9%. They still fail to win often > > despite IG and such a like. I base this on the reasonable assumption that > > there's combat decks with S:CE hosers in every tournament (since almost > all > > combat decks have S:CE hosers nowadays, and there's always at least one > > combat deck in tournaments). > > > > Well, indeed there are many ways. Just don't focuse your deck on a heavy > combat objective. > > Since in tournaments there are not so many combat decks, you shouldn't build > yours with 50% combat cards. Just rely on combat and strength cards as a > kind of "intimidatory stealth", and build a bruise & bleed deck with more > enphasis on the bleed side. For example: A !Toreador with 6 or more Palla > Grandes, art of pain and guns. And a bunch of presence action cards. Fast > Reaction just bypases that S:CE, and you just play your additionals cards > when opposing minion has no S:CE to play. But as I understood it, decks with a lot of combat were included as well (and then amounted for 18% I think, still far from 33% as it should ideally be). > > Also, someone has said that there is nothing extra in burning your prey > minions. Does anybody remember such cards as Anathema?? It sounds to me it > is a good card to play in a Brujah (specially a Donal/Constanza deck) or > Nosfi Justicar potence deck. > Anathema is great...the rpoblem is that a combat deck rarely has the votes to pull it through. Only other combat decks would normally vote it through and they probably don't have that many votes together compared to the others on the table (who either are vote decks - where one would probably overrun all the others - or S&B decks).

[ quoted text not captured ] Yup. And I kind of feel like it vindicates my demand for the whole context, as Garfield is simply talking about decks that use combat cards. _Not_ necessarily deliberate combat rush and intercept decks. Given what I'm reading here, the "three-legged" view of the game that gets expressed nowadays seems very different from the primitive views expressed here. Understandably, as Garfield lacks a lot of the benefit from hindsight and sheer amount of play experience that we have. Anyway, it doesn't seem justified to expect that this represents a deliberate intent to set up rush and intercept decks as an S & B foil, even if that's what ultimately happened. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce, > > > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to > > > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat > > > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has > > > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have > > > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense > > > measures influce my game tremendously. > > > > That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is > > all that wonderful. > > Benefit of what? The benefit of destroying an opposing minion Peter was talking about. > > > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to > > > destroy its prey's vampires. > > > > This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not > > arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong > > one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work. > > What should the combat deck do instead? You mean, "How, in my opinion, should combat cards be incorporated into the game so they don't cause instability?" I'd like to see them used for such things as bruise and bleed or things like Fame using the loop I was talking about. You're right: Fame alone isn't necessarily that good (though the loop works better with Humanitas and Catacombs). What I'm saying is that I'd like more cards _like_ Fame to show up in the mix so combat can be used productive to win victory points without the absolute destruction of minions which causes so much instability. As for the Fame loop being "dangerous", no, you have not proved it any more dangerous than any other strategy that doesn't involve messing with people's minions. Stealth and Bleed is "dangerous" in exactly the same way. > > I just don't like what the instability does to the game. It's > > never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know. > > In my experience, many decks are unfazed by having a combat deck on > either side of them. Against Potence at least, it's not incredibly > difficult to have some kind of defense; very often a bunch of maneuvers > is enough to keep you alive long enough to oust your combat prey. > > > If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of > > pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the > > game so that _that_ worked, either. > > Has someone told you that combat doesn't work very well? It certainly > wasn't me. The reason some people would like to see a new S:CE hoser is > just so that MORE KINDS of combat decks can be played, not so that > "combat" (as a genre) can be more effective. Allowing "more kinds" of combat decks is no more a priority than allowing more kinds of decks that can use Malkavian prank. As I've said elsewhere, though, it does bother me that certain clans have dedicated combat *cards* that are pretty much useless to play because of S:CE and the fact that they can't do much about it. That strikes me as a waste of cardboard and should be rectified. So we may not be that far apart on the particular issue of S:CE hosers. > > > > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree > > > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you > > > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that > > > some people aren't convinced by your arguments? > > > > I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone > > tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated. > > I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted > > to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat. > > Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey. > Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_ > prey. "Destabilization", as it's being used all over this thread, refers to the tendency to cause chaotic and unintended effects on the relationships between other pairs of players. For instance, removing your predator's ability to defend himself from his predator as you use rush combat to remove his ability to attack and bleed you. > > Combat causes > > more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede > > that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying > > to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning > > and let's get down to our real differences. > > Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1: > put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others > try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid > for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree, > you quit arguing. Why do you even bother? I don't see much point in debating about this this way. IMO, my argument was not outlandish, not "filled with holes", and the above does not represent any attempt to "quit arguing". I simply said that if you cannot accept that combat causes more destabilization of the game than strategies which attack a Meth's pool directly, then we have nothing talk about. We simply disagree on how the game plays, which is not something that we can resolve by arguing with each other. Fred

>As I requested in another post, please explain the realistic difference >between >denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by bleeding them for 6 and >denying an opponent 6 pool worth of resources by burning a 6 point vampire. A vampire often doesn't cost 6 pool due to blood management (Blood Doll, etc.). So, by removing a vampire, you are bleeding your opponent for less than you would be if you got a similar size bleed through. But, a vampire can take actions where pool in itself does nothing. By removing vampires (minions), you remove the ability of your opponent to attempt to oust his/her prey or defend from being ousted. Look at it this way, is an opponent with 25 pool and no minions stronger than an opponent with 20 pool and one minion. Then, there's the issue of time. Getting really off topic because I haven't seen a good Banishment rant lately, this is what makes Banishment so strong. It takes time to bring out minions. Reducing pool has much less effect on how much a player does (until the player is ousted) than removing minions. I never get as worked up by a loss of pool as I do a loss of minions because with minions I can still impact the game. Having nothing but pool removes my ability to influence the game until I can get a minion back into play. And, if you kill that to, I really have no interest in doing so. Unless somehow I can arrange to bring out multiple minions so that I can do something, my game is over yet I have to sit around and wait to die. Loads of fun. While its nice and all that some people know precisely how to play combat decks to prevent excessive destabilization, I really don't see these experts. What I see are rush and intercept decks that do nothing but affect their predator because if they take time to look forward, they die. Different if there are multiple combat decks, but that hasn't come up often enough to note at least in tournament play. Whether this is because the players lack experience, the decks are badly constructed, or what, I don't know. I know I lack experience playing a rush deck. Decks that do nothing but rush bore me immensely.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > >>I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free > benefit > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five.>> > > And bleeding your prey for 5 provides a free benefit for your grand prey--the > five pool that they lost could have been a 5 cost vampire hurting your grand > prey, but because you took that pool, you have denied your prey this > opportunity, and consequently, provided a free benefit to another one of your > opponents. Any action you take against your prey or predator indirectly helps > someone else at the table. Bleeding someone for 5 (denying them a possible 5 > point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has > the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the > difference. If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's approximately the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has once mid-game hits. People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much pool as they're comfortable sitting on to prevent being ousted. Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect of either ousting them or not. And if not, it just makes them more uncomfortable and may cause them to adjust their emphasis on defense vs. offense. It may also constrain them from using small amounts of pool for things like locations and equipment that they might have otherwise paid for. But for the most part, it's nothing like - for instance - torporizing one or two of their princes, which is what combat decks do. > >>What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time > putting the same vamp in and out of torpor.>> > > Not for the Rush deck it doesn't. You are spending 3 actions to cost your prey > 6 pool. If you spend those three actions torporizing more than 6 pool worth of > vampires, the three Rush actions are more effective than the Lather, Rinse, > Repeat Fame manuver. Pool loss is pool loss. I fail to see how it is more > beneficial for anyone for this pool loss to be in the form of loose pool than > pool tied up in minions for the same amount. Yes, torporizing a vampire of your > prey gives your grand prey a free bonus (one less vampire to deal with). > Bleeding someone for the same amount does the same thing. I'm sorry, I just don't think the comparison between destroying a 6-cap minion and bleeding for 6 is comparable in practice for reasons given above. It's not like you destroy the minion and you're prey will automatically, necessarily bring out another 6-cap to replace it with. He may react in all sorts of ways. Nor is a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and Minion Tapped. 5 of those blood may be back in his pool, meaning you've cost him 1 blood, an MPA, and some transfers. The latter two things get made up rapidly with time. I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle. The Fame/torporize/ rescue cycle initiates with an MPA, enough rushes to torporize (not necessarily one, but definitely easier than burning), and an action to rescue. Then continues with retorporizing (should be a single rush at that point) and rerescuing. > >>Compared to running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except > their absence, the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is > practically nil.>> > > I still fail to see where the "no particular gain" comes in. I play Rush decks > all the time. I do very well with them. I get into the finals of pretty much > every tournament I play in. Sometimes I win. What defines "particular gain" in > VTES more than getting VPs? If killing vampires gets me VPs, I am gaining > something in particular. Victory points. I was referring to short term gain. That is, you don't cost your prey any pool directly, albeit you may cost him pool indirectly if he decides his response is to bring out more vampires to replace the destroyed one. > >>I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table > destabilization makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long > run.>> > > And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well. > Again, please detail the difference. Obvious. Your predator doesn't lose minions by having his bleed deflected. (Unless you deflect it into an intercept combat deck. Even then, it would be unusual for the two players not to pull their punches in a situation like that.) I find it frustrating to respond to such demands that presume to equate too such obviously different situations. > This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that > does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's > position is weakened, another player benefits. But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim? When attacking pool, the victim's resources are basically left in tact until the moment of his ousting. When defending by other means besides combat, the victim seldom actually loses any resources at all. Combat creates periods of time when your neighbors become partially or totally helpless but are not ousted. Those periods of time are the openings for your non-neighboring players to take great advantage of, because your grandprey has no predator and because your grandpredator has a helpless prey. If you can manage the table and ultimate win enough victory points to win tournaments, that's great. But you can't tell me that it isn't an undeserved advantage for others to be your grandprey and grandpredator and an undeserved disadvantage for others to be your predator and prey - no matter what decks they bring to the table. > If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's > actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to > do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he > gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different? They're not. I have the same problem with intercept decks, actually. > >>He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. > Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of > desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the > other side.>> > > So does a bleed deck. Again, 5 pool lost is 5 pool lost. If I bleed you for 5, > you are denied a 5 point vampire. (This point is made over and over. I've refuted it above - a 5 point vampire and 5 points of pool are two different things, especially in practice. So we can debate it above. I've snipped the other rehashes of this dispute.) > >>No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then > torporize it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious.>> > > Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a > deck around it is mostly pointless. You may not find it to be effective and I won't argue with you about it. My point was not to suggest Fame, used in this way, is a great tactic. My point was to hold it out as the kind of card combat decks should be given to work with so that minion destruction doesn't seem like the only way to use combat. Minion destruction is not very effective, however much success a good player can have with it, and adds bad elements to the game in general. > >>Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well.>> > > Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives > people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their > minions destroyed before they take a single action. I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I replied to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's "scissors" rather than making this one more workable. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A > > > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat > > > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There > > > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit, > > > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there > > > are Papers. > > > > Combat is usually always bad news to sit next to. Or at worst, mediocre news > > if you have enough combat cards to survive it. If you "win" the metagame by > > packing enough combat evasion, the guys who really win are still the ones > > sitting on the other side of the table. > > Speaking as someone who has played rush combat decks a lot, I can tell > you that this just isn't true. Your deck doesn't have to be 50% combat > defense to foil a combat deck. You just need to know that effective > combat decks are out there, and plan for it. If your prey is a combat > deck which is bashing its head against your defensive wall, there's > nothing stopping you from ousting them quickly. Combats decks generally > don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive > the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone > across the table win? Because simply having the answers to the combat deck *doesn't* win you the game. You may survive the rushes. I suppose if it's your predator and he's not bleeding you because he's been ineffective at torporizing your minions, then that's good. But it doesn't help you oust your prey. And the deck space you need to survive combat robs you of cards you could be using to win the game. It's not enough to simply survive to win the metagame. There needs to be a payoff for guessing right. Guessing right that you're going to hit a combat deck seldom provides much of a payoff. It mostly just screws the combat deck. You have to forget the notion you seem to have that this is a zero-sum game. What's bad for your predator isn't necessarily good for you. > > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But > > > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be > > > bad? > > > > Assuming by "combat decks" you mean big, bad-boy rush combat that bludgeons > > all its neighbor's minions to destruction, the answer is because then you'd > > have more combat decks. > > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat > decks at tournaments will increase. Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number at tournaments. The new decks can come from the ranks of people who played other combat decks or from those who didn't. If the former, then the net increase is zero. If the latter, then it's positive. If you're arguing that they'll only come from the former so the total net increase has a significant chance of being zero or near zero, that strikes me as unlikely. I suppose you could be making the point that the increase will be fairly minimal or that others will cease playing combat decks at all in the shift to the new metagame. My perception, though, is that if you create a new type of viable deck, it's unpredictable what it will do to the percentage of existing decks so the most reasonable assumption to make is that they'll stay steady - thus increasing the overall number of combat decks if you add a new type of combat deck. If you have a specific reason you think this would not be true, I'd like to hear it. > > I don't like decks that > > are just a total screw factor to their neighbors. > > It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed. Oh, combat decks absolutely get screwed. It just doesn't necessarily help their neighbors that much. Fred

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 07:11:44 -0500, "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote: >> The I must ask, how many of these combat decks had IG's in them? > >A majority, I believe. > >> I haven't had a look at the winning decks but I suspect that most of these >> have S:CE hosers in them, and it STILL didn't help. > >Huh? These combat decks *won* the tournament. How did IG _not_ help? > >> problem IMO. Brujah combat decks rarely wins and they still have TWO >hosers, >> IG and Psyche of which IG is even considered _the_ hoser. Whhy would dding >> more hosers help?? > IG? wtf? You guys need to post an acronym list somewhere so that we can make sense of stuff like this! lol! T

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > What should the combat deck do instead? > > You mean, "How, in my opinion, should combat cards be incorporated into the > game so they don't cause instability?" No, I mean: how should a deck dedicated to successful combat win the game, if not by destroying all of its prey's minions? I don't know what this whole argument is trying to accomplish; you seem dead-set on making all-combat decks impossible to play. I'm also not sure _why_ you want this. You don't like that a combat deck shakes up a table? Live with it. > I'd like to see them used for such things > as bruise and bleed or things like Fame using the loop I was talking about. Combat _cards_ get used for a lot of things. But Bruise and Bleed isn't always good, because it's less effective at dealing with combat defense (due to the smaller amount of combat cards it can include). For a deck to be able to NEARLY GUARANTEE successful combat, it has to be NEARLY 100% FOCUSED on that goal. Anything less, and you're going to be less successful in combat. Now, I grant you that the inclusion of bleed cards will make the deck more effective in other situations. This is another trade-off. > You're > right: Fame alone isn't necessarily that good (though the loop works better with > Humanitas and Catacombs). But the deck space and time spent to get these cards isn't really worth what you get. > What I'm saying is that I'd like more cards _like_ Fame > to show up in the mix so combat can be used productive to win victory points without > the absolute destruction of minions which causes so much instability. Even if more cards like Fame are printed, the existing combat decks will still exist. And if, like Fame, these cards require a weakening of the combat in some area, then they will not be used. It sounds like you want all combat decks to be Bruise and Bleed decks. But that's unreasonable. > As for the Fame loop being "dangerous", no, you have not proved it any more dangerous > than any other strategy that doesn't involve messing with people's minions. Stealth > and Bleed is "dangerous" in exactly the same way. It's dangerous because messing with people's minions is how the combat deck defends itself. Any player with any deck should want to oust their prey as quickly as possible. Allowing your prey to take actions or otherwise "set up" is only going to hurt you. If hurting my prey makes them ease up on _their_ prey, then that player may become stronger. But there's nothing in that statement which is specific to combat. Your arguments seem to be a hair's breadth away from "Wah, combat decks make me unable to take actions. It's not fair." It's not like combat cannot be defended against. > Allowing "more kinds" of combat decks is no more a priority than allowing > more kinds of decks that can use Malkavian prank. "Combat" is a common deck genre. Malk. Prank is a specific card. There's a huge difference. What _is_ a priority is making the independent clans stronger. One way to do that would be to print cards which make combat decks easier to build for those clans. One way to do _that_ would be to print an anti-S:CE card for the Ravnos and/or the Assamites. > As I've said elsewhere, > though, it does bother me that certain clans have dedicated combat *cards* that > are pretty much useless to play because of S:CE and the fact that they can't > do much about it. That strikes me as a waste of cardboard and should be > rectified. So we may not be that far apart on the particular issue of S:CE > hosers. Yeah, there will always be wallpaper cards. The fact that there are a bunch of combat cards which won't work because of S:CE isn't a reason to print a S:CE hoser. One problem I have is that it's hard to make an all-Gangrel combat deck, because Dog Pack is slow and expensive. Protean is a very combat-centric discipline, so maybe it should have a S:CE hoser. Then again, maybe not. > > Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey. > > Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_ > > prey. > > "Destabilization", as it's being used all over this thread, refers to the > tendency to cause chaotic and unintended effects on the relationships between > other pairs of players. For instance, removing your predator's ability to defend > himself from his predator as you use rush combat to remove his ability to attack > and bleed you. The predator point is a valid one. As a Rush deck, you certainly don't want to weaken your predator so much that they can't defend themselves. On the other hand, sometimes you have no choice. If my predator is a weenie Dominate bleed deck, and I'm playing my Potence rush deck, I may well lose. I'll have to destroy every vampire my predator brings out, because I have no defense against bleeds for 6 from every minion. Given this, I may still survive and even get a VP or two. That's a lot better than other decks which just get rolled over by weenie Dom bleed. > > Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1: > > put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others > > try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid > > for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree, > > you quit arguing. Why do you even bother? > > I don't see much point in debating about this this way. It's just frustrating that you seemed to be giving up just because I disagreed with you. > IMO, my argument was not > outlandish, not "filled with holes", Well, of course not in _your_ opinion. But what about _my_ opinion? If you're not willing to accept that I have opinions which differ from yours, why bother having a discussion at all? > and the above does not represent any attempt > to "quit arguing". I simply said that if you cannot accept that combat causes > more destabilization of the game than strategies which attack a Meth's pool > directly, then we have nothing talk about. We simply disagree on how the game > plays, which is not something that we can resolve by arguing with each other. Since "destabilization" is something which I can't exactly define, much less measure, I can't accept it. But I think attacking someone's pool makes them turn backwards (or inward) just as much as attacking their minions. If I'm a combat deck, and I manage to kill all my prey's minions, I'm doing well. I'll almost certainly get that VP. Now, if this makes my grandprey stronger in the meantime, well, that's just part of life as a combat deck. I don't care if they don't "deserve" to have their prey killed. I don't care if you think this "advantage" they've received is "unfair" or not. I've acheived the goal of the game, which is to earn VP's. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "What drives you on can drive you mad. A million lies to sell yourself is all you ever had." -- Garbage

"Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message news:tcni3fe...@corp.supernews.com... > Straight from the horses mouth. Don't you mean straight from Rat's Warning's mouth? Speaking of which, I'm having lots of weirdness with my news...not seeing a lot of messages (most specifically my own posts), seeing the replies before the original posts, etc. First time it's happened in over a year or so with this ISP, and it's just all weird. I'm aware that this *sometimes* happens, but I had thought that to be more a problem of the specific news server/ISP rather than something that ebbed and flowed. Any ideas? Thanks, Xian

Frederick Scott wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > Bleeding someone for 5 (denying them a possible 5 > > point minion) or burning a 5 point minion (denying them an existing minion) has > > the same end result--your other opponents benefit. Please explain the > > difference. > > If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's approximately > the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has once mid-game hits. > People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much pool as they're > comfortable sitting on to prevent being ousted. When I look at my initial vampire draw, I don't say to myself "Ah, I will get out vampires X, Y, and Z, and then I will safely have 9 pool remaining." There's no way you can control how much pool you're going to have or whether you're ever going to be able to get out any more vampires. Having X amount of pool doesn't prevent you from being ousted. Being able to defend yourself from your predator and _gain_ pool prevents you from being ousted. If your deck can't handle losing pool at a regular rate, it's not a good deck. > Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect > of either ousting them or not. Torp'ing a 5-point vampire tends to have the effect of putting them down for good (so that they can't get out any more vampires) or not. > And if not, it just makes them more uncomfortable > and may cause them to adjust their emphasis on defense vs. offense. Ditto. > It may also > constrain them from using small amounts of pool for things like locations and > equipment that they might have otherwise paid for. Ditto. If they know they may have to get out another vampire because all their current ones are going to die, they're less likely to buy that pricey master card, etc. > But for the most part, it's > nothing like - for instance - torporizing one or two of their princes, which is > what combat decks do. You're right. Torporizing their princes is better. And harder. > I'm sorry, I just don't think the comparison between destroying a 6-cap minion > and bleeding for 6 is comparable in practice for reasons given above. Reasons refuted. Your turn. > It's not > like you destroy the minion and you're prey will automatically, necessarily bring > out another 6-cap to replace it with. He may react in all sorts of ways. Sure. They can get mad and just sit there on a pile of pool, refusing to get out any more vampires. But then they're not trying to fulfil their victory conditions. You can't blame this irrational behavior on a fault in the game. If they want to win the game, they have to try to play. That means having vampires. Once again, one way to do this is to get out a bunch of vampires all on the same turn. > Nor is > a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and Minion Tapped. Generally, it's a good idea to kill the vampire before it can get minion tapped. More reasons _not_ to concentrate on a Fame loop. > 5 of those blood may be back in his pool, meaning you've cost him 1 blood, an MPA, > and some transfers. The latter two things get made up rapidly with time. _Not_ killing the vampire may cost you more, even if it has already been minion tapped. If you let it get Fifth'ed and Tapped again, you're in a bad place. > I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle. The Fame/torporize/ > rescue cycle initiates with an MPA, enough rushes to torporize (not necessarily one, > but definitely easier than burning), and an action to rescue. Then continues with > retorporizing (should be a single rush at that point) and rerescuing. If, as a combat deck, you can't "point and kill" with impunity, you're not going to be able to win. With this in mind, the Fame "loop" takes 1 action to send the vampire to torpor initially, and then 2 more each time to "run" the loop (rescue, retorp). Two actions (and a bunch of cards, and blood) to do 3 pool damage. Seems pretty inefficient to me. > I was referring to short term gain. That is, you don't cost your prey any > pool directly, albeit you may cost him pool indirectly if he decides his response > is to bring out more vampires to replace the destroyed one. If your prey has no ready vampires and chooses not to bring out any more vampires, they're not trying to win the game. (Note: sometimes they have no choice; if they are low on pool, sitting and doing nothing is acceptable.) I can't control whether people at a tournament are or are not playing to win. Here's a question for LSJ (or anyone else who runs tournaments): would it be possible to penalize a player who is not "playing to win"? > > And deflecting a bleed for 6 helps keep you alive for the moment as well. > > Again, please detail the difference. > > Obvious. Your predator doesn't lose minions by having his bleed deflected. And your (combat) predator doesn't lose minions by having his combats thwarted. Your point? > I find it frustrating to respond to such demands that presume to equate too such > obviously different situations. I find it frustrating that you begin every other sentence telling us how frustrated you are. If it makes you feel better, convince yourself that we're all dumb, and we need you to show us "the light". > > This concept of "Table Destabilization" is a nebulous one to me. Any deck that > > does what it intends on doing is weakening another player. Any time a player's > > position is weakened, another player benefits. > > But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim? I benefit, because my prey is weakened, enabling me to oust them. I benefit, because my predator is weakened, enabling me to not get ousted. > When attacking > pool, the victim's resources are basically left in tact until the moment of his > ousting. And, in a way, that's less effective! If he still has minions up, he can do things which may keep me from ousting him. If my prey has no ready minions, they can't possibly keep me from killing them. > When defending by other means besides combat, the victim seldom > actually loses any resources at all. ...except pool. > Combat creates periods of time when your > neighbors become partially or totally helpless but are not ousted. Your prey being helpless is good for you. Now you can oust them. Your predator being helpless is only good in the short term. You don't want them to get ousted unless they're about to kill you. It's difficult to find the right middle ground between obliterating your predator and leaving them alone. This is one of the fundamental difficulties with rush decks. > Those > periods of time are the openings for your non-neighboring players to take > great advantage of, because your grandprey has no predator and because your > grandpredator has a helpless prey. Your grandpredator shouldn't have a helpless prey unless you are in a very bad spot. As for your grandprey? Well, they still have a prey who is presumably not just sleeping. Plus, once your prey is incapacitated, you can start taking actions against your grandprey (while still bleeding your prey). > If you can manage the table and ultimate > win enough victory points to win tournaments, that's great. I can, and have. > But you can't > tell me that it isn't an undeserved advantage for others to be your grandprey > and grandpredator and an undeserved disadvantage for others to be your predator > and prey I could say that about a lot of decks. My friend Kevin's weenie Dominate deck is a nightmare to be sitting next to, unless I'm playing my intercept deck. So, sure. It's an advantage to _not_ be sitting next to him. > - no matter what decks they bring to the table. Here's the murky part, and it's obviously not true. If someone sits down as my prey with a shitload of combat defense, they're going to do pretty well. If I have my potence combat deck, and I sit down next to a Tzimisce deck with 10 Blood of Acid, I'm going to get wrecked. > > If I am an intercept deck, and I stop all of my predator's > > actions, I am denying him resources and keeping him from doing what he wants to > > do. As a result, my grand predator is going to be in a better position, and he > > gets a free benefit. How is what a Rush deck does any different? > > They're not. I have the same problem with intercept decks, actually. What is your problem? There are a bunch of decks you don't like. So what? You find them boring. Good for you. That doesn't mean people shouldn't play them or that they shouldn't exist. > > Obvious, and much less effective. Fame is useful in a pinch, but building a > > deck around it is mostly pointless. > > You may not find it to be effective and I won't argue with you about it. My > point was not to suggest Fame, used in this way, is a great tactic. My point > was to hold it out as the kind of card combat decks should be given to work > with so that minion destruction doesn't seem like the only way to use combat. > Minion destruction is not very effective, however much success a good player > can have with it, and adds bad elements to the game in general. I think minion destruction is very effective. If you can keep someone from being able to take any actions, or gain any pool, you can easily kill them. There is only an "unbalancing" effect to your right if the combat deck has a speedy deck as their predator. And the combat deck is doing the table a FAVOR by eliminating a deck which probably has a fair chance of sweeping the table. This seems like a balancing element, not a "bad element." > > Rush decks are the most effective anti S+B decks there are. Very little drives > > people away from the Malkavians more effectively that having every one of their > > minions destroyed before they take a single action. > > I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I replied > to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's "scissors" > rather than making this one more workable. S&B is already pretty easily screwable. Archon Investigation is a horrible card, and makes you never want to bleed for more than 3, lest your vampire get burned and your prey _gain_ pool. Let's not get into that now. There's also bleed bounce, which is impossible to defend against. Permanent intercept is much easier to come by than permanent stealth. And then, of course, there's combat. Bleed is a fun deck to play. It's very straight forward; it's usually either great or terrible. It shouldn't get screwed any more than it already is. James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Combats decks generally > > don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive > > the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone > > across the table win? > > Because simply having the answers to the combat deck *doesn't* win you the > game. Simply having bleed defense doesn't win you the game, either. > You may survive the rushes. I suppose if it's your predator and he's > not bleeding you because he's been ineffective at torporizing your minions, > then that's good. But it doesn't help you oust your prey. Since when does being able to defend against your predator help you oust your prey? > And the deck > space you need to survive combat robs you of cards you could be using to > win the game. Having Deflections robs you of space you could be using for game-winning cards, too. What's the difference? > It's not enough to simply survive to win the metagame. There needs to be > a payoff for guessing right. Why? If you survive, you get a victory point. That's a pretty good payoff. > Guessing right that you're going to hit a combat > deck seldom provides much of a payoff. It makes you not dead. > It mostly just screws the combat deck. > You have to forget the notion you seem to have that this is a zero-sum game. > What's bad for your predator isn't necessarily good for you. If your predator can't kill you, then you're not dead. Being not dead is good. > > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of > > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat > > decks at tournaments will increase. > > Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number > at tournaments. No! You're completely wrong!!! According to this logic, every time an expansion gets printed, then since new decks are possible, then EVERY deck type must increase in proportion. Which is, of course, impossible. > The new decks can come from the ranks of people who played > other combat decks or from those who didn't. Wait, what were the people who were not playing combat decks before playing? Bleed decks? But wait, they also printed a new bleed card, so by your reasoning there must be _more_ bleed decks. Do you see why this makes no sense? [snip more insanity] > I suppose you could be making the point that the increase will be fairly minimal or > that others will cease playing combat decks at all in the shift to the new metagame. > My perception, though, is that if you create a new type of viable deck, it's > unpredictable what it will do to the percentage of existing decks so the most > reasonable assumption to make is that they'll stay steady - thus increasing the > overall number of combat decks if you add a new type of combat deck. If you have a > specific reason you think this would not be true, I'd like to hear it. How can I be more specific?!? It's impossible for the proportions of EVERY type of deck to increase or stay steady unless they all stay steady. I'm not saying that there won't be more combat decks if more combat cards are printed, just that it doesn't follow. > > It sounds like you've never seen a combat deck get screwed. > > Oh, combat decks absolutely get screwed. It just doesn't necessarily help their > neighbors that much. Well, having a prey that's getting screwed is good. It makes them easier to kill. Having a predator that's getting screwed is good. It makes it harder for them to kill you. This really is all very simple... [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:3ACB2C18...@math.wisc.edu... > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > I just don't care to > > encourage people building decks that will make them bad news to sit next to > > no matter what kind of deck you have. (You can build the fortitude deck to > > defend yourself but it often doesn't help you win, either.) I'd rather see > > such things limited to how you do in outguessing the metagame. > > I don't think that the average combat deck is necessarily "bad news." A > potence rush deck is trying to take advantage of a lack of combat > defense (fortitude, maneuvers) in the average tournament deck. There > are plenty of decks which will make the potence player say "oh, shit, > I'm screwed." If Combat is Rock, there are as many Scissors as there > are Papers. > > > It sure is. I simply object to the assumption that the combat deck > > archetype "must" be propped up. If people think it does, then tell us > > why first. Then worry about how it needs to be done. > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be > bad? I can't really play my Gangrel +strength combat deck because I > don't have any way to deal with S:CE. If there's some anti-S:CE > Animalism card, say, in Final Nights, how will that affect things? > Majesty will be just as screwed against this new card as it is against > Grapple, Psyche! and Tracking. It doesn't make the Tzimisce any better; > they can already deal with S:CE. It just means that the game will have > more diversity. There will be more _kinds_ of combat decks -- there may > not be any more combat decks per se. And, even if combat decks become > more prominent, the metagame envrionment will adjust. Ventrue decks > with huge amounts of combat defense will become prominent. And then > those decks will get screwed when the metagame shifts away from combat. > > How is this a bad thing? > It is a bad thing, because if all combatclans have access to S:CE hosers there'äs simply no reason anymore to include S:CE's as defence. S:CE will become obsolete since you use them to avoid combat clans, not exactly Malkavians and such a like. So please explain to why anyone would want to include S:CE in their deck then (ignore Majesty's untap effect since it's a secondary effect and most other S:CE cards that don't have this and they'd be useless).

Ian wrote: << A vampire often doesn't cost 6 pool due to blood management (Blood Doll, etc.). So, by removing a vampire, you are bleeding your opponent for less than you would be if you got a similar size bleed through. >> Completely true, but not the point. We aren't here trying to prove that bleeding for 6 is more effective than blowing up a 6 point vampire. We are here trying to prove than under the best circumstances, blowing up a 6 point vampire has the same effect as a 6 point bleed. Under the worst circumstances (that 6 point vampire gets minion tapped for 6 before it gets blown up), blowing up that 6 point vampire is considerably less effective than a 6 point bleed. No one is here debating that. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "Why so many swords?" "I must kill many." -Kikuchiyo

Fredrick wrote: >>If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's approximately the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has once mid-game hits. People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much pool as they're comfortable sitting on to prevent being ousted.>> Exactly. Generally one (I know I do) looks at the amount of pool they have, estimates what is a safe "cushion" of pool to sit on to avoid ousting, and then spends the rest on vampires. Assuming that X is your safe pool cushion, the amount you spend on vampires is (the amount you currently have)-X. If the amount you currently have is 6 less than it was before (because you were bled for 6), you are getting out 6 points less of vampires, or getting yourself 6 points closer to ousting. Losing 6 pool is 6 points less of resources you have access to, regardless of *when* you lose the pool. >>Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect of either ousting them or not.>> But if you don't lose that pool, you have the option of getting out another 5 point vampire. You don't have to, but you can if you feel it is safe to do so. Without that 5 pool, you don't have this option at all. You can make all the situational examples in the world where losing 6 pool does not *necessarily* equate losing a 6 point vampire, but in the end, if you have 6 pool, you have access to 6 more points of resources than you did before. If you lose 6 pool, you are losing a potential 6 points of vampires. Whether you lose this 6 pool before it is a vampire or after makes no difference in the long run. >>I'm sorry, I just don't think the comparison between destroying a 6-cap minion and bleeding for 6 is comparable in practice for reasons given above.>> I think you are mistaken. 6 pool is 6 pool. If you lose 6 pool from bleeding, you can't ever spend that 6 pool on a vampire. If you lose 6 pool from getting a 6 cost vampire burnt (that you haven't Minion Tapped or Blood Dolled or used his blood to do other stuff with), you are in the exact same spot you were when you were bled for 6--without a 6 point vampire. >>Nor is a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and Minion Tapped.>> People keep bringing this up. It confuses me in this conversation--yes, if the minion tap goes off *before* the 6 point vampire is burned, you are in *much* better off than if you had been simply bled for 6. If I bleed you for 6, you lose 6 pool and have nothing to show for it. If I beat up a 6 point vampire who has been minion tapped, you still have 6 pool, *plus* a 6 point vampire who may or may not get burned. This is much less damaging than just losing 6 pool from a bleed in the first place. As I am attempting to illustrate how blowing up a 6 point vampire is equivalent to being bled for 6, I fail to see how introducing the minion tap element does anything other than make the 6 point bleed seem *much* more effective than the Rush. >>I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle.>> Torporize/rescue/Torporize again for 6 pool loss (7, actually) with 3 actions. The maximum pool damage with the minimum of actions. I could have couched it as 2 actions per 3 pool loss, but that seems even less effective, so I used the 3 actions for 6 damage model. >>I was referring to short term gain. That is, you don't cost your prey any pool directly, albeit you may cost him pool indirectly if he decides his response is to bring out more vampires to replace the destroyed one.>> Short term gain: My prey is now weaker and easier to oust. Long term gain: Eventually, I will oust my prey. Killing their vampires provides both. >>But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim?>> If you are playing correctly, you are benefiting. You seem to be under the impression that folks who play Rush decks do so with no logic or need to act in their own best interest. When playing a Rush deck, you do the same things to do with any other deck that tries to win--take the actions that provide you with the most benefit at the time. If you aren't doing this, you are playing poorly. >>When attacking pool, the victim's resources are basically left in tact until the moment of his ousting.>> But each pool you remove is one less pool available to spend on these resources. If I lose lots of pool to a bleed deck, I have fewer resources. If I get my vampires burned by a Rush deck, I have fewer resources. The effective difference is zero. >>When defending by other means besides combat, the victim seldom actually loses any resources at all.>> Except their pool, which denies them resources. >>Combat creates periods of time when your neighbors become partially or totally helpless but are not ousted.>> Bleed decks create periods of time when you are ousted. I think I see where you are coming from here--you don't like having your vampires blown up, but you are perfectly happy getting bled for 30 in 5 actions and ousted. Either way you are removed from the game. When the bleed deck does this, you have to sit around at the table for an extra 10 minutes before you are ousted. When the bleed deck does this, you are removed from the game 10 minutes earlier. You see this as much better. Check. >>If you can manage the table and ultimate win enough victory points to win tournaments, that's great. But you can't tell me that it isn't an undeserved advantage for others to be your grandprey and grandpredator and an undeserved disadvantage for others to be your predator and prey - no matter what decks they bring to the table.>> An undeserved advantage? If I am winning, who cares? If I am letting other people win, I am not playing correctly. As I have pointed out many times before, playing dumb and making other people win is not the sole province of the Rush deck. Anyone can play dumb with any deck and make other people win. You seem to think that Rush decks are the only ones that allow for this. I assure you that this is an incorrect assumption. >>They're not. I have the same problem with intercept decks, actually.>> Ahh. I see. You prefer games where everyone is a S+B deck. >>(This point is made over and over. I've refuted it above - a 5 point vampire and 5 points of pool are two different things, especially in practice. So we can debate it above. I've snipped the other rehashes of this dispute.)>> Nope. 5 pool is a 5 point vampire. Without the 5 pool, you can never spend it on a 5 point vampire. Thus, you are denied a 5 point vampire. Losing 5 pool before it is a vampire is one less 5 point vampire you will ever make. Losing 5 pool (in the form of a vampire) after it is a vampire is one less 5 point vampire you will ever have. >>You may not find it to be effective and I won't argue with you about it. My point was not to suggest Fame, used in this way, is a great tactic.>> Fame is perfectly effective. I use it all the time. What it is effective for is squeezing those last few pool out of your prey to oust them. What it is not effective for is attempting to oust your prey by rescuing their vampires every turn. You are much better off just killing stuff. >>I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I replied to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's "scissors" rather than making this one more workable.>> This one is perfectly workable. No one is trying to make it *more* workable. They are just trying to diversify a bit. As it stands, if you want to make a good combat deck, you make a Pot IG deck. That is your only option. Folks are hoping that there can be other options. Not me, necessarily, but that is what this all came out of. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Ian wrote: ><> > >Completely true, but not the point. We aren't here trying to prove that >bleeding for 6 is more effective than blowing up a 6 point vampire. We are >here >trying to prove than under the best circumstances, blowing up a 6 point >vampire >has the same effect as a 6 point bleed. What are the "best" circumstances? Whatever they are, they sound irrelevant to any debate because blowing up the vampire will rarely have the same effect as the bleed. It could be that blowing up the vampire is more or less effective, but identically effective just doesn't happen that often in real games. In one of your other posts you (ad infinitum) keep saying 6 pool = 6 pool, 5 pool = 5 pool, whatever. But, a 6 cap vampire isn't 6 pool. It was an investment of 6 pool to get a minion in play that can act, react, etc. Nor is 6 pool necessarily 6 pool. When you lose 6 pool does matter. How much pool you had when you lost it does matter - compare losing 6 pool when at 7 versus 6 pool when at 6. >Under the worst circumstances (that 6 point vampire gets minion tapped for 6 >before it gets blown up), blowing up that 6 point vampire is considerably >less >effective than a 6 point bleed. No one is here debating that. What was the original issue that sparked this diversion from S:CE hosers again? Rush combat is/is not obnoxious or something? Rush combat has to destroy all of its predator's and prey's minions because it can't do anything else to survive and gain VPs? Personally, I would like to see mild rush as a common feature in games. I would not like to see decks that do nothing but rush. This applies similarly to: plus bleed, votes, intercept, other?. I'd like to see the rushes and/or the intercept combats result in some pain but not in crippling, one sided fights. I'd like to see fewer extremes in the game. S:CE and IG are too examples of extreme cards.

>When I look at my initial vampire draw, I don't say to myself "Ah, I >will get out vampires X, Y, and Z, and then I will safely have 9 pool >remaining." There's no way you can control how much pool you're going >to have or whether you're ever going to be able to get out any more >vampires. Remove the word "safely" and this is precisely what I do. I aim to spend a bit less than 20 pool on bringing vampires out in most cases. Obviously, decks like bloat decks are an exception. You have to choose something to bring out (barring minionless decks), and how much pool will be left over would seem to be an obvious consideration.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3ACABF11...@netcom.com... > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > Fredrick wrote: > > >>Therein lies the point. The games needs something *else* you can do with > > combat besides utterly destroying the opponent's minions and destabilizing the > > game, without that great a benefit to yourself.>> > > > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to > > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to > > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting > > ousted). > > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. How exactly does taking actions to oust your prey benefit your grand-predator? > All things considered, > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. If you bleed your prey for 5, their vampire(s) can still take actions (such as taking actions to oust their prey, which they may manage to do). If you destroy 2 of their vampires every turn, within 2 turns you will soon be bleeding them for 2-3 every turn with no problems. > > I'm a little unclear as to what you see as a possibility for combat *other* > > than destroying minions--yeah, Fame is useful, but only in the context of a > > deck that can reliably torporize vampires (thus the Destroying is of firstmost > > importance, and the Fame secondmost). More cards like Fame would be useful, > > sure (say an action modifier that says something like "If a vampire goes to > > torpor during this action, that vampire's controller loses 1 pool"), but still > > you need to be able to torporize. What other possible use could there be for > > combat? > > Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying > a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and > minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires. > What am I not seeing here? Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting > the same vamp in and out of torpor. Compared to running around blowing up minions > for no particular gain except their absence, It sounds like the people in your playgroup that play combat decks have absolutely no clue how to play combat decks, since they are "running around blowing up minions for no particular gain except their absence." They SHOULD be "running around blowing up minions" for very specific reasons. > the amount of table destabilization of the former tactic is practically nil. > > > >>I mean, it is a benefit but of limited nature: that minion no longer harasses > > what you're trying to do including bleed your prey.>> > > > > The Benefit is immense--as a Rush deck, killing your Predator's vampires keeps > > you alive. > > I just disagree. It helps keep you alive for a moment, but the table destabilization > makes it difficult to predict what will happen in the long run. Define "destabilization." > I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win > using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the > amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various > opponents - harms the game in general. Once again, we are back to how it sounds like the people in your playgroup that play combat decks have absolutely no clue how to play combat decks. That isn't really your fault, though. > > >>And if it's your prey, once you've ousted him (if you succeed at doing that), > > you have to start over with the next prey - who may be all that much better off > > because your prey was weakened and prevent from doing much to him from the > > start.>> > > > > How is this any different from how a Bleed deck operates? If I, as a S+B deck > > say, bleed the hell out of my prey, once I've ousted him, I have to start all > > over with the next prey, who may be much better off because my prey was > > weakened. I'm a little unclear as to the difference. > > That seems deliberately dense to me, to compare the way combat and S & B > operate. Stealth and bleed attacks the remaining pool your prey leaves after > he's brought his minions out - unless you can make huge bleeds in the early going > sufficient to prevent him from bring out as much force as he normally would. > He has as much force as he started out with until the moment he's ousted. > Combat decks, on the other hand, rob the victim (predator or prey), of > desperately needed force which they use against both you and the guy on the > other side. You need to do a bunch of rushes and thus damage before you can > bring your goal into view. It's this time that imbalances the game. So when a bleed deck doesn't draw what it needs and is only bleeding for 3-4 each turn for several turns, instead of "performing as it should", it's this time that imbalances the game, right? > > I fully accept that Rush decks, in the hands of the foolish, *can* destabilize > > the game through completely random actions (random cross table rushes or > > whatever), but the exact same can be said about a vote deck (who can randomly > > oust people across the table with KRC/ConAg) or, say, a TotGP deck, who can > > cripple people across the table by stealing all of their vampires. Pretty much > > *any* deck can destablize a table when played badly--anyone who takes actions > > that are not in their own best interest can destroy a multi-player game. This > > is not the sole province of a Rush deck. > > Not in that sense, no. But unlike the bleed deck and the vote deck, the rush > deck *must* destabilize the game for a period of time before it can be successful. So when a vote deck starts doing damage to someone other than its prey, it is then "destabilizing" the game? Again, define "destabilize". > Bleed and vote both attack pool, which has no direct consequences until the moment > you go over the top - if you ever do. > > > >>That's why things like Fame are good. The game needs more stuff like that, > > perhaps even more directly useful than Fame for ousting your prey with combat. > > (Fame has its drawbacks, unfortunately.)>> > > > > But you'd still have to be able to torporize folks with impunity for such cards > > to be worth playing--and if you can torporize folks with impunity, you are > > destroying minions. > > No. You torporize *one* minion. Then bring it out of torpor. Then torporize > it again. I believe the difference is pretty obvious. Again, I believe the people in your playgroup seem to not really understand how to play a combat deck. THAT is the only thing that I see as "pretty obvious" here. > > >>Combat isn't the only thing that keeps S & B in check. Nor does it need to > > be.>> > > > > No it isn't, but it is the most effective thing that keeps it in check. It is > > Rock to S+B's Scisors. Deflection and Intercept are much less effective at > > stopping S+B than combat decks on the whole (as they are passive stratigies > > rather than active ones). > > Maybe. But it still doesn't work very well. I'm much more keen to find > another rock. They are *not* "just like any other deck". > > Fred 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

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> wrote > In one of your other posts you (ad infinitum) keep saying 6 pool = 6 pool, 5 > pool = 5 pool, whatever. But, a 6 cap vampire isn't 6 pool. It was an > investment of 6 pool to get a minion in play that can act, react, etc. Nor is > 6 pool necessarily 6 pool. When you lose 6 pool does matter. How much pool > you had when you lost it does matter - compare losing 6 pool when at 7 versus 6 > pool when at 6. I'm thinking along the same lines... getting that 6 cap vampire out cost you at least six transfers and at least one influence phase. Those must be important considerations or else Info Highway would never see any use. Also, I'm reminded of the 'point' system for Chess. A pawn is worth only 'one point'. How much is a pawn that is one square away from being promoted to a queen? When I play Chess and this situation comes up, I consider that pawn a *lot* more valuable than 1 point.

"Frederick Scott" <fre...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:3ACBB99B...@netcom.com... > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > > > > > > Destroying your opponents minions, as a Rush deck, provides a great benefit to > > > > yourself--your predator can no longer hurt you as much, and your prey needs to > > > > spend pool to get out more minions (thereby making him that closer to getting > > > > ousted). > > > > > > I disagree. It provides a benefit to you at a cost. It provides a free benefit > > > to another one of your opponents, your grand predator. All things considered, > > > the benefit is not that "great", IMHO. Compared to other types of things you > > > can do for yourself, such as bleed your prey for five. > > > > But bleeding your prey for 5 can be defended against; by bleed bounce, > > by intercept, by Archon Investigation, etc. The point of combat is to > > try to exploit a weakness in the other deck, namely a lack of combat > > defense. If I'm playing a combat deck, I don't care if my opponent has > > intercept -- I want to get into a fight. I don't care if they have > > bleed bounce or AI. But if I'm playing a bleed deck, those defense > > measures influce my game tremendously. > > That's fine. None the less, I still dispute Peter's assertion that the benefit is > all that wonderful. It's the same problem I have with things like Sudden Reversal. > You burn a card and an MPA and your opponent does likewise. It's good because it was > a master you _really_ didn't want him to play. But you're not his only opponent and > you're not even his only directly-opposed opponent (weird way to put that but I mean > "as opposed to a cross-table/somewhat allied opponent") so someone else on the table > likely benefits even more than you do. I give red marks to "benefits" that work like > that. If you truly need them, OK. But let's not pretend this is the greatest thing > since sliced bread. I would think that the person that benefits the most from a methuselah not becoming stronger is, in most cases, that methuselah's predator. > > > Now *I'm* a little confused. You just got done lauding the benefits of destroying > > > a predator's minion in one paragraph and then in the next, you turn around and > > > minimize the benefit of bleeding your prey for 3 for only torporizing his vampires. > > > What am I not seeing here? > > > > You're not seeing that the number one priority of a combat deck is to > > destroy its prey's vampires. > > This comment (and supporting paragraph) misses the point I just wrote. I'm not > arguing what the "combat deck's" priority is. I'm arguing that it's the wrong > one. That may be the number one priority but it's a difficult way to work. > > > > Or rather, what are you *not* seeing here? The > > > possibilities for cards like this seem clear and obvious to me. The game works > > > much better when combat decks Fame a prey's vamp and spend all their time putting > > > the same vamp in and out of torpor. > > > > Not necessarily. It's very possible that by concentrating your efforts > > on the Famous vampire, you're allowing the other vampires to set up > > something which can really hurt you. If, for example, my prey is > > playing a deck with guns and I'm light on maneuvers, I don't want them > > to be able to get any guns. So my #1 priority is to kill all the > > vampires I can, to keep _any_ of them from taking an equip action. > > Sure. But this way of looking at the game and how to handle your opposition is > using a total bludgeon to respond to the unknown. You eliminate the possibility > that your opponent can ever do anything to harm you but you necessarily do a whole > lot of other, not necessarily good things at the same time. Such as? > If you can make it work, > I suppose that's fine. I just don't like what the instability does to the game. Define "instability". > It's never good news to wind up next to this type of a combat deck so far as I know. Is it ever a good thing to have your vote deck wind up being the prey of a heavy bleed deck? What does where you end up sitting, depending upon what deck you are playing vs. what decks are being played around you, have to do with combat decks being good or bad? > You > might survive it with a fortitude deck or some such but you never actually *win* that > metagame in terms of gaining by outguessing it. Someone else always "wins" - from > having the thing show up elsewhere on the table in a position that's not next to him. > I don't like strategies that set up these kinds of deals. > > > > I'm not going to argue with you about the point that combat decks find ways to win > > > using combat. They do. They just aren't very easy ways to win and I feel that the > > > amount of chaos they cause - in the form of undeserved boons and banes to various > > > opponents - harms the game in general. > > > > Well, I don't know what to tell you. Anyone can play randomly and give > > unexpected benefits to the wrong person. A Malk S&B deck which uses > > Malkavian Pranks to keep cross-table allies (and future victims) in the > > game is doing the same kind of thing. If I have a heavy bleed deck, and > > a Deflection makes me accidentally oust my grand prey, I've > > "destabilized" the table, and given my prey an "undeserved boon." > > Of course. But the fact that these things happen unavoidably is no reason to > encourage decks which are much more egregious causes of the problem, which combat > decks undoubtedly are. If someone were to tell me that Malk S & B with lots of > pranks didn't work very well, I sure wouldn't lean over backwards to change the > game so that _that_ worked, either. > > > You know, Fred, you seem to have this problem a lot. People disagree > > with you, and you think they're deliberately being stupid. Can't you > > conceive of a point of view other than your own? Can you accept that > > some people aren't convinced by your arguments? > > I can conceive of a point of view different from my own. But when someone > tries to compare two obviously different situations, I get kind of frustrated. > I'm pretty damn sure that if Peter knows better than the argument he attempted > to advance: that stealth & bleed causes as much destabilization as combat. If > he wasn't trying to defend the necessity of rush combat decks - which I'm > guessing he likes and is frustrated don't work better than they do with the > current card set - I doubt he'd make such a claim. Arguing about this is a > waste of time, IMO. There's a lot of chaos in the game, period. Combat causes > more than the other types of decks. If you or Peter aren't willing to concede > that, then we're living in different worlds and wasting each other's time trying > to communicate about this. If you are, then drop this lousy line of reasoning > and let's get down to our real differences. > > (Rest of the post snipped as it just continues to rehash the comparison.) > > Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] But since it takes the average deck _time_ to get these vampires out, making such long-term plans seems foolhardy. I usually say "I will get out X and Y, then see where I'm at." I _never_ have a planned "amount of pool left over." James -- James Hamblin ham...@math.wisc.edu "You seem to think you know it all Let me tell you something, you can't win." -- Pat McGee Band

Roger Carhult wrote: > > "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message > news:3ACB2C18...@math.wisc.edu... > > I'm not saying I think Combat (as a strategy) needs any boosting. But > > how could the hypothetical existence of more _kinds_ of combat decks be > > bad? I can't really play my Gangrel +strength combat deck because I > > don't have any way to deal with S:CE. If there's some anti-S:CE > > Animalism card, say, in Final Nights, how will that affect things? > > Majesty will be just as screwed against this new card as it is against > > Grapple, Psyche! and Tracking. It doesn't make the Tzimisce any better; > > they can already deal with S:CE. It just means that the game will have > > more diversity. There will be more _kinds_ of combat decks -- there may > > not be any more combat decks per se. And, even if combat decks become > > more prominent, the metagame envrionment will adjust. Ventrue decks > > with huge amounts of combat defense will become prominent. And then > > those decks will get screwed when the metagame shifts away from combat. > > > > How is this a bad thing? > > It is a bad thing, because if all combatclans have access to S:CE hosers > there'äs simply no reason anymore to include S:CE's as defence. S:CE will > become obsolete since you use them to avoid combat clans, not exactly > Malkavians and such a like. So please explain to why anyone would want to > include S:CE in their deck then (ignore Majesty's untap effect since it's a > secondary effect and most other S:CE cards that don't have this and they'd > be useless). There are S:CE hosers and then there are S:CE hosers. The most effective combat decks seem to involve Immortal Grapple, since it's (a) free, (b) usable at inferior, and (c) prevents the S:CE from being played at all. But it's also hosed by maneuvers. This is all beside the point. If another S:CE hoser gets printed, S:CE isn't going to be more hosed. Now instead of having your S:CE hosed by Immortal Grapple, maybe it's hosed by "Aid from Ferrets," the new Animalism anti-S:CE card. The point is that, when putting S:CE in a deck, you have to account for the anti-S:CE cards. Usually this means putting in maneuvers. It's important (to me anyway) that any hypothetical new anti-S:CE card have some kind of drawback, like IG's range requirement or Thoughts Betrayed's high cost. Without this, it becomes too easy to screw S:CE and the balanced is tipped too far, IMO. So assuming a balanced S:CE hoser gets printed, you'll still want to play S:CE for the same reasons you want to play it now. You won't get hosed any more unless the metagame shifts heavily in favor of combat. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I wrote: >>>> I believe it is in his introduction to the players guide that was >>>> released or Jyhad (not "Darkness Unveiled", the other one; I'm >>>> almost certain hat is where I read it). And this is coming from >>>> the guy who esigned he game. So no, it is not an >>>> _*ASSUMPTION*_. > > Xian wrote: >>> "After Gamma I was pretty sure I wanted to equalize the pursuit >>> of the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, (sic) or political decks." >>> Note that Gamma refers to the third version of the game as it was >>> being designed. > > Fred wrote: >> OK. But the point of wanting the cite is to see the context of the >> quote, as well. Just as a potential example of why you need that, >> his next sentence might theoretically be, "But it turned out to be >> completely misleading to view the game in these terms." This >> would change its meaning a great deal. For that matter, it really >> isn't clear what he means by, "combat monster". That might also >> refer to using combat to make bleeding work (as opposed to stealth) >> instead of using it to mindlessly rush (or intercept) and destroy >> opposing minions. We don't know. > > Ok, thanks to Xian's quote, I was able to find it. This text is from > > "The Eternal Struggle: A Players Guide to Jyhad" > > taken from the forward written by Richard Garfield. Copyright, all rights > reserved, reproduced without permission, a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, > yadda, yadda. > > Starting on page 14: I read this before the newsgroup, but I'm glad someone else spent the laborious time typing it in (or, OCR'ed it, I hope =) before I did. > "The combat monster strategy was pretty straightforward: if your vampires > were so deadlyl in combat that no one dared to block them, you could just > waltz over to your prey and bleed him at will. Your predator, on the other > hand, would think twice about sending a vampire to bleed you when she > might have to face one of your servance in combat. The two major clans > used for this purpose were the Gangrel and the well-armed Brujah, though > the Tremere could give a run for the blood. The Gangrel had the edge in > combat over the others, because of their claws and fortitude. After all, > the Brujah do have Presence. Amusingly, this is a Bruise and Bleed combat deck, not a pure Rush Combat deck. > "The sneak-and-bleed strategy was build about the premise that if you > can't catch my minions then I don't have to worry about giving them combat > skills at all. Just needing stealth cards for this gives me plenty of room > in > my deck to devote to enhanced bleedings. This strategy was used most > effectively with Malkavians who had Obfuscate for stealth and Dominate > for the bonus bleeds. > "After Gamma I was pretty sure that I wanted to equalize the pursuit of > the combat monster, sneak-and-bleed, or political decks. The quote in question that Sorrow wanted to rub my nose in. So rubbed; my bad, there is a quote to support a "3 legs design" argument. Garfield apparently didn't find intercept viable, or lumped it under combat decks. No, wait, he described "the combat monster" deck already. Intercept fell by the wayside at the start. Puzzling. I would also say that if that was Garfield's intention (and from reading the rest of the chapter), the game was released before he was done balancing it. However: > Ideally the best > decks would have elements of at least two of these pursuits. After all, a > few enhanced bleed cards in a Brujah combat deck can be an improvement. follows, which almost certainly changes the flavor of the quote. However, as many people have said, the game has gone on since then, and a large collective experience has grown on the game, not to mention a ton of new cards and vampires. (Leggy has proposed theories that the game is bigger and more complex than us, which I basically agree with) Arguing the Canon of Garfield at this stage is going to lead to even less than most arguments do. > "The political cards were even wilder than I anticipated. Sometimes they > were near meaningless while other times you cannot win without political > influence. The political deck has wierd tricks and traps whereas the others > are fairly straightforward, at least in their purest forms." > --Richard Garfield > > Straight from the horses mouth. Again, I sit corrected. (finally, an argument that led to something. =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

> > "Sorrow" <cbo...@apdi.net> wrote in message > news:tcni3fe...@corp.supernews.com... >> Straight from the horses mouth. > > Don't you mean straight from Rat's Warning's mouth? > > Speaking of which, I'm having lots of weirdness with my news...not seeing a > lot of messages (most specifically my own posts), seeing the replies before > the original posts, etc. First time it's happened in over a year or so with > this ISP, and it's just all weird. I'm aware that this *sometimes* happens, > but I had thought that to be more a problem of the specific news server/ISP > rather than something that ebbed and flowed. Any ideas? I'm seeing a lot of that recently, too. Daylight Saving's Time? =) No, seriously, it began before that. I would guess it's something to do with the local time of sender vs. reader, but that would have to be a USENET fubar, which requires a lot of simultaneous fu's. After that, my technical know-how breaks down. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > >>If you can bleed someone for 5 on the first turn, I agree that that's > approximately the effect it has. In practice, this is not the effect it has > once mid-game hits. People recruit a certain number of vamps and leave as much > pool as they're comfortable sitting on to prevent being ousted.>> > > Exactly. Generally one (I know I do) looks at the amount of pool they have, > estimates what is a safe "cushion" of pool to sit on to avoid ousting, and then > spends the rest on vampires. Assuming that X is your safe pool cushion, the > amount you spend on vampires is (the amount you currently have)-X. If the > amount you currently have is 6 less than it was before (because you were bled > for 6), you are getting out 6 points less of vampires, or getting yourself 6 > points closer to ousting. Losing 6 pool is 6 points less of resources you have > access to, regardless of *when* you lose the pool. That's exactly incorrect. Losing 6 pool is *not* the same as losing a 6 cap vampire once it's out: you can't shove that sucker back into the uncontrolled area and get your 6 pool back. You just live with 6 less pool in your cushion. > >>Bleeding for 5 mostly tends to have the effect of either ousting them or > not.>> > > But if you don't lose that pool, you have the option of getting out another 5 > point vampire. You don't have to, but you can if you feel it is safe to do so. > Without that 5 pool, you don't have this option at all. You don't have the option but so? It's not like someone with 6 pool is going to say, "Hey, I have a 5 cap vampire upside down so I might as well burn 5 to bring it out." The 6 is their cushion. If they get bled for 5, they have one left and they have to make do. Either way, that bleed for 5 is not the same as destroying a 5 cap vampire. > You can make all the situational examples in the world where losing 6 pool does > not *necessarily* equate losing a 6 point vampire, but in the end, if you have > 6 pool, you have access to 6 more points of resources than you did before. No, I don't agree. If you're trying to state that you see that as "X blood worth of resources" equal in value to approximately X pool, I'd say you're being simplistic and naive and ignoring the way the game seems to work in real life. At least I would say I've found the source of our dispute. > If > you lose 6 pool, you are losing a potential 6 points of vampires. Whether you > lose this 6 pool before it is a vampire or after makes no difference in the > long run. It absolutely does. Even if it doesn't make a difference to the victim who loses either (which it does), it sure makes a difference to his other opponent, who either does or does not have to contend with the 6-cap that's currently out and ready to go. Or not. > >>Nor is a 6-cap necessarily _like_ bleeding for 6 if it got brought out and > Minion Tapped.>> > > People keep bringing this up. It confuses me in this conversation--yes, if the > minion tap goes off *before* the 6 point vampire is burned, you are in *much* > better off than if you had been simply bled for 6. If I bleed you for 6, you > lose 6 pool and have nothing to show for it. If I beat up a 6 point vampire who > has been minion tapped, you still have 6 pool, *plus* a 6 point vampire who may > or may not get burned. This is much less damaging than just losing 6 pool from > a bleed in the first place. As I am attempting to illustrate how blowing up a 6 > point vampire is equivalent to being bled for 6, I fail to see how introducing > the minion tap element does anything other than make the 6 point bleed seem > *much* more effective than the Rush. No one is trying to claim it a 6 point bleed isn't more effective than rush. The trouble we're having in communicating is that you insist on looking that the game only from the standpoint of counting resources and in terms of winning vs. losing. You're missing the points I'm trying to make. Of course bleeding for 6 is more effective - that's why stealth and bleed can be won with by morons and it takes very good players to win with combat. The point *I'm* trying to make isn't that combat is too effective. It's that combat often gives arbitrary advantage to other players in the game besides the one using it. I think that's bad. You can't compare what torporizing a 6 cap does to a player vs. what a bleed for 6 does. The bleed is often more fatal in the long run. But in the short run, the player continues to defend himself effective - as effectively as he can at least - from whatever the other players on the board want to do to him. > >>I'm also not sure where you're getting 3 actions for the cycle.>> > > Torporize/rescue/Torporize again for 6 pool loss (7, actually) with 3 actions. Then rescue and torporize again is 2 actions - 2 actions in a cycle, OK? Anyway, it's not the point. As I said, I'm not claiming Fame is currently the best way for combat to go. I'm just holding it up as the prototype for the sorts of combat-related card I'd like to see designed. So that combat decks don't have to utterly destroy minions to be have a chance at being successful. > >>But who benefits and what happens in the game in the interim?>> > > If you are playing correctly, you are benefiting. You seem to be under the > impression that folks who play Rush decks do so with no logic or need to act in > their own best interest. I'm saying it's pretty difficult for them, WHATEVER their logical abilities, to avoid benefiting other players by the actions they need to take to win the game. If you destroy your predator's minion, it's not there to bleed you AND it's not there to defend against his predator. You can cross table bleed to go correct that imbalance, but it's hard. Generally, the reason these decks fail all the time in the hands of mediocre players is just that the damn thing is hard to work right. Because it's hard to work right without handing victory points to a third party, THAT'S reason enough not to encourage it. A lot of people have trouble with concept but I'll argue it with my dying breath: if a card, tactic, or strategy makes the game suck, I don't give a shit how balance it is. Just making the game suck is criminal enough. I don't think rush combat decks are the worst thing of this nature to come down the pike in the last 50 years (Blood Moon in Magic probably owns that title), though I think intercept wall decks come close. I'm just saying I'm not in favor of doing anything to prop this form of deck up. > An undeserved advantage? If I am winning, who cares? I care. For one thing, in this game victory points count (at least in tournaments), so even if there's a tendency to slip an undeserved VP to your grandpredator before sweeping the rest of the table, that's a raw deal for those who don't happen to be your grandpredator. And *that*, of course, assumes you're God and can always win with your wonderful combat deck. > If I am letting other people win, I am not playing correctly. Or maybe you got bad luck or maybe someone packed fortitude and outguessed you in the metagame. Or maybe you *aren't* playing correctly. In any event, chaos is chaos, no matter what causes it. In the final, of course, the one with the most VPs to that point can use their advantage with strategy to get a better result. In most games, though, sitting next to the combat deck (or not) is just luck of the draw. > >>I won't dispute that they're good anti stealth & bleed decks. But as I > replied to James Hamblin's post, I prefer the game find another "rock" to S&B's > "scissors" rather than making this one more workable.>> > > This one is perfectly workable. No one is trying to make it *more* workable. > They are just trying to diversify a bit. I think there's some dispute on that. I believe we started out with Ian expressing regret that Immortal Grapple is the only effective combat counter to S:CE because it leads to minion loss. So I perceive it's a question of saying, "We want to find some way to make other clans (e.g. Assamites) have their own answer to S:CE. We just don't want it to look like Immortal Grapple." If that's what you mean by "diversify", fine. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > What should the combat deck do instead? > > > > You mean, "How, in my opinion, should combat cards be incorporated into the > > game so they don't cause instability?" > > No, I mean: how should a deck dedicated to successful combat win the > game, if not by destroying all of its prey's minions? I don't know what > this whole argument is trying to accomplish; you seem dead-set on making > all-combat decks impossible to play. I'm also not sure _why_ you want > this. Then you need to go back and reread the thread. This is a waste of time. You're demanding that I defend things I never said and don't believe in. I don't want to make all-combat decks impossible to play. I just don't want to lift a finger to make such decks more viable, that's all. > > What I'm saying is that I'd like more cards _like_ Fame > > to show up in the mix so combat can be used productive to win victory points without > > the absolute destruction of minions which causes so much instability. > > Even if more cards like Fame are printed, the existing combat decks will > still exist. Perhaps. But if they were useful enough to use with the existing combat cards and make effective, viable decks out of, no one would have to worry about how viable pure thug rush combat decks were. Which in my mind would be just fine. > And if, like Fame, these cards require a weakening of the > combat in some area, then they will not be used. It all depends on how the card is designed. As always. > > As for the Fame loop being "dangerous", no, you have not proved it any more dangerous > > than any other strategy that doesn't involve messing with people's minions. Stealth > > and Bleed is "dangerous" in exactly the same way. > > It's dangerous because messing with people's minions is how the combat > deck defends itself. Any player with any deck should want to oust their > prey as quickly as possible. Allowing your prey to take actions or > otherwise "set up" is only going to hurt you. As is true of any deck, including stealth and bleed and voting and anything except perhaps a dedicated intercept deck. They all allow your prey to take actions and set up. > > Allowing "more kinds" of combat decks is no more a priority than allowing > > more kinds of decks that can use Malkavian prank. > > "Combat" is a common deck genre. Malk. Prank is a specific card. > There's a huge difference. Not for these purposes. The point is that it's something in the game that tends to increase the randomness in its effects on others, even if they both do something positive for those who use them. > > As I've said elsewhere, > > though, it does bother me that certain clans have dedicated combat *cards* that > > are pretty much useless to play because of S:CE and the fact that they can't > > do much about it. That strikes me as a waste of cardboard and should be > > rectified. So we may not be that far apart on the particular issue of S:CE > > hosers. > > Yeah, there will always be wallpaper cards. The fact that there are a > bunch of combat cards which won't work because of S:CE isn't a reason to > print a S:CE hoser. Not a general S:CE hoser, no. But one which specifically makes that particular "bunch" of combat cards useful would be reasonable, yes. My best result would be to do it in a way that would make them useful for other purposes besides just rush/KILL/CRUSH/DESTROY/rinse/repeat type decks. > One problem I have is that it's hard to make an > all-Gangrel combat deck, because Dog Pack is slow and expensive. > Protean is a very combat-centric discipline, so maybe it should have a > S:CE hoser. Then again, maybe not. It should. I agree with you on this point. > > > > Whatever "destabilization" is. Every deck tries to hurt its prey. > > > Hurting your prey weakens them, and makes them less able to hurt _their_ > > > prey. > > > > "Destabilization", as it's being used all over this thread, refers to the > > tendency to cause chaotic and unintended effects on the relationships between > > other pairs of players. For instance, removing your predator's ability to defend > > himself from his predator as you use rush combat to remove his ability to attack > > and bleed you. > > The predator point is a valid one. As a Rush deck, you certainly don't > want to weaken your predator so much that they can't defend themselves. > On the other hand, sometimes you have no choice. If my predator is a > weenie Dominate bleed deck, and I'm playing my Potence rush deck, I may > well lose. I'll have to destroy every vampire my predator brings out, > because I have no defense against bleeds for 6 from every minion. Given > this, I may still survive and even get a VP or two. That's a lot better > than other decks which just get rolled over by weenie Dom bleed. Yep, I agree with all that. To which I'll add, this is a sad state of affairs: outguess your predator in the metagame and the only result is that your grand predator gets a free victory point. (And if *he's* a weenie Dom bleed deck, too?) This is exactly the problem with looking to rush combat to serve as a "major leg" in the three-legged metagame in Jyhad. It doesn't work very well. > > > Well, once again you follow your standard argument sequence. Step 1: > > > put forward outlandish argument filled with holes. Step 2: when others > > > try to refute your argument and point out holes, you call them stupid > > > for not agreeing with you. Step 3: when others continue to disagree, > > > you quit arguing. Why do you even bother? > > > > I don't see much point in debating about this this way. > > IMO, my argument was not outlandish, not "filled with holes", > > Well, of course not in _your_ opinion. But what about _my_ opinion? Well, we're not going to convince each other so why do you bother bringing up such opinions? What's the point? > If you're not willing to accept that I have opinions which differ from > yours, why bother having a discussion at all? Precisely. You're the one who went off on my so-called "standard argument sequence". It had no function. So, as I said, I don't see much much point in debating about this this way. So again, I suggest we move on. > > I simply said that if you cannot accept that combat causes > > more destabilization of the game than strategies which attack a Meth's pool > > directly, then we have nothing talk about. We simply disagree on how the game > > plays, which is not something that we can resolve by arguing with each other. > > Since "destabilization" is something which I can't exactly define, much > less measure, I can't accept it. But I think attacking someone's pool > makes them turn backwards (or inward) just as much as attacking their > minions. But notice that one seldom attacks one's *predator's* pool as combat decks attack their predator's minions. There's another reason it's impossible to equate combat decks with bleed decks and attempt to draw comparisons between bleeding and destroying minions. As for bleeding one's prey and having them turn backwards, that happens. But they still have the minions they had before. And the effect is often different if they think they can avoid being ousted without defending with everything or that it won't make a difference what they leave behind to defend. The prey without minions has no such choice to make. > If I'm a combat deck, and I manage to kill all my prey's minions, I'm > doing well. I'll almost certainly get that VP. Now, if this makes my > grandprey stronger in the meantime, well, that's just part of life as a > combat deck. For reasons stated above, combat decks are often worse about this than other types of decks in this sense. > I don't care if they don't "deserve" to have their prey killed. I don't > care if you think this "advantage" they've received is "unfair" or not. Well, I do. As I said, it's a matter of taste. But this falls under the category of (as stated in my response to Peter Bakija), "Things that make the game suck." People getting victory points based on the pure luck of where they sit tends to make Jyhad suck when they happen. Pure play-balance isn't the only thing to worry about. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > Combats decks generally > > > don't have standard vote or bleed defense; if you can usually survive > > > the combats, you can probably oust them. How does that make someone > > > across the table win? > > > > Because simply having the answers to the combat deck *doesn't* win you the > > game. > > Simply having bleed defense doesn't win you the game, either. Well, it depends on the type of bleed defense you have. Bleed bounce actually does. But aside from that, most bleed defense isn't usually as involved as the amount of combat defense you need to stay away from a combat deck. (Assuming you're not using S:CE against a combat deck unprepared for S:CE, of course.) > > You may survive the rushes. I suppose if it's your predator and he's > > not bleeding you because he's been ineffective at torporizing your minions, > > then that's good. But it doesn't help you oust your prey. > > Since when does being able to defend against your predator help you oust > your prey? You mean by bleeding or voting? If you don't have to dedicate much of your deck to it, it simply gives you more time to do your ousting against a prey you hope is less prepared for your particular means of ousting him. > > And the deck > > space you need to survive combat robs you of cards you could be using to > > win the game. > > Having Deflections robs you of space you could be using for game-winning > cards, too. What's the difference? Numbers. Pure and simple. > > > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of > > > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat > > > decks at tournaments will increase. > > > > Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number > > at tournaments. > > No! You're completely wrong!!! According to this logic, every time an > expansion gets printed, then since new decks are possible, then EVERY > deck type must increase in proportion. No, that's a bad analogy. When a new expansion gets printed, new types come and go as they become playable or not in the new environment. But *YOU* just got through saying there were "more kinds of combat decks". I naturally just ASSUMED (silly me) that you were sanely referring to, more PLAYABLE kinds of combat decks - meaning more types of playable combat decks came than went. Yet there's nothing in this suggestion to state that there would be more types of playable bleed or vote or other types of decks, merely more types of playable combat decks. Hence the rest of my reasoning. > > In fact > > The new decks can come from the ranks of people who played > > other combat decks or from those who didn't. > > Wait, what were the people who were not playing combat decks before > playing? Bleed decks? But wait, they also printed a new bleed card, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No, they didn't. Unless you're changing the proposal on me, which is a stinky, sneak attack to pull. If you want to consider the concept of the new S:CE hoser in the backdrop of Final Nights, which has new bleed cards and other new combat cards - so even without it the new hoser there were going to be new combat decks - then say so. In which case, I'd say we really can't predict anything about what the environment after Final Nights so why make any statements about it at all? Fred

Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > IG? Immortal Grapple: considered the key anti-S:CE card for multiple reasons. Fred

-- "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:3ACD66B6...@math.wisc.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] I don't really agree. The thing is that as it is now, there's clans that doesn't have access to S:CE hosers. This may be bad for that clan froma combat perspective (e.g. Ravnos) but it also makes the S:CE worthwhile to include because you know there's times you will play against combat decks and that the S:CE will actually be useful. If you face a Brujah with IG's then you know you'll almost never get to use your S:CE's. You could include maneuvers as you said but that doesn't help, because any viable IG-deck has tons of maneuvers in it to counter that (not hard with celerity either). Since it's a combat deck it's fair to assume the combat deck can put in more maneuvers (since they can combine the card with other effects, such as additional strikes (Pursuit) shich makes the maneuver card useful evne in environments where maneuvers aint needed, which isn't the case for the S:CE-deck) than the S:CE can have, or else that S:CE deck will turn out to be a pure defensive deck that can achieve nothing but avoid combat. Now there's other S:CE hosers, but they're not any better for the S:CE-deck. Some hosers mean that you have to put in just more S:CE than before (Psyche and TT) which gain waters down S:CE to become pretty meaningless to include in a deck (I'd rather go for Obedience or fortitude than S:CE for example). Thoughts Betrayed has it's cost, but it's not that impossible to get the spent blood back through Taste of Vitae. My point is (again) that more hosers makes S:CE pretty much useless since every combat deck will include them if they can (as it is now Ravnos for example really cannot) and this will lead to that any deck who wants to avoid combat goes for Flesh of Marble, Oebedince or Fortitude instead. While a hoser for Ravnos strengthens them, it also means that the Setities for example get smacked even more (because they neither have dom, fortitude or protean) and I don't think it's fair to strenghten for example Ravnos at the cost of the setite (when they already have big problems defending themselves). I jsut don't see how S:CE would be any good in the future if all combat decks have easy access to S:CE hosers. It would just be a waste of cardslots and it will lead to that certain clans become more powerful than they already are. A good example is the Venture, because they don't need their S:CE to still be good, since they have fortitude as well. Now everyone who wants to survive in a tournament against combat will start playing Ventrues because they can both survive combat, vote AND bleed well. Everything you need to win. Now thye cannot intercept well but they got defelctions so who cares? There's usually not many other things but bleeds you really need to stop through blocking. So again, tell me how S:CE will be USEFUL in the future of all combat decks have S:CE hosers. You seemt o think they will be because you can exploit the weakness of the particular hoser. In IG's case that would be maneuver. But that's not true, because all hosers have different weaknesses so as a S:CE player you need to get cards to exploit all of them which S:CE simply isn't worth. It would be much easier to just stick with fortitude clans if you fear combat, which makes things pretty boring even for combat decks if just about every defensive deck has fortitude or protean in it. Just as most defensive decks have S:CE's now. I agree a *few* more hosers could be good, but ONLY if they're for Chimerstry and Quietus...certainly not for animalism that is used by so many clans!

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Simply having bleed defense doesn't win you the game, either. > > Well, it depends on the type of bleed defense you have. Bleed bounce actually > does. Fine. Having _vote_ defense doesn't win you the game. And it shouldn't. The fact that Deflections can make a bleed deck accidentally kill the wrong person is one of the major drawbacks of that archetype. > But aside from that, most bleed defense isn't usually as involved as the > amount of combat defense you need to stay away from a combat deck. (Assuming > you're not using S:CE against a combat deck unprepared for S:CE, of course.) Most of the decks around here have some combat defense, mostly because I and my deck exist. But the defense they have doesn't detract from their deck's strategy; having a defense is _part_ of your strategy. I'm sorry if you'd prefer that you didn't have to play with combat defense, but it's part of life. > > Since when does being able to defend against your predator help you oust > > your prey? > > You mean by bleeding or voting? If you don't have to dedicate much of your > deck to it, it simply gives you more time to do your ousting against a prey > you hope is less prepared for your particular means of ousting him. There are many decks with minimal (or no) defenses, which just point forward and try to oust as quickly as possible. They make a risk, thinking that it's better to just remove all defenses and just be very, very fast. So you don't _have_ to dedicate a large amount of space to combat defense. It depends on what you want to do. > > Having Deflections robs you of space you could be using for game-winning > > cards, too. What's the difference? > > Numbers. Pure and simple. It's not like 30% of your deck has to be combat defense to stave off a rush deck. Some Maneuvers and some S:CE work fine. > > > > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of > > > > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat > > > > decks at tournaments will increase. > > > > > > Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number > > > at tournaments. > > > > No! You're completely wrong!!! According to this logic, every time an > > expansion gets printed, then since new decks are possible, then EVERY > > deck type must increase in proportion. > > No, that's a bad analogy. It's not an analogy! It's simple mathematics. It's impossible for EVERY deck type to increase IN PROPORTION. The numbers have to add up to 100%, so they can't all go up. [snip more idiocy] I can't decide whether you're an idiot or just having some sort of mental block on this. I'd like to assume the latter... [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > The quote in question that Sorrow wanted to rub my nose in. So rubbed; > my bad, there is a quote to support a "3 legs design" argument. I disagree, if the reference to the text is any indication. The text quoted by Sorrow refers to a "combat monster" as a deck that simply uses combat cards to be fearsome and make your prey fear intercepting your bleeds and make your predator fear bleeding you. If that's all a "combat deck" is supposed to be, I'm fine with it. It's the translation of that into rush decks (I don't find intercept decks very rewarding to the people that run them so I'm not going to bother worrying about them) where the emphasis is on going out and starting combat and blowing opposing minions to kingdom come that I question whether needs to be supported or considered one of the three important fundamental strategies. > However, as many people have said, the game has gone on since then, and > a large collective experience has grown on the game, not to mention a ton of > new cards and vampires. (Leggy has proposed theories that the game is > bigger and more complex than us, which I basically agree with) Arguing the > Canon of Garfield at this stage is going to lead to even less than most > arguments do. Well, no, "because Garfield intended it that way" isn't really a reason to make the game play as he envisioned it. Not if his vision has turned out to be a problem. Still, those of us who've questioned the necessity of viewing the game as having the three fundamental strategies of bleed, vote, and combat challenged others who see the game that way to document that it was intended as such from the start. At least for academic purposes, it's interesting to see how they came to that point of view. If this is the only reference to it from Garfield's writings, though, I'd say it represents a bit of a misunderstanding where rush combat decks are concerned. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > Simply having bleed defense doesn't win you the game, either. > > > > Well, it depends on the type of bleed defense you have. Bleed bounce actually > > does. > > Fine. Having _vote_ defense doesn't win you the game. And it > shouldn't. The fact that Deflections can make a bleed deck accidentally > kill the wrong person is one of the major drawbacks of that archetype. I don't think deflections kill the wrong person. There is some of that if the stealth/bleeder isn't careful about his bleeds but if so, the stealth/bleeder's grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in his own fate. But yea, as I said on the onset, there is chaos in the game. It's just that combat causes more than the usual amount. > > But aside from that, most bleed defense isn't usually as involved as the > > amount of combat defense you need to stay away from a combat deck. (Assuming > > you're not using S:CE against a combat deck unprepared for S:CE, of course.) > > Most of the decks around here have some combat defense, mostly because I > and my deck exist. But the defense they have doesn't detract from their > deck's strategy; having a defense is _part_ of your strategy. Agreed. But pure rush combat decks are geared to and, apart from S:CE, usually can get past the amount of combat defense that doesn't detract from their strategy. The have to. If just any Joe-schmuck deck could stop a Brujah rush monster, it wouldn't ever be possible to win with. To defend against pure combat takes up a great deal of deck space that, if you actually encounter the deck, still leaves you at a disadvantage. If your prey is rush combat and you have enough of whatever types of combat cards you need to survive it, you're still really screwed if your predator if your predator is stealth/bleed. How are you ever going to fit both combat and enough intercept or bleed bounce to survive? This is something you could probably do reasonably enough if caught between bleed and vote. > > > Since when does being able to defend against your predator help you oust > > > your prey? > > > > You mean by bleeding or voting? If you don't have to dedicate much of your > > deck to it, it simply gives you more time to do your ousting against a prey > > you hope is less prepared for your particular means of ousting him. > > There are many decks with minimal (or no) defenses, which just point > forward and try to oust as quickly as possible. They make a risk, > thinking that it's better to just remove all defenses and just be very, > very fast. So you don't _have_ to dedicate a large amount of space to > combat defense. It depends on what you want to do. Sure. But it's hard to resolve where such decks belong in a reasonable metagame. They may work well against bleed and vote as predators if they're fast enough on offense and don't run into the wrong prey. But probably never against rush combat. And you and Peter will likely say that's just losing the metagame and I can't disagree with that. But it isn't what happens when you lose the metagame that's at issue here. My point that we're debating here is how you can't _win_ the metagame against combat as its neighbor. You just make it hard on the combat deck without much benefit to yourself. > > > > Having Deflections robs you of space you could be using for game-winning > > > cards, too. What's the difference? > > > > Numbers. Pure and simple. > > It's not like 30% of your deck has to be combat defense to stave off a > rush deck. Some Maneuvers and some S:CE work fine. First of all, the role of S:CE and S:CE hosers is what started the whole debate. Now you're touching on the reason the game needs a one-card combat hoser that's hard to prepare for without significantly weakening your combat deck for other purposes. As for maneuvers plus S:CE to get around Immortal Grapple, yes and no. If you have a dogged rush combat deck, you maneuver away and use the S:CE so he just holds on to the IM. But Brujah rush, for example, usually has more maneuvers than you do unless you really do take up large amounts of your deck for combat defense. And even so, the rush deck has the options of Psyches, which get a lot more effective if you're prone to running out of S:CE _or_ of the maneuvers. So to really plan for combat, yes, we are talking about a lot of deck space. > > > > > Why? It just doesn't follow. Just because there are more kinds of > > > > > combat decks which can be viable doesn't mean the proportion of combat > > > > > decks at tournaments will increase. > > > > > > > > Sure it does. Assuming there are more kinds, they must increase their number > > > > at tournaments. > > > > > > No! You're completely wrong!!! According to this logic, every time an > > > expansion gets printed, then since new decks are possible, then EVERY > > > deck type must increase in proportion. > > > > No, that's a bad analogy. > > It's not an analogy! It's simple mathematics. It's impossible for > EVERY deck type to increase IN PROPORTION. The numbers have to add up > to 100%, so they can't all go up. At this point, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. I just said that if more combat deck types are viable - meaning you've added more viable combat decks than you've taking away in your modification of the game environment - and the other types of other decks (stealth/bleed, vote, etc.) don't increase or decrease - you didn't originally indicate that they did - then it's likely the number of combat decks in tournaments overall increases. Not necessarily but it seems like a pretty reasonable assumption. All this talk about what happens when whole new expansions are printed is a completely different subject. Tell me what situation you're talking (and DON'T CHANGE IT IN THE MIDDLE) and I'll tell you what I think will happen. Fred

"James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu wrote:> > > [snip more idiocy] > > I can't decide whether you're an idiot or just having some sort of > mental block on this. I'd like to assume the latter... Sorry to intrude here... but is it really necessary to talk to people this way? I don't agree with some of what Fred is saying but I don't think implying that he is an idiot really helps anyone. I don't mean to go net-nazi on y'all but can we all agree to keep such discussions respectful and productive? Cheers, WES

Ian wrote: >>In one of your other posts you (ad infinitum)>> What is the point of having an opinion if you aren't going to defend it? >>keep saying 6 pool = 6 pool, 5 pool = 5 pool, whatever. But, a 6 cap vampire isn't 6 pool.>> It was at some point. When it *is* 6 pool (and not a 6 point vampire), and it gets taken away from you, it never becomes a 6 point vampire. If it is a 6 point vampire (assuming it still has all of its blood on it) that gets burned, it was a 6 point vampire, and now it is no longer. You are in the exact same situation as if you had been bled for 6--without 6 pool, and without a 6 point vampire. >>What was the original issue that sparked this diversion from S:CE hosers again?>> I dunno. I stopped paying attention to that a long time ago... >>Personally, I would like to see mild rush as a common feature in games. I would not like to see decks that do nothing but rush.>> Hmm. Sad. I love those decks. I love seeing those decks. The last tournament I went to was teeming with those decks. It was great. >>I'd like to see fewer extremes in the game. S:CE and IG are too examples of extreme cards.>> It's all about the dizzying highs and devestating lows for me. Pah on those soft, creamy middles. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrick wrote: >>That's exactly incorrect. Losing 6 pool is *not* the same as losing a 6 cap vampire once it's out: you can't shove that sucker back into the uncontrolled area and get your 6 pool back. You just live with 6 less pool in your cushion.>> But if you lost that 6 pool earlier, you are down 6 pool. If you spend 6 pool for a 6 pool vampire, you are also out 6 pool, but have a 6 point vampire. If that vampire dissapears for whatever reason, you are in the exact same spot you were in when you were bled for 6--without 6 pool, and without a 6 point vampire. >>You don't have the option but so? It's not like someone with 6 pool is going to say, "Hey, I have a 5 cap vampire upside down so I might as well burn 5 to bring it out." The 6 is their cushion. If they get bled for 5, they have one left and they have to make do. Either way, that bleed for 5 is not the same as destroying a 5 cap vampire.>> Right. If I feel that my "safety cushion" is 14 pool, I'll spend 16 pool on vampires. If I lose some of that 16 pool, I spend that much less on vampires. If, on the second turn, I am bled for 5 (not that unlikely...), and I still wish to maintain my safety cushion of 14 pool, I now only have 11 pool to spend on vampires. On the other hand, if I spend 16 pool on vampires, and get a 5 point vampire burned (assuming I did not remove any blood from that vampire), I am in the exact same spot--with a 14 pool cushion, and 11 points of vampires. >>No, I don't agree. If you're trying to state that you see that as "X blood worth of resources" equal in value to approximately X pool, I'd say you're being simplistic and naive and ignoring the way the game seems to work in real life. At least I would say I've found the source of our dispute.>> Hmm. I thought the source of our dispute was that I am stubborn and tenacious... Right. Having X pool gives you access to X resources. If you lose 6 pool, you now have access to X-6 resources. If you have X pool in resources, and lose 6 points of resources, you now have access to X-6 resources. >>No one is trying to claim it a 6 point bleed isn't more effective than rush. The trouble we're having in communicating is that you insist on looking that the game only from the standpoint of counting resources and in terms of winning vs. losing.>> Well, that pretty much describes the game--resources and winning or losing... >>The point *I'm* trying to make isn't that combat is too effective. It's that combat often gives arbitrary advantage to other players in the game besides the one using it. I think that's bad.>> I have conceded that point, but pointed (ahem...) out that non-combat decks are perfectly capable of doing the exact same thing. If I am playing a speedy bleed deck, and I bleed my prey for 15 by turn 4, it is very likely that my prey will have very few vampires (i.e. resources) on the table. As a result, my grand prey is getting a free ride for a few turns. Thus, I am giving my grand prey an arbitrary advantage. Ignoring all other apsects of this post, please, please, explain how you see this as somehow different than when a Rush deck demolishes its prey's vampires and gives its grand prey the same free ride. Please. >>You can't compare what torporizing a 6 cap does to a player vs. what a bleed for 6 does.>> I certainly can. I do it all the time. If I bleed you for 6, that is one fewer 6 point vampire you can bring out, regardless if you do or not. If I blow up a 6 point vampire, that is one fewer 6 point vampire you have brought out. The end result is the same--without 6 pool, and without a 6 pool vampire. >>I care. For one thing, in this game victory points count (at least in tournaments), so even if there's a tendency to slip an undeserved VP to your grandpredator before sweeping the rest of the table, that's a raw deal for those who don't happen to be your grandpredator.>> A raw deal? Everyone gets a raw deal in this game all the time. That is the nature of the game. If I am sitting at a 5 player table, and I can arrange a way to go 4-1 in vps, even if it means screwing some poor guy who just gets caught in the cross fire, I'll do it every time. I do do it all the time. That is the nature of the game. >>And *that*, of course, assumes you're God and can always win with your wonderful combat deck.>> I love when people get snarky. Cracks me up. >>Or maybe you got bad luck or maybe someone packed fortitude and outguessed you in the metagame. Or maybe you *aren't* playing correctly. In any event, chaos is chaos, no matter what causes it. In the final, of course, the one with the most VPs to that point can use their advantage with strategy to get a better result. In most games, though, sitting next to the combat deck (or not) is just luck of the draw.>> Yes. Just like every other deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Fine. Having _vote_ defense doesn't win you the game. And it > > shouldn't. The fact that Deflections can make a bleed deck accidentally > > kill the wrong person is one of the major drawbacks of that archetype. > > I don't think deflections kill the wrong person. There is some of that if the > stealth/bleeder isn't careful about his bleeds Careful how? "Oh, I won't ever bleed for 6 because that might get deflected and oust the wrong person." That sounds like a pretty mediocre strategy. > but if so, the stealth/bleeder's > grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in > his own fate. Not really. He's only involved if he has bounce or intercept, and managed to stay untapped. ...and is the implication here that if you are the "victim" of a combat deck, then you have no say in your fate? That's hogwash. > But yea, as I said on the onset, there is chaos in the game. It's just that > combat causes more than the usual amount. How do you know? > > Most of the decks around here have some combat defense, mostly because I > > and my deck exist. But the defense they have doesn't detract from their > > deck's strategy; having a defense is _part_ of your strategy. > > Agreed. But pure rush combat decks are geared to and, apart from S:CE, usually > can get past the amount of combat defense that doesn't detract from their > strategy. They have to. Well, they have to try. There are many ways to shut down a combat deck that don't require scores of cards in your deck. A non-additional strike Potence deck is shut down by a single Superior Mettle, for example. And now that IG doesn't last the whole combat, it's usually enough to last the first round, or at least force the combat deck to expend a _lot_ of resources to kill your vampire. > If just any Joe-schmuck deck could stop a Brujah rush > monster, it wouldn't ever be possible to win with. Any Joe-schmuck deck with the right defenses can stop a Brujah rush deck. If everyone at tournaments played with enough combat defense, Rush decks _would_ be impossible to win with. > To defend against pure combat > takes up a great deal of deck space that, if you actually encounter the deck, > still leaves you at a disadvantage. How is it a disadvantage to be able to have the combat deck _not_ kill you? > If your prey is rush combat and you have > enough of whatever types of combat cards you need to survive it, you're still > really screwed if your predator if your predator is stealth/bleed. Why? You should have bleed defense, too. > How are > you ever going to fit both combat and enough intercept or bleed bounce to > survive? Even if you put 15 Deflections in your deck, chances are you'll get caught with your pants down at some point. Even if your deck is 50% combat defense, the combat player will occasionally be able to make a kill. What's the difference? Even if you can thwart every other combat, that is often enough to stymie the combat deck; you'll still have enough minions out to rescue, take damaging actions, etc. > This is something you could probably do reasonably enough if caught > between bleed and vote. Only because intercept _can_ serve as both vote and bleed defense. What if you're not using intercept at all? Same problem. > > There are many decks with minimal (or no) defenses, which just point > > forward and try to oust as quickly as possible. They make a risk, > > thinking that it's better to just remove all defenses and just be very, > > very fast. So you don't _have_ to dedicate a large amount of space to > > combat defense. It depends on what you want to do. > > Sure. But it's hard to resolve where such decks belong in a reasonable > metagame. Huh? They belong in the hands of the person playing them. > They may work well against bleed and vote as predators if they're > fast enough on offense and don't run into the wrong prey. But probably never > against rush combat. Dude. The example I gave was specific. There is a fast forward-pointing bleed deck in our group which can routinely oust my combat deck. So probably _not_ never, huh? > And you and Peter will likely say that's just losing the > metagame and I can't disagree with that. But it isn't what happens when you > lose the metagame that's at issue here. My point that we're debating here is > how you can't _win_ the metagame against combat as its neighbor. You just > make it hard on the combat deck without much benefit to yourself. You can _totally_ win the metagame. In Ithaca, when almost every other deck was a combat monster, Josh Duffin made a super-resilient Ventrue deck that kicked all of our asses. Repeatedly. Then the metagame shifted. That's how it works. > > It's not like 30% of your deck has to be combat defense to stave off a > > rush deck. Some Maneuvers and some S:CE work fine. > > First of all, the role of S:CE and S:CE hosers is what started the whole debate. > Now you're touching on the reason the game needs a one-card combat hoser that's > hard to prepare for without significantly weakening your combat deck for other > purposes. You're saying there needs to be a combat hoser? That's insane. I'll be the first one to say combat is reasonably effective in the right hands, but it certainly doesn't need to be hosed more. > As for maneuvers plus S:CE to get around Immortal Grapple, yes and no. If you > have a dogged rush combat deck, you maneuver away and use the S:CE so he just > holds on to the IG. But he used up a Rush action and probably some pre-range cards like Torn Signpost or Fists of Death. > But Brujah rush, for example, usually has more maneuvers > than you do unless you really do take up large amounts of your deck for combat > defense. Most good Potence-based rush decks don't have that many maneuvers (not counting Bum's Rush maneuvers). This too is a metagame choice; in most situations the maneuvers just clog up your hand. You _want_ to be at close, so if they don't maneuver, you don't get to play your maneuver card. > And even so, the rush deck has the options of Psyches, Only if it can guarantee its vampires have CEL as well as pot/POT. Which ups the average capacity. Which makes it more vulnerable to speedy predators. And so on. > which get a > lot more effective if you're prone to running out of S:CE _or_ of the maneuvers. > So to really plan for combat, yes, we are talking about a lot of deck space. In order to be _completely_ unaffected by combat decks, then yes, you need to devote lots of deck space to defense. But in practice, as I mentioned above, being able to stop every other combat is usually enough. [snip me bashing my head against the wall] > At this point, I don't even know what point you're trying to make. I guess it was the former, then. Here is the point. If new deck subtypes become viable (Ravnos Rush, for example), it increases the total number of decks in each type. It does _not_ necessarily increase the frequency with which decks of that type appear at tournaments. I don't see how you could possibly refute the previous paragraph. I suspect that even if decks like "Ravnos Rush" become viable, the number of combat decks at tournaments will largely stay the same. They'll still be just as hard to play well and win with. [snip more of you not understanding stuff] [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: > > "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu wrote:> > > > > [snip more idiocy] > > > > I can't decide whether you're an idiot or just having some sort of > > mental block on this. I'd like to assume the latter... > > Sorry to intrude here... but is it really necessary to talk to people this > way? It may be rude, but I was being honest. I genuinely don't understand why he's having such a tough time getting a simple point. > I don't agree with some of what Fred is saying but I don't think implying > that he is an idiot really helps anyone. I'm not calling him an idiot because I disagree with him. I'm calling him an idiot because he thinks a set of numbers can all increase but still add to the same value. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > I don't want to make all-combat decks impossible to play. I just don't want > to lift a finger to make such decks more viable, that's all. You seem to object strenuously to how combat decks win games. I guess I misinterpreted your objectives. > > Even if more cards like Fame are printed, the existing combat decks will > > still exist. > > Perhaps. In what way will they not still exist? > But if they were useful enough to use with the existing combat cards and > make effective, viable decks out of, no one would have to worry about how viable > pure thug rush combat decks were. Which in my mind would be just fine. The "pure thug rush decks" would be just as effective as they are now. Making cards which give combat decks alternate paths to victory would only, if anything, make combat decks more effective. Aren't you against that? > > "Combat" is a common deck genre. Malk. Prank is a specific card. > > There's a huge difference. > > Not for these purposes. The point is that it's something in the game that tends to > increase the randomness in its effects on others, even if they both do something > positive for those who use them. Now who's comparing obviously different situations? Malkavian Prank is extremely random. You can't get much more random that "someone picks a number and someone else tries to guess it." Even though a combat deck's actions can cause unforseen consequences, this is far from "random." > > Yeah, there will always be wallpaper cards. The fact that there are a > > bunch of combat cards which won't work because of S:CE isn't a reason to > > print a S:CE hoser. > > Not a general S:CE hoser, no. But one which specifically makes that particular > "bunch" of combat cards useful would be reasonable, yes. My best result would > be to do it in a way that would make them useful for other purposes besides > just rush/KILL/CRUSH/DESTROY/rinse/repeat type decks. Give a specific example of a "bunch" of combat cards you would like to see be made effective. > Yep, I agree with all that. To which I'll add, this is a sad state of affairs: > outguess your predator in the metagame and the only result is that your grand > predator gets a free victory point. Not necessarily. Remember that the point is to _not_ cripple your predator unless it's absolutely necessary (for exactly the reason you state). I don't see what this has to do with guessing and the metagame. > (And if *he's* a weenie Dom bleed deck, too?) Then you may have to rush one of _their_ minions to keep your predator alive. > This is exactly the problem with looking to rush combat to serve as a "major leg" in > the three-legged metagame in Jyhad. It doesn't work very well. Uh, OK. If you say so. I think you need to explain what this has to do with the previous part. > > Since "destabilization" is something which I can't exactly define, much > > less measure, I can't accept it. But I think attacking someone's pool > > makes them turn backwards (or inward) just as much as attacking their > > minions. > > But notice that one seldom attacks one's *predator's* pool as combat decks > attack their predator's minions. Well, every deck must have _some_ way of defending itself. A combat deck's defense is an active one; kill their vampires before they get a chance to act against you. It is by far the most unpredictable and volatile defense method. But a good player can make it work. > There's another reason it's impossible to > equate combat decks with bleed decks and attempt to draw comparisons between > bleeding and destroying minions. As for bleeding one's prey and having them > turn backwards, that happens. But they still have the minions they had before. > And the effect is often different if they think they can avoid being ousted > without defending with everything or that it won't make a difference what they > leave behind to defend. The prey without minions has no such choice to make. That's the way the combat deck wins. If your prey has no minions, they can't keep you from killing them. > > If I'm a combat deck, and I manage to kill all my prey's minions, I'm > > doing well. I'll almost certainly get that VP. Now, if this makes my > > grandprey stronger in the meantime, well, that's just part of life as a > > combat deck. > > For reasons stated above, combat decks are often worse about this than > other types of decks in this sense. OK. So what? > > I don't care if they don't "deserve" to have their prey killed. I don't > > care if you think this "advantage" they've received is "unfair" or not. > > Well, I do. As I said, it's a matter of taste. But this falls under the > category of (as stated in my response to Peter Bakija), "Things that make > the game suck." People getting victory points based on the pure luck of > where they sit tends to make Jyhad suck when they happen. Pure play-balance > isn't the only thing to worry about. This happens _all_ the time. It has _nothing_ to do with combat decks specifically. That's where the "rock/paper/scissors" analogy comes from. Many times another deck will be the Paper to your Rock, and you'll just lose. My intercept deck is the Paper to my friend's weenie Dominate deck's Rock. If I'm his prey, he can't possibly win. Neither of these decks is a combat deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Remove the word "safely" and this is precisely what I do. I aim to spend a bit > less than 20 pool on bringing vampires out in most cases. Obviously, decks > like bloat decks are an exception. You have to choose something to bring out > (barring minionless decks), I've been thinking of making one..has anyone ever given it a try? Is there a deck posted? [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip> > S&B is already pretty easily screwable. Archon Investigation is a > horrible card, and makes you never want to bleed for more than 3, lest > your vampire get burned and your prey _gain_ pool Care to explain this? How do they gain pool from AI? <snip>

-- "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9ajd5...@enews4.newsguy.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Which is also is....chess computers have ways to calculate how much a piece is worth depending on it's position. A bishop locked in to a corner and who cannot move, is worth almost nothing and not its 3 points that it normally is worth.

[ quoted text not captured ] Instead of taking a bleed of more than 3, they lose 3 pool. That's a net gain of pool. Oh, yeah, _and_ you get to burn their vampire. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote in message news:3ACEC18C...@math.wisc.edu... > > Roger Carhult wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > S&B is already pretty easily screwable. Archon Investigation is a > > > horrible card, and makes you never want to bleed for more than 3, lest > > > your vampire get burned and your prey _gain_ pool > > > > Care to explain this? How do they gain pool from AI? > > Instead of taking a bleed of more than 3, they lose 3 pool. That's a > net gain of pool. Oh, yeah, _and_ you get to burn their vampire. > > James > -- Umm well I guess your use of the term "gain" confused me. Economically you can't use the word "gain" for something like this, since gain means you get something. But you don't, you just lose less than you normally would have, thus it's a reduction.

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> > > > <snip> > > > > > > > S&B is already pretty easily screwable. Archon Investigation is a > > > > horrible card, and makes you never want to bleed for more than 3, lest > > > > your vampire get burned and your prey _gain_ pool > > > > > > Care to explain this? How do they gain pool from AI? > > > > Instead of taking a bleed of more than 3, they lose 3 pool. That's a > > net gain of pool. Oh, yeah, _and_ you get to burn their vampire. > > > > James > > -- > > Umm well I guess your use of the term "gain" confused me. Economically you > can't use the word "gain" for something like this, since gain means you get > something. But you don't, you just lose less than you normally would have, > thus it's a reduction. > no, i must admit he's right on this one ! when you bleed someone for 7, and he plays Archon investigation, two things occur : Your vampire is burned, and is protected from the bleed. It has a cost (3pool) , but at the end of the process, by not being careful you made him "save" 4 pool and avoid a lot of further bleeds from the burned vampire. It's really a gain.

-- "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9aoe37$218$1...@news2.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ] LOL that's really a funny way of looking at it. So if this happens a lot he'll gain on it everyt ime and still be ousted *duh*. If you gain pool you get somehting. Losing pool (which you do by spending 3 pool pn AI) can enver GAIN you anything. You _lose_ 3 pool, preiod. The fact you would have lost 7 pool if not for the AI doesn't change anything. If he hadn't bled you at all you're saying you would have gained 7 pool? So if someone abstains from bleeding me for a round I gain X pool where X is the maximum bleed he could have gotten through on me had he bled me? Path of Typhon doesn't exactly say "gain one pool every time you play serpentis cards that has a cost in blood". You _pay one less_ which can be 0 and they you _pay_ 0 blood.

-- "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in message news:9aoigm$sek$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Made a typoe about Typhon, shoudla have said: Path of Typhon doesn't exactly say "gain one blood every time you play [ quoted text not captured ]

This argument about gaining versus losing less has gone on before. As I remember, nothing came of it.

"Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: 20010408122146...@ng-fo1.aol.com... > This argument about gaining versus losing less has gone on before. As I > remember, nothing came of it. yes, you heard it before, but no, something came of it !! it was about "Ascendence" versus "Short term investment". After a long explanation, almost everyone agreed that ascendence was better : you gain 1 pool for 1 master phase, opposed to short term wich gained you 2 pool for 4 master phases. Not playing master when you have the opportunity is definetely a cost for gaining a pool from Short term. i'll go further : the best v:tes decks include this kind of calculation, that makes them perfectly balanced. Try to look at your cards from another point of view, and imagine their real cost and the odds to play them against seeing them stuck in your hands for the whole game. It's one of the secrets of the jyhad... =) reyda

-- "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9ase2v$1b44$1...@news6.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ] That argument was different because both Ascendance and SI gives pool so there's an actual gain in both cases (unless you get ousted before you get to use SI the 2nd time, but even the first time you *gain* [back] a pool, i. e. you get something). In the case of AI a reduction of loss isn't a gain of something because it's a reduction. It's not the same thing because you don't get something you didn't have before which is a major difference. A similar thing are stocks, you haven't made a profit on a stock until you actually sell it (with profit). Simply owning a stock that has gone up 100% haven't made you go profit or gain *anything* because in theory the stock could fall 50% the very next second. That's also why you don't pay tax (for those countries who have profit taxes on stocks) until you sell the stock and made an actual profit.

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > > I don't want to make all-combat decks impossible to play. I just don't want > > to lift a finger to make such decks more viable, that's all. > > You seem to object strenuously to how combat decks win games. I guess I > misinterpreted your objectives. That's correct. > > > > Even if more cards like Fame are printed, the existing combat decks will > > > still exist. > > > > Perhaps. > > In what way will they not still exist? The "perhaps" was not intended to dispute that they still might exist. If combat- oriented player decide to use the alternate paths to victory because they just like playing combat-oriented decks but want a better chance to win, then you wouldn't see as many of the rush-type combat decks. > > But if they were useful enough to use with the existing combat cards and > > make effective, viable decks out of, no one would have to worry about how viable > > pure thug rush combat decks were. Which in my mind would be just fine. > > The "pure thug rush decks" would be just as effective as they are now. > Making cards which give combat decks alternate paths to victory would > only, if anything, make combat decks more effective. Aren't you against > that? You should understand the answer to that by now. Think that through, yourself. At the top, you indicated that you understood my problem was with "how combat decks win games" - i.e., by destroying opposing minions leaving the victim player helpless against both the combat deck and his other opponent's action thus creating instability. If combat decks do not win by these means but some other means (e.g. Fame cycles destroying victim's pool), obviously I'm not against that. It's not what I'm objecting to. > > > "Combat" is a common deck genre. Malk. Prank is a specific card. > > > There's a huge difference. > > > > Not for these purposes. The point is that it's something in the game that tends to > > increase the randomness in its effects on others, even if they both do something > > positive for those who use them. > > Now who's comparing obviously different situations? You have to understand the point of the comparison. No two different situations are the same, by definition. Malkavian Prank and rush combat strategies share one thing common, which is the thing I'm objecting to. > Malkavian Prank is extremely random. You can't get much more random > that "someone picks a number and someone else tries to guess it." Even > though a combat deck's actions can cause unforseen consequences, this is > far from "random." It's not exactly "random" in the same way, granted. But it has essentially random effects in that you really don't know beforehand what your victim's other neighbor is going to do when you blow up your victim's minions. If you did, you could adjust your deck and tactics to compensate and make the results of playing combat decks much more predictable than I perceive they are now. > > > Yeah, there will always be wallpaper cards. The fact that there are a > > > bunch of combat cards which won't work because of S:CE isn't a reason to > > > print a S:CE hoser. > > > > Not a general S:CE hoser, no. But one which specifically makes that particular > > "bunch" of combat cards useful would be reasonable, yes. My best result would > > be to do it in a way that would make them useful for other purposes besides > > just rush/KILL/CRUSH/DESTROY/rinse/repeat type decks. > > Give a specific example of a "bunch" of combat cards you would like to > see be made effective. Assamite combat cards. Gangrel combat cards. > > Yep, I agree with all that. To which I'll add, this is a sad state of affairs: > > outguess your predator in the metagame and the only result is that your grand > > predator gets a free victory point. > > Not necessarily. In this situation - combat with a stealth/bleed predator, it is. I was talking about this situation exactly. > I don't see what this has to do with guessing and the metagame. Well, I've touched on it a number of times but OK, I'll repeat myself again much more explicitly so you'll have a chance to understand: The metagame is about guessing. You guess what you think will work based on your experience with whatever group of people you're about to play with and your opponents do likewise. The thinking is that this is a matrix game: guess right and you're supposed to be rewarded. Guess wrong and you get punished. The trouble I find with combat is that its neighbors seldom get rewarded no matter what they guess. If they guess right vs. the combat deck, much of the payoff still seems to go to the guys across the table, who in fact tend to get paid off no matter whether the combat decks neighbors guess right or wrong. Combat decks are just bad news to sit next to and good news to set across from, no matter whether they themselves win or lose. Of course, if the combat deck does well, that's always somewhat bad for the guys across the table in the same way that if anyone on a table really does well, it's bad for everyone else. But relatively speaking, it's much worse for the combat deck's neighbors because the guys across the table at least have some chance of grabbing a VP before getting sucked under. I don't find this works the same way with any other deck - with one exception - where you tend to have a chance to get rewarded well if you guess right vs. your neighbor. The exception is intercept wall decks (whether combat-oriented or just something like Obedience and untap or Majesty and untap) which don't do that much for themselves, totally screw their predators, and may or may not screw with their prey depending on how much the prey's deck depends on undirected actions. Intercept wall decks, in my experience, just don't win period and they almost always take their predator down with them. > > > Since "destabilization" is something which I can't exactly define, much > > > less measure, I can't accept it. But I think attacking someone's pool > > > makes them turn backwards (or inward) just as much as attacking their > > > minions. > > > > But notice that one seldom attacks one's *predator's* pool as combat decks > > attack their predator's minions. > > Well, every deck must have _some_ way of defending itself. A combat > deck's defense is an active one; kill their vampires before they get a > chance to act against you. It is by far the most unpredictable and > volatile defense method. But a good player can make it work. Yea, I understand. It's just the additional instability (and I'll grant it's _additional_ instability over and above the chaos that already exists in the game) that I don't personally care for. > > > If I'm a combat deck, and I manage to kill all my prey's minions, I'm > > > doing well. I'll almost certainly get that VP. Now, if this makes my > > > grandprey stronger in the meantime, well, that's just part of life as a > > > combat deck. > > > > For reasons stated above, combat decks are often worse about this than > > other types of decks in this sense. > > OK. So what? Same as anything else people don't like in the game. If it's just me, screw it. But I hear others (e.g. Ian) don't really care for it either it. If it's a lot of people, White Wolf would want to consider carefully to whether this is really the type of game they want to design cards for and facilitate. > > > I don't care if they don't "deserve" to have their prey killed. I don't > > > care if you think this "advantage" they've received is "unfair" or not. > > > > Well, I do. As I said, it's a matter of taste. But this falls under the > > category of (as stated in my response to Peter Bakija), "Things that make > > the game suck." People getting victory points based on the pure luck of > > where they sit tends to make Jyhad suck when they happen. Pure play-balance > > isn't the only thing to worry about. > > This happens _all_ the time. It has _nothing_ to do with combat decks > specifically. What happens "all the time"? Luck? You're failing to make a distinction. The luck of the metagame is a necessary element to CCGs. The luck of having to sit next to someone who happens to be playing a specific type of deck that's always bad news to its neighbors, on the other hand, is not necessary. Fred

Reyda wrote: > > "Ian Lee" <cur...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news: > 20010408122146...@ng-fo1.aol.com... > > This argument about gaining versus losing less has gone on before. As I > > remember, nothing came of it. > > yes, you heard it before, but no, something came of it !! > it was about "Ascendence" versus "Short term investment". After a long > explanation, almost everyone agreed that ascendence was better : you gain 1 > pool for 1 master phase, opposed to short term wich gained you 2 pool for 4 > master phases. Not playing master when you have the opportunity is > definetely a cost for gaining a pool from Short term. Interesting. I always chose STI over Ascendance back before I found a million other things that were better than either to spend my MPAs on. The advantage of STIs is that they don't take up as much deck space. Putting the four Ascendances in the deck instead of one STI may double your return but they're also much more likely to jam your hand. (This assumes, of course, that you count your STI as four master cards when calculating how many master cards you feel are reasonable to play with.) Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > > Right. If I feel that my "safety cushion" is 14 pool, I'll spend 16 pool on > vampires. If I lose some of that 16 pool, I spend that much less on vampires. > If, on the second turn, I am bled for 5 (not that unlikely...), and I still > wish to maintain my safety cushion of 14 pool, I now only have 11 pool to spend > on vampires. Again (believe I made this point elsewhere multiple times), that's fine if the bleeds come early enough to make that decision. But once the 16 pool is already spent on vampires, you can't put them back in the uncontrolled area and retrieve your pool. That's what I meant by "mid or late game". ... > >>No one is trying to claim it a 6 point bleed isn't more effective than rush. > The trouble we're having in communicating is that you insist on looking that the > game only from the standpoint of counting resources and in terms of winning vs. > losing.>> > > Well, that pretty much describes the game--resources and winning or losing... Not really. It's a multiplayer game, which makes things a lot more complex because the way the players play has _varying_ effects on the other players in the game. And I emphasize "varying" to signify that the way play has an effect which varies from one player to the next in the same game. How this works can be more fun or less fun depending on the way the game plays. I find the effects that rush combat has on the game to be less fun in this sense. > >>The point *I'm* trying to make isn't that combat is too effective. It's that > combat often gives arbitrary advantage to other players in the game besides the > one using it. I think that's bad.>> > > I have conceded that point, but pointed (ahem...) out that non-combat decks are > perfectly capable of doing the exact same thing. If I am playing a speedy bleed > deck, and I bleed my prey for 15 by turn 4, it is very likely that my prey will > have very few vampires (i.e. resources) on the table. As a result, my grand > prey is getting a free ride for a few turns. Thus, I am giving my grand prey an > arbitrary advantage. Ignoring all other apsects of this post, please, please, > explain how you see this as somehow different than when a Rush deck demolishes > its prey's vampires and gives its grand prey the same free ride. Please. Just pure play experience. You just often don't see the bleed or vote deck demolish its prey's resources so quickly that they don't even have a chance. And such decks do not usually attack their predator's resources at all (or at least not very much compared to rushing backwards), giving their predator a fighting chance to outrace them if nothing else. > >>I care. For one thing, in this game victory points count (at least in > tournaments), so even if there's a tendency to slip an undeserved VP to your > grandpredator before sweeping the rest of the table, that's a raw deal for > those who don't happen to be your grandpredator.>> > > A raw deal? Everyone gets a raw deal in this game all the time. That is the > nature of the game. If I am sitting at a 5 player table, and I can arrange a > way to go 4-1 in vps, even if it means screwing some poor guy who just gets > caught in the cross fire, I'll do it every time. I do do it all the time. That > is the nature of the game. Combat decks make it significantly worse. We'll never prevent sickness and injury altogether either but we still put a ton of effort into medicine. Go figure. Some problems can't be solved, such as the game having randomness. But there's necessary randomness and UNnecessary randomness. And I put rush combat decks into the latter class. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > Fine. Having _vote_ defense doesn't win you the game. And it > > > shouldn't. The fact that Deflections can make a bleed deck accidentally > > > kill the wrong person is one of the major drawbacks of that archetype. > > > > I don't think deflections kill the wrong person. There is some of that if the > > stealth/bleeder isn't careful about his bleeds > > Careful how? "Oh, I won't ever bleed for 6 because that might get > deflected and oust the wrong person." That sounds like a pretty > mediocre strategy. I don't know what you do when you have a stealth bleed deck and hit a prey with bleed bounce. Personally, I watch how much I'm bleeding for with each given vampire. Yes, I refuse to bleed for 6 in this situation. I will keep my bleed for maybe 2 or 3 or maybe only 1 if my grandprey is teetering on the edge. > > but if so, the stealth/bleeder's > > grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in > > his own fate. > > Not really. He's only involved if he has bounce or intercept, and > managed to stay untapped. Oh cripes, this is not rocket science. He's involved the same way anyone's involved in the metagame. You plan for your defense against stealth bleed. I'm just saying that the same defense comes into play whether it's your predator's bleed or your grandpredator's deflected bleeds. > ...and is the implication here that if you are the "victim" of a combat > deck, then you have no say in your fate? That's hogwash. Nope. That's the point I'm making about combat decks. You can plan for them but you don't get as much of a metagame payout if you guess right. This is a point of discussion below. > > > Most of the decks around here have some combat defense, mostly because I > > > and my deck exist. But the defense they have doesn't detract from their > > > deck's strategy; having a defense is _part_ of your strategy. > > > > Agreed. But pure rush combat decks are geared to and, apart from S:CE, usually > > can get past the amount of combat defense that doesn't detract from their > > strategy. They have to. > > Well, they have to try. There are many ways to shut down a combat deck > that don't require scores of cards in your deck. A non-additional > strike Potence deck is shut down by a single Superior Mettle, for > example. There's various fortitude cards that will shut down a combat deck for a whole combat but none of them that you would sanely include in large numbers just for one type of combat deck. > And now that IG doesn't last the whole combat, it's usually > enough to last the first round, or at least force the combat deck to > expend a _lot_ of resources to kill your vampire. I'm not sure what this has to do with not using lots of cards to defend against a combat deck. The point isn't about making the combat decks lose. It's about gaining advantage from the fact that the combat deck is your neighbor. > > If just any Joe-schmuck deck could stop a Brujah rush > > monster, it wouldn't ever be possible to win with. > > Any Joe-schmuck deck with the right defenses can stop a Brujah rush > deck. Stopping the deck is one thing. But having a deck that wins *because* a Brujah combat deck sat next to it is a different thing. Especially in the context of it being reasonable against other types of decks. That is, it's well-known in most CCGs that even though deck X may have a nemesis, call it deck Y, which hoses it doesn't imply that deck X isn't overpowered. (Please go through the whole paragraph and don't jump to respond that combat decks aren't overpowered. I know that.) If deck Y isn't reasonable to play against anything else, it really isn't much of a hoser. In the case of combat decks, it isn't that they're overpowered. It's just that anything you might play that might possibly make it a positive advantage to be between two combat decks would get slaughtered by anything else. Mostly, in the metagame you just try to do things to _survive_ a combat deck. But I've never found a way to survive a dedicated rush combat deck that works against anything else at all. > If everyone at tournaments played with enough combat defense, > Rush decks _would_ be impossible to win with. But that wouldn't help their neighbors. It would be the players across the table that would benefit, as always. > > If your prey is rush combat and you have > > enough of whatever types of combat cards you need to survive it, you're still > > really screwed if your predator if your predator is stealth/bleed. How are > > you ever going to fit both combat and enough intercept or bleed bounce to > > survive? > > Even if you put 15 Deflections in your deck, chances are you'll get > caught with your pants down at some point. Even if your deck is 50% > combat defense, the combat player will occasionally be able to make a > kill. What's the difference? What do you need to know? The difference is that you usually *WON'T* get caught with your pants down against bleed instead of being getting caught with your pants down ALL THE TIME. The difference is the combat player making an occasional kill rather than ripping you apart from the first action. That's plenty of difference for me. > > This is something you could probably do reasonably enough if caught > > between bleed and vote. > > Only because intercept _can_ serve as both vote and bleed defense. That's not what I meant. You can also fit both bleed bounce and various vote-only defenses (e.g. Delaying Tactics, your own voting vamps and vote- producing cards, both masters and reaction cards and so forth) in the same deck. > > > There are many decks with minimal (or no) defenses, which just point > > > forward and try to oust as quickly as possible. They make a risk, > > > thinking that it's better to just remove all defenses and just be very, > > > very fast. So you don't _have_ to dedicate a large amount of space to > > > combat defense. It depends on what you want to do. > > > > Sure. But it's hard to resolve where such decks belong in a reasonable > > metagame. They may work well against bleed and vote as predators if they're > > fast enough on offense and don't run into the wrong prey. But probably never > > against rush combat. > > Dude. The example I gave was specific. There is a fast > forward-pointing bleed deck in our group which can routinely oust my > combat deck. So probably _not_ never, huh? It depends on your combat deck, I guess. Unless the combat deck is based on larger vampires, I've never seen a weeny bleed deck that works well enough against a combat deck. The combat deck just rushes and eats them too fast for them to make much headway - even if you bring 4 out in the same turn. I guess this an example of differing perceptions. This is completely outside of my experience. Or maybe the problem is your combat deck, I don't know. It doesn't seem like a reasonable claim to me. > > And you and Peter will likely say that's just losing the > > metagame and I can't disagree with that. But it isn't what happens when you > > lose the metagame that's at issue here. My point that we're debating here is > > how you can't _win_ the metagame against combat as its neighbor. You just > > make it hard on the combat deck without much benefit to yourself. > > You can _totally_ win the metagame. In Ithaca, when almost every other > deck was a combat monster, Josh Duffin made a super-resilient Ventrue > deck that kicked all of our asses. Repeatedly. Then the metagame > shifted. That's how it works. This is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If the rest of the table is combat decks then the same disadvantage of having a combat deck as neighbor exists everywhere so it cancels itself out. And yes, if someone's playing the combat- hoser strategy it stands to reason he'd do well. But in a metagame environment not dominated by combat, none of this matters. It's _still_ a pure disadvantage to sit down next to a combat deck except with the combat-hoser deck, which will be too disadvantaged at any other times to really bother using. > > > It's not like 30% of your deck has to be combat defense to stave off a > > > rush deck. Some Maneuvers and some S:CE work fine. > > > > First of all, the role of S:CE and S:CE hosers is what started the whole debate. > > Now you're touching on the reason the game needs a one-card combat hoser that's > > hard to prepare for without significantly weakening your combat deck for other > > purposes. > > You're saying there needs to be a combat hoser? That's insane. I'll be > the first one to say combat is reasonably effective in the right hands, > but it certainly doesn't need to be hosed more. Again, that's because you insist on looking at the game only in terms of which decks have how much chance to win. I'm looking at the game in terms of the amount of chaos caused by the different deck types. I agree, in terms of deck advantage combat does not need to be hosed more. In terms of how to plan a deck that's a reasonable metagame choice and wins *because* it's next to a combat deck, combat decks do indeed need to be hosed more. The answer is not to worry about how much chance rush combat decks have to win the game and find some other answer to stealth/bleed decks. > Here is the point. If new deck subtypes become viable (Ravnos Rush, for > example), it increases the total number of decks in each type. It does > _not_ necessarily increase the frequency with which decks of that type > appear at tournaments. It certain doesn't decrease them. I already conceded (in the middle of all that text that you went off on) that it might not increase them, though that strikes me as unlikely. Classifying deck types into "subtypes" and stating that the overall decks in the type might not increase in number is implicitly suggesting that the only ones interested in playing the deck are those who already play decks of that type. My perception of the reality of CCGs is that if a new deck type becomes viable, it will find players who formerly played decks of completely different natures. Maybe some players are stuck on stealth/bleed or voting decks (or bloat or whatever), but a lot of people - me for instance - will play anything that seems viable. Thus you will pretty much automatically see at least a few players move from other types of decks to the new one and can't help but increase the number of combat decks in general. By how much is debatable. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Wes wrote: > > > > "James Hamblin" <ham...@math.wisc.edu wrote:> > > > > > > [snip more idiocy] > > > > > > I can't decide whether you're an idiot or just having some sort of > > > mental block on this. I'd like to assume the latter... > > > > Sorry to intrude here... but is it really necessary to talk to people this > > way? > > It may be rude, but I was being honest. I genuinely don't understand > why he's having such a tough time getting a simple point. Well, it may be difficult to understand because your point is bullshit. In general, if I didn't want people like James to call me an idiot, I wouldn't post. That's part and parcel of the game. You want to express an opinion about something, it can and will be held up for ridicule by those who disagree. Still, I don't think such comments get one anywhere in the long run. I do it when I'm frustrated with trying to get something across. Ironically (but likely not coincidentally), I have the exact same issue with James: that I make the same point over and over and he still asks the exact same questions of me that seem to ignore that point from the last post...and the post before that. It's no use pointing fingers and blaming each other for out lack of ability to communicate. I would say we both need to open our minds and listen to other person but I'd like to think we're already trying to do just that. So failing that answer, my instinct is do whatever I can to move the discussion along with each post so we're not arguing about the exact same damn thing we were in the last exchange of posts. (It can be hard, though...) Fred

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> a écrit dans le message news: [ quoted text not captured ] You didn't read before answering or what ? try to imagine Archon Investigation worded that way : cost : 3 pool. Play when a vampire with DOM/PRE is trying to bleed you for 4 or more. Prevent the Bleed ! You don't lose any pool at all from this bleed. All bleed is prevented, really. Yeah, he didn't even bled you ! and now he's burned ! ha ha ! Do you understand that you can "prevent" a bleed from 4 to, say, 12 by spending 3 pool. And, nice bonus, you get the bleeder burned. I call this NET GAIN, the same way i call Net Gain a point burned to a "Skin of Steel" to prevent 3 damage. I don't want to bother about taxes or stock exchange. Preventing a huge bleed and burning a big bleeder at the same time IS a GAIN. If you can't realize it, then don't answer me =) reyda

Fredrick wrote: >>Again (believe I made this point elsewhere multiple times),>> Of course you made it multiple times--I just chose to not accept it as a valid one :-) >>that's fine if the bleeds come early enough to make that decision. But once the 16 pool is already spent on vampires, you can't put them back in the uncontrolled area and retrieve your pool. That's what I meant by "mid or late game".>> That doesn't matter one way or the other. Bleed decks kill you by denyng you resources--your pool. If you lose it now or later, it is still less pool you have to spend on stuff you want. If you aren't ever bled for anything, you will have a lot more stuff/resources (vampires, master cards, whatever) than if you are bled for a lot. It doesn't matter when you lose the pool--if you lose it early, you lose the access to the resources early. If you lose the pool late, you lose access to the resources later. It doesn't matter. Each pool you lose is one less pool you have to spend on something useful. Rush decks kill you by denying you resources--your vampires. If you lose a vampire, you lose a vampire that cost you X pool, you have lost X pool in resources. The rush deck does it after the fact, while the bleed deck does it before the fact. The end result is the same--you are denied resources. >>Not really. It's a multiplayer game, which makes things a lot more complex because the way the players play has _varying_ effects on the other players in the game. And I emphasize "varying" to signify that the way play has an effect which varies from one player to the next in the same game. How this works can be more fun or less fun depending on the way the game plays. I find the effects that rush combat has on the game to be less fun in this sense.>> Which is a reasonable belief--I never claimed that it was *fun* getting whacked by a Rush deck. In fact, it is not particularly fun at all. You sit around and get your vampires killed, and then get ousted. That isn't the point. I am completely unconcerned with whether this sort of deck is fun or not in this context. It also isn't fun getting run over by a weenie bleed deck in 4 turns. It also isn't particularly fun getting all of your vampires stolen by TotGP, and sitting around till you are ousted. That certainly isn't what I'm discussing here. I'm discussing what is *effective*, not what is *fun*. >>Just pure play experience. You just often don't see the bleed or vote deck demolish its prey's resources so quickly that they don't even have a chance.>> I see that quite often, actually. If my predator is a well designed, quick Dom/Obf deck, I can easily lose upwards of 15 pool by turn 3. Sure, if I have bleed defenses, this won't happen, but on the other hand, if I have combat defenses, I won't get all my vampires killed, either. >>And such decks do not usually attack their predator's resources at all (or at least not very much compared to rushing backwards), giving their predator a fighting chance to outrace them if nothing else.>> So? VTES is a mutli-player game, and by virtue of this, you deal with multiple players. You have two neighbors in every game. Some people are happy simply interacting with their prey, and leaving their predator to do whatever they want. Some are not. If killing my predator keeps me alive and helps me win, I will kill them. If they feel they are getting a raw deal (because I'm not simply leaving them alone), that is sad, but I'm certainly not going to stop killing them. You should expect that both of the players sitting next to you are going to interact with you. Perhaps they'll intercpet your actions. Perhaps they'll deflect all of your bleeds. Perhaps they'll beat up your vampires. Expecting that your prey is going to leave you alone strikes me as a bad idea. >>Combat decks make it significantly worse. We'll never prevent sickness and injury altogether either but we still put a ton of effort into medicine. Go figure. Some problems can't be solved, such as the game having randomness. But there's necessary randomness and UNnecessary randomness. And I put rush combat decks into the latter class.>> I see. You don't like Rush decks, and you don't like intercept decks. You basically don't seem to like any situation where a player can have any significant impact upon their predator at all, as you see this as "random". Check. You don't like situations where your grand predator gets an "undeserved advantage", because you did something bad to your predator. Check. [ quoted text not captured ]

> You didn't read before answering or what ? try to imagine Archon > Investigation worded that way : > cost : 3 pool. Play when a vampire with DOM/PRE is trying to bleed you for 4 > or more. Prevent the Bleed ! You don't lose any pool at all from this bleed. > All bleed is prevented, really. Yeah, he didn't even bled you ! and now he's > burned ! ha ha ! Ummm AI has a pool COST. If you had 10 pool you now have 7 pool left after playing it. No matter what, you can't call that a gain, you just made a loss of 3 pool! It doesn't matter if you would have lost 12 pool had the bled come true, you're still poorer than you were before. Gain = you're richer than you were before. > > Do you understand that you can "prevent" a bleed from 4 to, say, 12 by > spending 3 pool. And, nice bonus, you get the bleeder burned. I call this > NET GAIN, the same way i call Net Gain a point burned to a "Skin of Steel" > to prevent 3 damage. I don't want to bother about taxes or stock exchange. > Preventing a huge bleed and burning a big bleeder at the same time IS a > GAIN. No it isn't a gain. You prevent somehting that's is a prevent, not a gain. > If you can't realize it, then don't answer me =) > reyda And I really hope you don't work with something involving economy =)

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > You seem to object strenuously to how combat decks win games. I guess I > > misinterpreted your objectives. > > That's correct. So let me try again; your objective is to provide a way to win with combat which is _so_ much more effective than the current method that people will largely stop playing with that method. Correct? > The "perhaps" was not intended to dispute that they still might exist. If combat- > oriented player decide to use the alternate paths to victory because they just like > playing combat-oriented decks but want a better chance to win, then you wouldn't > see as many of the rush-type combat decks. It seems like we're splitting hairs here. Bruise and Bleed is a sufficiently different way to "win using combat," but people still play rush-type decks. There are a _lot_ of criteria this "new winning method" would have to satisfy before people will give up rush decks. For example: * It must not be card-intensive. It must be a single card which is either reusable for moderate effect, or usable once for great effect. * It must provide an advantage which is repeatedly better than bleeding for 1-2 per action. (For example, the "Fame loop" only provides 1.5 loss pool per action, usually at a cost of 2 blood from you, hence why it's not that good.) > > The "pure thug rush decks" would be just as effective as they are now. > > Making cards which give combat decks alternate paths to victory would > > only, if anything, make combat decks more effective. Aren't you against > > that? [snip you misunderstanding me] What I mean is, the _existing_ rush combat decks will be just as effective as they are now. This new method of victory must be more effective for people to want to switch. > > Malkavian Prank is extremely random. You can't get much more random > > that "someone picks a number and someone else tries to guess it." Even > > though a combat deck's actions can cause unforseen consequences, this is > > far from "random." > > It's not exactly "random" in the same way, granted. But it has essentially random > effects in that you really don't know beforehand what your victim's other neighbor > is going to do when you blow up your victim's minions. If you did, you could adjust > your deck and tactics to compensate and make the results of playing combat decks > much more predictable than I perceive they are now. I really don't like your use of the word "random" like this. The good rush players can make the compensations you're talking about. > > Give a specific example of a "bunch" of combat cards you would like to > > see be made effective. > > Assamite combat cards. Gangrel combat cards. Is it just me who doesn't see the Assamites as needing a S:CE hoser? They have Psyche! What they need is a few more vampires with the right skills. Gangrel combat cards are already somewhat effective; at least they see play. Wolf Claws is very common, and the maneuver/press cards are played as well. You were talking about cards which are currently _useless_. > > > Yep, I agree with all that. To which I'll add, this is a sad state of affairs: > > > outguess your predator in the metagame and the only result is that your grand > > > predator gets a free victory point. > > > > Not necessarily. > > In this situation - combat with a stealth/bleed predator, it is. I was talking > about this situation exactly. It's not necessarily true that your grandpredator gets a VP. You make it sound like a foregone conclusion, which it certainly is not. If anything is "the problem" in this scenario, it's the weenie deck with no defenses, not the combat deck. > The metagame is about guessing. I don't think it's that random. My conception of "the metagame" is: I have a vision of what decks I think I'll be facing, and I'll plan my defenses correctly. It's at worst an educated guess. > You guess what you think will work based on your > experience with whatever group of people you're about to play with and your > opponents do likewise. The thinking is that this is a matrix game: guess right and > you're supposed to be rewarded. We have established that you don't think "not dying" is reward enough. As much as you, for example, might plan on weenie decks being prominent at the tournament, you may still only not die due to your planning. Again, the combat deck is not the problem. It's your conception that you deserve a reward for being smart and planning ahead. > Guess wrong and you get punished. The trouble I find with combat is > that its neighbors seldom get rewarded no matter what they guess. If they guess > right vs. the combat deck, much of the payoff still seems to go to the guys across > the table, who in fact tend to get paid off no matter whether the combat decks > neighbors guess right or wrong. Combat decks are just bad news to sit next to and > good news to set across from, no matter whether they themselves win or lose. You've said all this before, and I've argued against it. Your reward is that you don't die. You slow the combat deck down so that they can't oust you, and get ousted by their predator instead. The people across the table are irrelevant, much as they are between any other pair of decks. > Of course, if the combat deck does well, that's always somewhat bad for the guys > across the table in the same way that if anyone on a table really does well, it's > bad for everyone else. But relatively speaking, it's much worse for the combat > deck's neighbors because the guys across the table at least have some chance of > grabbing a VP before getting sucked under. Any deck which is slow to oust has this problem. It's not specific to combat. > I don't find this works the same way with any other deck - with one exception - > where you tend to have a chance to get rewarded well if you guess right vs. your > neighbor. The exception is intercept wall decks (whether combat-oriented or just > something like Obedience and untap or Majesty and untap) which don't do that much > for themselves, totally screw their predators, and may or may not screw with their > prey depending on how much the prey's deck depends on undirected actions. Intercept > wall decks, in my experience, just don't win period and they almost always take > their predator down with them. If someone is playing a deck which can't win, then of course they're going to screw up the table. Not all intercept decks have this problem. Often, an intercept deck _can_ oust its prey, if it's built correctly. You have no control over stupid people who are going to screw up the game because they're not trying to win. Just because stupid people can do more damage with a combat deck is no reason to sanction the deck. > > Well, every deck must have _some_ way of defending itself. A combat > > deck's defense is an active one; kill their vampires before they get a > > chance to act against you. It is by far the most unpredictable and > > volatile defense method. But a good player can make it work. > > Yea, I understand. It's just the additional instability (and I'll grant it's > _additional_ instability over and above the chaos that already exists in the > game) that I don't personally care for. You keep going back and forth on this. Are rush combat decks a _problem_ for the game, or are they not? If so, then argue that point. If this is just you not liking something, then I can safely pigeonhole you with all the 4CL people. > Same as anything else people don't like in the game. If it's just me, screw it. See my previous paragraph. > But I hear others (e.g. Ian) don't really care for it either it. If it's a lot > of people, White Wolf would want to consider carefully to whether this is really > the type of game they want to design cards for and facilitate. It's been the same game for years and years. It would be highly daunting and/or highly unstabilizing to make the kind of fundamental change you seem to be advocating. Daunting to do it well, unstabilizing if it is not done well. > > > People getting victory points based on the pure luck of > > > where they sit tends to make Jyhad suck when they happen. Pure play-balance > > > isn't the only thing to worry about. > > > > This happens _all_ the time. It has _nothing_ to do with combat decks > > specifically. > > What happens "all the time"? "People getting victory points based on the pure luck of where they sit" happens all the time. It has nothing to do with combat decks specifically. > The luck of having > to sit next to someone who happens to be playing a specific type of deck that's > always bad news to its neighbors, on the other hand, is not necessary. Back to this. It is _not_ always bad news to sit next to a combat deck. I have explained this repeatedly. Back in Ithaca, when everyone had psychotic combat decks, Josh Duffin made a Ventrue deck with lots of combat defense and wrecked us all. He _wanted_ to sit next to combat deck; otherwise, all his combat defense cards went to waste. So, we started making non-combat decks and mixing things up. And the metagame evolved, as it's supposed to. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Careful how? "Oh, I won't ever bleed for 6 because that might get > > deflected and oust the wrong person." That sounds like a pretty > > mediocre strategy. > > I don't know what you do when you have a stealth bleed deck and hit a prey > with bleed bounce. Personally, I watch how much I'm bleeding for with each > given vampire. Yes, I refuse to bleed for 6 in this situation. I will keep > my bleed for maybe 2 or 3 or maybe only 1 if my grandprey is teetering on the > edge. ...which seems like a pretty mediocre strategy to me. As I said. > > > but if so, the stealth/bleeder's > > > grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in > > > his own fate. > > > > Not really. He's only involved if he has bounce or intercept, and > > managed to stay untapped. > > Oh cripes, this is not rocket science. He's involved the same way anyone's > involved in the metagame. You plan for your defense against stealth bleed. Just like you plan your defense against combat. Doesn't mean it will always work. > > Well, they have to try. There are many ways to shut down a combat deck > > that don't require scores of cards in your deck. A non-additional > > strike Potence deck is shut down by a single Superior Mettle, for > > example. > > There's various fortitude cards that will shut down a combat deck for a > whole combat but none of them that you would sanely include in large numbers > just for one type of combat deck. Once again I'm repeating myself: you don't need scores of combat defense cards to screw a combat deck. > > And now that IG doesn't last the whole combat, it's usually > > enough to last the first round, or at least force the combat deck to > > expend a _lot_ of resources to kill your vampire. > > I'm not sure what this has to do with not using lots of cards to defend > against a combat deck. The point isn't about making the combat decks lose. > It's about gaining advantage from the fact that the combat deck is your > neighbor. I guess I finally understand, though it seems psychotic. You're saying you don't like rush decks, because there's no way to make a deck which makes you say "hurray!" every time a combat deck sits down next to you? That's insanity. > Mostly, in the metagame you just try to do things to _survive_ a combat > deck. Surviving is good enough. If you can survive a combat deck, you neuter it. If you can survive 1 out of every 2 or 3 combats, you stand a good chance of beating it. > But I've never found a way to survive a dedicated rush combat deck > that works against anything else at all. Why should _combat_ defense cards work against anything but a _combat_ deck? You seem to want Jyhad to be some kind of happy fairy land where you get to not think and never get screwed. > > If everyone at tournaments played with enough combat defense, > > Rush decks _would_ be impossible to win with. > > But that wouldn't help their neighbors. It would be the players across > the table that would benefit, as always. So if I have a deck with lots of intercept, and my predator is a vote deck which I'm able to completely shut down, how is that different? > > Even if you put 15 Deflections in your deck, chances are you'll get > > caught with your pants down at some point. Even if your deck is 50% > > combat defense, the combat player will occasionally be able to make a > > kill. What's the difference? > > What do you need to know? The difference is that you usually *WON'T* get > caught with your pants down against bleed instead of being getting caught > with your pants down ALL THE TIME. The difference is the combat player > making an occasional kill rather than ripping you apart from the first > action. That's plenty of difference for me. Dude. You don't need to have gobs of combat cards to keep from getting ripped apart. But there's no way to guarantee that you won't get caught against either strategy. If combat decks are killing you _absolutely_ every time you get into a fight, then you must be playing with zero combat defense. > That's not what I meant. You can also fit both bleed bounce and various > vote-only defenses (e.g. Delaying Tactics, your own voting vamps and vote- > producing cards, both masters and reaction cards and so forth) in the > same deck. Then you can fit combat defense cards into the same deck. OK, I agree that combat defense cards don't do much unless there's a combat deck next to you. But that's part of the metagame. Your Delaying Tactics and Dread Gazes don't do shit unless there's a vote deck around, either. > > Dude. The example I gave was specific. There is a fast > > forward-pointing bleed deck in our group which can routinely oust my > > combat deck. So probably _not_ never, huh? > > It depends on your combat deck, I guess. Unless the combat deck is based on > larger vampires, I've never seen a weeny bleed deck that works well enough against > a combat deck. The combat deck just rushes and eats them too fast for them to > make much headway - even if you bring 4 out in the same turn. It's not going to win every time. But it has a very good chance. _Especially_ if the weenie player is smart and gets all their vampires out all on the same turn. > I guess this an example of differing perceptions. This is completely outside > of my experience. Or maybe the problem is your combat deck, I don't know. It > doesn't seem like a reasonable claim to me. Yeah, that's right. I've only been playing rush combat decks since the game was first released. Yeah, my deck must just be for shit. <sigh> > > You're saying there needs to be a combat hoser? That's insane. I'll be > > the first one to say combat is reasonably effective in the right hands, > > but it certainly doesn't need to be hosed more. > > Again, that's because you insist on looking at the game only in terms of which decks > have how much chance to win. I'm looking at the game in terms of the amount of > chaos caused by the different deck types. Well, I don't have a "chaosometer", so I can't use the magical chaos scale to make judgements about the game. The more "trump cards" which are released, the stupider this game will become. Archon Investigation is a trump card which was totally unnecessary. The way to fix AI is not to print an anti-AI card. There are many combat strategies, some of which are screwed by S:CE, some by Fortitude, some by maneuvers, etc. A better-than-S:CE trump card would be succeeded by a better-than-Immortal-Grapple anti-trump, and so on. Then we'd really be playing rock/paper/scissors. > In terms of how to plan a deck that's a > reasonable metagame choice and wins *because* it's next to a combat deck, combat > decks do indeed need to be hosed more. Why does such a deck need to exist? I don't ever sit down and say "hurray! my predator is a malkavian stealth bleed deck!" Even if I have Deflections and/or other bleed defense, that defense doesn't _make_ me win. > The answer is not to worry about how much chance rush combat decks have to win the > game and find some other answer to stealth/bleed decks. It's not like the raison d'etre for combat decks is "to kill Malkavians." There's plenty of ways to do that already. > I already conceded (in the middle of > all that text that you went off on) that it might not increase them, though > that strikes me as unlikely. Then there's nothing more to argue. The rest of your paragraph is you _still_ not understanding that 1+1=2. All I said was that the existence of new combat cards would not NECESSARILY increase the frequency with which combat decks appeared at tournaments. If the printing of new cards was the only thing which caused such increases in frequency, then by that logic _all_ decks would increase in frequency (percentage-wise) after the release of every set, which is impossible, since the total percentage must add up to 100%. If you read that paragraph and still disagree, do us both a favor and keep it to yourself, before I have to shoot myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

Hey, Peter. I think I'm going to bow to your superior wisdom for the rest of this thread. I'm starting to froth at the mouth and you're posting much more eloquently than I am. Keep up the good work. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > Careful how? "Oh, I won't ever bleed for 6 because that might get > > deflected and oust the wrong person." That sounds like a pretty > > mediocre strategy. > > I don't know what you do when you have a stealth bleed deck and hit a prey > with bleed bounce. Personally, I watch how much I'm bleeding for with each > given vampire. Yes, I refuse to bleed for 6 in this situation. I will keep > my bleed for maybe 2 or 3 or maybe only 1 if my grandprey is teetering on the > edge. ...which seems like a pretty mediocre strategy to me. As I said. > > > but if so, the stealth/bleeder's > > > grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in > > > his own fate. > > > > Not really. He's only involved if he has bounce or intercept, and > > managed to stay untapped. > > Oh cripes, this is not rocket science. He's involved the same way anyone's > involved in the metagame. You plan for your defense against stealth bleed. Just like you plan your defense against combat. Doesn't mean it will always work. > > Well, they have to try. There are many ways to shut down a combat deck > > that don't require scores of cards in your deck. A non-additional > > strike Potence deck is shut down by a single Superior Mettle, for > > example. > > There's various fortitude cards that will shut down a combat deck for a > whole combat but none of them that you would sanely include in large numbers > just for one type of combat deck. Once again I'm repeating myself: you don't need scores of combat defense cards to screw a combat deck. > > And now that IG doesn't last the whole combat, it's usually > > enough to last the first round, or at least force the combat deck to > > expend a _lot_ of resources to kill your vampire. > > I'm not sure what this has to do with not using lots of cards to defend > against a combat deck. The point isn't about making the combat decks lose. > It's about gaining advantage from the fact that the combat deck is your > neighbor. I guess I finally understand, though it seems psychotic. You're saying you don't like rush decks, because there's no way to make a deck which makes you say "hurray!" every time a combat deck sits down next to you? That's insanity. > Mostly, in the metagame you just try to do things to _survive_ a combat > deck. Surviving is good enough. If you can survive a combat deck, you neuter it. If you can survive 1 out of every 2 or 3 combats, you stand a good chance of beating it. > But I've never found a way to survive a dedicated rush combat deck > that works against anything else at all. Why should _combat_ defense cards work against anything but a _combat_ deck? You seem to want Jyhad to be some kind of happy fairy land where you get to not think and never get screwed. > > If everyone at tournaments played with enough combat defense, > > Rush decks _would_ be impossible to win with. > > But that wouldn't help their neighbors. It would be the players across > the table that would benefit, as always. So if I have a deck with lots of intercept, and my predator is a vote deck which I'm able to completely shut down, how is that different? > > Even if you put 15 Deflections in your deck, chances are you'll get > > caught with your pants down at some point. Even if your deck is 50% > > combat defense, the combat player will occasionally be able to make a > > kill. What's the difference? > > What do you need to know? The difference is that you usually *WON'T* get > caught with your pants down against bleed instead of being getting caught > with your pants down ALL THE TIME. The difference is the combat player > making an occasional kill rather than ripping you apart from the first > action. That's plenty of difference for me. Dude. You don't need to have gobs of combat cards to keep from getting ripped apart. But there's no way to guarantee that you won't get caught against either strategy. If combat decks are killing you _absolutely_ every time you get into a fight, then you must be playing with zero combat defense. > That's not what I meant. You can also fit both bleed bounce and various > vote-only defenses (e.g. Delaying Tactics, your own voting vamps and vote- > producing cards, both masters and reaction cards and so forth) in the > same deck. Then you can fit combat defense cards into the same deck. OK, I agree that combat defense cards don't do much unless there's a combat deck next to you. But that's part of the metagame. Your Delaying Tactics and Dread Gazes don't do shit unless there's a vote deck around, either. > > Dude. The example I gave was specific. There is a fast > > forward-pointing bleed deck in our group which can routinely oust my > > combat deck. So probably _not_ never, huh? > > It depends on your combat deck, I guess. Unless the combat deck is based on > larger vampires, I've never seen a weeny bleed deck that works well enough against > a combat deck. The combat deck just rushes and eats them too fast for them to > make much headway - even if you bring 4 out in the same turn. It's not going to win every time. But it has a very good chance. _Especially_ if the weenie player is smart and gets all their vampires out all on the same turn. > I guess this an example of differing perceptions. This is completely outside > of my experience. Or maybe the problem is your combat deck, I don't know. It > doesn't seem like a reasonable claim to me. Yeah, that's right. I've only been playing rush combat decks since the game was first released. Yeah, my deck must just be for shit. <sigh> > > You're saying there needs to be a combat hoser? That's insane. I'll be > > the first one to say combat is reasonably effective in the right hands, > > but it certainly doesn't need to be hosed more. > > Again, that's because you insist on looking at the game only in terms of which decks > have how much chance to win. I'm looking at the game in terms of the amount of > chaos caused by the different deck types. Well, I don't have a "chaosometer", so I can't use the magical chaos scale to make judgements about the game. The more "trump cards" which are released, the stupider this game will become. Archon Investigation is a trump card which was totally unnecessary. The way to fix AI is not to print an anti-AI card. There are many combat strategies, some of which are screwed by S:CE, some by Fortitude, some by maneuvers, etc. A better-than-S:CE trump card would be succeeded by a better-than-Immortal-Grapple anti-trump, and so on. Then we'd really be playing rock/paper/scissors. > In terms of how to plan a deck that's a > reasonable metagame choice and wins *because* it's next to a combat deck, combat > decks do indeed need to be hosed more. Why does such a deck need to exist? I don't ever sit down and say "hurray! my predator is a malkavian stealth bleed deck!" Even if I have Deflections and/or other bleed defense, that defense doesn't _make_ me win. > The answer is not to worry about how much chance rush combat decks have to win the > game and find some other answer to stealth/bleed decks. It's not like the raison d'etre for combat decks is "to kill Malkavians." There's plenty of ways to do that already. > I already conceded (in the middle of > all that text that you went off on) that it might not increase them, though > that strikes me as unlikely. Then there's nothing more to argue. The rest of your paragraph is you _still_ not understanding that 1+1=2. All I said was that the existence of new combat cards would not NECESSARILY increase the frequency with which combat decks appeared at tournaments. If the printing of new cards was the only thing which caused such increases in frequency, then by that logic _all_ decks would increase in frequency (percentage-wise) after the release of every set, which is impossible, since the total percentage must add up to 100%. James [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott wrote: > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > It may be rude, but I was being honest. I genuinely don't understand > > why he's having such a tough time getting a simple point. > > Well, it may be difficult to understand because your point is bullshit. Yeah, that's right. Let me spell it out to you so that a four-year-old could understand. You have a bunch of numbers which all add up to 100. (Specifically, these are the percentage frequency with which various deck types appear at tournaments, but that's not relevant.) Now, something happens, and all the numbers either stay the same, or go up. Can the total still be 100? Answer: No, not unless all the numbers stayed the same. _That_ is the _only_ point I was making. I can't see how you can _possibly_ disagree or fail to understand. The only thing I can think of is you somehow (despite my repeated efforts) didn't get that _this_ was the point I was making. [ quoted text not captured ]

<...> > That doesn't matter one way or the other. Bleed decks kill you by denyng you > resources--your pool. <...> > Rush decks kill you by denying you resources--your vampires. If you lose a > vampire, you lose a vampire that cost you X pool, you have lost X pool in > resources. The rush deck does it after the fact, while the bleed deck does it > before the fact. The end result is the same--you are denied resources. > ....must.... disagree..... Simple maths: 6 pool = 6 pool a 6-cap vamp= 6 pool + six transfers + a potential X actions + a potential Y reactions difference: six transfers + a potential X actions + a potential Y reactions I know this is oversimplified. 6 pool can, for instance, potentially buy stuff,etc. V:TES is not M:TG. In Magic there's the possibility to do tons of stuff without creatures, even to make creatureless decks. In V:TES the only thing you can do without minions is play master cards. Here lies IMO the biggest problem with rush decks: they deny you the chance to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Both vote and bleed decks attack your pool but they leave their prey the chance to get VP's for himself and to react to things happening on the table. But, in the end, I just have to agree with legbiter: rush combat is not for newbies or intelectually challenged veterans. Jeroen

Jeroen wrote: >>....must.... disagree.....>> Must...use...conventional...dial...phone... >>difference: six transfers + a potential X actions + a potential Y reactions>> If you still have the six pool ('cause it wasn't bled from you), you still have the option of getting the 6 point vampire. If you don't have the 6 pool, you don't. If you are bled for 6, you are now without 6 pool, and without anything to show for it--no 6 point vampire, no other 6 points of resources. If you get a 6 point vampire blown up, you are in the exact same spot--without 6 pool, and without anything to show for it. Yes, you lose the transefers as well, but transfers are a renewable resource that cost you nothing, so kind of moot. And if you were bled for 6 instead, the use of the transfers was never even an option. Again. If I am bled for 6, that is a 6 point vampire I will never have. If I make a 6 point vampire, and it is blown up, I am in the same spot that I would have been if I had never made the 6 point vampire in the first place, and instead, bled for 6--without 6 pool and without a 6 point vampire. >>V:TES is not M:TG. In Magic there's the possibility to do tons of stuff without creatures, even to make creatureless decks. In V:TES the only thing you can do without minions is play master cards.>> No one has made any reference to M:TG in any of this thread. >>Here lies IMO the biggest problem with rush decks: they deny you the chance to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.>> A) If you have combat defense, they don't do this. B) Bleed decks do the exact same thing--if you are ousted in 4 turns by a S+B deck that bleeds you sucessfully for 5 an action, you are denied the chance to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. 'Cause you are ousted. Thus most people plan on defending themselves against bleed decks. If they have no bleed defense, and run into a (fairly common) bleed deck, they are denied the chance to do anything whatsoever--because they are quickly ousted. Rush decks work exactly the same way--if you don't have defenses, you get destroyed, and quickly. Just like when you are sitting next to a bleed deck without bleed defense. The only difference is for some reason, people seem to think it is reasonable and a good idea to have to include bleed defense, where they feel it is unreasonable and unfair to have to include combat defense. Go figure. >>Both vote and bleed decks attack your pool but they leave their prey the chance to get VP's for himself and to react to things happening on the table.>> Not if you are dead. Again, if I have no bleed defense, and I sit next to a S+B deck, I will be ousted very quickly. I will not have the chance to do anything, let alone get a VP. 'Cause I'm dead. If I have no vote defense, and I sit next to a weenie vote push deck, I will be ousted quickly. Again, I will not have the chance to do anything, 'cause I'll be dead. I fail to see how Rush decks are exempt from the "I want to have defenses against this" equation. Most folks include some sort of bleed defense (bounce, intercept, rampant pool gain, out race) in their deck strategy. Most folks include some sort of vote defense (intercept, vote weight, delaying tactics, rampant pool gain) in their deck strategy. Few people include combat defense other than Majesty in their deck strategy. Why? You got me. I always assume it is because they want me to kill them. >>But, in the end, I just have to agree with legbiter: rush combat is not for newbies or intelectually challenged veterans.>> Umm, ok. But vote decks, that can cause just as much random damage, are ok? How about Anarch Revolt decks? I have seen Anarch Revolt cause *far* more "random" destruction to a game than a Rush deck ever could. But Rush decks are special, I guess. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Apr 2001 13:15:59 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Jeroen wrote: >>>....must.... disagree.....>> > >Must...use...conventional...dial...phone... must... stay out of... other argument... NAH, SCREW IT. WHEE! >>>difference: six transfers + a potential X actions + a potential Y >reactions>> > >If you still have the six pool ('cause it wasn't bled from you), you still have >the option of getting the 6 point vampire. If you don't have the 6 pool, you >don't. ...whether or not you were ever intending to get the 6 point vampire in the first place. Bleed decks can hamstring you somewhat by bleeding for tons early on. After enough turns, though, you potentially already have the vampires you've intended to get out, and now that bleed for 6 is, while still aggravating, not quite as limiting. And you ALWAYS get to have your first-choice vampire who can at least make the deck hobble along, no matter how much you're bled for in the first three turns. >If you are bled for 6, you are now without 6 pool, and without anything to show >for it--no 6 point vampire, no other 6 points of resources. If you get a 6 >point vampire blown up, you are in the exact same spot--without 6 pool, and >without anything to show for it. For this paragraph, I'll define "blown up" as burned. If you have a 6 point vampire BURNED, you are in the position you mention: you have effectively been bled for 6 at the 'start' of the game, making you unable to get that 6 point vampire. However, there's an additional cost: you might have chosen to get that specific 6 point vampire, and passed up some other supporting vampires instead. This gives an additional destabilizing effect to Rush decks, as opposed to bleed decks. If I have Dolphin Black, Boy Toy, and Yorik out, and someone poofs Dolphin, I no longer have any intercept capability until I fetch another vampire with Auspex. If my only option is to influence out Claven, then I've STILL lost my superior Auspex; and that probably matters a great deal, since Eagle's Sight and a number of other toys depend on AUS. With one well-placed action, Rush can effectively remove a deck's ability to function. If, in the situation above, I was the Rush deck's predator, then he is probably almost REQUIRED to kill Dolphin before he gets repeatedly bled for 4 at stealth. But in killing Dolphin, he also removes my deck's ability to defend against my predator effectively. Against a fast predator, I'm probably on a death-spiral. So a 6-cap vampire being burned is generally worth much more than 6 pool - situational costs invariably come into play here. >Yes, you lose the transefers as well, but transfers are a renewable resource >that cost you nothing, so kind of moot. And if you were bled for 6 instead, the >use of the transfers was never even an option. > >Again. If I am bled for 6, that is a 6 point vampire I will never have. If I >make a 6 point vampire, and it is blown up, I am in the same spot that I would >have been if I had never made the 6 point vampire in the first place, and >instead, bled for 6--without 6 pool and without a 6 point vampire. No. You are screwed much worse, since you've lost the 6 point vampire that you wanted/needed and probably don't have another copy of in your uncontrolled region. If you had a bleed deck behind you, you simply wouldn't get 6 pool worth of OTHER vampires. You would still get the vampire you wanted, however. Again, in the above case, if I were bled for 12 before I were able to get a vampire, I would still have gotten Dolphin Black. Then I would have just failed to transfer out Boy Toy or Yorik unless I thought I wasn't going to get bled for another 10. Big difference. Now, if we define 'blown up' as "sent to torpor", then we discover the reason why Rush decks tend to not win. Vampires will come back unless you kill ALL of their minions, so they are physically unable to perform the rescue actions. In the above case, if you torporize Dolphin, the first thing I'll do on my turn is rescue with Yorik. She comes back out, and if I had only been Disarmed or had a Blood Doll handy to blow through the straw, she'll be bleeding for 4 again at stealth. In this case, I've merely lost 8 blood and 1 pool... which is significantly less than 6 pool. And if you kill ALL of someone's minions, then you definitely end their game. This has an enormous destabilizing effect on the table; if you kill all your prey's minions, your grandprey will have completely free rein for the time it takes you to bleed out the remaining 10+ pool. If you kill all your predator's minions, your grand-predator will likely use the time to set up carefully so that he blows through your predator and then you all in one turn. And if you start rushing your grand-predator's minions, then you are going all over the road and are starting to look like a "reckless" deck. I bet I could turn a table against someone who was doing -that-, no matter how necessary it was. >>>Here lies IMO the biggest problem with rush decks: they deny you the chance >to do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER.>> > >A) If you have combat defense, they don't do this. > >B) Bleed decks do the exact same thing--if you are ousted in 4 turns by a S+B >deck that bleeds you sucessfully for 5 an action, you are denied the chance to >do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. 'Cause you are ousted. Thus most people plan on >defending themselves against bleed decks. If they have no bleed defense, and >run into a (fairly common) bleed deck, they are denied the chance to do >anything whatsoever--because they are quickly ousted. Rush decks work exactly >the same way--if you don't have defenses, you get destroyed, and quickly. Just >like when you are sitting next to a bleed deck without bleed defense. The only >difference is for some reason, people seem to think it is reasonable and a good >idea to have to include bleed defense, where they feel it is unreasonable and >unfair to have to include combat defense. Go figure. It's easier to include bleed defense than it is combat defense. To stop bleed decks cold, I simply include 6 Wakes and 8 Deflections. The Wakes can be used for other things if nobody's behind me. If I'm out of Wake, I leave a guy untapped. I don't always NEED to have both cards in hand to survive. And most decks can be counted on to bleed for 1, so I can chuck Deflections on those actions if nothing else. The 14 cards I have to include to protect against bleed are not a major opportunity cost. To stop a Rush deck cold, I need to have about 30% of my deck be combat defense. Note that the 14 cards mentioned above are significantly short of 30% of even a 60-card deck... and most decks are more than 60 cards. If I make it be REAL combat defense, then I'm going to run into some trouble when I don't sit next to a Rush deck. Mostly, I'm going to try desperately to get into combat so I can cycle all my maneuvers, prevent cards, and S:CE that are cluttering my hand and that normally just vanish without me making any effort when I sit near Rush. ...This comes from the point of view of the combat deck, by the way. =) I've found that if your deck has "light combat defense", it means that I just have to use a little strategy and planning to thump your guys, but I'll still get 'em... just a touch slower. You really need about 30% of your deck being "go away" cards to seriously stop things, and that's gonna be too much. >I fail to see how Rush decks are exempt from the "I want to have defenses >against this" equation. Most folks include some sort of bleed defense (bounce, >intercept, rampant pool gain, out race) in their deck strategy. Most folks >include some sort of vote defense (intercept, vote weight, delaying tactics, >rampant pool gain) in their deck strategy. Few people include combat defense >other than Majesty in their deck strategy. Why? You got me. I always assume it >is because they want me to kill them. This, by the way, is no longer an accurate assertion. The Atlanta qualifier can be described in one word: messy. And I don't recall seeing a single Majesty played all day. -- Derek "There's hands everywhere!" -- N. Stewart

<...> > I fail to see how Rush decks are exempt from the "I want to have defenses > against this" equation. Most folks include some sort of bleed defense (bounce, > intercept, rampant pool gain, out race) in their deck strategy. Most folks > include some sort of vote defense (intercept, vote weight, delaying tactics, > rampant pool gain) in their deck strategy. Few people include combat defense > other than Majesty in their deck strategy. Why? You got me. I always assume it > is because they want me to kill them. simple: in a 90 card deck bleed defence: say max. 8 cards (bounce and bloat) vote defence: 2-3 cards + the bloat from above rush defence: 8 against IG decks (manuevres and obedience), other rush decks: another 6-8 S:CE. Exception when you play a deck with for: 10 prevention cards with 10 cards you're defended against bleed AND vote, to protect yourself from rush you'll need 14 cards. That would make a total of 24 purely defensive cards (26.666666%) And because 8 of these cards only protect you from 1 type of rush deck it's easy to see why they're the ones left out.

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> a écrit dans le message news: 9atiho$ghj$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... > Ummm AI has a pool COST. If you had 10 pool you now have 7 pool left after > playing it. No matter what, you can't call that a gain, you just made a loss > of 3 pool! It doesn't matter if you would have lost 12 pool had the bled > come true, you're still poorer than you were before. Gain = you're richer > than you were before. > (snip) > No it isn't a gain. You prevent somehting that's is a prevent, not a gain. > And I really hope you don't work with something involving economy =) consider this : a company is losing 60,000 dollars a year. They now that, by selling come of their branch of out-of-date industry for a mere 20,000 dollars, they will stop losing money. The problem is, the industry they want to sell might be worth 55,000 dollars. would you call this sale a loss or a gain ? It depends on your vision of things. Now we're talking about a game. i think removing the threat from a minimum 4 pool loss each turn by spending 3 pool now is a gain on this turn AND on the long run. Now you can think what you want, at least you may understand my point of view. and no, i'm not involved in economics. i'm a freelance writer for various game magazines-maybe my imagination is not well suited to real life problems ? =)

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > You seem to object strenuously to how combat decks win games. I guess I > > > misinterpreted your objectives. > > > > That's correct. > > So let me try again; your objective is to provide a way to win with > combat which is _so_ much more effective than the current method that > people will largely stop playing with that method. Correct? Not exactly. I don't like rush combat decks but I'm not spitting blood to get rid of them. My primary objective is simply to find a way to win using the combat cards we have in the game in a way that isn't as destabilizing and mutually destructive as rush combat. If it has the benefit of inducing fewer players to play rush combat, I sure wouldn't mind that as a side-effect. So I'm clear about this, I'll there's bad things in this game and there's all-caps BAD THINGS. Rush combat is not the latter. We got into this (I think) because I'm one of the ones that disputes that combat is this important third major deck archetype that I perceive the combat deck players would like see put on an equal footing with vote and bleed by being given cards which make combat more unstoppable. I'm just trying to point out that there's another aspect of the game to look at besides which types of decks are effective enough to win how many victory points. > There are a _lot_ of criteria this "new winning > method" would have to satisfy before people will give up rush decks. > For example: > > * It must not be card-intensive. It must be a single card which is > either reusable for moderate effect, or usable once for great effect. > * It must provide an advantage which is repeatedly better than bleeding > for 1-2 per action. (For example, the "Fame loop" only provides 1.5 > loss pool per action, usually at a cost of 2 blood from you, hence why > it's not that good.) Yea, that makes sense. And I think both criteria are achievable. > > > Malkavian Prank is extremely random. You can't get much more random > > > that "someone picks a number and someone else tries to guess it." Even > > > though a combat deck's actions can cause unforseen consequences, this is > > > far from "random." > > > > It's not exactly "random" in the same way, granted. But it has essentially random > > effects in that you really don't know beforehand what your victim's other neighbor > > is going to do when you blow up your victim's minions. If you did, you could adjust > > your deck and tactics to compensate and make the results of playing combat decks > > much more predictable than I perceive they are now. > > I really don't like your use of the word "random" like this. The good > rush players can make the compensations you're talking about. Yes, I understand that. But even so, they fail some of the time and the mediocre players fail an awful lot. So random things come from combat decks, even if it's not the same type of randomness that comes from the matrix games in Malkavian Prank. > > > Give a specific example of a "bunch" of combat cards you would like to > > > see be made effective. > > > > Assamite combat cards. Gangrel combat cards. > > Is it just me who doesn't see the Assamites as needing a S:CE hoser? > They have Psyche! What they need is a few more vampires with the right > skills. Psyche's actually a pretty mild S:CE card. The experience I had with Assamites is a deck that wanted to maneuver to long and launch Taste of Deaths. It's too many moving parts to combine with enough Psyches to cancel out an opponent's Majesties. A lot of Quietus combat involves spending blood which gets real self-defeating real fast if they just S:CE, even if you have the Psyche in hand. > Gangrel combat cards are already somewhat effective; at least they see > play. Wolf Claws is very common, and the maneuver/press cards are > played as well. You were talking about cards which are currently > _useless_. I guess I'm not seeing how Wolf Claws really help. OK, you have to pay for them until you know they work, but so? If you could use Psyches with Gangrel, that might be doable since you don't need to spend blood on combat cards and you can save the claws until they work. But without the discipline cards, that combination doesn't exist. From what I've seen, protean and animalism combat cards are pretty close to useless against a deck with a significant number of Majesties, which makes them pretty useless in general. > > > > Yep, I agree with all that. To which I'll add, this is a sad state of affairs: > > > > outguess your predator in the metagame and the only result is that your grand > > > > predator gets a free victory point. > > > > > > Not necessarily. > > > > In this situation - combat with a stealth/bleed predator, it is. I was talking > > about this situation exactly. > > It's not necessarily true that your grandpredator gets a VP. You make > it sound like a foregone conclusion, which it certainly is not. If > anything is "the problem" in this scenario, it's the weenie deck with no > defenses, not the combat deck. It's not necessarily true but it happens often enough that it's a major problem with the combat deck archetype, IMHO. > > The metagame is about guessing. You guess what you think will work based on your > > experience with whatever group of people you're about to play with and your > > opponents do likewise. The thinking is that this is a matrix game: guess right and > > you're supposed to be rewarded. > > We have established that you don't think "not dying" is reward enough. It can be if it's easy enough, I suppose. If I throw in a relatively small number of cards and completely confound my predator's deck from doing anything to harm me or bleed much from my pool, that's actually a pretty good advantage to have in a game. That sounds like a reward to me. I just question whether you can do that do a good, dedicated rush combat deck without using a huge amount of deckspace, which would greatly lessen the reward. > > Guess wrong and you get punished. The trouble I find with combat is > > that its neighbors seldom get rewarded no matter what they guess. If they guess > > right vs. the combat deck, much of the payoff still seems to go to the guys across > > the table, who in fact tend to get paid off no matter whether the combat decks > > neighbors guess right or wrong. Combat decks are just bad news to sit next to and > > good news to set across from, no matter whether they themselves win or lose. > > You've said all this before, and I've argued against it. Your reward is > that you don't die. You slow the combat deck down so that they can't > oust you, and get ousted by their predator instead. The people across > the table are irrelevant, much as they are between any other pair of > decks. I agree, that element exists. But the amount of deckspace needed to achieve it mitigates the "reward". It's also hard to build the deck that does that and doesn't die horribly to everything else in the metagame, which means it's really not the answer. The guys across the table get rewarded enough by various types of scenarios that tend to come up at various times: the combat deck cripples its predator and then suddenly gets handjammed trying to do the crosstable rush or doesn't draw any rush cards for several turn is the usual one or runs into a grandpredator which is well enough prepared or just plain lucky enough to withstand the crosstable rushes long enough to get the oust. Things like that. They may not happen a lot with good players. But even so they happen (in my perception) much more often than they do with other types of decks. > > Of course, if the combat deck does well, that's always somewhat bad for the guys > > across the table in the same way that if anyone on a table really does well, it's > > bad for everyone else. But relatively speaking, it's much worse for the combat > > deck's neighbors because the guys across the table at least have some chance of > > grabbing a VP before getting sucked under. > > Any deck which is slow to oust has this problem. It's not specific to > combat. If it were just being slow to oust (similar to a bloat deck, for instance), fine. But here again, the dynamics are not the same. For instance, if the issue is destroying the prey's minions and then having to send three vampires a turn to bleed at one each - especially against a prey which refuses to spend more pool on more vampires and "help" the combat deck - then the grandprey can run wild in a way that isn't possible when its predator is still on the table with real minions. In fact, being slow to oust actually has the opposite problem with most other decks: it's the prey who may gets more time to do what he has to do. Though the random effects of that problem don't seem to be as bad or happen as often as with combat decks. > > But I hear others (e.g. Ian) don't really care for it either it. If it's a lot > > of people, White Wolf would want to consider carefully to whether this is really > > the type of game they want to design cards for and facilitate. > > It's been the same game for years and years. It would be highly > daunting and/or highly unstabilizing to make the kind of fundamental > change you seem to be advocating. Daunting to do it well, unstabilizing > if it is not done well. To restate what I say up at the top: I'm not demanding change to get rid of rush combat. I'm just opposing change to support it. I'd also like to see new ways of using combat cards to win games besides rushing and destroying minions. > > > > People getting victory points based on the pure luck of > > > > where they sit tends to make Jyhad suck when they happen. Pure play-balance > > > > isn't the only thing to worry about. > > > > > > This happens _all_ the time. It has _nothing_ to do with combat decks > > > specifically. > > > > What happens "all the time"? Luck? You're failing to make a distinction. > > The luck of the metagame is a necessary element to CCGs. The luck of having > > to sit next to someone who happens to be playing a specific type of deck that's > > always bad news to its neighbors, on the other hand, is not necessary. > > Back to this. It is _not_ always bad news to sit next to a combat > deck. I have explained this repeatedly. Back in Ithaca, when everyone > had psychotic combat decks, Josh Duffin made a Ventrue deck with lots of > combat defense and wrecked us all. He _wanted_ to sit next to combat > deck; otherwise, all his combat defense cards went to waste. So, we > started making non-combat decks and mixing things up. And the metagame > evolved, as it's supposed to. The problem with your response is that it doesn't solve the problem I'm pointing at. A common mistake people make in understand the metagame of a CCG is that, "If deck Y exists which will hose deck X, then deck X isn't all-powerful." The trouble with that point of view is that if deck Y isn't good for much else besides hosing deck X, then not that many people really want to play it and it doesn't do that much for balancing deck X in reality. Deck X may not ALL-powerful, but it's powerful enough that the metagame gets a lot less interesting. In the case of combat, we're not struggling with combat decks being overly powerful in terms of gaining victory points as much just finding a way to reward people who guess right for sitting next to them. You can play dedicated fortitude decks and win. But you usually won't because you can't do much else with such a deck. So the *real life* thing that actually happens is combat decks vs. some degree level of combat defense in the combat deck's neighbor which will delay it but never have a chance of winning that game. Often that effectively rewards the people across the table. Much more often than any other type of deck I see. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > >>Again (believe I made this point elsewhere multiple times),>> > > Of course you made it multiple times--I just chose to not accept it as a valid > one :-) Well, all right. But just understand that you're giving an answer I and other people here automatically have a problem with. If you're trying to convince yourself and those who already agree with you, you're probably doing a decent job. I'm not sure why you'd see the need to do that, though. > >>that's fine if the bleeds come early enough to make that decision. But once > the 16 pool is already spent on vampires, you can't put them back in the > uncontrolled area and retrieve your pool. That's what I meant by "mid or late > game".>> > > That doesn't matter one way or the other. Bleed decks kill you by denyng you > resources--your pool. If you lose it now or later, it is still less pool you > have to spend on stuff you want. If you aren't ever bled for anything, you will > have a lot more stuff/resources (vampires, master cards, whatever) than if you > are bled for a lot. It doesn't matter when you lose the pool--if you lose it > early, you lose the access to the resources early. If you lose the pool late, > you lose access to the resources later. It doesn't matter. Each pool you lose > is one less pool you have to spend on something useful. > > Rush decks kill you by denying you resources--your vampires. If you lose a > vampire, you lose a vampire that cost you X pool, you have lost X pool in > resources. The rush deck does it after the fact, while the bleed deck does it > before the fact. The end result is the same--you are denied resources. Please stop and think about this! Your prey spends 18 on vampires and 12 on pool. It's done, the vampires are already out. So now you can attack him with rush combat or stealth bleed him. If you rush him, you FIRST destroy his defense THEN bleed him until he's dead. Between the time you've crippled him and when you've ousted him by draining his pool, he's sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without minions. This is completely different from trying to stealth past him and get at his pool directly. Whether you succeed or fail, he still has his minions to work with, defend himself, attack his prey and so forth. Nothing happens to them until his last pool is gone - at which time he vanishes from the chain. You can NOT tell me this "the same thing". It's not the same thing, it doesn't play anything like bleed or vote, and the difference in how it works seems damaging to the game and makes it less fun to play. ... > Which is a reasonable belief--I never claimed that it was *fun* getting whacked > by a Rush deck. In fact, it is not particularly fun at all. This issue is not about it not being fun to lose the game. If my predator makes a good deck and/or guesses right in the metagame and beats me, that's fine. For one thing, I can learn from that. I can use his strategy and tactics in future games and I can also learn that I need to defend myself from such things. That's the cool thing about strategy games: when you don't win, you have the opportunity to learn something. The issue I'm raising is my perception that the combat decks neighbors will tend to lose not so much because of bad choices (though that element is sometimes present), but that they often lose simply because they were unfortunate enough to roll the dice and wind up next door to combat deck. Even if they planned for it, they still don't tend to do as well (unless, as I'm arguing with James, they planned a specific anti-combat deck that doesn't do well against anything else). There's not much I can learn from bad luck. > >>Just pure play experience. You just often don't see the bleed or vote deck > demolish its prey's resources so quickly that they don't even have a chance.>> > > I see that quite often, actually. If my predator is a well designed, quick > Dom/Obf deck, I can easily lose upwards of 15 pool by turn 3. All right. Absolutely different experiences, then. I don't see hardly see it ever at all. We're in different worlds here. Not much else to say. > >>And such decks do not usually attack their predator's resources at all (or at > least not very much compared to rushing backwards), giving their predator a > fighting chance to outrace them if nothing else.>> > > So? VTES is a mutli-player game, and by virtue of this, you deal with multiple > players. So it sucks to be combat deck's predator. You get attacked in ways you never have to deal with vs. any other decks. Nothing to learn from this, nothing to do about it. It's just bad luck. That's "so". It's a bad thing in a game to have that kind of an element. That's "so". It makes the game suck. > I see. You don't like Rush decks, and you don't like intercept decks. You > basically don't seem to like any situation where a player can have any > significant impact upon their predator at all, as you see this as "random". > Check. You don't like situations where your grand predator gets an "undeserved > advantage", because you did something bad to your predator. Check. Yep. All this is true. Check. As you like to say: so? Fred

Jeroen wrote: >>with 10 cards you're defended against bleed AND vote, to protect yourself from rush you'll need 14 cards. That would make a total of 24 purely defensive cards (26.666666%) And because 8 of these cards only protect you from 1 type of rush deck it's easy to see why they're the ones left out.>> Yup. These are choices you have to make. If you are worried about bleed, you include bleed defense. If you are worried about combat, you include combat defense. Very simple. If you are worried about combat decks, use combat defense, just like you use bleed defense when you are worried about bleed decks. Do not, on the other hand, choose to not use combat defense, get killed by combat, and then attempt to justify how it was somehow not your fault that you got killed by a combat deck (because you chose not to use combat defense) by attempting to brand Rush decks as unfair, random, or chaos causing (and as such, unfit for play). [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek wrote: >>must... stay out of... other argument... NAH, SCREW IT. WHEE!>> Yaa! More folks are suckered in! >>...whether or not you were ever intending to get the 6 point vampire in the first place. Bleed decks can hamstring you somewhat by bleeding for tons early on. After enough turns, though, you potentially already have the vampires you've intended to get out, and now that bleed for 6 is, while still aggravating, not quite as limiting. And you ALWAYS get to have your first-choice vampire who can at least make the deck hobble along, no matter how much you're bled for in the first three turns.>> And then you have one vampire to defend yourself with. And you'll probably die. And then, again, you'll be in the same spot if all your vampires were blown up. Dead. >>If I have Dolphin Black, Boy Toy, and Yorik out, and someone poofs Dolphin, I no longer have any intercept capability until I fetch another vampire with Auspex.>> If you were bled for 15 on the first three turns, you won't have Dolphin, Boy Toy, and Yorik out at all. You might have one or two of them. If one of those two isn't Dolphin black ('cause you couldn't justify the expenditure), it is just like she was burned. >>With one well-placed action, Rush can effectively remove a deck's ability to function.>> Or, it could burn a 6 point vampire, and then see that same 6 point vampire get influenced out again the next turn. If I bleed you for 6, that is one less 6 point vampire you can bring out. If I burn a 6 point vampire, that is one less 6 point vampire you have out. If Dolphin is so durned important, A) Include more of her in your crypt or B) keep her from getting killed. >>If, in the situation above, I was the Rush deck's predator, then he is probably almost REQUIRED to kill Dolphin before he gets repeatedly bled for 4 at stealth. But in killing Dolphin, he also removes my deck's ability to defend against my predator effectively.>> Sad, that. >>Against a fast predator, I'm probably on a death-spiral. So a 6-cap vampire being burned is generally worth much more than 6 pool - situational costs invariably come into play here.>> Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes the 6 point vampire is minion tapped for 5 before it gets killed. Either way, you are denied resources. >>No. You are screwed much worse, since you've lost the 6 point vampire that you wanted/needed and probably don't have another copy of in your uncontrolled region.>> Sad. Include more in your crypt. Or avoid getting burned. Combat defense isn't that hard. People just don't *like* including it, because it is card intensive and might not be important. This is a design decision that has to be made. If you choose to not include combat defense then you are asking to get killed when you sit next to a Rush deck. >>If you had a bleed deck behind you, you simply wouldn't get 6 pool worth of OTHER vampires. You would still get the vampire you wanted, however.>> Not if you were bled to the point that you couldn't afford to bring it out. >>Again, in the above case, if I were bled for 12 before I were able to get a vampire, I would still have gotten Dolphin Black.>> And then you'd still probably die. >>Big difference.>> Not seeing it. >>Now, if we define 'blown up' as "sent to torpor", then we discover the reason why Rush decks tend to not win.>> I win all the time. I send all of my prey's vampires to torpor. They don't come out unless they get more vampires. If they do, I send them to torpor too. >>And if you kill ALL of someone's minions, then you definitely end their game.>> Just like if you bleed them to death. >>This has an enormous destabilizing effect on the table;>> How is it more destabilizing than bleeding someone to death? >>if you kill all your prey's minions, your grandprey will have completely free rein for the time it takes you to bleed out the remaining 10+ pool.>> Unless you beat them up too. >>If you kill all your predator's minions, your grand-predator will likely use the time to set up carefully so that he blows through your predator and then you all in one turn.>> So you need to make sure that doesn't happen either. >>And if you start rushing your grand-predator's minions, then you are going all over the road and are starting to look like a "reckless" deck.>> So? If I get the most VPs, I doesn't matter how reckless I look, or act for that matter. >>I bet I could turn a table against someone who was doing -that-, no matter how necessary it was.>> And I bet that I could convince whomever necessary that I was actually helping them out, and that it was in their best interest to leave me alone, as I'll leave them alone until they oust their prey, securing them at least 1 VP, which is better than nothing. >>It's easier to include bleed defense than it is combat defense.>> Yup. Just like it is easier to bleed than it is to Rush. >>To stop bleed decks cold, I simply include 6 Wakes and 8 Deflections.>> 14 cards. To stop a Rush deck enough you need, say, 4 Wakes and 10 Obediances. Or 14 Superior Mettle. Or 7 Superior Mettle and 7 Skin of Steel. Or something like that. No one questions the inclusion of 14 anti bleed cards in a deck. Everyone questions 14 anti combat cards in a deck. That is why Rush decks work in tournaments. >>To stop a Rush deck cold, I need to have about 30% of my deck be combat defense.>> Incorrect. You don't need to stop a Rush deck cold. You need to slow the Rush deck down enough so that it gets ousted before you get destroyed. This is what kills me all the time. Someone has enough Obediance or Superior Mettle or Flesh of Marble so about half of my Rush actions are foiled. I don't kill you, and instead get ousted. >>...This comes from the point of view of the combat deck, by the way. =) I've found that if your deck has "light combat defense", it means that I just have to use a little strategy and planning to thump your guys, but I'll still get 'em... just a touch slower. You really need about 30% of your deck being "go away" cards to seriously stop things, and that's gonna be too much.>> You don't need to seriously stop stuff. A deck with, say, 14 anti combat cards (Flash? Superior Mettle? Obediance?) will slow my Rush deck down enough to get me ousted. 14 cards. Just like the 14 cards you shut down a bleed predator with. [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrick wrote: >>Well, all right. But just understand that you're giving an answer I and other people here automatically have a problem with.>> Which one is that? >>Please stop and think about this! Your prey spends 18 on vampires and 12 on pool. It's done, the vampires are already out.>> And if I bleed him for 6 before he gets out that 18 on vampires, he will only spend 12 on vampires (and it'll be just like I burned a 6 point vampire); or; he will have only 6 pool and be much easier to kill. >>If you rush him, you FIRST destroy his defense THEN bleed him until he's dead. Between the time you've crippled him and when you've ousted him by draining his pool, he's sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without minions.>> This is a much shorter time than one might think. Usually a turn or two at most (especially if Fame is factored in). If my prey spends 10 points on minions, and then never spends any more after his vampires are burned, leaving a big pool wall to get through, this is then the *prey* who is mucking up the table and giving a free ride to his prey. I can't help people who refuse to bring out vampires and try to play the game. >>This is completely different from trying to stealth past him and get at his pool directly. Whether you succeed or fail, he still has his minions to work with, defend himself, attack his prey and so forth. Nothing happens to them until his last pool is gone - at which time he vanishes from the chain. You can NOT tell me this "the same thing".>> Of course I can. I have, like, a billion times already. And I will continue to do so, as you are yet to convince me that I am mistaken. >>It's not the same thing, it doesn't play anything like bleed or vote, and the difference in how it works seems damaging to the game and makes it less fun to play.>> To you. I disagree. >>The issue I'm raising is my perception that the combat decks neighbors will tend to lose not so much because of bad choices (though that element is sometimes present), but that they often lose simply because they were unfortunate enough to roll the dice and wind up next door to combat deck.>> If they had enough combat defense (please see my reply to Derek), this would not be the case. Again, people don't think twice about including bleed defense, but don't think that it is fair to have to include combat defense as well. If I am playing a deck that has no bleed defense, and I roll the dice and end up to a S+B predator, I will be losing due under the exact same circumstances. You may say "But *everyone* has bleed defense--if you don't that is a bad deck". I'd say the same thing applies to combat defense. >>Even if they planned for it, they still don't tend to do as well (unless, as I'm arguing with James, they planned a specific anti-combat deck that doesn't do well against anything else). There's not much I can learn from bad luck.>> You can learn that you should have combat defense, or expect to die to a combat deck. Just like if you have no bleed defense, you should expect to die to a bleed deck. >>All right. Absolutely different experiences, then. I don't see hardly see it ever at all. We're in different worlds here. Not much else to say.>> Check. You never see anyone bleeding you for 15 on the first three turns. Kooky. >>So it sucks to be combat deck's predator.>> It sucks to be an intercept deck's predator if you have no stealth. And it sucks to be the predator of a deck with abundant bounce when all you can do is bleed. And it sucks to be a Gangrel's predator when you have no damage prevention. And it sucks to be a combat deck's predator if you have no combat defense. Use combat defense, and this won't suck so much. >>You get attacked in ways you never have to deal with vs. any other decks.>> That is correct. That is why Rush decks can do well in tournaments, because people don't expect to have to deal with them. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't have to worry about them. >>Nothing to learn from this, nothing to do about it.>> Include combat defense. If you get bad luck and end up next to a S+B deck when you have no bleed defense, the same stuff happens. >>It's just bad luck. That's "so". It's a bad thing in a game to have that kind of an element. That's "so". It makes the game suck.>> There is no luck about it. Include combat defense. Would you say it is "just bad luck" to end up next to a bleed deck when you don't have any bleed defense? No, you'd say it was poor plannng. Same thing here. If you don't include combat defense, you are asking to get killed by a combat deck. You just don't want to have to worry about it. If you choose not to, you are making an informed choice. >>Yep. All this is true. Check.>> Just making sure I understand. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ok, one more into the mix, because there's finally a point that seems like the actual meat of the argument to me. =) >>> If you rush him, you FIRST destroy his defense THEN bleed him until he's > dead. Between the time you've crippled him and when you've ousted him by > draining his pool, he's sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without > minions.>> > > This is a much shorter time than one might think. Usually a turn or two at > most I totally disagree with this number. A turn or two? One turn would mean that all your minions bleed for one (no bleed cards, as this is a Bajika Rush and only Rush deck, yes?), ousting your prey. How much pool does your prey have, and how many minions do you have? I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they're all small Potence-only weenies, but that's 4 or 5 guys, tops, since you haven't included any Effective Managements. So you're assuming your prey spends himself down to 5 pool irregardless of you obviously pounding them down into torpor (more on this later). To borrow from another post, this: >>if you kill all your prey's minions, your grandprey will have >>completely free rein for the time it takes you to bleed out the >>remaining 10+ pool. >Unless you beat them up too. and this: >>If you kill all your predator's minions, your grand-predator will likely use >>the time to set up carefully so that he blows through your predator and then >>you all in one turn. >So you need to make sure that doesn't happen either. Which seems like either you ARE Rushing these people, keeping these things from happening, OR you're bleeding for 4 and 5 a turn so you can oust your prey in "a turn or two," assuming that they're down to 10 pool or less after rushing all the minions. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The numbers don't add up, to me. (if you want to say you can manage the table by threat alone, I would say you play with weak-minded fools. But if you insist, go ahead, and the argument is over, as we've nothing more to discuss.) > (especially if Fame is factored in). A trick you maligned as a waste of time for causing average 1.5 pool loss for an average cost of one blood? Of a Unique Master? No, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt of factoring that in. Unless you put 3 Fames in every deck, which, from what I hear, you don't. > If my prey spends 10 points on minions, > and then never spends any more after his vampires are burned, leaving a big > pool wall to get through, this is then the *prey* who is mucking up the table > and giving a free ride to his prey. No, they ARE playing the game. This is her combat defense, just like not blocking stealth bleed. If she thinks your predator can get you before you can get her, or that you need to go whacking your grandpredator while she "gets a free ride," she's best off not bringing out ANYONE. > I can't help people who refuse to bring > out > vampires and try to play the game. "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you lay the blame." If you kill every minion of your prey, consistently before they get to do anything, and then she doesn't bring out more minions, and sits there with 20 pool, waiting for you get get ousted, leaving a few pool on vamps so she can bring one or two vamps out quickly and/or take the pool back, SHE can blame YOU for the free ride his prey is getting, since she has no other recourse. YOU can blame HER for not "trying to play the game," but I see it as "playing into your hands." You want to blame your prey for not playing by your rules, rules that support your opinion that pool and resources are thoroughly interchangeable quantities. But if they don't play by your rules, and don't allow destruction of secondary resources to turn right back into destruction of primary resources (by bringing out more vamps), your assumption fails. But rather than seeing the difference, it seems you'd rather chalk it up to poor playing on the part of the prey. I can see you ousting your prey in "a turn or two" against a guy who idiotically spends pool on guys as fast as he can, despite their imminent death, until he can spend no more (smallest guy a 6 cap, and 4 pool left). Other than that, it just takes longer, and your prey IS "sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without minions." -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Pat Ricochte wrote: >> I totally disagree with this number. A turn or two? One turn would mean that all your minions bleed for one (no bleed cards, as this is a Bajika Rush and only Rush deck, yes?), ousting your prey. How much pool does your prey have, and how many minions do you have?>> Well, if I torporize their minions, they have a choice--get out more minions and try and do something, or sit there until I oust them, one point at a time. This is their choice to make. Often, they will get out more minions. Maybe I kill them. Maybe I just keep bleeding them instead and let them attack their prey. If they keep getting out minions, the amount of time they will spend with zero minions to act and still in the game is fairly minimal. >>I'll give the benefit of the doubt that they're all small Potence-only weenies, but that's 4 or 5 guys, tops, since you haven't included any Effective Managements. So you're assuming your prey spends himself down to 5 pool irregardless of you obviously pounding them down into torpor (more on this later).>> I probably have 4 minions. If they have zero minions and 8 pool, I oust them in 2 turns. This does not seem at all unlikely. >>Which seems like either you ARE Rushing these people, keeping these things from happening, OR you're bleeding for 4 and 5 a turn so you can oust your prey in "a turn or two," assuming that they're down to 10 pool or less after rushing all the minions. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. The numbers don't add up, to me.>> Sometimes I rush my grand prey. Usually I don't. Generally, I just beat up my prey, oust them fairly quickly, and move on. One has options, however. >>A trick you maligned as a waste of time for causing average 1.5 pool loss for an average cost of one blood? Of a Unique Master? No, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt of factoring that in. Unless you put 3 Fames in every deck, which, from what I hear, you don't.>> Lo! I am caught up in and defeated by your iron web of logic! No, no, I use Fame all the time. If I have ever maligned it, it was in the context of trying to build a whole deck around it (as Fred was advocating). Trying to build a deck that ousts someone by repeatedly Faming them is a waste of time. Faming a vampire, however, is always a good idea (assuming I have 4 vampires, and the last vampire my prey has is Famous, I can oust him in 2 turns even if he has 12 pool...) >>No, they ARE playing the game. This is her combat defense, just like not blocking stealth bleed. If she thinks your predator can get you before you can get her, or that you need to go whacking your grandpredator while she "gets a free ride," she's best off not bringing out ANYONE.>> Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is just giving her prey a free ride. I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad, I was just using it as an example of someone doing something that gives a free ride to their prey, which in the context of the previous legs of this discussion, is, according to some involved, a Bad Thing (keeping in mind that one of Fred's apparent biggest beefs with a Rush deck is that it gives a free ride to it's grand prey). >>If you kill every minion of your prey, consistently before they get to do anything, and then she doesn't bring out more minions, and sits there with 20 pool, waiting for you get get ousted, leaving a few pool on vamps so she can bring one or two vamps out quickly and/or take the pool back, SHE can blame YOU for the free ride his prey is getting, since she has no other recourse. YOU can blame HER for not "trying to play the game," but I see it as "playing into your hands.">> Yup, she could. I'm not the one caring about the free ride the grand prey is getting. That would be Fred. >>You want to blame your prey for not playing by your rules, rules that support your opinion that pool and resources are thoroughly interchangeable quantities. But if they don't play by your rules, and don't allow destruction of secondary resources to turn right back into destruction of primary resources (by bringing out more vamps), your assumption fails. But rather than seeing the difference, it seems you'd rather chalk it up to poor playing on the part of the prey.>> No, I was just making an analogy. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Fred seems to have trouble with the idea that if a Rush deck beats up all of its prey's vampires, his grand prey gets a free ride (or an "undeserved advantage", as was a label used elsewhere in this discussion). I was illustrating that you could very well blame someone else. Personally, I am unconcerned with this whole issue, but Fred seems to be very worried about it, so I was providing a different viewpoint. >>I can see you ousting your prey in "a turn or two" against a guy who idiotically spends pool on guys as fast as he can, despite their imminent death, until he can spend no more (smallest guy a 6 cap, and 4 pool left). Other than that, it just takes longer, and your prey IS "sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without minions.">> With a single Fame, my prey is ousted in 2 turns if he has 12 pool when his last vampire is destroyed. This isn't at all unreasonable math. Without the Fame, 8 pool is the number, again, not that unlikely. [ quoted text not captured ]

> If you are worried about combat decks, use combat defense, just like you use > bleed defense when you are worried about bleed decks. Do not, on the other > hand, choose to not use combat defense, get killed by combat, and then attempt > to justify how it was somehow not your fault that you got killed by a combat > deck (because you chose not to use combat defense) by attempting to brand Rush > decks as unfair, random, or chaos causing (and as such, unfit for play). > I never tried anything like that. What got me into this discussion whas the (IMO still real) difference between 6 pool and a 6 cap vamp. (just for the record) I must admit I have a grudge against rush decks since the last 2 tourneys. Twice did a Rush deck just handed my predator a VP by killing my (his predator's) only minion. Please note that both did in fact contain combat defence. the first one had skin of steel/skin of rock + disarm, the second only Majesty (but 15 of them.) Maybe it has also something to do with the average personality of the Rush deck player ;-) Jeroen

In message <3ACCE37C...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >One problem I have is that it's hard to make an >all-Gangrel combat deck, because Dog Pack is slow and expensive. >Protean is a very combat-centric discipline, so maybe it should have a >S:CE hoser. Then again, maybe not. (Apologies for the delay. Much crashing and a brief weekend away.) One of the great assets Jyhad has, partly by accident, partly by design, it seems to me, is that none of the disciplines is *totally* good at one thing. (Dominate is very good, however, probably the 'best' discipline.) Take Presence. It's good for bleeding, but can't get the stealth. It's good for voting, but can't call the votes (stealth). It's good for combat defence, but can't use that as a wall of blockers (lack of intercept). Similarly, Potence. It's excellent for hitting things. It can get lots of damage. However, it can't maneuver, press, prevent or additional strike with any efficiency at all. Obfuscate - excellent for stealth, and a number of useful support combat cards (Swallowed by the Night, Behind You! etc.), with minor bleed (Spying Mission), but nothing for votes or offensive combat, really. IMO, all disciplines should have holes. These holes should be, to some extent, surmountable by discipline cross-over (efficient, useful cards) or disciplineless cards (hampered by "Do Not Replace" etc.) Giving Protean a "I beat you" card would give it maneuvers, aggravated damage, stealth, presses, additional strikes, damage prevention and S:CE prevention. A bad thing, IMO. -- 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 <3AD2648D...@math.wisc.edu>, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> writes >Gangrel combat cards are already somewhat effective; at least they see >play. Wolf Claws is very common, and the maneuver/press cards are >played as well. But everybody knows that Claws of the Dead is just way, way better in the current environment. The whole press thing is mostly not needed, and those maneuvers...... It does happen! [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3AD336A0...@netcom.com>, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> writes >The problem with your response is that it doesn't solve the problem I'm pointing >at. A common mistake people make in understand the metagame of a CCG is that, >"If deck Y exists which will hose deck X, then deck X isn't all-powerful." The >trouble with that point of view is that if deck Y isn't good for much else besides >hosing deck X, then not that many people really want to play it and it doesn't do >that much for balancing deck X in reality. Which is why a lot of the time, discussions revolve around options, strategies and tactics which fit across a whole range of decks - hence why a lot of people (not all, by any means) objected to RtoI, since it was often a case of deck X countering it, rather than strategies A, B and C, along with cards D, E and F, vampires G, H and I and a scattering of diplomacy, luck and skill. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Check. You never see anyone bleeding you for 15 on the first three turns. > Kooky. Just poking my head back in here briefly. Derek Ray's "Crypt Machine" deck is a good example of a deck which can (fairly easily) bleed for 12-18 in the first three turns. It's all 4-caps with Dominate, Dominate Masters, and lotsa bleed cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Apr 2001 21:20:04 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Derek wrote: >>>...whether or not you were ever intending to get the 6 point vampire >in the first place. Bleed decks can hamstring you somewhat by >bleeding for tons early on. After enough turns, though, you >potentially already have the vampires you've intended to get out, and >now that bleed for 6 is, while still aggravating, not quite as >limiting. And you ALWAYS get to have your first-choice vampire who >can at least make the deck hobble along, no matter how much you're >bled for in the first three turns.>> > >And then you have one vampire to defend yourself with. And you'll probably die. >And then, again, you'll be in the same spot if all your vampires were blown up. >Dead. Uh, I beg to differ LOUDLY here. An awful lot of decks can survive VERY well with one vampire, especially if it's the critical one; Minion Tap/5th is an excellent example, as is Wake/Deflection. Gangrel untap-wall... take your pick. With one vampire, you can stop SOME things from happening and help yourself, while you clamor to the rest of the table for assistance against the Evil Forces that have beset you. And strangely enough, you might find that people are willing to help you, lest someone get all their forces underway for a sweep. >>>If I have Dolphin Black, Boy Toy, and Yorik out, and someone >poofs Dolphin, I no longer have any intercept capability until I fetch >another vampire with Auspex.>> > >If you were bled for 15 on the first three turns, you won't have Dolphin, Boy >Toy, and Yorik out at all. You might have one or two of them. If one of those >two isn't Dolphin black ('cause you couldn't justify the expenditure), it is >just like she was burned. See below. One of those two, and possibly the ONLY one, *will* be Dolphin Black, because I'm not a fool and I know which vamps to influence and which not to, especially in the face of weenie Dominate bleed (the only thing which can bleed that fast). When Samson comes out behind me, I'm not going to waste my time getting Yorik. I'm going to go for the big guns right away, so that if necessary I can do things like bleed backwards for 4, or Wake/Tel. Misdirection, or even chuck around intercept. You really underestimate how powerful one vampire can be. >>>With one well-placed action, Rush can effectively remove a deck's >ability to function.>> > >Or, it could burn a 6 point vampire, and then see that same 6 point vampire get >influenced out again the next turn. If I bleed you for 6, that is one less 6 >point vampire you can bring out. If I burn a 6 point vampire, that is one less >6 point vampire you have out. If Dolphin is so durned important, A) Include >more of her in your crypt or B) keep her from getting killed. You're TOTALLY missing the concept here, not to mention that I'm just going to giggle at the idea of someone casually coughing up the same 6-point vampire in the face of a Rush deck. "Here, let me bleed myself for 6 for you!" A) is silly. B) is also a laugher, especially for the poor Malk Antis who don't have much in the way of combat defense at all (even Voice of Madness needs a younger vamp...) >>>If, in the situation above, I was the Rush deck's predator, then he is >probably almost REQUIRED to kill Dolphin before he gets repeatedly bled for 4 >at stealth. But in killing Dolphin, he also removes my deck's ability to >defend against my >predator effectively.>> > >Sad, that. Missing the point again. You destabilize the table severely in favor of my predator with this backwards action; now you have to worry about having possibly just handed your own grand-predator a sweep, as well as being directly ousted. >>>Against a fast predator, I'm probably on a death-spiral. So a 6-cap vampire >being burned is generally worth much more than 6 pool - situational costs >invariably come into play here.>> > >Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes the 6 point vampire is minion tapped for 5 >before it gets killed. Either way, you are denied resources. With zero vampires, it doesn't matter how much pool you have. The resources simply are not the same. Vampires do not equal pool. No matter what. >>>No. You are screwed much worse, since you've lost the 6 point vampire >that you wanted/needed and probably don't have another copy of in your >uncontrolled region.>> > >Sad. Include more in your crypt. Or avoid getting burned. Combat defense isn't >that hard. People just don't *like* including it, because it is card intensive >and might not be important. This is a design decision that has to be made. If >you choose to not include combat defense then you are asking to get killed when >you sit next to a Rush deck. THIS is the key problem. Rush decks all too frequently grind to a miserable halt, because they've slaughtered their predator, mugged their prey, and then can't bleed out their prey before their grandpredator blows through them all. Sure, it sounds like a neat theory that you go forth and casually Rush people, but without some very good table management skills and a little bit of luck, all you do is tip things over to one end or the other, as you eventually hand-jam or get bopped by the rest of the table to remove the reckless deck from play. Second... combat defense has become very hard as of Sabbat War. No longer does "combat defense" mean figuring out something to deal with the Gangrel and the Potence IG deck (maneuver or prevent). There are all kinds of valid fight decks running about these days. What do the Toreador include, for example? Majesty? No good against Potence IG. Flash? Pesky Assamites and OBF/Gun decks. Sideslip? Scorpion Sting for the Gangrel, not to mention IG again. Fight back? Worthless against any deck with +1 intercept, since you can't get something to use WITH that Celerity. Granted, combat is the Toreador's weak point. But all the clans should be playable, not forced to worry about if someone has trundled along the ever-failing Rush deck. If the problem were just "ok, i include prevent and no deflections, and a bleed deck will win" or "i include deflections and no prevent, and a Rush deck will win", then it'd be better. But the Rush deck really does often just fizzle to a halt, hand jammed on no Rush and forced to bleed for 1 lots, hoping, as its predator runs it over. If this happens mid-game, then the table just collapses around you. Bad. >>>If you had a bleed deck behind you, you simply wouldn't get 6 pool worth of >OTHER vampires. You would still get the vampire you wanted, however.>> > >Not if you were bled to the point that you couldn't afford to bring it out. You'll need to bleed me for 24 to make me consider that I can't afford to bring out a 6-cap that I consider crucial. >>>Again, in the above case, if I were bled for 12 before I were able to get a >vampire, I would still have gotten Dolphin Black.>> > >And then you'd still probably die. Nah. Wake/Tel. Misdirection, Wake/Block, and bleed backwards like a big mofo on your own turn. Good chance of stopping the reckless deck, and possibly even survival if you make a deal with your grandpredator that you'll give him his first VP if he lets you live long enough to gain your OWN first VP; and then you can be enemies again. >>>Big difference.>> > >Not seeing it. Keep looking. >>>Now, if we define 'blown up' as "sent to torpor", then we discover the >reason why Rush decks tend to not win.>> > >I win all the time. I send all of my prey's vampires to torpor. They don't come >out unless they get more vampires. If they do, I send them to torpor too. When was the last time Potence IG won a tournament? I notice in the one all the Ithaca guys brought their combat decks to, that you were the only one to make it to the finals... It's just not a winning strategy anymore. People WILL cross-table you early on to remove the threat instead of just letting you smack minions down at will. People WILL refuse to influence minions out, forcing you to attempt to bleed through 20 pool while your predator is nuking you repeatedly; or forcing you to kill your predator as well and make yourself a target. People WILL wait and Dramatic Upheaval away your VP once you bleed your prey down to 5. People have seen IG Rush. They know how to handle it without just including piles of Fortitude and maneuvers and letting the rest of the table go hang (which is exactly what the Rush deck wants). It served an excellent purpose when it was created; to move people off the 15-Majesty decks. The metagame has since shifted, and it's just too difficult to win with one anymore, frankly. We had a Rushy-grabby deck at the Atlanta qualifier. It didn't win. I'm not even sure if it qualified. (It ran into Flesh of Marble in one instance, and some other problems in the others.) It sure hosed up some people's decks though. Why encourage this too much? I'd much rather see cards that made bruise-and-bleed, bruise-and-vote, bruise-and-X, etc. more viable... less destabilizing, and therefore less of a target, and therefore a more winning strategy. >>>This has an enormous destabilizing effect on the table;>> > >How is it more destabilizing than bleeding someone to death? Besides that bleeding someone to death doesn't take anywhere near as much time, meaning that the prey of the victim doesn't get much of a free ride for long... and that bleeding someone out doesn't require that you vaporize your predator as well? Cmon, man. You know better. =) >>>if you kill all your prey's minions, your grandprey will have >completely free rein for the time it takes you to bleed out the >remaining 10+ pool.>> > >Unless you beat them up too. Uh-huh. Remember you said this. >>>If you kill all your predator's minions, your grand-predator will likely use >the time to set up carefully so that he blows through your predator and then >you all in one turn.>> > >So you need to make sure that doesn't happen either. Right. How many Rush actions does your deck have again? Vamps have gotten smaller and more durable. Decks hand jam, too. It's a given that you can't beat down the entire table, but frankly, that's what you're suggesting here. >>>And if you start rushing your grand-predator's minions, then you are going >all >over the road and are starting to look like a "reckless" deck.>> > >So? If I get the most VPs, I doesn't matter how reckless I look, or act for >that matter. Unless you get dead because people didn't want to let the reckless deck get started. >>>I bet I could turn a table against someone who was doing -that-, no matter >how necessary it was.>> > >And I bet that I could convince whomever necessary that I was actually helping >them out, and that it was in their best interest to leave me alone, as I'll >leave them alone until they oust their prey, securing them at least 1 VP, which >is better than nothing. Anyone would also notice that if they remove the Rush deck, they have a chance at a sweep, as opposed to a measly VP. =) Forcing the Rush deck to begin capriciously killing cross-table, supporting my original table-talk of the deck being reckless. :) >>>It's easier to include bleed defense than it is combat defense.>> > >Yup. Just like it is easier to bleed than it is to Rush. > >>>To stop bleed decks cold, I simply include 6 Wakes and 8 Deflections.>> > >14 cards. To stop a Rush deck enough you need, say, 4 Wakes and 10 Obediances. Which jam your hand if you don't face a Rush deck, since you can't Obedience things you can't block and most non-combat decks like to use stealth of some kind. >Or 14 Superior Mettle. Or 7 Superior Mettle and 7 Skin of Steel. Or something Which jam your hand if nobody gets into combat with you. >like that. No one questions the inclusion of 14 anti bleed cards in a deck. >Everyone questions 14 anti combat cards in a deck. That is why Rush decks work >in tournaments. Because 14 anti-combat cards just sit and jam your hand if nobody is trying to kill you, while you can be almost 100% guaranteed that someone will bleed you for at least 1? >>>To stop a Rush deck cold, I need to have about 30% of my deck be >combat defense.>> > >Incorrect. You don't need to stop a Rush deck cold. You need to slow the Rush >deck down enough so that it gets ousted before you get destroyed. This is what >kills me all the time. Someone has enough Obediance or Superior Mettle or Flesh >of Marble so about half of my Rush actions are foiled. I don't kill you, and >instead get ousted. If you're going backwards to kill me, I need to stop you cold so that *I* can oust you before you just kill all my vamps. >>>...This comes from the point of view of the combat deck, by the way. >=) I've found that if your deck has "light combat defense", it means >that I just have to use a little strategy and planning to thump your >guys, but I'll still get 'em... just a touch slower. You really need >about 30% of your deck being "go away" cards to seriously stop things, >and that's gonna be too much.>> > >You don't need to seriously stop stuff. A deck with, say, 14 anti combat cards >(Flash? Superior Mettle? Obediance?) will slow my Rush deck down enough to get >me ousted. 14 cards. Just like the 14 cards you shut down a bleed predator >with. I dunno. This really isn't my experience at all, although I do play a lot of different combat, and not just plain old Potence IG. Someone with a measly 14 cards' worth of combat defense is just plain going to get whacked; except it's going to be a lot slower, giving him some time to set up, influence more vamps, do some damage to his prey... basically, to do a lot more of your work for you, and THEN you pounce and toast some vamps all at once. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > It may be rude, but I was being honest. I genuinely don't understand > > > why he's having such a tough time getting a simple point. > > > > Well, it may be difficult to understand because your point is bullshit. > > Yeah, that's right. Let me spell it out to you so that a four-year-old > could understand. > > You have a bunch of numbers which all add up to 100. (Specifically, > these are the percentage frequency with which various deck types appear > at tournaments, but that's not relevant.) > > Now, something happens, and all the numbers either stay the same, or go > up. > > Can the total still be 100? > > Answer: No, not unless all the numbers stayed the same. > > _That_ is the _only_ point I was making. I can't see how you can > _possibly_ disagree or fail to understand. The only thing I can think > of is you somehow (despite my repeated efforts) didn't get that _this_ > was the point I was making. I could possibly fail to understand what having numbers add up to 100 has to do with anything. I was never suggesting that any set of percentages added up to more than 100%. What's bullshit about your point was that I never disputed it. I don't know what set you off down that road but it's clear you misunderstood what I was saying when took the first step. That's the problem here: rather than accept that I wasn't saying something ludicrous like that, you feel the need to beat me over my head with a thing I'd never disagree with rather that go back and figure out what it was we truly disagreed about. That's what I call a waste of time. Fred

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: > > > > > > Careful how? "Oh, I won't ever bleed for 6 because that might get > > > deflected and oust the wrong person." That sounds like a pretty > > > mediocre strategy. > > > > I don't know what you do when you have a stealth bleed deck and hit a prey > > with bleed bounce. Personally, I watch how much I'm bleeding for with each > > given vampire. Yes, I refuse to bleed for 6 in this situation. I will keep > > my bleed for maybe 2 or 3 or maybe only 1 if my grandprey is teetering on the > > edge. > > ...which seems like a pretty mediocre strategy to me. Really? You'd rather keep up the bleeds full speed, have them continually deflected and keep ousting grandprey until you're down to a 2-player game? I guess I think think that's worse than mediocre. This is something I'd like to throw open to the masses. Does anyone else have a perspective on this? How do others handle your prey clear packing deflections when your strategy is big bleed? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Personally, just keep bleeding. If you can manage to bleed several times in a turn, unless your prey has no cards other than deflection, I would suggest you can kill him, and have already weakened your Grand Prey (or great grand prey, or even predator) sufficiently to finish them off. (It has worked for me in teh past.) The biggest deterrent I can come up with for 6+ bleeds is Archon Investigation. Not pleasant. Andy -- Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outragous fortune, or get fat on chocolate cake, eat the cake, life is too short to worry!

James Hamblin wrote: > > Frederick Scott wrote: > > > > James Hamblin wrote: (James argues that it's just as unfair to sit down next to a guy with deflections as it is to sit down next to a combat deck. I reply that defending against deflected bleeds is just like defending against bleeds that originated with one's prey.) > > > > but if so, the stealth/bleeder's > > > > grandprey is also guessing wrong in the metagame. At least he's involved in > > > > his own fate. > > > > > > Not really. He's only involved if he has bounce or intercept, and > > > managed to stay untapped. > > > > Oh cripes, this is not rocket science. He's involved the same way anyone's > > involved in the metagame. You plan for your defense against stealth bleed. > > Just like you plan your defense against combat. Doesn't mean it will > always work. Nothing always works. You're ignoring the point. Deflections per se are no more different or "unfair" than dealing with bleeds your prey's bleeds. We've been disputing whether there's a difference or not between bleed and combat in many other places. Here, I was just replying that deflections as defense just sets another guy's bleed offense on you. If you're involved in your defense against bleeds, then you're involved in your defense against you're grandpredator's deflected bleeds also. > > > Well, they have to try. There are many ways to shut down a combat deck > > > that don't require scores of cards in your deck. A non-additional > > > strike Potence deck is shut down by a single Superior Mettle, for > > > example. > > > > There's various fortitude cards that will shut down a combat deck for a > > whole combat but none of them that you would sanely include in large numbers > > just for one type of combat deck. > > Once again I'm repeating myself: you don't need scores of combat defense > cards to screw a combat deck. Once again I'm repeating myself: "screwing a combat deck" is not the issue. Rewarding yourself against combat decks as neighbors are the issue. I wish to God every time you feel the need to repeat that, you'd just mentally plug in my automatic answer: it's one thing to screw a deck. It's another thing to benefit from doing. The thing I keep beating my head against the wall TIME AFTER TIME trying to get through to you is that the Jyhad metagame is *NOT* a 2-dimensional zero-sum game between any given set of predator and prey. The Magic metagame can be describe that way because Magic is a 2-player game: what "screws" your opponent ergo benefits you. No way 'round it. Not so Jyhad. In Jyhad, there are 4 or 5 players, hence the metagame payoff matrix is 4-dimensional or 5-dimensional. It is eminently possible to "screw a combat deck" and by so doing, screw yourself even worse. Or more often, to help yourself but not really help yourself all that much. He's screwed in the payoff chart but you're not really rewarded. I hate to go here because I'm positively frightened by the chance that you'll misunderstand or go off on some tangent. But in order to try and clarify, I'll use another type of deck. I'm going to possibly munge with how well the deck works in practice so if you don't think it works this way in reality, please don't correct my description of how the following deck works. I'm only trying to create an example so you'll understand what bothers me about combat decks. Just assume my comments about this deck are true for the sake of argument. The deck I'm thinking about is the "Brainwash deck". Reputedly (I've never actually tried it), you can usually slap enough Brainwashes out to be pretty much assured of gaining a single victory point: your prey's. Maybe not but usually. I suppose if your prey has all 1 or 2 cap vampires, he might survive by getting 2 vampires out the first turn he has enough transfers to. But that's a pretty unusual metagame choice. Outside of that, it doesn't matter _what_ type of deck your prey is running. His strategy and tactics are pretty much irrelevant. He just loses because a guy behind wanted to play a Brainwash deck. Brainwash is a card in the game and clearly not overpowered. It's just kind of a fucked thing for someone to do. It's not a real problem in the game overall so I wouldn't bother asking for Scott to ban it or anything. But if someone started bitching and moaning that Brainwash decks don't work very well, I sure wouldn't have much sympathy. Combat is not as bad as Brainwash in that it has a realistic chance of sweeping the table, not just producing a single victory point. Combat players are clearly trying to win the game, unlike Brainwash deck players. So it's a lot more respectable. Still, my perception is that combat decks are hard to play, so there's some comparison with the Brainwash decks that are near impossible to ever get more than one VP. And I also think that, like Brainwash decks, Combat decks are hard to play counters to that get rewarded for sitting next to. > I guess I finally understand, though it seems psychotic. You're saying > you don't like rush decks, because there's no way to make a deck which > makes you say "hurray!" every time a combat deck sits down next to you? > That's insanity. It's "insanity" not to like combat decks for that reason or it's "insanity" because you believe that it's possible to make a counter deck that shows a positive payoff? If the latter, I agree in some ways and disagree in others. As you say, you can build a dedicated Fortitude deck that just neuters it and chances are you can find a way to win - especially if both of your opponents are combat decks. (If it's only one of the two, you may have problems.) But is that deck a real player against anything else or just a one-trick pony? If the latter, it's not much of answer to combat in the long run. If the former, I'd like to see that sucker because I've never encountered one. > > Mostly, in the metagame you just try to do things to _survive_ a combat > > deck. > > Surviving is good enough. If you can survive a combat deck, you neuter > it. If you can survive 1 out of every 2 or 3 combats, you stand a good > chance of beating it. How does surviving 1 out of ever 2 or 3 combat "beat" a combat deck? If it's your prey, "beating it" happens when you oust it before getting ousted. If it's your predator, "beating it" means having a good chance of ousting your prey despite its efforts. Surviving 1 out of every 2 or 3 combats doesn't seem to lead directly to either of these results. You have to bleed someone to death on the side as well. This means you have to have enough deckspace to have an offense of some sort, not just limp away from combats. > > But I've never found a way to survive a dedicated rush combat deck > > that works against anything else at all. > > Why should _combat_ defense cards work against anything but a _combat_ > deck? You seem to want Jyhad to be some kind of happy fairy land where > you get to not think and never get screwed. You seem to think shoving words in my mouth about what I want does anything for your point. Decks need to do more than survive combat because the decks that only solve one archetype lose a hell of lot more games than they win. I'm not interested in playing a deck just because it solves one possible opposing deck. It's as if you think the fact some deck no one would usually want to play - unless your whole metagame is positively overrun by combat decks - is worth considering for its metagame value. It's not. > > > Even if you put 15 Deflections in your deck, chances are you'll get > > > caught with your pants down at some point. Even if your deck is 50% > > > combat defense, the combat player will occasionally be able to make a > > > kill. What's the difference? > > > > What do you need to know? The difference is that you usually *WON'T* get > > caught with your pants down against bleed instead of being getting caught > > with your pants down ALL THE TIME. The difference is the combat player > > making an occasional kill rather than ripping you apart from the first > > action. That's plenty of difference for me. > > Dude. You don't need to have gobs of combat cards to keep from getting > ripped apart. This is where you and I totally disagree. If it doesn't take "gobs of combat cards to keep from getting ripped apart" then combat decks are easy to defend against by all decks and they'd be mostly impossible to win with so no one would ever play them so they'd never be a problem. The reason they're worth playing is that the number of cards you have maintain in your deck to neuter them severely cripples you from doing well against anything *else*. > > That's not what I meant. You can also fit both bleed bounce and various > > vote-only defenses (e.g. Delaying Tactics, your own voting vamps and vote- > > producing cards, both masters and reaction cards and so forth) in the > > same deck. > > Then you can fit combat defense cards into the same deck. Nope. That's just not true. There isn't the single combat card (except for S:CE) that just neutralizes an entire combat deck's whole action. Even Fortitude cards usually have to played in multiples to neutralize the damage a good rush deck does each and every combat. > OK, I agree that combat defense cards don't do much unless there's a > combat deck next to you. But that's part of the metagame. Your > Delaying Tactics and Dread Gazes don't do shit unless there's a vote > deck around, either. Since there needs to be fewer of them, they can be discarded. The difference is shear numbers. > > > Dude. The example I gave was specific. There is a fast > > > forward-pointing bleed deck in our group which can routinely oust my > > > combat deck. So probably _not_ never, huh? > > > > It depends on your combat deck, I guess. Unless the combat deck is based on > > larger vampires, I've never seen a weeny bleed deck that works well enough against > > a combat deck. The combat deck just rushes and eats them too fast for them to > > make much headway - even if you bring 4 out in the same turn. > > It's not going to win every time. But it has a very good chance. > _Especially_ if the weenie player is smart and gets all their vampires > out all on the same turn. Sorry. That's not my experience. One rush, one dead weeny. They may get a few bleeds off but it doesn't go very far. > > I guess this an example of differing perceptions. This is completely outside > > of my experience. Or maybe the problem is your combat deck, I don't know. It > > doesn't seem like a reasonable claim to me. > > Yeah, that's right. I've only been playing rush combat decks since the > game was first released. Yeah, my deck must just be for shit. <sigh> I have no idea why you can't hunt down one mouse for pretty much every rush you take. The combat deck I've seen Gomi play would eat a weeny bleed deck for lunch. > Well, I don't have a "chaosometer", so I can't use the magical chaos > scale to make judgements about the game. The more "trump cards" which > are released, the stupider this game will become. Archon Investigation > is a trump card which was totally unnecessary. The way to fix AI is not > to print an anti-AI card. There are many combat strategies, some of > which are screwed by S:CE, some by Fortitude, some by maneuvers, etc. A > better-than-S:CE trump card would be succeeded by a > better-than-Immortal-Grapple anti-trump, and so on. Then we'd really be > playing rock/paper/scissors. I agree with that. I don't really want to print more anti-combat cards to fix this problem. To me, it's an annoying problem with combat that makes me opposed to doing anything to make rush combat easier. As I said, I just want to find other productive ways to let players use combat cards to win games. > > In terms of how to plan a deck that's a > > reasonable metagame choice and wins *because* it's next to a combat deck, combat > > decks do indeed need to be hosed more. > > Why does such a deck need to exist? I don't ever sit down and say > "hurray! my predator is a malkavian stealth bleed deck!" Even if I have > Deflections and/or other bleed defense, that defense doesn't _make_ me > win. Again, perceptions differ. Last week, one of the other players played a weenie stealth presence bleed deck and I happened to be sitting in front of it with a deck that a fair number of deflections. Hurray! My prey went down to my predator's bleeds in no time flat, it was so easy it was like taking candy from a baby. Trouble was, it was only a three-player game so I got wound up losing anyway, but that's Deflection for you. Yes, using Deflections will frequently win you the game if your predator is stealth-bleed. Other bleed defenses? Right now, we think of combat which is what this thread is about, and Archon Investigation which - weirdly enough - has a "combat-like" effect of burning the minion, as the other bleed defenses. What else am I missing? > > I already conceded (in the middle of > > all that text that you went off on) that it might not increase them, though > > that strikes me as unlikely. > > Then there's nothing more to argue. The rest of your paragraph is you > _still_ not understanding that 1+1=2. No. That's just your warped interpretation of my paragraph. I'm not sure what you think it buys you to interpret what someone says in a way would indicate they don't understand basic mathematics. When I do that, I go back and try to understand why I'm getting that impression and what they might have truly been trying to say. If I can't resolve the difference, I ask them to please restate the thing that seems to me like it obviously can't be true. I don't walk away assuming the worst of them. Not much you learn that way. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Fredrick wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > > Fredrick wrote: > > > >>Again (believe I made this point elsewhere multiple times),>> > > > > > Of course you made it multiple times--I just chose to not accept it as a valid > > > one :-) > > > > >>Well, all right. But just understand that you're giving an answer I and > other people here automatically have a problem with.>> > > Which one is that? The one you yourself cut. Don't snip text if you're going to turn around and ask to see it later. And actually, I was wrong - it wasn't an answer "I and other people here automatically have a problem with." It was an answer that you can't sanely choose not accept as valid. It's just...well...true. I wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Right. If I feel that my "safety cushion" is 14 pool, I'll spend 16 pool on > > vampires. If I lose some of that 16 pool, I spend that much less on vampires. > > If, on the second turn, I am bled for 5 (not that unlikely...), and I still > > wish to maintain my safety cushion of 14 pool, I now only have 11 pool to spend > > on vampires. > > Again (believe I made this point elsewhere multiple times), that's fine if the > bleeds come early enough to make that decision. But once the 16 pool is already > spent on vampires, you can't put them back in the uncontrolled area and retrieve > your pool. That's what I meant by "mid or late game". So I'd like to know what about the above you "don't choose to accept as valid". Once 16 pool is spent, it seems to me you're pretty much stuck taking your pool losses out of the remaining pool. But if you get hit by a combat loss, you're pretty much stuck taking your loss from your stock of minions. > >>Please stop and think about this! Your prey spends 18 on vampires and 12 on > pool. It's done, the vampires are already out.>> > > And if I bleed him for 6 before he gets out that 18 on vampires, But you don't. The example given was bleeding him for 6 afterward. In fact, even so Derek pointed out a difference with destroying a minion vs. destroying pool at any time, so even the bleed beforehand example isn't equivalent between bleeding and destroying a 6-cap. > >>If you rush him, you FIRST destroy his defense THEN bleed him until he's > dead. Between the time you've crippled him and when you've ousted him by > draining his pool, he's sitting there occupying a spot in the chain without > minions.>> > > This is a much shorter time than one might think. Usually a turn or two at most > (especially if Fame is factored in). If my prey spends 10 points on minions, > and then never spends any more after his vampires are burned, leaving a big > pool wall to get through, this is then the *prey* who is mucking up the table > and giving a free ride to his prey. I can't help people who refuse to bring out > vampires and try to play the game. Finally, a truly interesting answer to one of my points. I think even a turn or two, plus the time he's maybe starting to get anemic but isn't yet quite out of minions is plenty time to destabilize a game. If you can sweep a table this way, I'd wouldn't be bitching about combat being too unfair to its neighbors. Of course, I'd probably be bitching that combat decks are too powerful but that would be another thread. But the truth is, combat, no matter who well played, is seldom that clean. It's usually make a bloody mess of things, even when it does well. It often runs out of gas mid-prey or mid-predator and stalls for a turn or two or three and the half-killed thing winds up throwing the table balance all out of whack in the meantime. > >>This is completely different from trying to stealth > past him and get at his pool directly. Whether you succeed or fail, he still > has his minions to work with, defend himself, attack his prey and so forth. > Nothing happens to them until his last pool is gone - at which time he vanishes > from the chain. You can NOT tell me this "the same thing".>> > > Of course I can. I have, like, a billion times already. And I will continue to > do so, as you are yet to convince me that I am mistaken. If you just want to claim truth by blatant assertion, we haven't much to talk about. The two things appear different to me. > > >>It's not the same thing, it doesn't play anything like bleed or vote, and the > difference in how it works seems damaging to the game and makes it less fun to > play.>> > > To you. I disagree. > > >>The issue I'm raising is my perception that the combat decks neighbors will > tend to lose not so much because of bad choices (though that element is > sometimes present), but that they often lose simply because they were > unfortunate enough to roll the dice and wind up next door to combat deck.>> > > If they had enough combat defense (please see my reply to Derek), this would > not be the case. Again, people don't think twice about including bleed defense, > but don't think that it is fair to have to include combat defense as well. If I > am playing a deck that has no bleed defense, and I roll the dice and end up to > a S+B predator, I will be losing due under the exact same circumstances. You > may say "But *everyone* has bleed defense--if you don't that is a bad deck". > I'd say the same thing applies to combat defense. I guess I could say, please see my reply to James. People don't think twice about including bleed defense because it's much easier to include and doesn't leave your offense starving for deck space. > >>Even if they planned for it, they still don't tend to do as well (unless, as > I'm arguing with James, they planned a specific anti-combat deck that doesn't > do well against anything else). There's not much I can learn from bad luck.>> > > You can learn that you should have combat defense, or expect to die to a combat > deck. Just like if you have no bleed defense, you should expect to die to a > bleed deck. I can learn that a deck with combat defense - unlike a deck with bleed defense - won't do much else and usually tends to do badly in any metagame that isn't overrun by combat decks. But I already knew that. > > >>All right. Absolutely different experiences, then. I don't see hardly see > it ever at all. We're in different worlds here. Not much else to say.>> > > Check. You never see anyone bleeding you for 15 on the first three turns. > Kooky. Check. You do. Kooky. > >>You get attacked in ways you never have to deal with vs. any other decks.>> > > That is correct. That is why Rush decks can do well in tournaments, because > people don't expect to have to deal with them. I think that's your perception. The truth is that it's just harder to build a deck that actually fully deals with them and wins against them. And when you build such a deck, it does little else so it won't do well in the tournament. This is similar to the Magic "Black Summer" when Necropotence decks were all the rage. There was Necropotence, anti-Necropotence, and a few other popular, more balanced deck types. People would say, "Well, Necropotence isn't overpowered because you can build decks to hose it." You could, but you'd never win the tournament because they wouldn't win against anything else. People mostly just decided they'd rather build another Necro deck and take there chances against the other Necro decks. It was a decidedly unfun summer to bother with. Combat decks are not overpowered. They mostly hose themselves from handjam or something. Or get hosed by the occasional deck that can resist them long enough to screw them but not win the game itself in turn. Or screw up the table management that they constantly need to do to restore the balance they've trampled all over. None of this helps its neighbors. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Pat Ricochte wrote: > > >>No, they ARE playing the game. This is her combat defense, just like > not blocking stealth bleed. If she thinks your predator can get you before > you can get her, or that you need to go whacking your grandpredator while > she "gets a free ride," she's best off not bringing out ANYONE.>> > > Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is just giving her prey a free ride. I'm not saying > that this is necessarily bad, I was just using it as an example of someone > doing something that gives a free ride to their prey, which in the context of > the previous legs of this discussion, is, according to some involved, a Bad > Thing (keeping in mind that one of Fred's apparent biggest beefs with a Rush > deck is that it gives a free ride to it's grand prey). > > >>If you kill every minion of your prey, consistently before they get to > do anything, and then she doesn't bring out more minions, and sits there > with 20 pool, waiting for you get get ousted, leaving a few pool on vamps so > she can bring one or two vamps out quickly and/or take the pool back, SHE > can blame YOU for the free ride his prey is getting, since she has no other > recourse. YOU can blame HER for not "trying to play the game," but I see it > as "playing into your hands.">> > > Yup, she could. I'm not the one caring about the free ride the grand prey is > getting. That would be Fred. You're twisting the logic. You built the rush deck. If a prey can't deal with it, burning pool faster by bring out more minions for you eat is simply rewarding you, not resisting you to the best of their ability. I agree it's kind of a hopeless strategy but if the prey doesn't feel like they can stand up to the combat, it's just as hopeless to essentially transfer themselves out of the game. It seems much more reasonable to point out that the origin of such instability is that a rush deck is in the game. If you're dying horribly to vote or bleed, you never have to make such a decision in the first place. > >>You want to blame your prey for not playing by your rules, rules that > support your opinion that pool and resources are thoroughly interchangeable > quantities. But if they don't play by your rules, and don't allow > destruction of secondary resources to turn right back into destruction of > primary resources (by bringing out more vamps), your assumption fails. But > rather than seeing the difference, it seems you'd rather chalk it up to poor > playing on the part of the prey.>> > > No, I was just making an analogy. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. Fred > seems to have trouble with the idea that if a Rush deck beats up all of its > prey's vampires, his grand prey gets a free ride (or an "undeserved advantage", > as was a label used elsewhere in this discussion). I was illustrating that you > could very well blame someone else. Personally, I am unconcerned with this > whole issue, but Fred seems to be very worried about it, so I was providing a > different viewpoint. You could blame the man on the moon if you wanted to. But getting rid of him doesn't solve the problem. Getting rid of the rush deck does. Fred

>===== Original Message From pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) ===== >Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe she is just giving her prey a free ride. I'm not saying >that this is necessarily bad, I was just using it as an example of someone >doing something that gives a free ride to their prey, which in the context of >the previous legs of this discussion, is, according to some involved, a Bad >Thing (keeping in mind that one of Fred's apparent biggest beefs with a Rush >deck is that it gives a free ride to it's grand prey). I don't understand this free ride for the grand prey. If anyone gets off lightly, it's grand predator who might get one (and only one) VP quickly. In practice, I don't find many grand predators who are interested in sitting next to my rush deck at an early stage. The first actions of a rush deck must be preemptive defense against any dangerous predator minions. This usually seems to give one's prey plenty of time to work over one's grand prey. This is fine as it saves the rush deck the bother. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

>===== Original Message From Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> ===== >When was the last time Potence IG won a tournament? February, 2001. Watford,UK. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek wrote: >>A) is silly. B) is also a laugher, especially for the poor Malk Antis who don't have much in the way of combat defense at all (even Voice of Madness needs a younger vamp...)>> A (being include more Dolphin in your crypt) is hardly silly--if a vampire is so critical that your deck cannot function without one, you use multiples of them. B is very difficult for the !Malks, yes. By playing them, you are in effect, saying "I will be killed by a combat deck". You could be playing the Gangrel or Ventrue instead. >>With zero vampires, it doesn't matter how much pool you have. The resources simply are not the same. Vampires do not equal pool. No matter what.>> Yeah, see, this is where no one is going to be convinced one way or the other. I see the game differently. >>When was the last time Potence IG won a tournament?>> Dunno. I hear Tom won recently in England. >>I notice in the one all the Ithaca guys brought their combat decks to, that you were the only one to make it to the finals... It's just not a winning strategy anymore.>> It's just as much a winning strategy as it ever has been. In the last big tournament I went to, I got into the finals on 7 VPs (three games), and got the only other VP out of the final (which went 4-1 to my predator of all people). Not shabby, I'd say. >>People WILL cross-table you early on to remove the threat instead of just letting you smack minions down at will.>> No they won't. This has never happened to me. Ever. The only time I can remember getting specifically killed from across the table was after I messed with them first. Which is rare. >>People WILL refuse to influence minions out, forcing you to attempt to bleed through 20 pool while your predator is nuking you repeatedly;>> This is hardly a problem. It makes dealing with your predator much easier (only having to fight on one front and all)--sure, maybe I'll only get 1 VP out of it, but when my prey refuses to bring out minions, I am hardly foiled. >>People WILL wait and Dramatic Upheaval away your VP once you bleed your prey down to 5.>> Maybe. >>It served an excellent purpose when it was created; to move people off the 15-Majesty decks. The metagame has since shifted, and it's just too difficult to win with one anymore, frankly.>> You'd be surprised. >>We had a Rushy-grabby deck at the Atlanta qualifier. It didn't win. I'm not even sure if it qualified. (It ran into Flesh of Marble in one instance, and some other problems in the others.) It sure hosed up some people's decks though. Why encourage this too much?>> I'm not asking anyone to encourage anything. >>Right. How many Rush actions does your deck have again? Vamps have gotten smaller and more durable. Decks hand jam, too. It's a given that you can't beat down the entire table, but frankly, that's what you're suggesting here.>> Nah. You just need to manage the table well. Often managing the table means making viable deals with other folks around the table--arranging to split the table 2/3 for instance. >>Unless you get dead because people didn't want to let the reckless deck get started.>> Yeah, that just isn't going to happen. Your grand predator has no incentive to screw with you. Your grand prey has no incentive to screw with you. Sure, everyone at the table can arbitrarily decide to kill you, but that can happen to anyone at any time ("Hey! That guy won the last tournament! Let's destroy him! Yaa!"). With a group of random tournament players, this just isn't going to happen. >>Anyone would also notice that if they remove the Rush deck, they have a chance at a sweep, as opposed to a measly VP. =) Forcing the Rush deck to begin capriciously killing cross-table, supporting my original table-talk of the deck being reckless. :)>> It just doesn't happen (the ganging up on). Perhaps you need to unionize? >>Because 14 anti-combat cards just sit and jam your hand if nobody is trying to kill you, while you can be almost 100% guaranteed that someone will bleed you for at least 1?>> Right. I'm not denying that combat defense is useless if you don't see a combat deck. This is true. I'm also not denying that bleed defense is much more likely to be useful. What I'm saying is that the option exists, take up less space than most people attribute to it, and when you choose not to include it, you are making an informed decision to get killed by the Rush deck you have a small chance of sitting next to. This strikes me as a reasonable gamble to make ("I probably won't have to deal with a combat deck, so I can improve my deck by not mucking it upwith combat defense..."), but one you occasionally lose. All I'd like to see happen is that when one loses this gamble, they say "Well, I gambled and lost. Oh well." rather than "Combat is unfair! It destroys the table! It kills you with luck! Yaa!" in some an attempt to justify a worldview where combat defense is *always* unecessary. >>I dunno. This really isn't my experience at all, although I do play a lot of different combat, and not just plain old Potence IG. Someone with a measly 14 cards' worth of combat defense is just plain going to get whacked; except it's going to be a lot slower, giving him some time to set up, influence more vamps, do some damage to his prey... basically, to do a lot more of your work for you, and THEN you pounce and toast some vamps all at once.>> If I can get it to work out like that, all the better :-) Usually, when I am foiled, it is by moderate combat defense--enough Obediances to foil some necessary rushes, some Flesh of Marbles, enough manuvers, whatever. If my momentum is toppled, I usually get ousted. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jeroen wrote: >>I never tried anything like that. What got me into this discussion whas the (IMO still real) difference between 6 pool and a 6 cap vamp.>> I wasn't really accusing you of anything--just making a point. >>(just for the record) I must admit I have a grudge against rush decks since the last 2 tourneys. Twice did a Rush deck just handed my predator a VP by killing my (his predator's) only minion. Please note that both did in fact contain combat defence. the first one had skin of steel/skin of rock + disarm, the second only Majesty (but 15 of them.)>> Sometimes you get killed. Sometimes you don't. >>Maybe it has also something to do with the average personality of the Rush deck player ;-)>> I'm actually a very nice guy. I just like mixing it up on usenet... [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:58:38 -0500, James Hamblin <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> >> Check. You never see anyone bleeding you for 15 on the first three turns. >> Kooky. > >Just poking my head back in here briefly. Derek Ray's "Crypt Machine" >deck is a good example of a deck which can (fairly easily) bleed for >12-18 in the first three turns. It's all 4-caps with Dominate, Dominate >Masters, and lotsa bleed cards. It *can*. But it won't, because that gets it killed very quickly. (Patrick O'Shea has a slimmed-down version of it that he keeps built to test decks around here; we consider that if your deck can't stand up to sitting in front of the Crypt Machine, your deck needs to think about whether or not it has enough bleed defense for a tournament.) He played it in the Atlanta qualifier and made it to the finals, finishing 2nd there on a tiebreaker. The way you survive with a deck like that (and the way he made it there) is to sit quietly at first, gain some minions on the cheap, Deflect a bleed for 1 or 2 occasionally, hunt, and then bleed with 5 minions for 17 on about turn 6, with ridiculous amounts of Bonding, Sleeping Mind, and Seduction. At that point, you're a target, but you already have your first VP and are up and rolling. Bleeding for 12-18 on the first few turns just makes you a target, leaves your prey with a couple vampires and 6 pool, and could get you made dead very quickly since everyone else still has plenty of resources to point at you. (I will toss out the amusing note that this strategy fails miserably if you sit down as the original creator's predator in the first round, who knows that the only thing you can do is kick the legs out from under it before it even starts. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:04:48 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Norm and I had an interesting discussion about this at the qualifier. We both agreed that the classic Malk stealth-bleed deck is simply too reckless <-- there's that word again> anymore in the current tournament environment. MANY people will be carrying Deflections, and many people now know that the idea is to block, make them add stealth, and THEN bounce the bleed. I know that I personally am starting to think that initiating a bleed for 6 at +2 stealth is like dropping a rock into the top of a large drainpipe and listening to it rattle around for awhile; you never KNOW where it's going to come out, and it certainly isn't going to keep things very stable at all. I don't generally design decks anymore that bleed for more than 3 in an action; this way I don't worry about accidentally ousting someone if I get bounced all over the place, and 4 actions that bleed for 3 each are much harder to Deflect than 2 actions that bleed for 6 each. They might be easier to block since smaller vampires can't get the superior disciplines as easily... but getting one of your guys caught and dead is a better risk, IMO, than handing the table to your prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > He played it in the Atlanta qualifier and made it to the finals, > finishing 2nd there on a tiebreaker. The way you survive with a deck > like that (and the way he made it there) is to sit quietly at first, > gain some minions on the cheap, Deflect a bleed for 1 or 2 > occasionally, hunt, and then bleed with 5 minions for 17 on about turn > 6, with ridiculous amounts of Bonding, Sleeping Mind, and Seduction. > -- Derek As the player of the Rush deck at the Atlanta qualifiers, I'll just hop in here and note bemusedly that the only round in which *I* had much luck with the deck was the third, in which Pat was my prey, the woman from LA with the weeny OBF bleed was grand-prey, and Ass-mites as predator. It was an interesting example of the table-control that a good rush deck must establish, as I needed to leave Pat with enough minions to keep his prey down, who was Tributing like mad, but still keep in the kill zone (note.... the deck was smattered with Presence bleed and so not technically a completely focussed rush-deck, but the emphasis by far was on rush). In this case, the crypt machine was good, since it gave me plenty of targets to keep cycling while still focusing almost exclusively on my prey, so I don't think it was too "destablizing" in the way you guys are discussing. Just an aside..... "Flesh of Marble can kiss my ass." David Cherryholmes

On 11 Apr 2001 14:19:03 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Derek wrote: >>>A) is silly. B) is also a laugher, especially for the poor Malk Antis >who don't have much in the way of combat defense at all (even Voice of >Madness needs a younger vamp...)>> > >A (being include more Dolphin in your crypt) is hardly silly--if a vampire is >so critical that your deck cannot function without one, you use multiples of >them. B is very difficult for the !Malks, yes. By playing them, you are in >effect, saying "I will be killed by a combat deck". You could be playing the >Gangrel or Ventrue instead. Yeah, but I also only include enough of that vampire to be reasonably sure that I see 1 in my crypt. Not multiples. Also, in the case of someone like Dolphin, it's not the specific vampire, it's the disciplines; where you've got a few big guys with the big disciplines who you NEED, and a bunch of weenies who can do some things as backup. B is definitely a problem for the Malks. But combat defense, well, see below. I don't think 14 cards is -near- enough. =/ >>>With zero vampires, it doesn't matter how much pool you have. The >resources simply are not the same. Vampires do not equal pool. No >matter what.>> > >Yeah, see, this is where no one is going to be convinced one way or the other. >I see the game differently. I can't... I guess partly because I've seen the difference between one vamp and no vamps too often. And also where I've completely shrugged off anything my bleeding-voting-hideous-combat predator did, because I had just enough vampires to make the oust next turn and refused to risk losing one just to stop a bleed of 3. Pool is important... but vampires to defend that pool and chew up others' pool end up being more important. For the most part, if you have tons of pool, you can always get more vampires. Not true sitting next to a Rush deck, though. >>>When was the last time Potence IG won a tournament?>> > >Dunno. I hear Tom won recently in England. Yeah, he did mention that. I guess I missed the "win!" post, or no, wait, I do remember that, it sparked off another Andrew Davidson special about how Tom won by ousting his predator, etc. Which he didn't. OK. >>>I notice in the one all the Ithaca guys brought their combat decks to, that >you were the only one to make it to the finals... It's just not a winning >strategy anymore.>> > >It's just as much a winning strategy as it ever has been. In the last big >tournament I went to, I got into the finals on 7 VPs (three games), and got the >only other VP out of the final (which went 4-1 to my predator of all people). >Not shabby, I'd say. I'm of the opinion that it's possible to build decks that get to the final consistently, but will lose in the final. And it's also possible to build decks that can barely scrape into the final, but have an excellent chance of winning once they're there. I see finals played MUCH differently; everyone is conscious that the whole table is a threat, and is ready to act accordingly. >>>People WILL cross-table you early on to remove the threat instead of just >letting you smack minions down at will.>> > >No they won't. This has never happened to me. Ever. The only time I can >remember getting specifically killed from across the table was after I messed >with them first. Which is rare. Hmmmm. I dunno. As your grand-predator with a vote deck, I would initially intend to do 3-1 to prey/you, since I'd want you as hurt as possible when I finally ousted my own prey. Probably then, we get into some table talk about who would get rushed if who got points of damage, then I'd probably offer you the deal "I'll do the 1 to YOUR prey if you kill some of my prey's minions (points at likely interceptor, whether or not they have ever shown intercept). That'll help keep you alive, and I'll help oust your prey for you." This is a trap deal, but if you don't accept it, you WILL be getting the point, since for you to rush me is WAY outside the lines of "useful strategy" and I'm not especially afraid of it. Whether or not I have combat defense in hand. So my prey should be getting low quickly from our combined efforts, and your prey will be getting low quickly as well. As soon as my prey gets within oust reach, all my votes are going to start going 2-2 or 1-3: 1 to him, 3 to you, and if you live through the turn through sheer amounts of pre-existing pool, I should still be able to retain enough minions to zap you on my NEXT turn. See, I play combat decks. I know better than to let them get into a nice stable position with lots of minions and comfortable pool. =) You have to kick the legs out from under them early on. >>>People WILL refuse to influence minions out, forcing you to attempt to bleed >through 20 pool while your predator is nuking you repeatedly;>> > >This is hardly a problem. It makes dealing with your predator much easier (only >having to fight on one front and all)--sure, maybe I'll only get 1 VP out of >it, but when my prey refuses to bring out minions, I am hardly foiled. Getting 1 VP is not winning, though. >>>People WILL wait and Dramatic Upheaval away your VP once you bleed >your prey down to 5.>> > >Maybe. A couple tournaments ago, I brought my flung-junk deck with bleed enhancements. It pretty much terrorized everywhere it was near, but only gained 1VP the entire day. Why? Two Dramatic Upheavals; one to move me next to somewhere they thought I would be forced to do damage to another deck (in front of the stealth bleed deck while I had only two bleed cards in hand, giving the deck a free turn at me ANYWAY), and one to swap with me when my vampire-less prey was at 3 pool, and I had the Legal Manip in hand. Tournaments see a lot of Dramatic Upheaval and the like, and a combat deck generally doesn't have the vote power to stop it from happening - and it's no good to Rush someone *after* they just stole your VP. >>>It served an excellent purpose when it was created; to move people off >the 15-Majesty decks. The metagame has since shifted, and it's just >too difficult to win with one anymore, frankly.>> > >You'd be surprised. I would indeed. >>>We had a Rushy-grabby deck at the Atlanta qualifier. It didn't win. I'm not >even sure if it qualified. (It ran into Flesh of Marble in one instance, and >some >other problems in the others.) It sure hosed up some people's decks >though. Why encourage this too much?>> > >I'm not asking anyone to encourage anything. Well, the original point of this argument was the whole S:CE-hoser business. I don't want to see more S:CE *hosers*, because that makes Rush decks -more- viable. Right now the truly "effective" Rush deck is a Potence deck based around Immortal Grapple, one of the three true S:CE hosers. I want to see more S:CE workarounds (TT, Psyche), which would make bruise-and-X decks more effective and make combat more popular, but NOT Rush decks (for the reasons all over this thread). It's not that I don't think that Potence IG needs to exist, it's just that encouraging Rush combat in varied forms as a strategy is likely to lead to madness. >>>Right. How many Rush actions does your deck have again? Vamps have >gotten smaller and more durable. Decks hand jam, too. It's a given >that you can't beat down the entire table, but frankly, that's what >you're suggesting here.>> > >Nah. You just need to manage the table well. Often managing the table means >making viable deals with other folks around the table--arranging to split the >table 2/3 for instance. 2VP doesn't win the final, though... >>>Unless you get dead because people didn't want to let the reckless >deck get started.>> > >Yeah, that just isn't going to happen. Your grand predator has no incentive to >screw with you. Your grand prey has no incentive to screw with you. Sure, "Fear of having to sit next to you" isn't an incentive? I went over the grandpredator bit above. A wise grandprey would begin making sure his predator never quite entirely died, by whatever means necessary (rescuing the Prince so he can 5th and possibly Minion Tap), using the excuse "I don't want to have to sit next to it." If nothing else, it slows you down and could put a real wrench in things. >everyone at the table can arbitrarily decide to kill you, but that can happen >to anyone at any time ("Hey! That guy won the last tournament! Let's destroy >him! Yaa!"). With a group of random tournament players, this just isn't going >to happen. I talk FAST. =) >>>Anyone would also notice that if they remove the Rush deck, they have >a chance at a sweep, as opposed to a measly VP. =) Forcing the Rush >deck to begin capriciously killing cross-table, supporting my original >table-talk of the deck being reckless. :)>> > >It just doesn't happen (the ganging up on). Perhaps you need to unionize? Heh. Oh, it DOES happen. =) Just not in the way you think. =) >>>Because 14 anti-combat cards just sit and jam your hand if nobody is >trying to kill you, while you can be almost 100% guaranteed that >someone will bleed you for at least 1?>> > >Right. I'm not denying that combat defense is useless if you don't see a combat >deck. This is true. I'm also not denying that bleed defense is much more likely >to be useful. What I'm saying is that the option exists, take up less space >than most people attribute to it, and when you choose not to include it, you >are making an informed decision to get killed by the Rush deck you have a small >chance of sitting next to. This strikes me as a reasonable gamble to make ("I >probably won't have to deal with a combat deck, so I can improve my deck by not >mucking it upwith combat defense..."), but one you occasionally lose. All I'd >like to see happen is that when one loses this gamble, they say "Well, I >gambled and lost. Oh well." rather than "Combat is unfair! It destroys the >table! It kills you with luck! Yaa!" in some an attempt to justify a worldview >where combat defense is *always* unecessary. Right. I'm not attempting to justify THAT worldview. I just want to see lots more new bruise-and-X options, as opposed to lots more Rush options. >>>I dunno. This really isn't my experience at all, although I do play a >lot of different combat, and not just plain old Potence IG. Someone >with a measly 14 cards' worth of combat defense is just plain going to >get whacked; except it's going to be a lot slower, giving him some >time to set up, influence more vamps, do some damage to his prey... >basically, to do a lot more of your work for you, and THEN you pounce >and toast some vamps all at once.>> > >If I can get it to work out like that, all the better :-) > >Usually, when I am foiled, it is by moderate combat defense--enough Obediances >to foil some necessary rushes, some Flesh of Marbles, enough manuvers, >whatever. If my momentum is toppled, I usually get ousted. The Rush deck's true weakness - once it kicks one leg out from under the table, it has to keep kicking or the table falls right on its head. Again, the animation short "Balance" is an EXCELLENT visual... and it even has five different bits! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

(my newsreader is pissing me off and the messages I am trying to respond to aren't showing up. My apologies for these being in the wrong place...) Fred wrote: >>I guess I could say, please see my reply to James. People don't think twice about including bleed defense because it's much easier to include and doesn't leave your offense starving for deck space.>> That, and you are much more likely to need bleed defense. Thus, bleed defense is sort of a no brainer. Combat defense, on the other hand, is much less likely to be needed. By choosing to not include it, you are making an informed decision to leave a hole (albeit a small one) in your deck strategy. If your combat defense is "hope they don't have blasters", then when you end up next to a combat deck, you will die. You seem to want to attribute this to bad luck (of being fated to sit next to a combat deck). I want to attribute this to making an informed decision. >>I can learn that a deck with combat defense - unlike a deck with bleed defense - won't do much else and usually tends to do badly in any metagame that isn't overrun by combat decks. But I already knew that.>> Again, this is a decision for you to make when building a deck. When you are going to a tournament, you need to say "Hmm. Might I run into a combat deck?" If you think the answer is yes, then you'd be a fool to not plan defenses. If you think the answer is no, you'll be killed when you end up next to one, and only have yourself to blame. >>Check. You do. Kooky.>> Hoo hoo. That's why I like you Fred. You're funny. >>I think that's your perception. The truth is that it's just harder to build a deck that actually fully deals with them and wins against them. And when you build such a deck, it does little else so it won't do well in the tournament.>> Ok. Then build a deck that can't deal with combat, and get killed by some. I fully understand that it is not easy to defend against combat (although 14 cards will slow it down quite nicely). But rather than accepting that by not using combat defense you are simply playing the odds, you seem to want to not have to worry about the whole thing by indicting combat is unfair and destabilizing. When playing a Rush deck in a tournament, I am playing the odds--in all likelyhood, the folks I sit next to A) won't be playing much combat defense and B) won't be playing other combat decks. When I am correct, I do very well. When I am wrong, I don't. Luckily, I am usually not wrong. >>This is similar to the Magic "Black Summer" when Necropotence decks were all the rage. There was Necropotence, anti-Necropotence, and a few other popular, more balanced deck types. People would say, "Well, Necropotence isn't overpowered because you can build decks to hose it." You could, but you'd never win the tournament because they wouldn't win against anything else. People mostly just decided they'd rather build another Necro deck and take there chances against the other Necro decks. It was a decidedly unfun summer to bother with.>> But you don't need to build specific anti-combat decks to stop a combat deck. You need to have enough combat defense to slow them down, throw off their momentum, and get them killed. If you choose not to, that is fine, but in the event that you end up next to a combat deck, you will die. This is not bad luck. This is informed decision making. [ quoted text not captured ]

(my newsreader is pissing me off and the messages I am trying to respond to aren't showing up. My apologies for these being in the wrong place...) Derek wrote: >>B is definitely a problem for the Malks. But combat defense, well, see below. I don't think 14 cards is -near- enough. =/>> Really? I have found that very often, not that much combat defense is enough to slow me down, or at least keep you alive. Generally, my prey needs more than my predator to convince me that I am screwed--if my Predator has somewhat significant combat defense (i.e. they sucessfully Obediance my first 2 rushes), I'll let them be, unless they are in significant danger of ousting me. See, I really like to oust my prey and only endeavor to get my predator ousted if absolutely necessary. I'd still say that about 14 cards of combat defense is enough to slow me down or get me killed. But, ya know, whatever. >>Pool is important... but vampires to defend that pool and chew up others' pool end up being more important. For the most part, if you have tons of pool, you can always get more vampires. Not true sitting next to a Rush deck, though.>> True, true. I have actually lost complete track of what my point was originally about that whole 6 pool=6 point minion thing. I'm easily confused :-) >>Yeah, he did mention that. I guess I missed the "win!" post, or no, wait, I do remember that, it sparked off another Andrew Davidson special about how Tom won by ousting his predator, etc. Which he didn't. OK.>> Oh, yeah--that was a good one. Weren't you in that one? >>I'm of the opinion that it's possible to build decks that get to the final consistently, but will lose in the final. And it's also possible to build decks that can barely scrape into the final, but have an excellent chance of winning once they're there.>> Absolutely--a standard intercept deck (ya know, the ones that get 2 VPs every game) will pretty much always get into the finals, but never win. From my past rush deck experience, however, it isn't that dire--you can regularly get 4 VPs from a game (I do at least once every tournament), and can do so in the finals--as always, it is a matter of the seating as much as anything else. >>Hmmmm. I dunno. As your grand-predator with a vote deck, I would initially intend to do 3-1 to prey/you, since I'd want you as hurt as possible when I finally ousted my own prey.>> Which is playing loose cannon, and asking to get killed. I am in no way above throwing away my game to take someone else with me, if they decided to piss me off first. If, in this situation, you, as my grand predator started hitting me for 3/1, I'd make it very clear that I would remove you from the game, at the expense of my own game. I'd much rather play nice, but if someone across the table is going to screw me, I'm going to take them down with me. Just 'cause I don't want to be reckless doesn't mean I won't be if necessary... >>Probably then, we get into some table talk about who would get rushed if who got points of damage, then I'd probably offer you the deal "I'll do the 1 to YOUR prey if you kill some of my prey's minions (points at likely interceptor, whether or not they have ever shown intercept). That'll help keep you alive, and I'll help oust your prey for you.">> Yeah, I generally don't like making deals that start off with people screwing me. The end result of this is us both losing, which I am comfortable with. On the other hand, if you accept the position of my grand predator, and happily accept the aid I am giving you (by messing up your prey) and leave me alone until your prey is dead, then we are both in a happy place. >>This is a trap deal, but if you don't accept it, you WILL be getting the point, since for you to rush me is WAY outside the lines of "useful strategy" and I'm not especially afraid of it. Whether or not I have combat defense in hand.>> But you should be. If I can play the game to win, I do. If, on the other hand, the table conspires against me to make me lose by circumventing the normal predator/prey relationship, I *will* make you lose with me. I fail to see how this is to your benefit. See, I look at the table like this--My prey is just screwed. My grand prey is in a very safe spot, in fact, the best, and it is in their best interest to not anger me, as they can easily gat a VP by the time I get to them, and it is perfectly likely that they will have enough momentum by then to keep going by the time I get to them. My predator is mostly screwed, but I'm not above making a "I'll split 3/2 with you, rather than get you ousted" deal with them, if I think I can pull it off. My grand predator is going to have a lot of trouble with their predator (as they are in the best spot at the table), and will be benefitting from my abuse of my predator. If someone across the table decides to bust up this wonderful environment, again, I am not above making them lose with me. This is not something I want to do, but will if pushed into it. >>So my prey should be getting low quickly from our combined efforts, and your prey will be getting low quickly as well. As soon as my prey gets within oust reach, all my votes are going to start going 2-2 or 1-3: 1 to him, 3 to you, and if you live through the turn through sheer amounts of pre-existing pool, I should still be able to retain enough minions to zap you on my NEXT turn.>> And again, if this becomes the case, we both lose--you spend your effort getting me ousted, and I spend my effort killing you. The table is completely destabilized and someone else is going to win. I don't sign up for these situations, but will play them out if someone else volunteers me. >>See, I play combat decks. I know better than to let them get into a nice stable position with lots of minions and comfortable pool. =) You have to kick the legs out from under them early on.>> But if you do this from across the table, you'll get killed--I expect this from my predator or prey, but my grand predator has no buisiness doing this, and I'll act accordingly. What is the point of playing a deck that has the capability of going completely rogue if you aren't going to take advantage of it if you need to? :-) >>Getting 1 VP is not winning, though.>> No, it isn't, but it is better than 0 VPs. If my prey is going to do everything in their power to deny me a VP (i.e. never getting out a single vampire the whole game), I figure that getting 1 is a fine way to settle. >>A couple tournaments ago, I brought my flung-junk deck with bleed enhancements. It pretty much terrorized everywhere it was near, but only gained 1VP the entire day. Why? Two Dramatic Upheavals; one to move me next to somewhere they thought I would be forced to do damage to another deck (in front of the stealth bleed deck while I had only two bleed cards in hand, giving the deck a free turn at me ANYWAY), and one to swap with me when my vampire-less prey was at 3 pool, and I had the Legal Manip in hand.>> Sometimes you get screwed. >>Well, the original point of this argument was the whole S:CE-hoser business. I don't want to see more S:CE *hosers*, because that makes Rush decks -more- viable. Right now the truly "effective" Rush deck is a Potence deck based around Immortal Grapple, one of the three true S:CE hosers. I want to see more S:CE workarounds (TT, Psyche), which would make bruise-and-X decks more effective and make combat more popular, but NOT Rush decks (for the reasons all over this thread). It's not that I don't think that Potence IG needs to exist, it's just that encouraging Rush combat in varied forms as a strategy is likely to lead to madness.>> Nah. I don't think it would lead to madness. I think it would lead to a shift in the environment. If, suddenly, the Assamites became viable somehow (which would take quite a bit of work, mind you...), some of the folks who were playing IG Rush might switch to Assamite Rush, which would make no difference to the non combat decks (you get killed by combat or you don't), but would trump the IG decks something fierce. Thus, the IG decks would probably fade out of the circut. >>2VP doesn't win the final, though...>> No, no, that was pre-final. In the final, I either get 4 VPs, or I lose :-) >>"Fear of having to sit next to you" isn't an incentive?>> It is worth worrying about that later on, if you get a VP out of it. >>I went over the grandpredator bit above. A wise grandprey would begin making sure his predator never quite entirely died, by whatever means necessary (rescuing the Prince so he can 5th and possibly Minion Tap), using the excuse "I don't want to have to sit next to it." If nothing else, it slows you down and could put a real wrench in things.>> Could. Or, my grand prey could completely ignore me and attempt to get as many VPs as possible before I got to him. Might even make a deal with me. >>Right. I'm not attempting to justify THAT worldview. I just want to see lots more new bruise-and-X options, as opposed to lots more Rush options.>> That'd be interesting, but I still don't think it would be any more effective. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Apr 2001 16:59:05 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >(my newsreader is pissing me off and the messages I am trying to respond to >aren't showing up. My apologies for these being in the wrong place...) > >Derek wrote: >>>B is definitely a problem for the Malks. But combat defense, well, >see below. I don't think 14 cards is -near- enough. =/>> > >Really? I have found that very often, not that much combat defense is enough to >slow me down, or at least keep you alive. Generally, my prey needs more than my >predator to convince me that I am screwed--if my Predator has somewhat >significant combat defense (i.e. they sucessfully Obediance my first 2 rushes), >I'll let them be, unless they are in significant danger of ousting me. See, I >really like to oust my prey and only endeavor to get my predator ousted if >absolutely necessary. I'd still say that about 14 cards of combat defense is >enough to slow me down or get me killed. But, ya know, whatever. Hm. I always look at it a bit differently; 14 cards is ONLY 14 cards, and if I jump you with 3 guys in the same turn, you'll likely be out after the first combat (i'm fond of Celerity; it lets me use things like "press to continue" after that silly Skin of Steel, and it lets me use things like "Blur" to avoid that pesky Superior Mettle, and Dodge makes me laugh) and the next two people are going to be just so many body parts. And after that particular round of beatings has ended, I can get back to the regularly scheduled business of ousting-my-prey. >>>Pool is important... but vampires to defend that pool and chew up >others' pool end up being more important. For the most part, if you >have tons of pool, you can always get more vampires. Not true sitting >next to a Rush deck, though.>> > >True, true. I have actually lost complete track of what my point was originally >about that whole 6 pool=6 point minion thing. I'm easily confused :-) I've never been sure what the point IS of it all, actually. I just don't think that a 6 point minion is worth 6 pool -except- as far as how much it costs to bring them out. Once they're out, they become worth more or less than 6 pool rapidly. (Minion Tap = this minion is worth 1 pool. Owl Companion + 2 Raven Spies = this minion is worth ALL of your pool. You get the idea.) >>>Yeah, he did mention that. I guess I missed the "win!" post, or no, >wait, I do remember that, it sparked off another Andrew Davidson >special about how Tom won by ousting his predator, etc. Which he >didn't. OK.>> > >Oh, yeah--that was a good one. Weren't you in that one? Yeah, I waded in for awhile. It was mostly Tom and a couple others though, Tom being the player of the deck and therefore in a wonderful position to contribute his view. >>>I'm of the opinion that it's possible to build decks that get to the >final consistently, but will lose in the final. And it's also >possible to build decks that can barely scrape into the final, but >have an excellent chance of winning once they're there.>> > >Absolutely--a standard intercept deck (ya know, the ones that get 2 VPs every >game) will pretty much always get into the finals, but never win. From my past >rush deck experience, however, it isn't that dire--you can regularly get 4 VPs >from a game (I do at least once every tournament), and can do so in the >finals--as always, it is a matter of the seating as much as anything else. But the decks with the most VP going into the finals have choice of seating. Sometimes that's good; in the case of Rush and intercept decks, though you might find that vulnerable people refuse to sit near you. I got to the finals of one War Room tourney with Hideous Tzimisce Intercept and had to sit 2nd; three other people deliberately chose to sit as far away from me as possible. Oops. >>>Hmmmm. I dunno. As your grand-predator with a vote deck, I would >initially intend to do 3-1 to prey/you, since I'd want you as hurt as >possible when I finally ousted my own prey.>> > >Which is playing loose cannon, and asking to get killed. I am in no way above >throwing away my game to take someone else with me, if they decided to piss me >off first. If, in this situation, you, as my grand predator started hitting me >for 3/1, I'd make it very clear that I would remove you from the game, at the >expense of my own game. I'd much rather play nice, but if someone across the >table is going to screw me, I'm going to take them down with me. Nah. That's not loose cannon. There's only two logical ways for 3/1 to go, you know: prey/grandprey, or prey/predator. The first is aggressive, the second is solidifying. But neither is random. Chucking it to your grandpredator, on the other hand, is pretty damn random, or doing 1/3 to prey/grandprey, etc... Although I have called multiple KRCs as 1/3 to prey/predator when I was afraid I'd be ousted if I didn't kill him that turn. 3 points is better than nothing. =) >Just 'cause I don't want to be reckless doesn't mean I won't be if necessary... Oh, I'm sure. But I also am NOT going to give you a free ride, since from my point of view, your existence is making my predator really climb down my back. So it is, after all, in my best interest to give you a BIT of poking, and maybe get you to back off my grandpredator a bit. =) Table dynamics can be fun. ;) I find this is where the real game comes into play... identifying who is ACTUALLY a threat to you. My prey and grandpredator are totally non-threats, as my prey is sammiched between me and Rush, and my grandpredator is probably toast. This leaves my predator, an obvious threat, and YOU, a non-obvious threat enabling my predator. =) >>>Probably then, we get into some table talk about who would get rushed if who >got points of damage, then I'd probably offer you the deal "I'll do the 1 to >YOUR >prey if you kill some of my prey's minions (points at likely interceptor, >whether or not they have ever shown intercept). That'll help keep you alive, >and I'll help oust your prey for you.">> > >Yeah, I generally don't like making deals that start off with people screwing >me. The end result of this is us both losing, which I am comfortable with. On >the other hand, if you accept the position of my grand predator, and happily >accept the aid I am giving you (by messing up your prey) and leave me alone >until your prey is dead, then we are both in a happy place. Right. I'd probably stop before officially announcing the terms and say "I *could* do this 3/1. What does everyone think about that?" I am also comfortable with both of us losing, in that situation. If I blithely oust my prey while not touching you, I am going to be in the same position my prey was in at the start of the game; screwed, except you'll have a lot more minions and a REAL incentive to nuke me. This gets me dead. Since 1VP isn't sufficient to win, I'll go ahead and sacrifice the sure 1VP to give myself a chance at 3. (if I get you, I get your vampire-less prey as well.) But then again, I also don't intimidate/threaten easily. =) And I also don't make deals during the EARLY portions of the game to split the table; I prefer to give myself a chance to get all 5. The time for such a deal would be when I got down to almost ousting my prey, and it became time either to begin hosing you as well, or to begin carving up table pieces for us both. >>>This is a trap deal, but if you don't accept it, you WILL be getting the >point, >since for you to rush me is WAY outside the lines of "useful strategy" >and I'm not especially afraid of it. Whether or not I have combat >defense in hand.>> > >But you should be. If I can play the game to win, I do. If, on the other hand, >the table conspires against me to make me lose by circumventing the normal >predator/prey relationship, I *will* make you lose with me. I fail to see how >this is to your benefit. It's not to your benefit either though. I assume that people are going to make their best attempt to gain something for themselves; odds are you end up accepting the 'trap deal', since it makes the most sense for both of us as opposed to nuking each other and letting the guy between us sweep. But it also gives me lots of time to set up for the big kaboom at the end, where I either gain 3 all at once and possibly sweep, or I fail to draw into cards and explode gloriously. >See, I look at the table like this--My prey is just screwed. My grand prey is >in a very safe spot, in fact, the best, and it is in their best interest to not >anger me, as they can easily gat a VP by the time I get to them, and it is >perfectly likely that they will have enough momentum by then to keep going by >the time I get to them. My predator is mostly screwed, but I'm not above making >a "I'll split 3/2 with you, rather than get you ousted" deal with them, if I >think I can pull it off. My grand predator is going to have a lot of trouble >with their predator (as they are in the best spot at the table), and will be >benefitting from my abuse of my predator. If someone across the table decides >to bust up this wonderful environment, again, I am not above making them lose >with me. This is not something I want to do, but will if pushed into it. Yep. But again, I rely on the fact that it's not something you WANT to do. =) I won't chuck TOO many points of damage around early on... but without any deal in place, I will make sure that a few land down there. Can't have you getting 5 minions in a comfortable position and be able to wipe out anything nearby as necessary. >>>So my prey should be getting low quickly from our combined efforts, >and your prey will be getting low quickly as well. As soon as my prey >gets within oust reach, all my votes are going to start going 2-2 or >1-3: 1 to him, 3 to you, and if you live through the turn through >sheer amounts of pre-existing pool, I should still be able to retain >enough minions to zap you on my NEXT turn.>> > >And again, if this becomes the case, we both lose--you spend your effort >getting me ousted, and I spend my effort killing you. The table is completely >destabilized and someone else is going to win. I don't sign up for these >situations, but will play them out if someone else volunteers me. Well, no play is COMPLETELY without risk. I'm betting that I can draw the cards quickly enough, with enough actions, to get you BEFORE you can even Rush me. If I fail, I'm also betting that you don't completely kill all my vamps, which will hopefully leave me in position to oust you NEXT turn... and will gain me 2 VPs as opposed to the 1VP I am pretty much guaranteed if I just zotz my prey and ignore you. =) I might lose, and get us both ousted. But I might win, and get 3 or more VP; definitely worth the risk. >>>See, I play combat decks. I know better than to let them get into a >nice stable position with lots of minions and comfortable pool. =) >You have to kick the legs out from under them early on.>> > >But if you do this from across the table, you'll get killed--I expect this from >my predator or prey, but my grand predator has no buisiness doing this, and >I'll act accordingly. What is the point of playing a deck that has the >capability of going completely rogue if you aren't going to take advantage of >it if you need to? ...What's the point of going rogue if you know it won't actually stop the person from taking those actions?? Nice little vicious circle, no? >:-) O=) >>>Getting 1 VP is not winning, though.>> > >No, it isn't, but it is better than 0 VPs. If my prey is going to do everything >in their power to deny me a VP (i.e. never getting out a single vampire the >whole game), I figure that getting 1 is a fine way to settle. True, but it does begin to argue against the deck TYPE. Intercept decks can get 2VPs consistently; this a flaw in their deck type, not in the play of the people next to them. Rush decks can be best defended against by not getting out more than 1/2 vampires and hoping your grandpredator packed his Obediences that day, or that someone else will kindly rescue your guys from torpor. >>>A couple tournaments ago, I brought my flung-junk deck with bleed >enhancements. It pretty much terrorized everywhere it was near, but >only gained 1VP the entire day. Why? Two Dramatic Upheavals; one to >move me next to somewhere they thought I would be forced to do damage >to another deck (in front of the stealth bleed deck while I had only >two bleed cards in hand, giving the deck a free turn at me ANYWAY), >and one to swap with me when my vampire-less prey was at 3 pool, and I >had the Legal Manip in hand.>> > >Sometimes you get screwed. Yeah, but there are a LOT of Dramatic Upheavals in tournaments, was my point. This isn't too uncommon to see. >popular, but NOT Rush decks (for the reasons all over this thread). >It's not that I don't think that Potence IG needs to exist, it's just >that encouraging Rush combat in varied forms as a strategy is likely >to lead to madness.>> > >Nah. I don't think it would lead to madness. I think it would lead to a shift >in the environment. If, suddenly, the Assamites became viable somehow (which >would take quite a bit of work, mind you...), some of the folks who were >playing IG Rush might switch to Assamite Rush, which would make no difference >to the non combat decks (you get killed by combat or you don't), but would >trump the IG decks something fierce. Thus, the IG decks would probably fade out >of the circut. unless, of course, the IG decks shifted to the pot/CEL paradigm, which could pack as many maneuvers as the Assamite Rush decks. And they would slaughter each other and remain in the circuit. I don't think Assamite Rush would necessarily trump IG Rush. >>>"Fear of having to sit next to you" isn't an incentive?>> > >It is worth worrying about that later on, if you get a VP out of it. Goodness, no. 3VP over 3 rounds won't make the final. =) At some point you're going to have to thump an entire table. Some opportunities are better than others. ;) >>>I went over the grandpredator bit above. A wise grandprey would begin >making sure his predator never quite entirely died, by whatever means >necessary (rescuing the Prince so he can 5th and possibly Minion Tap), >using the excuse "I don't want to have to sit next to it." If nothing >else, it slows you down and could put a real wrench in things.>> > >Could. Or, my grand prey could completely ignore me and attempt to get as many >VPs as possible before I got to him. Might even make a deal with me. He could. I wouldn't; not right away, at least. I'd wait to see if your deck rush-jammed, or whatevered, before being TOO nice about anything. And in the meantime, I would set up into a good strong position, possibly oust my prey if I get the option... maybe not. This also depends on what OTHER decks are threats at the table, too, since I'm in the best position. >>>Right. I'm not attempting to justify THAT worldview. I just want to >see lots more new bruise-and-X options, as opposed to lots more Rush >options.>> > >That'd be interesting, but I still don't think it would be any more effective. wow, I dunno about THAT. bruise-and-vote with the !Brujah is a particularly vicious way to go (stealth = Torn Signpost), and a lot of clans are better designed for bruise-and-X than they are for just bruise. Toreador, Tremere, even the Brujah. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek wrote: >>Hm. I always look at it a bit differently; 14 cards is ONLY 14 cards, and if I jump you with 3 guys in the same turn, you'll likely be out after the first combat (i'm fond of Celerity; it lets me use things like "press to continue" after that silly Skin of Steel, and it lets me use things like "Blur" to avoid that pesky Superior Mettle, and Dodge makes me laugh) and the next two people are going to be just so many body parts.>> True, true, but more often than not, it is that one guy that survives that gets me killed. Most people around here seem to have the attitude of "Well, unless I can stop every single attack you make, I am removed from the game just 'cause I sat next to you...", which simply isn't the case. It is that one guy my predator has that I really need to kill, lest I get bled for 6 and ousted on his next turn, who manages to survive due to a couple Flashes or something, and leaves me with a rushless hand jam, and then kills me where this whole thing falls apart. The Rush deck lives on a knife edge, as you well know... >>I've never been sure what the point IS of it all, actually.>> Well, as far as I can tell from my own scattered logic, here is how I see the game: If I bleed you for 6, that is one less 6 point vampire you can bring out. If this is early in the game (i.e. before you get out all the vampires you planned on getting out in the first place), he result is identical to had I burned a vampire--you are out 6 pool, and have no 6 point vampire. If this happens later on (after all your vampires are out that you plan on getting out), that is still one less 6 point vampire you have access to. If you had the 6 pool still, you could have made another vampire. 'Cause you don't have it any more, you can't. The potential is gone. In many situations, burning a 6 point vampire is far worse than just losing 6 pool (it has all sorts of equipment/retainers; it is the most important vampire you have, and you don't have another one in your crypt), and in many situations it isn't (you have minion tapped it for all of its blood; you have another in your crypt just waiting to get out), so the specifics of the situation is a wash. The effect on my grand prey is similar--if I bleed them for 6, that is one less 6 point vampire to affect them. If I burn a 6 point vampire, that is one less 6 point vampire to affect them. Either way, it is a 6 point loss for my prey, and 6 points less of pressure on my grand prey. >>I just don't think that a 6 point minion is worth 6 pool -except- as far as how much it costs to bring them out. Once they're out, they become worth more or less than 6 pool rapidly.>> That is why you have to kill them before this amount changes :-) In a recent tournament experience, my prey was playing some !Ven deck. He got out his first 7 or 8 point vampire, not knowing what my deck did, and I torporized him immediately. He then got out his next middle sized vampire (Why? I dunno. He had some fortitude? Maybe he didn't think I could do it again? Maybe he just wanted to try?),and I torporized it immediately again. He was now out, like, 15 pool in vampires, and a couple points from me bleeding him, leaving him at, like, 11-12 pool with no active minions. The result is very similar to if I had just bled him for an awful lot really quickly--with little pool and limited vampires. He then chose to get out another vampire (Again, I don't know why. Maybe he didn't want to sit around at the table and do nothing.), which I Famed, and killed. I ousted him very quickly after that. The pointof this story? Sometimes killing vampires is more effective than just bleeding. Sometimes not. >>But the decks with the most VP going into the finals have choice of seating. Sometimes that's good; in the case of Rush and intercept decks, though you might find that vulnerable people refuse to sit near you. I got to the finals of one War Room tourney with Hideous Tzimisce Intercept and had to sit 2nd; three other people deliberately chose to sit as far away from me as possible. Oops.>> Seating is key in the finals. Far more important than what deck you happen to have. >>Nah. That's not loose cannon. There's only two logical ways for 3/1 to go, you know: prey/grandprey, or prey/predator. The first is aggressive, the second is solidifying. But neither is random. Chucking it to your grandpredator, on the other hand, is pretty damn random, or doing 1/3 to prey/grandprey, etc...>> Ohh. I misunderstood--I thought you were doing 1 to your prey and 3 to me. If you were doing 3 to your prey and 1 to me, I wouldn't care at all. That wouldn't cause any recklessness. I might make threats, but I wouldn't damage my position over it. >>I am also comfortable with both of us losing, in that situation. If I blithely oust my prey while not touching you, I am going to be in the same position my prey was in at the start of the game; screwed, except you'll have a lot more minions and a REAL incentive to nuke me. This gets me dead. Since 1VP isn't sufficient to win, I'll go ahead and sacrifice the sure 1VP to give myself a chance at 3. (if I get you, I get your vampire-less prey as well.)>> But is it worth doing this at the risk of incurring the wrath of your grand prey? You are already having to deal with two players--why make it three? >>It's not to your benefit either though. I assume that people are going to make their best attempt to gain something for themselves; odds are you end up accepting the 'trap deal', since it makes the most sense for both of us as opposed to nuking each other and letting the guy between us sweep. But it also gives me lots of time to set up for the big kaboom at the end, where I either gain 3 all at once and possibly sweep, or I fail to draw into cards and explode gloriously.>> Ahh, I am always a big fan of the glorious explosion... >>Yeah, but there are a LOT of Dramatic Upheavals in tournaments, was my point. This isn't too uncommon to see.>> I don't see them that often, and wonder why... >>unless, of course, the IG decks shifted to the pot/CEL paradigm, which could pack as many maneuvers as the Assamite Rush decks. And they would slaughter each other and remain in the circuit. I don't think Assamite Rush would necessarily trump IG Rush.>> Well, the long range Assamite CEL/qui deck would kill the IG close range deck quite nicely--the IG deck just can't have that many manuvers, where the CEL deck can. >>Goodness, no. 3VP over 3 rounds won't make the final. =) At some point you're going to have to thump an entire table. Some opportunities are better than others. ;)>> In all likelyhood, you aren't going to see a Rush deck in more than one game. If you sweep 2 tables, and happily take the 1 VP in the game with the Rush deck, you are set. >>wow, I dunno about THAT. bruise-and-vote with the !Brujah is a particularly vicious way to go (stealth = Torn Signpost), and a lot of clans are better designed for bruise-and-X than they are for just bruise. Toreador, Tremere, even the Brujah.>> I have never found Bruise/Anything to work so well for the obvious reasons--you need to mix up card types, so you never have the right ones when you need them; your combat cards don't do you any good when no one blocks you, and they just jam up your hand; you have limited ways to defend yourself against your predator. More cards that make Bruise/X work just, well, aren't going to work. [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > >> He played it in the Atlanta qualifier and made it to the finals, >> finishing 2nd there on a tiebreaker. The way you survive with a deck >> like that (and the way he made it there) is to sit quietly at first, >> gain some minions on the cheap, Deflect a bleed for 1 or 2 >> occasionally, hunt, and then bleed with 5 minions for 17 on about turn >> 6, with ridiculous amounts of Bonding, Sleeping Mind, and Seduction. > >> -- Derek > > As the player of the Rush deck at the Atlanta qualifiers, > I'll just hop in here and note bemusedly that the only round in which *I* > had much luck with the deck was the third, in which Pat was my prey, > the woman from LA with the weeny OBF bleed was grand-prey, and Ass-mites > as predator. Robin's Nossie bloat was your predator, actually. Getting hammered hard by weenie bleed, so it wasn't doing much. > It was an interesting example of the table-control that a > good rush deck must establish, as I needed to leave Pat with enough > minions to keep his prey down, who was Tributing like mad, but still keep > in the kill zone (note.... the deck was smattered with Presence bleed and > so not technically a completely focussed rush-deck, but the emphasis by > far was on rush). Which helped you in this game, by my look at it. You always had a rush when you needed it, but got me ousted by the last bleed of one. If you had had no Legals, that would have been an entire turn more, and that turn would have been enough for me to dump my hand out bleeding Niki, possibly getting her. (damn you! =) > In this case, the crypt machine was good, since it gave > me plenty of targets to keep cycling while still focusing almost > exclusively on my prey, so I don't think it was too "destablizing" in the > way you guys are discussing. And yet, as you said, it subverted the rush deck paradigm. Unless you killed all my guys dead, I could Govern out more guys, which brings out minions without spending their full pool cost. I was bringing out more guys, but killing a 4-cap after 5-cap after 4-cap wasn't costing me 4 and 5 pool to replace each time. It was costing me 1 pool. =) Now, the "solution" to this, by the Bajika school of Rush, is to kill ALL my guys, period. Niki *definitely* would have blown through Robin earlier, not needing to leave anyone untapped, ever. And then have too many minions for you to rush all of. Also, that was a 4 player game, which is much easier for the Rush deck to fight with everyone, which you did, some, than in a 5 player game. Beating up on me gives your grandprey who IS your grandpredator free reign, who beats up on your predator. Rob Treasure detailed this dynamic for 4 and 5 player games in a recent newsletter. He pretty much stuffed it in one sentence, like "A kills B, C kills D, and A and C play the 2 player game." Which, despite the *very* good game of complete table management it was, for all 4 players, (all players agreed, one of the best games we've played in a tournament) is what it came down to. You killed me, Niki killed Robin, and then Niki got you. Despite your best efforts, you had to keep me down enough to keep me from ousting, allowing Niki to blow through even Robin's bloat. I think you got the 1 VP that you could get guaranteed, since the Crypt Machine has *0* combat defense (other than the Coven =). You could have gotten that VP earlier, even, but would have thrown away any shot at 3 VP. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3p49dtk6hebcoqrgt...@4ax.com... > I've never been sure what the point IS of it all, actually. I just > don't think that a 6 point minion is worth 6 pool -except- as far as > how much it costs to bring them out. Once they're out, they become > worth more or less than 6 pool rapidly. (Minion Tap = this minion is > worth 1 pool. Owl Companion + 2 Raven Spies = this minion is worth > ALL of your pool. You get the idea.) Just to point out, since I've been mostly silent here, that if the rush deck is really on its game, and isn't trying to let the prey soften up the grand-prey, there is no time for a Minion Tap or retainers or whatever. 6 pool to the vampire, he's up and ready for action, and then he gets annhiliated as soon as you rush. In this case, 6 pool = 6 pool. Xian

Derek Ray wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:58:38 -0500, James Hamblin > <ham...@math.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > > >Peter D Bakija wrote: > >> > >> Check. You never see anyone bleeding you for 15 on the first three turns. > >> Kooky. > > > >Just poking my head back in here briefly. Derek Ray's "Crypt Machine" > >deck is a good example of a deck which can (fairly easily) bleed for > >12-18 in the first three turns. It's all 4-caps with Dominate, Dominate > >Masters, and lotsa bleed cards. > > It *can*. But it won't, because that gets it killed very quickly. Right. That's the trouble. Peter expresses incredulity that that I never see anyone bleeding me for 15 on the first three turns. ("Kooky".) But I haven't. Oh, maybe once or twice in all the time I've played the game but not as any kind of a regular experience with the game. Sorry. Blame my predators, not me. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > (my newsreader is pissing me off and the messages I am trying to respond to > aren't showing up. My apologies for these being in the wrong place...) > > Fred wrote: > >>I guess I could say, please see my reply to James. People don't think twice > about including bleed defense because it's much easier to include and doesn't > leave your offense starving for deck space.>> > > That, and you are much more likely to need bleed defense. Thus, bleed defense > is sort of a no brainer. Combat defense, on the other hand, is much less likely > to be needed. By choosing to not include it, you are making an informed > decision to leave a hole (albeit a small one) in your deck strategy. You act as if you're making this decision in a complete vacuum. Like having a bleed defense is a matter of pushing a button and an automated arm comes out and drops combat cards in your deck and it's done. But the question of the which decks you're going to encounter is not the only one which matters. There's also the question of what it does to your deck to try to defend against them and of what use are the cards you use to defend against them in doing anything else. This is the Necropotence deck experience all over again. There's a deck out there that can hose Necropotence (in Magic during the "Black Summer") but it's useless against anything else. So it's not really an effective answer in the metagame. > >>This is similar to the Magic "Black Summer" when Necropotence decks were all > the rage. There was Necropotence, anti-Necropotence, and a few other popular, > more balanced deck types. People would say, "Well, Necropotence isn't overpowered > because you can build decks to hose it." You could, but you'd never win the > tournament because they wouldn't win against anything else. People mostly just > decided they'd rather build another Necro deck and take there chances against > the other Necro decks. It was a decidedly unfun summer to bother with.>> > > But you don't need to build specific anti-combat decks to stop a combat deck. > You need to have enough combat defense to slow them down, throw off their > momentum, and get them killed. (Sigh.) For the umpteenth time, if all you're trying to do is, "get them killed" this isn't an answer. This just means you're surviving, limping away with your ass. I can build defenses against bleed and vote that allow me an offense as well. Which just reinforces my original point: Combat decks just fuck the guys they sit down next to. Woopee, I can throw a bunch of combat cards into my deck and slow down how quickly that thug next door waxes my minions. Wake me when it's over so I can count the number of ousts my prey has achieved in the meantime... Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, assuming the attempts to oust it the first turn are successful. It might resist some rushes and/or get rushes intercepted by other minions and/or the rusher may find himself compelled to rush the minions of other players at the moment due to table management considerations and so forth. Yea, you're right as far as that goes but reality is often more complicated than that. Fred

On 11 Apr 2001 18:53:51 GMT, pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote: >Derek wrote: >Dodge makes me laugh) and the next two people are going to be just so >many body parts.>> > >True, true, but more often than not, it is that one guy that survives that gets >me killed. Most people around here seem to have the attitude of "Well, unless I >can stop every single attack you make, I am removed from the game just 'cause I >sat next to you...", which simply isn't the case. It is that one guy my >predator has that I really need to kill, lest I get bled for 6 and ousted on >his next turn, who manages to survive due to a couple Flashes or something, and >leaves me with a rushless hand jam, and then kills me where this whole thing >falls apart. The Rush deck lives on a knife edge, as you well know... Yeah. That's another reason I tend to edge away from it as an overall winning strategy anymore; if it runs out of Rush actions at any point (and its predator identifies it as being out of Rush actions, an important concept; outright lying has saved MY butt numerous times) it's dead in the water. A deckful of combat cards is worthless without a way to get into combat, and so i've grown skittish of putting -that- many combat cards in unless I can back them up with permanent Rush or something. (Templar = rewly) >>>I've never been sure what the point IS of it all, actually.>> > >Well, as far as I can tell from my own scattered logic, here is how I see the >game: If I bleed you for 6, that is one less 6 point vampire you can bring out. If it's early in the game. If it's later in the game, I'm 6 pool closer to being ousted that I wasn't going to use on vampires at ALL. >If this is early in the game (i.e. before you get out all the vampires you >planned on getting out in the first place), he result is identical to had I >burned a vampire--you are out 6 pool, and have no 6 point vampire. If this Right. Early in the game, the 6 pool = 6 point vampire is a valid comparison; either you need to GET a 6 point vampire, or you just GOT a 6 point vampire. >happens later on (after all your vampires are out that you plan on getting >out), that is still one less 6 point vampire you have access to. If you had the >6 pool still, you could have made another vampire. 'Cause you don't have it any >more, you can't. The potential is gone. In many situations, burning a 6 point But in most cases, the potential remains unused. It's just 6 pool, and it's there merely to serve as an "oust timer". So a bleed for 6 EARLY denies resources, but a bleed for 6 late is just closer to the actual oust. >vampire is far worse than just losing 6 pool (it has all sorts of >equipment/retainers; it is the most important vampire you have, and you don't >have another one in your crypt), and in many situations it isn't (you have >minion tapped it for all of its blood; you have another in your crypt just >waiting to get out), so the specifics of the situation is a wash. The effect on This is where I don't agree. I don't consider it a wash at all; I consider it to be far too situational to be pigeonholed in this manner. It's GOING to be worth more or less than 6 pool at that point in the game; either you totally need that vampire, or you're just lobbing someone out there with full blood to take rescue actions and be a target/disposable blocker. >In a recent tournament experience, my prey was playing some !Ven deck. He got >out his first 7 or 8 point vampire, not knowing what my deck did, and I >torporized him immediately. He then got out his next middle sized vampire (Why? >I dunno. He had some fortitude? Maybe he didn't think I could do it again? Probably didn't think you could do it again. Or, there are still a lot of players who aren't aware that sitting on your butt and failing to bring minions out is, indeed, a functional strategy against a Rush deck. If you absolutely think you MUST have minions, you can at least line three up at once and flip them all over in one big kaboom, while only getting bled for probably 4-5, tops, in the meantime. >Maybe he just wanted to try?),and I torporized it immediately again. He was now >out, like, 15 pool in vampires, and a couple points from me bleeding him, >leaving him at, like, 11-12 pool with no active minions. The result is very >similar to if I had just bled him for an awful lot really quickly--with little >pool and limited vampires. He then chose to get out another vampire (Again, I >don't know why. Maybe he didn't want to sit around at the table and do >nothing.), which I Famed, and killed. I ousted him very quickly after that. The >pointof this story? Sometimes killing vampires is more effective than just >bleeding. Sometimes not. If people are willing to play into your hands. Especially if they're willing to bring out great big minions who can be splattered all over creation. But again, it puzzles me why someone didn't lean across and rescue his second vamp, unless they identified him as the weak disruptor at the table and figured he might as well just be gone. =) >you. I got to the finals of one War Room tourney with Hideous >Tzimisce Intercept and had to sit 2nd; three other people deliberately >chose to sit as far away from me as possible. Oops.>> > >Seating is key in the finals. Far more important than what deck you happen to >have. Si, senor. Everyone's deck in the finals can win. It's how you get there. =) >>>Nah. That's not loose cannon. There's only two logical ways for 3/1 >to go, you know: prey/grandprey, or prey/predator. The first is >aggressive, the second is solidifying. But neither is random. >Chucking it to your grandpredator, on the other hand, is pretty damn >random, or doing 1/3 to prey/grandprey, etc...>> > >Ohh. I misunderstood--I thought you were doing 1 to your prey and 3 to me. If >you were doing 3 to your prey and 1 to me, I wouldn't care at all. That >wouldn't cause any recklessness. I might make threats, but I wouldn't damage my >position over it. That's what I'd be thinking, too. =) OK, that makes a lot more sense. No, I wouldn't be silly and chuck 1/3 around unless you decided to pre-emptively interfere with my voting, in which case you would HAVE to die. Although it would also be nice to have you just casually take the 3/1 without doing all that much... but normally in this group, where that last 1 is going to go is the focus of much discussion and "I'll toast that vampire if 1 comes this way" type of thing. Also the usual "before I block, where's the 1 going?" from predators and eagle's sight decks... =) It's prompting me to make a vote deck that trundles around KRCs with enough Bribes for every vote. 3 to my prey, 1 to me, Bribes on that - I lose no pool and nobody at the table has a reason to vote against (except my prey). And if the vote fails, I gain a pool. How can this be bad? =) Presence weenies with Voter Caps suggested itself but seems like a bad idea in retrospect; people will quit voting for you when you start gaining 2 pool per KRC, even if they get 1 themselves. Might just pick a clan like the Gangrel who have tons of Protean weenies (stealth), and toss around Con Boon for pool gain, Gangrel Justicar to eventually secure SOME votes, and a few Cryptic Ridered Praxis Seizures, maybe. although cryptic rider only works once per game. The big problem, of course, is forcing the vote past when it comes time to oust someone. Perhaps just stealth-bleed when they get that low. OK, ramble mode off. Sorry =) >>>I am also comfortable with both of us losing, in that situation. If I >blithely oust my prey while not touching you, I am going to be in the >same position my prey was in at the start of the game; screwed, except >you'll have a lot more minions and a REAL incentive to nuke me. This >gets me dead. Since 1VP isn't sufficient to win, I'll go ahead and >sacrifice the sure 1VP to give myself a chance at 3. (if I get you, I >get your vampire-less prey as well.)>> > >But is it worth doing this at the risk of incurring the wrath of your grand >prey? You are already having to deal with two players--why make it three? I'm not having to deal with my prey; he's being vaporized. So I'm only having to deal with two. =) And the difference between 1 and 3 VP is sufficient, IMO, to make it worth a shot. No Gutz, No Gloree. >>>Yeah, but there are a LOT of Dramatic Upheavals in tournaments, was my >point. This isn't too uncommon to see.>> > >I don't see them that often, and wonder why... We do. Trade you tourney metagames? =) >>>unless, of course, the IG decks shifted to the pot/CEL paradigm, which >could pack as many maneuvers as the Assamite Rush decks. And they >would slaughter each other and remain in the circuit. > >I don't think Assamite Rush would necessarily trump IG Rush.>> > >Well, the long range Assamite CEL/qui deck would kill the IG close range deck >quite nicely--the IG deck just can't have that many manuvers, where the CEL >deck can. Sure it can. pot/CEL is Torn Signpost/IG/Blur and/or Pursuit... the Pursuits give you enough potential maneuvers to catch the Assamite deck without having to get yourself screwed on Flash if you DON'T have to run people down. An Assamite deck has to pack that many maneuvers, true, but it also has to USE those maneuvers. If you catch it once, you have it for the rest of the turn. I think it'd be a real close struggle. :) And POT/ani would just make things obscene for the poor Ass-mites; Drawing out the Beast, Torn Signpost, IG, Pushing the Limit, Taste. =/ Could even be extended a bit to Carrion Crows/DotB/IG/PtL, where you get 7 with both superior, 6 with pot/ANI, and 6 with POT/ani - and about half of it is non-strike damage and can't be Skin of Steeled. Hmmm. Not bad. (ponder) compared to TS/DotB/IG/PtL, where you get 7 with both, 5 with pot/ANI, and 6 with POT/ani. Hmmmmmmmmm. I got an idea. =P >>>Goodness, no. 3VP over 3 rounds won't make the final. =) At some >point you're going to have to thump an entire table. Some >opportunities are better than others. ;)>> > >In all likelyhood, you aren't going to see a Rush deck in more than one game. >If you sweep 2 tables, and happily take the 1 VP in the game with the Rush >deck, you are set. If you sweep 2 tables, you're set anyway. Screw the 1VP, go for the gusto =) >>>wow, I dunno about THAT. bruise-and-vote with the !Brujah is a >particularly vicious way to go (stealth = Torn Signpost), and a lot of >clans are better designed for bruise-and-X than they are for just >bruise. Toreador, Tremere, even the Brujah.>> > >I have never found Bruise/Anything to work so well for the obvious reasons--you >need to mix up card types, so you never have the right ones when you need them; >your combat cards don't do you any good when no one blocks you, and they just >jam up your hand; you have limited ways to defend yourself against your >predator. More cards that make Bruise/X work just, well, aren't going to work. Again, I'm not so sure about that. I've got a lot of bruise/X stuff that works very well... the trick is not to overdo it on the bruise, since often you want to say things like "I bleed you for eight, and if you block, I'm going to punch you for twelve." After the first punch for twelve, nobody will ever block you again, so you don't need as much bruise as you think you do. =) This leaves room for lots more actual defense and the like. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Derek wrote: > >>Hm. I always look at it a bit differently; 14 cards is ONLY 14 cards, > and if I jump you with 3 guys in the same turn, you'll likely be out > after the first combat (i'm fond of Celerity; it lets me use things > like "press to continue" after that silly Skin of Steel, and it lets > me use things like "Blur" to avoid that pesky Superior Mettle, and > Dodge makes me laugh) and the next two people are going to be just so > many body parts.>> > > True, true, but more often than not, it is that one guy that survives that gets > me killed. Most people around here seem to have the attitude of "Well, unless I > can stop every single attack you make, I am removed from the game just 'cause I > sat next to you...", which simply isn't the case. It is that one guy my > predator has that I really need to kill, lest I get bled for 6 and ousted on > his next turn, who manages to survive due to a couple Flashes or something, and > leaves me with a rushless hand jam, and then kills me where this whole thing > falls apart. The Rush deck lives on a knife edge, as you well know... I pretty much think it does, yea. Which is one of the reasons it has a "dog-in- the-manger" aspect for me. After all, he may have managed to oust you but limped away with one minion or so. Makes me wonder whether he got any more VP or even had a fighting chance to after you got done with. Remember, your failures aren't necessarily your predator's successes. > >>I just don't think that a 6 point minion is worth 6 pool -except- as far as > how much it costs to bring them out. Once they're out, they become > worth more or less than 6 pool rapidly.>> > > That is why you have to kill them before this amount changes :-) You can't necessarily do that, however. And when combat decks can't, then this reality kicks in. So your 6-cap-vampire-is-worth-exactly-6-pool law only kicks in in optimal circumstances. That means it isn't a very accurate description of reality. Fred

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:41:14 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > > >yes, you heard it before, but no, something came of it !! >it was about "Ascendence" versus "Short term investment". After a long >explanation, almost everyone agreed that ascendence was better : you gain 1 >pool for 1 master phase, opposed to short term wich gained you 2 pool for 4 >master phases. Not playing master when you have the opportunity is >definetely a cost for gaining a pool from Short term. You've got to be kidding me. STI rocks. I do not want ascendance taking up slots in my hand when I can lay out the STI and suck from it at my hearts content. So what your analysis fails to show above is that to get that same 2 pool, there has to be another ascendance choking up your hand.... T

On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:04:48 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >This is something I'd like to throw open to the masses. Does anyone else have a >perspective on this? How do others handle your prey clear packing deflections when >your strategy is big bleed? Play with Spying Mission. If you're bounced, you negate the bleed and get +2 for when you eventually start bleeding the person you were bounced to...typically your Grand-Prey which works out nicely. ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin saa...@yahoo.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/

> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:41:14 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: >> yes, you heard it before, but no, something came of it !! >> it was about "Ascendence" versus "Short term investment". After a long >> explanation, almost everyone agreed that ascendence was better : you gain 1 >> pool for 1 master phase, opposed to short term wich gained you 2 pool for 4 >> master phases. Not playing master when you have the opportunity is >> definetely a cost for gaining a pool from Short term. > > You've got to be kidding me. > > STI rocks. I do not want ascendance taking up slots in my hand when I > can lay out the STI and suck from it at my hearts content. Until, say, you're ousted. And assuming you don't like spending the *3* extra Master Phases playing vastly more useful cards. > So what your analysis fails to show above is that to get that same 2 > pool, there has to be another ascendance choking up your hand.... Unless you play with poor players, small card limits, and/or libraries larger than 90 cards (all of which means your person experience can't be compared to ANY useful discussion here), games just DON'T last that long. A "quick" game is about 8 turns, a normal game 11 or 12, a "long" game somewhat more than that. With only 12 Master Phases, on average, for ALL game, you want to spend 4 of them, a third of your Master resources, on gaining 2 pool?! I can play one Blood Doll, and easily gain 2 pool from that without affecting the usefulness of the vampire I took the 2 blood from. If you think Ascendance sucks, keep in mind that it's one card. If you put in all of 2 Ascendances, you gain 2 pool in half the time, and half the MPA's of the STI. STI might as well read: "Gain 2 pool; lose 4 Master Phase actions." Consider this: You might argue "what are you crazy what about the Parthenon? i have it in every deck and take 2 pool off my STIs every turn" Okay. Parthenon: Pay 2 pool to gain X master phase actions, where X is the number of turns left in the game. Play one STI immediately, and take 2 off next turn. And 1 the turn after that. Card slots in your deck: 2. MPA's used: 2. Net gain: 0. Put in 2 Ascendances, instead. Card slots: 2. MPA's used: 2. Net gain: 2. Okay, put in another STI: Turn 1: Parthenon, STI. -3 pool Turn 2: Get 2 pool back. -1 pool. Turn 3: Get 1 pool back (burn STI), play STI. -1 pool. Turn 4: Get 2 pool back. +1 pool. Turn 5: Get 1 pool back (burn STI), and play your favorite Master. +2 pool. Let's put in 3 Ascendance instead: Turn 1: Ascendance: +1 pool. Turn 1: Ascendance: +2 pool. Turn 1: Ascendance: +3 pool. Turn 4: Play your favorite Master. Turn 5: Play your next favorite Master (say, a Storage Annex, to keep away from Master hand jam) BOTH take up 3 Master slots. Ascendance isn't jamming your hand any more than the Parthenon/STI combo at even 2 STI's, and you're still an MPA ahead WITHOUT the Parthenon. If you think Ascendance sucks, STI sucks MORE, even WITH the Parthenon. Not to mention that trick requires the Parthenon to show up *first* in that combo. If you put in one copy, it'll show up, on average, halfway down your deck (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you design and play your decks not to have cards left over at the end of the game) meaning, on turn 6. If the STI's show up after that, you've gained 3 pool, and the game is almost over. If they show up before that, you'll be on turn 8 before you've gained the 4 pool the STI's and the 8 MPA's get you. If you put in *more* copies of the Parthenon, *they* can jam your hand as bad or worse as any Ascendance. Now, don't get me wrong: I think Ascendance is a waste of deck space. it sucks. But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI sucks rocks." [ quoted text not captured ]

>You've got to be kidding me. > >STI rocks. I do not want ascendance taking up slots in my hand when I >can lay out the STI and suck from it at my hearts content. > >So what your analysis fails to show above is that to get that same 2 >pool, there has to be another ascendance choking up your hand.... How about - both suck since there are better masters? I think I've finally found a cure for my problem of adding in too many masters. I now ask myself "is it better than another Blood Doll?"

[ quoted text not captured ] I've been evaluating Masters from the other angle. "Is this better than Ascendance?" No? Forget it. Note that Blood Doll passes this test: In almost every case, you gain 1 pool, not to mention the *host* of usefulness it gives you in pool and blood management, and permanent pool gain via hunting. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Okay, put in another STI: > Turn 1: Parthenon, STI. -3 pool > Turn 2: Get 2 pool back. -1 pool. > Turn 3: Get 1 pool back (burn STI), play STI. -1 pool. > Turn 4: Get 2 pool back. +1 pool. > Turn 5: Get 1 pool back (burn STI), and play your favorite Master. +2 pool. > > Let's put in 3 Ascendance instead: > Turn 1: Ascendance: +1 pool. > Turn 1: Ascendance: +2 pool. > Turn 1: Ascendance: +3 pool. I'm obviously a victim of cut and paste, here, those being turn 2 and turn 3. =) > Turn 4: Play your favorite Master. > Turn 5: Play your next favorite Master (say, a Storage Annex, to keep away > from Master hand jam) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3ad5fc3f....@news-server.austin.rr.com>, Ethan Burrow <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:04:48 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> >wrote: >>This is something I'd like to throw open to the masses. Does anyone else have a >>perspective on this? How do others handle your prey clear packing deflections when >>your strategy is big bleed? >Play with Spying Mission. If you're bounced, you negate the bleed and >get +2 for when you eventually start bleeding the person you were >bounced to...typically your Grand-Prey which works out nicely. Preemptive Revelations (inferior) to clear out Deflections/Misdirections work nicely, too. I have 4 in my Malk sneaker (which sucks for other reasons), and I'm always happy to see them. Revelations(inferior) is definitely a stronger effect than Revelations(superior), in my mind. Although you can definitely get too clever for your own good, as in the case when I pitched a Minion Tap from someone's hand, entirely overlooking the Telepathic Misdirection. And then bleeding for a big wad, which promptly got redirected. D'oh! In my defence, I'd been having the Devil's own time versus Tap-based bloat decks the weekend previous, so my reactions were biased (Aaah! Minion Tap! Kill it kill it!). gomi -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. - Gilbert and Sullivan, 'Pirates of Penzance'

Fredrick wrote: >>This is the Necropotence deck experience all over again. There's a deck out there that can hose Necropotence (in Magic during the "Black Summer") but it's useless against anything else. So it's not really an effective answer in the metagame.>> Nope. The anti-Necro deck was completely useless against anything *but* the Necro-deck. There are countless, perfectly effective decks that do just fine in general and can stand up to a Rush deck as well. I have played against many of them. The deck that won the last tournament I was in (some huge vampire TotGP monster) was incredibly effective (had the most VPs going into the final) and wasn't reall worried about me (lots of Obediance)--he chose to sit as my predator. >>(Sigh.) For the umpteenth time, if all you're trying to do is, "get them killed" this isn't an answer.>> Fred, I gotta ask you--you really don't seem to be enjoying this conversation. In fact, I seem to get you rather aggrivated. If this is the case, why are you participating? >>This just means you're surviving, limping away with your ass.>> Sometimes you just limp away. Sometimes you win. Same with every other deck. >>Which just reinforces my original point: Combat decks just fuck the guys they sit down next to.>> So do weenie bleed decks. So do intercept wall decks. So do Anarch Revolt decks. So do weenie vote push decks. So do Temptation of the Greater Power decks. So do Agg/Grave Robbing decks. I fail to see the difference. >>Woopee, I can throw a bunch of combat cards into my deck and slow down how quickly that thug next door waxes my minions. Wake me when it's over so I can count the number of ousts my prey has achieved in the meantime...>> Sure. I'll do that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek wrote: >>Again, I'm not so sure about that. I've got a lot of bruise/X stuff that works very well... the trick is not to overdo it on the bruise, since often you want to say things like "I bleed you for eight, and if you block, I'm going to punch you for twelve." After the first punch for twelve, nobody will ever block you again, so you don't need as much bruise as you think you do. =) This leaves room for lots more actual defense and the like.>> Yeah, I have never actually gotten this to work much--I have tried countless Bruise/Bleed decks, and I always find them lacking--I have a hand full of bleed cards, and no combat cards when someone blocks me, a hand full of combat cards and no bleed cards when no one blocks me, I draw the Govern when I really need the Fists of Death, and I got nothing to stop my predator. After a lot of trying things out, I figured that the pure Rush was the way to go--I never draw cards that don't help at the wrong time, I have active defense against my predator, and I spend much less time going "Hey! For the love of G'Quan! Someone block me! Please!" That, and when I do have the bleed bonuses, I just get deflected. Ya know, now that I think about it, the reason I got into this Rush buisness in the first place was that I was just durned sick of getting deflected... :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Fredrick wrote: >>I pretty much think it does, yea. Which is one of the reasons it has a "dog-in- the-manger" aspect for me. After all, he may have managed to oust you but limped away with one minion or so. Makes me wonder whether he got any more VP or even had a fighting chance to after you got done with. Remember, your failures aren't necessarily your predator's successes.>> I'm not concerned with my predator's sucess. I suspect that one of your problems with the Rush deck is one of the things I find most appealing about it--if I don't win, I do a really good job of punishing people for making me lose. I think the game is much better with uncertainty. >>You can't necessarily do that, however.>> That is the whole point of the deck--to destroy your prey's minions as soon as they hit the table, before they get minion tapped, before they do anything, with complete impunity. Thus, the destroyed minion is just like a bleed. A Rush deck that can't do this isn't worth playing. Yes, sometimes things don't work out the way you hope (like your prey is a Gangrel Pro/For deck), but this happens with all decks. >>And when combat decks can't, then this reality kicks in.>> And when you are a S+B deck, and your prey is oozing Deflections, you are just as screwed. >>So your 6-cap-vampire-is-worth-exactly-6-pool law only kicks in in optimal circumstances.>> It kicks in when my deck works. Which is more often than not. >>That means it isn't a very accurate description of reality.>> Well, considering how my deck works far more often than not, I'd call it pretty accurate. Sure, sometimes I get killed, but if I didn't win more than not, I wouldn't be playing the deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3adaf872.259993100@news... [ quoted text not captured ] as you can see, other people replied for me =) it's not *my* analysis, it's just that we all talked about it, and came to this conclusion. i don't put STI in, it can only slow down a regular deck. Of course if you've got some bright idea with Parthenon or something, it may be worth...

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> a écrit dans le message news: B6FB825E.3501%( (snip very interesting demonstration) > BOTH take up 3 Master slots. Ascendance isn't jamming your hand any > more than the Parthenon/STI combo at even 2 STI's, and you're still an MPA > ahead WITHOUT the Parthenon. If you think Ascendance sucks, STI sucks MORE, > even WITH the Parthenon. > Not to mention that trick requires the Parthenon to show up *first* in > that combo. If you put in one copy, it'll show up, on average, halfway down > your deck (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you design and play > your decks not to have cards left over at the end of the game) meaning, on > turn 6. If the STI's show up after that, you've gained 3 pool, and the game > is almost over. If they show up before that, you'll be on turn 8 before > you've gained the 4 pool the STI's and the 8 MPA's get you. If you put in > *more* copies of the Parthenon, *they* can jam your hand as bad or worse as > any Ascendance. > > Now, don't get me wrong: I think Ascendance is a waste of deck space. > it sucks. > But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI > sucks rocks." Maybe with Anson or rumors of Gehenna ? nevermind, i agree with you, STI sucks monkey - ((c) Peter D Bakija) Ascendance is not the most interesting card in the game, but at least it is playable. Btw, during a tournament, I've seen a very effective weenie-obfuscate deck revolving around computer hackings and ascendance. Gaining one pool each turn without emptying the 1 or 2 cap vampires was a neat idea. no one bothered playing a sudden reversal on *that*. This deck eventually went to the finals... > Pat Ricochet > Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta thanks for your nice explanation. =) reyda a guy from paris

> In article <3ad5fc3f....@news-server.austin.rr.com>, > Ethan Burrow <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 06:04:48 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> >> wrote: > >>> This is something I'd like to throw open to the masses. Does anyone else >>> have a >>> perspective on this? How do others handle your prey clear packing >>> deflections when >>> your strategy is big bleed? > >> Play with Spying Mission. If you're bounced, you negate the bleed and >> get +2 for when you eventually start bleeding the person you were >> bounced to...typically your Grand-Prey which works out nicely. > > Preemptive Revelations (inferior) to clear out Deflections/Misdirections > work nicely, too. I have 4 in my Malk sneaker (which sucks for other > reasons), and I'm always happy to see them. Revelations(inferior) is > definitely a stronger effect than Revelations(superior), in my mind. Sometimes just even *knowing* is good enough. That's where the much maligned Cull the Herd comes in. +1 stealth action, 1 blood, Look at any Methuselah's hand, blah de blah discard retainer blah gain blood whoopee. The important bit: LOOK AT ANY METHUSELAH'S HAND. 1 blood, disciplineless. Smudge can go look at your hand. At +1 stealth, same as Revelations. > Although you can definitely get too clever for your own good, as in the > case when I pitched a Minion Tap from someone's hand, entirely overlooking > the Telepathic Misdirection. And then bleeding for a big wad, which promptly > got redirected. D'oh! In my defence, I'd been having the Devil's own time > versus Tap-based bloat decks the weekend previous, so my reactions were > biased (Aaah! Minion Tap! Kill it kill it!). Or, as happened to Derek in a recent tournament, looking for Deflections in Todd's hand, not finding any, making him discard some card or another, and then getting bounced by the Deflection that Todd drew up. =) But, I'm *so* glad that Revelations has become more available in Sabbat War (both in the Tzi precon, and seeming not that hard to find in boosters). Don't know why Jyhad didn't have an Auspex card action to look at a guy's hand. I mean, Aura Reading is nice, but it's better in many decks not to have to get into combat just to find out what they have. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B6FB9363.351E%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >Don't know why Jyhad didn't have an Auspex card action to look at a guy's >hand. It did. Pulse of the Canaille. (Though bloody expensive.) -- 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

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:27:52 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> I think I've finally found a cure for my problem of adding in too many >> masters. >> I now ask myself "is it better than another Blood Doll?" > Blood dolls are essential to most decks, but I find that STI and a few taps or tributes are righ behind them. Ascendance, never. T

On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:03:43 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI >sucks rocks." Nope. You heard me right the first time. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, I know I did. I was just giving you an "out" in the face of the irrefutable evidence, that's all. [ quoted text not captured ]

>In message <B6FB9363.351E%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >>Don't know why Jyhad didn't have an Auspex card action to look at a guy's >>hand. > >It did. Pulse of the Canaille. (Though bloody expensive.) And don't forget both Revelations AND Aura Reading. Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] I'd rather put skill cards in than an STI. I just don't see how you can manage to justify so many Master Phase actions to gain only 2 pool. The math certainly argues against it, that's for sure. >Ascendance, never. I'd rather put skill cards in than Ascendances, too, but I'd rather put 2 Ascendances in my deck than 1 STI. Let's talk "same card slot" math for a second: If I put 1 Ascendance in my deck, I gain 1 pool when I play it. Yay! I gained a pool. This could save my ass from being ousted by an Anarch Revolt for one extra turn. If I put 1 STI in my deck, I have to survive an extra two turns after I play it to gain 1 pool, AND I have to waste my next two Master actions as well. I could only see using STI's in a deck that chucked around Rumors of Gehenna and Parthenon liberally; when you have 36 Master phases per game, it makes a lot more sense to use 12 of them on something like 3 STI's. Although the net gain is STILL only 6 pool, you can at least pull from your Investments as MPA filler when you don't have a Master card in hand. There's an interesting experiment - check your decks and see how much pool you REALLY gain at any given point in time. Use 30 counters of the same color to start with, and 15 of a separate color. Vampire blood is always from the original 30. Anything that goes into your pool somehow comes from the 15, and anything that comes out of -that- pool goes into a separate container and isn't reused, so you can tell how much you've actually gained at the end of the night. Should be interesting to see if 6 is "lots", or 6 is "puny". I'm going to bet on "puny" since things like a Consanguineous Boon will usually give you a free 3-4, +1 for Bribes, +2 for Voter Cap... Tribute is at least 4, a Blood Doll will usually give about 3-4 all on its own, while a Minion Tap is normally for at -least- 6. But I wonder if some decks don't survive remarkably well with almost nothing like that. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <smdddtgfb9uvrq1b3...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >There's an interesting experiment - check your decks and see how much >pool you REALLY gain at any given point in time. Use 30 counters of >the same color to start with, and 15 of a separate color. Vampire >blood is always from the original 30. Anything that goes into your >pool somehow comes from the 15, and anything that comes out of -that- >pool goes into a separate container and isn't reused, so you can tell >how much you've actually gained at the end of the night. Should be >interesting to see if 6 is "lots", or 6 is "puny". I'm going to bet >on "puny" since things like a Consanguineous Boon will usually give >you a free 3-4, +1 for Bribes, +2 for Voter Cap... Tribute is at least >4, a Blood Doll will usually give about 3-4 all on its own, while a >Minion Tap is normally for at -least- 6. But I wonder if some decks >don't survive remarkably well with almost nothing like that. Checking JOL might prove an interesting source, as pool is tracked throughout the game in the Pool Total line, which looks like: Pool: 11 (-20 xfer -2 Hunting Ground -5 bleed +4 Minion tap +4 Tribute) So you can tell how much pool you gain over the course of a game. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Um, that was the whole point of the thread. What got clipped was: "But, I'm *so* glad that Revelations has become more available in Sabbat War (both in the Tzi precon, and seeming not that hard to find in boosters). Don't know why Jyhad didn't have an Auspex card action to look at a guy's hand. I mean, Aura Reading is nice, but it's better in many decks not to have to get into combat just to find out what they have." (what I said in the first place, in agreement with you =) I'm *glad* VTES has Revelations. I'm just wondering why *Jyhad* (specifically, the original set) didn't have a card like Revelations. That would seem to be first thing you'd want to do with Auspex. I had forgotten about Pulse when I wrote that, so that may have been the answer, but the inferior doesn't see much (any?) use. Whereas I've seen Revelations playeed almost *every* game since Sabbat War came out, which is a good thing, I think. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B6FCACCD.3565%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... > I'm *glad* VTES has Revelations. I'm just wondering why *Jyhad* > (specifically, the original set) didn't have a card like Revelations. That > would seem to be first thing you'd want to do with Auspex. I had forgotten > about Pulse when I wrote that, so that may have been the answer, but the > inferior doesn't see much (any?) use. Whereas I've seen Revelations playeed > almost *every* game since Sabbat War came out, which is a good thing, I > think. One could almost consider Revelations to be too strong... The ability to see an enemy's hand is virtually gold. That's why I like the Nossies and AntiNossies for their peering abilities... especially Steam Tunnels... Love the Tunnels oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster VEKN Prince of Caledon

[ quoted text not captured ] Revelations too strong? How good can looking at someone's hand be? It's a whole wasted action just for a glimpse of their hand that's going to change soon enough. Heck, you even make them discard one, like it or not, so you only know 6 of their 7 cards! Worthless, I tell you! But...speaking of, anyone want to trade away their "worthless" Cull the Herds? 8) [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B6FCB159.3571%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... > Revelations too strong? How good can looking at someone's hand be? > It's a whole wasted action just for a glimpse of their hand that's going to > change soon enough. Heck, you even make them discard one, like it or not, > so you only know 6 of their 7 cards! Worthless, I tell you! > Worthless??? I hope I am feigning stupidity, and can't tell if the sarcasm is dripping from that statement... [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B6FCACCD.3565%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes >I had forgotten >about Pulse when I wrote that, so that may have been the answer, but the >inferior doesn't see much (any?) use. I've probably seen it played about three times. Ever. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <eZGB6.1908$Ar3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, oaflord <oaf...@sprint.ca> writes >> Revelations too strong? How good can looking at someone's hand be? >> It's a whole wasted action just for a glimpse of their hand that's going >to >> change soon enough. Heck, you even make them discard one, like it or not, >> so you only know 6 of their 7 cards! Worthless, I tell you! >> > >Worthless??? I hope I am feigning stupidity, and can't tell if the sarcasm >is dripping from that statement... And, of course, there's the superior. If you play it at the start of your minion phase, you can see for (at least) the rest of that turn exactly what they've got by way of Wakes, bounces etc. And since Auspex is a nice Malk/!Malk discipline..... [ quoted text not captured ]

> Um, that was the whole point of the thread. What got clipped was: > >"But, I'm *so* glad that Revelations has become more available in Sabbat >War (both in the Tzi precon, and seeming not that hard to find in boosters). >Don't know why Jyhad didn't have an Auspex card action to look at a guy's >hand. I mean, Aura Reading is nice, but it's better in many decks not to >have to get into combat just to find out what they have." > >(what I said in the first place, in agreement with you =) Sorry. Like with others, the newsgroup occasionally acts a bit funky so I never saw the first post. I'll probably see it in a week or two... Halcyan 2

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:00:30 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:03:43 -0400, Pat Ricochet >> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >> >>> But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI >>> sucks rocks." >> >> >> Nope. >> >> You heard me right the first time. > > Yes, I know I did. I was just giving you an "out" in the face of the >irrefutable evidence, that's all. > Hardly irrefutable. It's a tradeoff thats all. Unless you're relying on playing alot of master cards (and thus should have the parthenon/gehennas to do it) the STI really shouldnt be that much of a problem. 'Losing' 4 master phase actions doesnt matter if you didnt have a master card to play for 2 of em anyways. T

In message <3ad9d6e3.23750815@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >'Losing' 4 master phase actions doesnt matter if you didnt have a >master card to play for 2 of em anyways. True. *BUT* you need to get to next turn to break even, two turns to make profit (turn 1 = play turn 2 = break even turn 3 = profit turn 4 = 2 profit). Also, you'd have to be playing a fairly master light deck not to have a master card to play then, except in the end game. And you'd lose out on a lot of potentially powerful cards by doing so. Except in the end-game (where a two player game can split quite finely into nip and tuck, flicking back and forth many turns between them), my experience tends to suggest that the whole 8-12 turns thing is about *right*. (Probably at the high end of such.) [ quoted text not captured ]

> In message <eZGB6.1908$Ar3....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>, oaflord > <oaf...@sprint.ca> writes >>> Revelations too strong? How good can looking at someone's hand be? >>> It's a whole wasted action just for a glimpse of their hand that's going >> to >>> change soon enough. Heck, you even make them discard one, like it or not, >>> so you only know 6 of their 7 cards! Worthless, I tell you! >>> >> >> Worthless??? I hope I am feigning stupidity, and can't tell if the sarcasm >> is dripping from that statement... > > And, of course, there's the superior. If you play it at the start of > your minion phase, you can see for (at least) the rest of that turn > exactly what they've got by way of Wakes, bounces etc. And since Auspex > is a nice Malk/!Malk discipline..... And with all of this, I really don't have any pity for the AI whiners. When any old 1-cap can Cull the Herd at 1 stealth, if you insist on bleeding for 4 or more, you CAN get around Deflection and AI. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And with all of this, I really don't have any pity for the AI whiners. >When any old 1-cap can Cull the Herd at 1 stealth, if you insist on bleeding >for 4 or more, you CAN get around Deflection and AI. Speaking of Cull the Herd and inferior Revelations, how long does the look at hand part last? Are you able to see the cards that they end up drawing after discarding? Halcyan 2

Halcyan 2 wrote: > > > And with all of this, I really don't have any pity for the AI whiners. > >When any old 1-cap can Cull the Herd at 1 stealth, if you insist on bleeding > >for 4 or more, you CAN get around Deflection and AI. > > Speaking of Cull the Herd and inferior Revelations, how long does the look at > hand part last? It doesn't. It is not a continuing effect. You "look at" her hand - not you "can look at" her hand "for the rest of X" or "until Y". > Are you able to see the cards that they end up drawing after > discarding? No. -- 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/

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:00:30 -0400, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 16:03:43 -0400, Pat Ricochet >>> <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI >>>> sucks rocks." >>> >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> You heard me right the first time. >> >> Yes, I know I did. I was just giving you an "out" in the face of the >> irrefutable evidence, that's all. >> > > Hardly irrefutable. Nothing is irrefutable. But if you say "irrefutable", it usually has the desired effect of getting people to try to refute it, instead of just saying "Nope," and not backing up what they say with facts. > It's a tradeoff thats all. Unless you're relying on playing alot of > master cards (and thus should have the parthenon/gehennas to do it) > the STI really shouldnt be that much of a problem. No, I'd just like to play one about every turn. If I put 2 STIs in my deck, that's 8 of my MPAs. I can *easily* think of 8 better ways to spend each of those. > 'Losing' 4 master phase actions doesnt matter if you didnt have a > master card to play for 2 of em anyways. Yes, it does. It doesn't matter if you didn't have a master card to play for all *4* of them. In which case you're wasting masters by having far too few, or your deck is cycling for shit. I don't personally design my decks to cycle poorly, so I'd certainly never toss in an STI "just in case" my deck is running badly. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta "You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice."

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Nothing is irrefutable. But if you say "irrefutable", it usually has >the desired effect of getting people to try to refute it, instead of just >saying "Nope," and not backing up what they say with facts. Aw, cmon. It's USENET tradition to not back up what you say with facts. Besides, how else would people get good, honest flamewars started? Although I think you had it here simplest, and Talonz should look at it like this (restated in painfully-obvious mode): You have approximately 12 turns in a game. Yes, we DID test this by keeping track over about 3 months, and at several different tournaments. Games rarely if EVER last longer than 15 turns, and 12-13 is easily the average. By extension, you have approximately 12 Master Phase Actions in any game. Parthenon and Rumors will double or triple this, of course, but for now we'll leave those out to make things simple. A Short Term Investment costs 1 pool, and requires 1 MPA to play. To make playing an STI a non-losing proposition (wasted MPA, and negative pool), you MUST use an additional MPA at some point to take 1 pool back off the STI. So for the cost of 1 card slot in your deck and 2 MPAs, you have successfully reached ground zero. Twice in the future, you can then spend one MPA to gain a pool. This totals out to 4 MPAs and a gain of 2 pool - a full THIRD of your total MPAs for a game. You will only be playing 8 other Master cards this game. Select carefully. You can conceivably be playing 10 other Master cards this game, but in that case the STI is a wash, and why did you bother to put it in your deck? A much better option is to use the same MPA slot for a Blood Doll, which can convert 2 vampire blood into the same 2 pool at the cost of only 1 MPA - leaving you 3 free MPAs. If you add things like the Parthenon and Rumors of Gehenna into your deck, cards like STI become much more effective, as you suddenly have the potential of 24 or 36 Master Phase Actions to play with. Since you probably still haven't included much more than 18-20 Master cards in your deck, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that you are likely to have spare MPAs lying around that a STI would fill nicely. However, two last thoughts: first, a Parthenon isn't guaranteed to get out on turn 1, so you can't assume that the Parthenon automatically doubles ALL your MPAs. It only doubles the ones after it shows up. And second, a Parthenon costs 2 pool, which is identical to the gain from an STI. If you intend to use STI to gain pool in this fashion, you may wish to include several. >"You can't make a fact out of an opinion by raising your voice." ...Bet? =) -- Derek [generic .signature file]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: Guys, I understand your reasoning behind not using STIs. Repeating everything in detail is nothing more then extended repitition. What you fail to understand is that I dont mind WAITING to get all the STI back. If I put one out, stall it for a few turns to get a few masters out, and then lo and behold dont have a master to play or 1 I want/afford to play, then I finish the STI and am up 2 pool. I like them. They're hardly my first option for pool gain believe me. But I prefer them over ascendance. And there we are. T

<Talo...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message news: 3ae0619f.138418764@news... [ quoted text not captured ] If you really want to play with one of the worst cards in V:tes, it's your choice indeed. But don't try to explain us why a card that *sucks* is a winner. It's a waste of time. by the way, you seem to have something to say on everyone post. That's fine, we're on usenet, you can say everything you want freely. but for god's sake, try to think a little more and post *interesting things*. You want to discuss ? okay, but please no bullshit that's painful to read, impossible to agree with, and in the end you say " i think i prefer X" even if we showed you that X is dog poo. that's not a discussion, merely some kind of "i want the others to know my original tastes in V:tes". A post is cool when *discussion* is possible. Or else, frankly i think no one cares. this is not a flame, merely an advice.

In message <3ae0619f.138418764@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >What you fail to understand is that I dont mind WAITING to get all the >STI back. Over your next half dozen games, just count up the number of turns it takes for you to get ousted/be last player, purely for interest's sake. [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> a écrit dans le message news: D1RggTE$q526...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > In message <3ae0619f.138418764@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes > >What you fail to understand is that I dont mind WAITING to get all the > >STI back. > > Over your next half dozen games, just count up the number of turns it > takes for you to get ousted/be last player, purely for interest's sake. > > -- > James Coupe don't bother james, i think he's not really reading anyway...

On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:17:32 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 14:19:57 -0400, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >Guys, I understand your reasoning behind not using STIs. Repeating >everything in detail is nothing more then extended repitition. > >What you fail to understand is that I dont mind WAITING to get all the >STI back. What you fail to understand is that we're saying you don't have the TIME to get the STI back the way you think you do. With only 12 turns and 12 MPAs in a game, you need to waste 2 of them just to break even on the card and not go negative. Wouldn't you rather be playing ANY other (better) Master, even if it doesn't gain you pool? I think I stated somewhere previously that I'd rather use skill cards than Ascendance/STI. And I still would. The skill cards will have a greater benefit to my game than waiting around hoping for 2 measly pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9bgjgf$3vo$1...@news5.isdnet.net>, Reyda <re...@noos.fr> writes >don't bother james, i think he's not really reading anyway... Any else notice the strange absence of Andrew S. Davidson? Maybe he's inhabiting Talonz's mind with Dominate. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 03:10:49 +0200, "Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote: > A post is cool when >*discussion* is possible. Or else, frankly i think no one cares. > I agree. But the 'we'll tell you how to play and you'll like it' attitude prevalent here is hardly conducive to that. iow, lets move on. T

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:53:47 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >What you fail to understand is that we're saying you don't have the >TIME to get the STI back the way you think you do. With only 12 turns >and 12 MPAs in a game, you need to waste 2 of them just to break even >on the card and not go negative. Wouldn't you rather be playing ANY >other (better) Master, even if it doesn't gain you pool? > No I understand that Derek, as already stated. But I have never really had a problem getting that 2 pool from the usual 1 STI I play in a game. I would rather have the extra mpa out on the table in the STI than stuck in my hand with other cards (like 2 ascendance), unless its some other master I really want, and then i'll just stall the sti for a moment to play it. T

[ quoted text not captured ] You mean *1* Ascendance, right? I mean, if you're comparing Ascendance to STI, you'd have to put in 2 Ascendance instead of one STI to gain those 2 pool. So, instead of playing the STI you played how ever many turns ago, you played an Ascendance. (and are already ahead of the STI by 2 pool, since you're at +1 net instead of -1 net.) I know I've beaten you over the head with the math already, but let me try a better comparison, to conform to your way of thinking: The worst thing ever is having cards jam up your hand. At all costs, apparently. Fair enough. So compare ONE Ascendance instead of ONE STI. Now the Ascendance doesn't *ever* jam up your deck more or less than the STI. When you play it, you gain 1 pool. When you play the STI, you pay (lose) one pool. What you're saying is that you're willing to trade away 3 future MPAs to gain one pool. Correspondingly, you're putting in less Masters (I hope) so that you'll have turns where you have no Master card in hand, to give you MPAs where you can afford to take the one pool at a time back. And, until 3 turns have elapsed with NO master you could *ever* want to play, you were better off playing Ascendance, since you got the one pool back 3 or more turns earlier. You also seem to be contradicting yourself: > I would rather have the extra mpa out on the table in the STI than > stuck in my hand with other cards (like 2 ascendance), unless its some > other master I really want, and then i'll just stall the sti for a > moment to play it. You HATE the idea of having a single extra Ascendance jamming up your hand, but allow that there may be Master cards that aren't ones you "really want," that you might take the opportunity to take a pool off the STI. If that "other card" was Ascendance, you could play it and gain the pool on the spot. Anyway, *which* are you saying: "i'm willing to trade away 3 mpas to gain 1 pool," or "i don't get it, please explain it a 5th time?" [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:16:24 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: >>> >> >> No I understand that Derek, as already stated. But I have never >> really had a problem getting that 2 pool from the usual 1 STI I play >> in a game. >> >> I would rather have the extra mpa out on the table in the STI than >> stuck in my hand with other cards (like 2 ascendance), > > > Anyway, *which* are you saying: > >"i'm willing to trade away 3 mpas to gain 1 pool," >or >"i don't get it, please explain it a 5th time?" > See above. Should be pretty self-explanatory. T

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah. It's self-explanatory that you're totally ducking the issue at this point and have run out of rational arguments other than "I've always played this way and I'm resistant to improvement." more VPs for me! yay! [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:42:38 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Yeah. It's self-explanatory that you're totally ducking the issue at >this point and have run out of rational arguments other than "I've >always played this way and I'm resistant to improvement." > One canot 'duck an issue' if one presents his reasons for a certain stance, clearly and succinctly. Just because you disagree doesnt mean your argument is anymore rational than mine. Frankly, moving to flames proves quite the opposite as to who is running out of rational arguments. T

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 02:00:52 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:42:38 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > > >> >>Yeah. It's self-explanatory that you're totally ducking the issue at >>this point and have run out of rational arguments other than "I've >>always played this way and I'm resistant to improvement." > >One canot 'duck an issue' if one presents his reasons for a certain >stance, clearly and succinctly. Which you haven't. At least not clearly, since we all keep trying to figure out just WHY you insist that 3 MPA for a gain of 1 pool is worth more than 1 MPA for a gain of 1 pool. >Just because you disagree doesnt mean your argument is anymore >rational than mine. Basic math. How much more rational can you get? >Frankly, moving to flames proves quite the opposite as to who is >running out of rational arguments. So does "see above", when you're just referring to what you posted last time. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:14:40 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Which you haven't. At least not clearly, since we all keep trying to >figure out just WHY you insist that 3 MPA for a gain of 1 pool is >worth more than 1 MPA for a gain of 1 pool. > > >Basic math. How much more rational can you get? > I'll assume then that your numbers above were an unintentional typo. Either that, or you don't remember what an STI does. Heres a little more math for you: 1 master card to get 2 pool, versus 2 master cards to do the same. T

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:34:59 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:14:40 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >> >>Which you haven't. At least not clearly, since we all keep trying to >>figure out just WHY you insist that 3 MPA for a gain of 1 pool is >>worth more than 1 MPA for a gain of 1 pool. >> >>Basic math. How much more rational can you get? > >I'll assume then that your numbers above were an unintentional typo. >Either that, or you don't remember what an STI does. No. They were an accurate statement. With an STI, you spend three Master Phase Actions to gain 1 pool. Or four to gain 2, but the minimum is really 3 to even have made it worth your time. (2 MPA to gain 0 pool is what we like to call a 'waste of resources'.) >Heres a little more math for you: 1 master card to get 2 pool, versus >2 master cards to do the same. OK. Ascendance is 50% as efficient as STI in card-slot usage. STI requires 4 Master Phase Actions to gain 2 pool. Ascendance requires 2 MPAs to gain 2 pool. STI is 50% as efficient as Ascendance in Master Phase Action usage, ASSUMING you spend all four MPAs on STI. It looks like a total wash if everything goes as planned for both cards,... but see below. If you never get time to spend that fourth MPA (since you only have 12 MPAs per game), then it requires 3 MPAs to gain 1 pool, something which can be accomplished by the use of a single Ascendance. STI is now only 33% as efficient as Ascendance, and the card-slot usage is identical. You have up to 90 card slots in your deck. You have (about) 12 Master Phase Actions per game. Tell me, which of these do you think you can afford to waste? If you still insist that wasting 1 of 12 is less than wasting 1 of 90, then I hope you sit at my table when I need the sweep. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:02:04 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >OK. Ascendance is 50% as efficient as STI in card-slot usage. > > >STI is 50% as efficient as Ascendance in Master Phase Action usage, >ASSUMING you spend all four MPAs on STI. It looks like a total wash >if everything goes as planned for both cards,... but see below. > >If you never get time to spend that fourth MPA (since you only have 12 >MPAs per game), then it requires 3 MPAs to gain 1 pool, something >which can be accomplished by the use of a single Ascendance. So we can agree that the cards are largely a wash, or tradeoff as I prefer. Unless as you pointed out I cant get that last mpa. Well I havn't had that problem for the most part. There are always master cards that are too expensive at the time I get them, unable to play them due to contesting, etc., and/or simply not having a master in hand. Assuming any of the 3 scenarios happen at least 3 times in the 12 mpa you mention, then STI comes through ahead of asc. So the scenario can work both ways. I therefore choose to have the STI out of my hand and on the table, but as said before, its hardly my first choice for pool gain. T

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:34:15 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:02:04 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > > >> >>OK. Ascendance is 50% as efficient as STI in card-slot usage. >> >> >>STI is 50% as efficient as Ascendance in Master Phase Action usage, >>ASSUMING you spend all four MPAs on STI. It looks like a total wash >>if everything goes as planned for both cards,... but see below. >> >>If you never get time to spend that fourth MPA (since you only have 12 >>MPAs per game), then it requires 3 MPAs to gain 1 pool, something >>which can be accomplished by the use of a single Ascendance. > >So we can agree that the cards are largely a wash, or tradeoff as I >prefer. INCORRECT. Please stop selectively quoting my messages and actually bother to read? I pointed out something entirely different in the rest of that message, which you SUCCESSFULLY failed to quote,... I'll quote it here for you. >You have up to 90 card slots in your deck. >You have (about) 12 Master Phase Actions per game. >Tell me, which of these do you think you can afford to waste? Damn, man, take off the rose colored glasses, and answer THAT question? Since the cards are basically equivalent UNTIL you take the 90-as-compared-to-12 factor into account... which way do YOU think the penny drops? That's right, it drops in favor of Ascendance. (Or really, any other Master card.) Basic math. How much more basic can you get? >Unless as you pointed out I cant get that last mpa. Well I havn't had >that problem for the most part. There are always master cards that >are too expensive at the time I get them, unable to play them due to >contesting, etc., and/or simply not having a master in hand. Select better masters and build your deck better, and this won't happen. I usually spend time with at LEAST one master in hand, and sometimes 2 or more just through sheer card-cycling. >Assuming any of the 3 scenarios happen at least 3 times in the 12 mpa >you mention, then STI comes through ahead of asc. You enjoy basing your wins on a 25% chance? You need a bad thing to happen 3 times during a game for you to gain 1 extra pool? Notice that you're relying on BAD THINGS happening when you list those three scenarios... I prefer to design decks so that good things happen. Oh, and above, I just proved that best-case scenario for both cards, STI is -equivalent- to Ascendance... if you value card slots in your deck at the same premium as Master Phase Actions during a game. Which, by the 90/12 comparison above, is clearly not a valid equivalent. So no, STI *never* actually comes through ahead of Ascendance. Ever. >So the scenario can work both ways. Not if you follow the math. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:12:20 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Tell me, which of these do you think you can afford to waste? > >Damn, man, take off the rose colored glasses, and answer THAT >question? That was a rhetorical question and you know it. No one can 'afford to waste' mpa. A STI in your opinion wastes mpas, we already know that. Imo it doesnt, it actually fills in mpas I wouldnt be using anyways. If I have to wait to get the full investment back, Im fine with that. > >Select better masters and build your deck better, and this won't >happen. You can't garuntee that, no matter how good your deck is. Based on pool cost, shuffling, duplicates in play etc. > >You enjoy basing your wins on a 25% chance? Hardly. I dont base wins on 1 sti. > >>So the scenario can work both ways. > >Not if you follow the math. > The bottom line is 4mpa for 2 pool, or 1mpa for 1. This is your argument. Mine is 1 card for 2 pool, vs 1 for 1. Thus the tradeoff, and a matter of preference. I think we should just agree to disagree at this point. T

[ quoted text not captured ] It was, I just wanted to make sure that you were realizing exactly what you were saying. Saying "I would rather have an STI in my deck over an Ascendance" is equivalent to saying "I'm willing to trade away 3 MPAs to gain 1 pool." so you ARE saying that. I can only assume (since you snipped the part out of me giving you the benefit of the doubt instead of commenting, I'm left STILL assuming) that you design your decks in a way that they have very few masters and/or cycle slowly enough that you have 3 master phases (*after* you play your one STI) go by where you don't have a Master in hand, and so lose nothing by taking the counters off the STI. I'm pointing out that if you've ever had a game where you played the STI and didn't get that 3rd counter off of it before the end of the game, and/or discarded the STI, you would be as well off or better (in those games) having put in an Ascendance. I suspect that you have actually gained the 2 pool off of an STI in some games, or you wouldn't say things like "STI rocks!" But I'm also conjecturing that if you think about it, and watch your games closely enough, you'd find that you don't get to play the STI and get all 3 counters off it often enough to warrant putting it in over an Ascendance. Or, if you DO regularly have 3 master phases go by with no Master to play (again, *after* playing the STI), I'm suggesting your decks could be improved by adding a couple more Masters (say, Blood Dolls) instead of the STI and have a better deck, and all my blathering is to argue that line of thinking. And, no offense, you haven't put in 2 cents of argument to the contrary, just said "Nah, it works for me," which unfortunately leads me to the conclusion that you can't defend your point, won't consider other points of view, or you don't understand the arguments. Please prove me wrong by replying in such a way that shows you DO understand what I'm arguing, WILL consider it, and DEFEND your point of view if you still think you're right. Otherwise I might as well respond with "no, youre wrong." [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3ae4329c.236174191@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >A STI in your opinion wastes mpas, we already know that. >Imo it doesnt, it actually fills in mpas I wouldnt be using anyways. So you do, in fact, waste MPAs? You just "fill in" MPAs? Why not do something constructive with them? [ quoted text not captured ]

Here's a different way of "doing the math". I trawled the winning deck archive and usage of the relevant master cards was: 96 Minion Tap 81 Blood Doll 3 Ascendance 3 Short Term Investment Likewise, we only find three occurrences of any Powerbase and three occurrences of Blood Puppy while Protracted Investment and Secret Horde were not used at all. What this indicates is that Minion Tap and Blood Doll are excessively good to the point of being broken. Tribute to the Master seems to be the only other pool gain master to get any significant usage - 23 occurrences. To get the game out of this rut, how about some changes: * Minion Tap: You may only take half of the blood on a minion. (Round up) * Blood Doll: If you take blood from the minion, you tap it. If the cards were given MRP of this form in Final Nights then, using LSJ's sophistry, this wouldn't be errata. How could anyone possibly complain? <grin> Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > Here's a different way of "doing the math". I trawled the winning > deck archive and usage of the relevant master cards was: > > 96 Minion Tap > 81 Blood Doll > 3 Ascendance > 3 Short Term Investment > > Likewise, we only find three occurrences of any Powerbase and three > occurrences of Blood Puppy while Protracted Investment and Secret > Horde were not used at all. > > What this indicates is that Minion Tap and Blood Doll are excessively > good to the point of being broken. Tribute to the Master seems to be > the only other pool gain master to get any significant usage - 23 > occurrences. Spurious logic. First show how "used in winning decks" necessarily implies "excessively good to the point of being broken". > To get the game out of this rut, how about some changes: The reason not to neuter the most-used card for merely being most-used is trivially shown by applying the method (neuter the most-used cards) iteratively. > [...] > If the cards were given MRP of this form in Final Nights then, using > LSJ's sophistry, this wouldn't be errata. It's not sophistry, it's just definitions. And it's not just "my" defintions, it's standard usage. Errata is the term used for a list of corrigenda, or for the corrigenda themselves. A corrigendum is a change made that doesn't get made in the actual printed material but rather gets made too late to be included in the printed work and is shown on another medium. Changes from 1st edition to 2nd edition of a printed work (that appear in the 2nd printing of the work) are not errata after the 2nd printing is made. See Webster. Conversely, attempting to call printed card text "errata" would be sophistry if it were clever. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:52:29 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > I can only assume (since you snipped the part out of me giving you the >benefit of the doubt instead of commenting, I'm left STILL assuming) that >you design your decks in a way that they have very few masters and/or cycle >slowly enough that you have 3 master phases (*after* you play your one STI) >go by where you don't have a Master in hand, and so lose nothing by taking >the counters off the STI. > I dont design them to *do* that. But if the deck is low on pool generation, and cant afford 'alot' of dolls and taps, then i will look to a few stis to help get some more pool gen. In doing so, I am assuming that there will be mpas where I A) do not have a master to play, B)cant afford the master i do have or C)cant or wont play a particular master because of contesting, duplicates, other conditions. Those situations do and will happen. > I'm pointing out that if you've ever had a game where you played the STI >and didn't get that 3rd counter off of it before the end of the game, and/or >discarded the STI, you would be as well off or better (in those games) >having put in an Ascendance. > Well that is true. But im willing to take that risk for another pool. > I suspect that you have actually gained the 2 pool off of an STI in some >games, Most actually. But ill have to watch that more closely now. > And, no offense, you haven't put in 2 cents of argument to the contrary, Argh. What part of 'STI gets me 2 pool for 1 card, over 1for 1 with ascendance' dont you folks understand? I understand the 4mpa cost with sti. Id just rather have it out on the table, usable at my convenience, then stuck in my hand. And Ive always said that stis are not my first choice for pool gain, but i do consider it better than ascendance. T

If certain cards like STI, secret horde, prot.inv. etc are so bad (as alleged)...why not change them? Reprint them in Bloodlines or something. STI eliminate the 1 blood cost, just put 3 blood bank counters on it and drain as usual. PI Reduce pool cost to 2, putting 6 on still? SH put 2 x pool cost +2 on it? T

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:34:52 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:52:29 -0400, Pat Ricochet ><sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> And, no offense, you haven't put in 2 cents of argument to the contrary, > >Argh. What part of 'STI gets me 2 pool for 1 card, over 1for 1 with >ascendance' dont you folks understand? What part of "you only get 12 MPAs per game, and you get 90 cards in your deck" don't YOU understand? With STI, you're wasting MPAs. With Ascendance, you're wasting deck slots. 1/12 is SIGNIFICANTLY more than 1/90. How can you actually argue the math here? It ain't even CLOSE. At least on the 60-card decks v. 90-card decks argument, the numbers are CLOSE. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3ae4a518.331032440@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >If certain cards like STI, secret horde, prot.inv. etc are so bad (as >alleged)...why not change them? Reprint them in Bloodlines or >something. The Rules Team have a stated position of not upgrading wallpaper with errata, unless there is another reason to issue errata already. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Definitely the right idea. The game needs more pool management options, not less. -Jasper wishes he could flame as well as LSJ!

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message <3ae4a518.331032440@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes > >If certain cards like STI, secret horde, prot.inv. etc are so bad (as > >alleged)...why not change them? Reprint them in Bloodlines or > >something. > > The Rules Team have a stated position of not upgrading wallpaper with > errata, unless there is another reason to issue errata already. The proposal - rewording a reprint - is not errata...

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:00:08 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: >If certain cards like STI, secret horde, prot.inv. etc are so bad (as >alleged)...why not change them? Reprint them in Bloodlines or >something. > >STI > >eliminate the 1 blood cost, just put 3 blood bank counters on it and >drain as usual. But it wouldn't be an "investment" then. A better fix would be for the payouts not to cost master phase actions. This would bring it into line with Blood Doll. The same could be done to Protracted Investment and Secret Horde - it would be a uniform amendment which would be easy to absorb. And while you're at it, correct the spelling of Secret Horde - that should be "Hoard". Andrew

On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:24:10 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Spurious logic. First show how "used in winning decks" necessarily implies >"excessively good to the point of being broken". The cards are not merely used in winning decks, but used to the exclusion of most other cards of that type. Q.E.D. Andrew

>===== Original Message From Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] By that logic, Disguised Weapon is broken if it's ever been used in a winning deck (since Concealed Weapon exists). Dominate discpline cards, being used in winning decks, must be broken since Necromancy disicpline cards are not often used in winning decks. And so on. -- 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

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.010424...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey! <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes >> The Rules Team have a stated position of not upgrading wallpaper with >> errata, unless there is another reason to issue errata already. > >The proposal - rewording a reprint - is not errata... It's exactly the same end result. Consider why certain cards have been reprinted with different texts. "This one's too weak, we need it better" has not yet been a reason, so far as I can tell. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B91BE432B5BCA32B.83BB1B50...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >>Spurious logic. First show how "used in winning decks" necessarily implies >>"excessively good to the point of being broken". > >The cards are not merely used in winning decks, but used to the >exclusion of most other cards of that type. Q.E.D. One might say the same about "Land" in Magic. There are certain, staple cards that provide basic semi-necessary functions. This isn't uncommon in many card games with simple niche facilities being popular across a small range of cards. Blood Doll and Minion Tap, versus the Investment cards, provide very different functions. The former not only provide pool management but also blood management, something the Investment cards don't do. Their popularity suggests people also enjoy blood management in the cards. (That it can provide "free" blood via hunting, Hunting Grounds etc. They can get stuff back from a Taste of Vitae. They can get stuff back from a Voter Captivation. Many decks have ways of gaining blood (all have hunting), so Blood Doll/Tribute/Minion Tap can be appealing across many deck styles.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:36:34 -0400, LSJ wrote: >By that logic, Disguised Weapon is broken if it's ever been used in >a winning deck (since Concealed Weapon exists). In this case, I gather that it's Concealed Weapon which is flawed - it was intended to be disciplineless, right? >Dominate discpline cards, being used in winning decks, must be >broken since Necromancy disicpline cards are not often used in >winning decks. Legbiter recently suggested that the game would be improved if Govern the Unaligned and Conditioning were removed from it. Maybe we will see some better Necromancy cards in Final Nights. But will they help the existing ones? Andrew

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:53:43 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message ><Pine.GSO.4.21.010424...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey! ><dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes >>> The Rules Team have a stated position of not upgrading wallpaper with >>> errata, unless there is another reason to issue errata already. >> >>The proposal - rewording a reprint - is not errata... > >It's exactly the same end result. > >Consider why certain cards have been reprinted with different texts. >"This one's too weak, we need it better" has not yet been a reason, so >far as I can tell. Not to mention that STI was, I believe, already reprinted in the Ventrue Antitribu starter with current text; I'd expect that puts it fairly far down the priority line. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:36:34 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >By that logic, Disguised Weapon is broken if it's ever been used in > >a winning deck (since Concealed Weapon exists). > > In this case, I gather that it's Concealed Weapon which is flawed - it > was intended to be disciplineless, right? Right. So we agree that your previously-stated (although somehow snipped from above) conditions are not sufficient to show that a card is broken. If you like, you can revisit your assertion re: pool-management master cards in light of this new revelation. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <B91BE432B5BCA32B.83BB1B50...@lp.airnews.net>, [ quoted text not captured ] Talk about a slippery slope of logic! No, that's not Q.E.D., as you've proved nothing. A (poorly conducted) statistical analysis doesn't prove anything, and is misleading more often than not. -Jasper

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:17:41 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >> >>eliminate the 1 blood cost, just put 3 blood bank counters on it and >>drain as usual. > >But it wouldn't be an "investment" then. A better fix would be for >the payouts not to cost master phase actions. This would bring it >into line with Blood Doll. The same could be done to Protracted >Investment and Secret Horde - it would be a uniform amendment which >would be easy to absorb. > Very true, a good alternative as well. T

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 06:36:34 -0400, LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote: > >Dominate discpline cards, being used in winning decks, must be >broken since Necromancy disicpline cards are not often used in >winning decks. > Not exactly the best example there. Dominate is widely regarded as the best disc out there, and necromancy, welll....... T

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, James Coupe wrote: > In message > <Pine.GSO.4.21.010424...@harper.uchicago.edu>, davey! > <dhat...@midway.uchicago.edu> writes > >> The Rules Team have a stated position of not upgrading wallpaper with > >> errata, unless there is another reason to issue errata already. > > > >The proposal - rewording a reprint - is not errata... > > It's exactly the same end result. ...except that it's not against the Rules Team's stated position...

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 22:00:08 GMT, Talo...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> If certain cards like STI, secret horde, prot.inv. etc are so bad (as >> alleged)...why not change them? Reprint them in Bloodlines or >> something. >> >> STI >> >> eliminate the 1 blood cost, just put 3 blood bank counters on it and >> drain as usual. > > But it wouldn't be an "investment" then. A better fix would be for > the payouts not to cost master phase actions. This would bring it > into line with Blood Doll. The same could be done to Protracted > Investment and Secret Horde - it would be a uniform amendment which > would be easy to absorb. Except that *does* fall into the context of errata to improve wallpaper. If not for that little exception the RT won't be bending on, that would be the best solution. I'd highly recommend it as a "house" rule, however. I know the "Austin Expansion" for VTES defined the cards as a card type (Master: Investment) and had some card or effect to bolster their usefulness. However, I can't find their cards on their site anymore, since the new'n'snazzy look. =( > And while you're at it, correct the spelling of Secret Horde - that > should be "Hoard". The current spelling does seem to imply the Army of Rats hiding just under the floorboards, instead of the pictured pile of loot, yes. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:55:36 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Right. So we agree that your previously-stated (although somehow snipped from >above) conditions are not sufficient to show that a card is broken. What they demonstrate is that the game is broken. You can express the problem in two ways - that the overused cards are too good or that the underused cards are not good enough. How do you choose between these two positions? What determines the correct balance point or norm? In the case of the pool gain cards, we have two cards that are used almost exclusively and ten or more cards that are little used (Ascendance, Powerbases, Investments, etc). It's natural to focus first on the exceptional cases - are these the source of the trouble? It could be that if these two cards were amended to make them weaker then they would just join the other cards in oblivion. If levelling down is likely to produce this result then one should consider levelling up. This is more of a challenge. I could suggest sensible improvements to each and every weak card but is such a program of upgrades feasible? I did something of the sort in Shadowfist (the RetroFist variant) and this was well received. Levelling down causes trouble because unwary players are told that their cards no longer perform as well as expected and this can hose their decks. Levelling up is more acceptable, because, if there's a surprise, it tends to be a pleasant one. But which alternative would produce the best effect upon the metagame? If pool gain were harder then then the game might be faster and that's probably desirable. If pool gain were easier, then more strategic options would be possible - players could have more minions and/or better ones. That's good too. Doing nothing is not an option if you are continuing to print new cards. You could print new pool gain cards to replace the existing coasters. You could print helper cards which magnify the poor cards or hosers which hurt the good ones. But reprinting the existing cards in amended form is the most efficient course because you have the art and layout all ready to use. If you'd rather level up than level down in this case, here's a fitting upgrade for Ascendance: Master. Gain 1 pool for each Ascendance in your ash pile. I'm not quite sure what should be done about the Powerbases though. I thought they were some good already but winning players think otherwise and you can't argue with success. Andrew

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:23:10 -0500, davey! wrote: >...except that it's not against the Rules Team's stated position... And in any case the Rules Team appear to be sovereign and so can't bind themselves. Andrew

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 20:52:29 -0400, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > > >> I can only assume (since you snipped the part out of me giving you the >> benefit of the doubt instead of commenting, I'm left STILL assuming) that >> you design your decks in a way that they have very few masters and/or cycle >> slowly enough that you have 3 master phases (*after* you play your one STI) >> go by where you don't have a Master in hand, and so lose nothing by taking >> the counters off the STI. >> > > I dont design them to *do* that. But if the deck is low on pool > generation, and cant afford 'alot' of dolls and taps, then i will look > to a few stis to help get some more pool gen. > > In doing so, I am assuming that there will be mpas where I A) do not > have a master to play, B)cant afford the master i do have or C)cant or > wont play a particular master because of contesting, duplicates, other > conditions. > Those situations do and will happen. Consistently, I assume, or your argument is spurious, falling in the "shit happens" category. But putting in STI for these reasons is a band-aid on a flawed design. If these situations "can and do happen" *consistently*, then A) You are cycling poorly, or if not, could stand to have more Masters. B) Put in too many Masters that cost pool without pool gain and/or expensive vampires. (or, you are simply transferring out too many vampires, but that's a play issue) C) Contesting or Duplicates? 95% of all "duplicate" situations that harm you are contesting, so let's call it contesting. If you're contesting yourself, you have too many duplicate unique masters and/or too few discards. If you're consistently in danger of contesting the other players, and cannot afford the contesting cost, you are failing to play to your metagame. Either you plan to contest, or don't put in very popular unique cards. You don't put in an STI "just in case" someone else plays Mob Connections before you do most of your games. >> I'm pointing out that if you've ever had a game where you played the STI >> and didn't get that 3rd counter off of it before the end of the game, and/or >> discarded the STI, you would be as well off or better (in those games) >> having put in an Ascendance. > > Well that is true. But im willing to take that risk for another pool. And I'm conjecturing that those MPAs you use on the STI could be better used. If you keep taking that risk and coming out ahead, then you *consistently* spend 3 MPAs on one pool (if we agree that Ascendance falls into the "waste of time" Master card), and might want to look at your box of Master cards again for, well, anything better. Say, Blood Doll. If handjam is your greatest killer, consider Barrens/Fraggy/Distraction/Trading Revelations to your other players/etc. >> I suspect that you have actually gained the 2 pool off of an STI in some >> games, > > Most actually. But ill have to watch that more closely now. Please do. I'd honestly be interested in the results. Keep track of turns, too. That would say a LOT about your local metagame. If you regularly have 16 turn games, for instance, than STI becomes fractionally less bad, but a speed deck would mop up your group. Does your group play with 90 card max and No Card Limit, BTW? I asked that way back when, but never got an answer. >> And, no offense, you haven't put in 2 cents of argument to the contrary, > > Argh. What part of 'STI gets me 2 pool for 1 card, over 1for 1 with > ascendance' dont you folks understand? "Understand" and "agree" are VERY different words. We *understand* your opinion, > Id just rather have it out on > the table, usable at my convenience, then stuck in my hand. just fine. However, that doesn't make STI "rock," and belies a bunch of decks that could be improved with some tweaking. Your opinion is boggling to us not out of the need to argue, but out of confusion. A deck wasting 3 or 4 MPAs on an STI would likely get eaten alive in our local metagame. How you wouldn't have come to this same conclusion from the numbers, or even personal experience either says something about either you personally or about your metagame. [ quoted text not captured ]

> And Ive always said that stis are not my first choice for pool gain, Always? What you *said* was, and I quote, "STI rocks." In context: [Reyda] >> yes, you heard it before, but no, something came of it !! >> it was about "Ascendence" versus "Short term investment". After a long >> explanation, almost everyone agreed that ascendence was better : you gain 1 >> pool for 1 master phase, opposed to short term wich gained you 2 pool for 4 >> master phases. Not playing master when you have the opportunity is >> definetely a cost for gaining a pool from Short term. [you] > > You've got to be kidding me. > > STI rocks. I do not want ascendance taking up slots in my hand when I > can lay out the STI and suck from it at my hearts content. The exchange continues: [me] >> But, Ascendance sucks and "STI rocks?" I hope you meant to say "STI >> sucks rocks." > [you] > Nope. > > You heard me right the first time. And further on... >>> You heard me right the first time. >> >> Yes, I know I did. I was just giving you an "out" in the face of the >> irrefutable evidence, that's all. >> [you again] > Hardly irrefutable. > It's a tradeoff thats all. Unless you're relying on playing alot of > master cards (and thus should have the parthenon/gehennas to do it) > the STI really shouldnt be that much of a problem. > > 'Losing' 4 master phase actions doesnt matter if you didnt have a > master card to play for 2 of em anyways. ...and about 4 days and 10 messages later you *finally* say: >I like them. They're hardly my first option for pool gain believe me. >But I prefer them over ascendance. If you're going to be obstinate, fine, but don't go rewriting history to make yourself look reasonable and/or expecting us to read your mind and give you the benefit of the doubt. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] If you can honstly say that the Dominate master: discipline card is _broken_ , then yes, it's not a good example. If not, then the example serves its purpose as proof by contradiction of the assertion under discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

>Master. Gain 1 pool for each Ascendance in your ash pile. That's interesting. How about having a crypt of 12 Ansons, and 90 Ascendances (though maybe you can fit in a Parthenon or two). Turn one: Play Ascendance for 0 pool, discard Ascendance to draw another. Turn two: Play Ascendance for 2 pool, discard Ascendance to draw another. (Hopefully get Anson out) Turn three: Play two Ascendances for (4 + 5) = 9 pool. Sicard Ascendance to draw another. Turn four: Play two Ascendances for (7 + 8) = 15 pool. Continue... =) Or even better how about play a Deal with the Devil so that on your second turn you can play Ascendance for 6 pool? It will be just about impossible to be ousted. If you decide to diversify the crypt a bit more you'd probably get better results too and can then swarm your opponents! Halcyan 2

In message <ACE72BDF1A66C543.8926C74B...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >What they demonstrate is that the game is broken. You can express the >problem in two ways - that the overused cards are too good or that the >underused cards are not good enough. How do you choose between these >two positions? What determines the correct balance point or norm? That suggests that some cards in the play-set are underpowered. To move from examples of the card-set to "the game is broken" is a fairly large, improbably and unsupported leap. It *may* be supportable[0], but you need to support it. Are there not cards in all card games which are less powerful? Can you confidently, hand on your heart, say that V:TES [0] That the game is still going in such a strong fashion, selling out Sabbat War, organising tournaments and so on, suggests otherwise. "Broken" games tend not to amass the critical mass of player support and keep it for a long time, because people want a game of skill, not uber-power, in my experience. However, such a proposition may be supportable, with the right evidence. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <525FEC9165EDB2D6.9C5825EB...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Legbiter recently suggested that the game would be improved if Govern >the Unaligned and Conditioning were removed from it. Maybe we will >see some better Necromancy cards in Final Nights. But will they help >the existing ones? In some ways, the very presence of other cards which encourage people to make decks round them will help existing ones. If we pass through Necromancy as a discipline, there are lots of really quite usable cards in it. Spectral Divination is a nice utility card, providing minor stealth and intercept, both of which are valuable to a discipline. Whispers from the Dead is a good utility cards, allowing a deck to adapt to the game (if you find your vote defence is useful, you can recycle it, ditto bleed etc.) Soul Stealing is certainly very good, hampered slightly by the current vampire selection (POT/NEC is difficult, only two vampires) and also by the lack of a solid maneuver in Necromancy, Dominate or Potence.[0] Jar the Soul has utility for tap and bleed, though many people choose stealth and bleed in preference. Possession has some good potential defensively, and also for interesting Might of the Camarilla, Goodnight and Sabbat Inquisitor (or similar) tricks. Spectral Intervention is a solid defensive combat card. Compel the Spirit is good defensively, and has a gorgeous piece of artwork on it, one of the best in the game. (Matt Green currently owns it, IIRC, and I would sell body parts to steal it from him.) Eyes of the Dead, Torment the Soul, Release of the Shackled Soul (due to the rareness of allies, due to their power problem) and Death Pact are all a bit sucky. However, with the exception of Possession, none of the cards are essential game-winners. None of them leap out and say "Build round me". And with the problems that the Giovanni crypt selection gives us, we have even more problems. And Possession requires weird crypt one-trick-pony decks really. More cards can give us exciting strategies. That, in itself, gives the other cards more use. We have more vampires with sensible discipline selections, and more necromancy cards. Building a solid Necromancy based deck is no longer a chore, requiring intense effort and selection. Spectral Divination becomes much more useful because we have more cards, more vampires, more solid Necromancy decks, all[1] of which could quite happily do with a little stealth, a little intercept, that dodge or Combat Ends from Intervention, the burning blood from Soul Stealing and so on. That's Necromancy's bane at the moment. Quite a few really nice solid support cards which are scuppered by vampire selection and nothing to really go *well* with them. [0] As a result, one card I'd like to see is a maneuver for Necromancy. Maybe a maneuver at basic and some necromantic weirdness at superior, or somesuch, making it doubly useful. [1] Of course, not *all*. You know what I mean. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <3ae8d0aa.73613223@news>, Talo...@hotmail.com writes >Not exactly the best example there. Dominate is widely regarded as >the best disc out there, and necromancy, welll....... Dominate is an excellent discipline. However, much of its power comes through its diversity. It's an excellent solo discipline, along with Fortitude. Very few of the cards have ever been, intrinsically, broken. Thoughts Betrayed and Mind Rape were two. However, in the current card set, Dominate is not "broken". However, Necromancy is, currently, under-powered. Not that its cards are intrinsically bad (some are), but that it is hampered for a number of other reasons too. That's the point that Andrew missed (intentionally, I feel). That one card is less powerful than another doesn't make the better card "broken". It *might* be, and cases can be made for such. However, it's not a case-closed scenario. The difference may be slight. One card may have a far greater utility value, the other being more corner case, but equally excellent *in that corner case*. One might be slightly under-average, the other slightly above average. The distance between the two may be quite large, but their individual variance from the mean is much smaller. Moving from "Blood Doll is more powerful than STI" to "Blood Doll is broken" is a potential argument to have. It needs, however, careful statistical analysis, thoughtful examination, thorough discussion and plenty of experience. Andrew provides none of that. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Master. Gain 1 pool for each Ascendance in your ash pile. > That's interesting. > How about having a crypt of 12 Ansons, and 90 Ascendances > (though maybe you can fit in a Parthenon or two). > Turn one: Play Ascendance for 0 pool, discard Ascendance to > draw another. > Turn two: Play Ascendance for 2 pool, discard Ascendance to > draw another. > (Hopefully get Anson out) > Turn three: Play two Ascendances for (4 + 5) = 9 pool. Dicard > Ascendance to draw another. > Turn four: Play two Ascendances for (7 + 8) = 15 pool. > Continue... =) > It will be just about impossible to be ousted. If you decide to > diversify the crypt a bit more you'd probably get better results > too and can then swarm your opponents! Oh, come on, this isn't broken and you know it. This is a great!! fix for an otherwise useless card. Thanks for the idea, Andrew! Sorrow -or not --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 20:44:24 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:55:36 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Right. So we agree that your previously-stated (although somehow snipped from >>above) conditions are not sufficient to show that a card is broken. > >What they demonstrate is that the game is broken. You can express the Piffle. You keep tossing this around without anything remotely resembling a suitable argument to support it. Again, I say "Piffle." >problem in two ways - that the overused cards are too good or that the >underused cards are not good enough. How do you choose between these >two positions? What determines the correct balance point or norm? Normally, one determines what would happen if the overused cards were removed from the game, as compared to what would happen if the UNDERUSED cards were removed from the game. In this case, if you stripped out Minion Tap and Blood Doll, pool gain would become violently difficult, and games would become shorter and more vicious. Fewer minions would be out. Vote decks would rapidly gain the upper hand, due to Autarkis Persecution and Consanguineous Boon - both of which provide significant amounts of pool per action. Fast bleed decks would also become much more common, and Deflection would see even MORE use. Not a direction the game should go -- fast weenie bleed already hampers a number of strategies, including (interestingly) those built around the Powerbases. If you bagged all the Powerbases, Ascendance, and the Investments, almost nobody would notice. This indicates that these cards are definitely underpowered in comparison to the norm, as opposed to the alternative. >In the case of the pool gain cards, we have two cards that are used >almost exclusively and ten or more cards that are little used >(Ascendance, Powerbases, Investments, etc). It's natural to focus >first on the exceptional cases - are these the source of the trouble? A good question, but in this case; no. Even the dreaded Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo would be much weaker if 5th Tradition were to read: "choose a vampire other than the acting minion." It's not that you can Minion Tap that's the problem; EVERYONE can Minion Tap. It's that the Camarilla can use Horse Brutality and KEEP minion tapping. Blood Doll is a strong card, but still quite restricted. Not to mention that around here, those tend to get Reversed more often than a drunken belly-dancer trying to do the hokey-pokey. >It could be that if these two cards were amended to make them weaker >then they would just join the other cards in oblivion. If levelling It seems likely. I can't, offhand, think of a suitable amendment to Minion Tap - something as banal as "you may only remove up to half this minion's capacity in blood" seems, well, banal. Blood Doll the same way. >down is likely to produce this result then one should consider >levelling up. This is more of a challenge. I could suggest sensible >improvements to each and every weak card but is such a program of >upgrades feasible? I did something of the sort in Shadowfist (the It would require reprinting every single card you desired to improve, since the Rules Team appears to be going that direction with cards (witness: Enchant Kindred) as opposed to issuing any more errata. This seems somewhat untidy. >RetroFist variant) and this was well received. Levelling down causes >trouble because unwary players are told that their cards no longer >perform as well as expected and this can hose their decks. Levelling >up is more acceptable, because, if there's a surprise, it tends to be >a pleasant one. Of course, levelling up can cause gameplay issues - it's not desirable to simply replace Blood Doll/Minion Tap with NEW power-cards. It's just desirable to get things like Short Term Investment into the game as something which might be worth a damn. >But which alternative would produce the best effect upon the metagame? >If pool gain were harder then then the game might be faster and that's >probably desirable. If pool gain were easier, then more strategic >options would be possible - players could have more minions and/or >better ones. That's good too. The game being faster is definitely more desirable. But some quite fun strategies suck without time to set up; and there's an inherent problem in trying to speed up the game. The game ITSELF is slow, not the turn process! 12 turns is hardly significant, except that the turns tend to take quite awhile with multiple actions, reactions, etc. Messy, and not at all easy to undo. If pool gain were easier, games might never end. As it stands, a good intercept-bait deck can wall up against almost everything else out there, while still gaining VPs on its own. (my Gunther/Omaya deck was never ousted in the Atlanta qualifier, and I finished 6th, missing the finals by a half-point). >Doing nothing is not an option if you are continuing to print new >cards. You could print new pool gain cards to replace the existing >coasters. You could print helper cards which magnify the poor cards >or hosers which hurt the good ones. But reprinting the existing cards >in amended form is the most efficient course because you have the art >and layout all ready to use. Doing nothing is a perfectly viable option if there isn't actually a PROBLEM. Since new cards are being printed, it's not a tragedy if old wallpaper slides even further to the side in favor of new cards. And again, is pool gain a problem? Not in the sense of "lack of", no. So reprinting the Powerbases to be even stronger might not be a great idea. >If you'd rather level up than level down in this case, here's a >fitting upgrade for Ascendance: > >Master. Gain 1 pool for each Ascendance in your ash pile. Excuse me whilst I pack 6 Suddens in my deck. 1+2+3+4+5 = lots; i'm not interested in watching someone chuck out the Parthenon and then blow through Ascendances as their 2nd MPA each turn. >I'm not quite sure what should be done about the Powerbases though. I >thought they were some good already but winning players think >otherwise and you can't argue with success. They -are- fairly good. The aforementioned Omaya deck uses four of them, along with a bunch of other "Come and get it" locations. The strength of something like Powerbase: Chicago is hidden; most people don't really see it. - it doesn't cost you anything to put counters on from the blood bank - if someone goes to steal from your Powerbase, they aren't bleeding you for 6 or killing your vampires - it doesn't cost you anything to take counters OFF - when someone successfully robs you, the card itself stays in play For an initial 1 pool, this is NOT a bad card. You -do- need to hang onto it for awhile to make it do something; but once you play it, its effects automatically happen during your untap. You don't sacrifice Master phases for it, meaning you can conceivably play: Powerbase: Chicago Powerbase: Washington Powerbase: Mexico City Powerbase: Montreal on your first four turns, and just sit on your butt and defend those, while gaining something around 3 pool per turn. (the Omaya deck does just that.) Again, if people steal from your Powerbases... they aren't bleeding you for 6. In any deck that can reliably stop casual 0- or 1-stealth "i grab the powerbase" actions, they're definitely worth it. [ quoted text not captured ]

>For an initial 1 pool, this is NOT a bad card. You -do- need to hang >onto it for awhile to make it do something; but once you play it, its >effects automatically happen during your untap. You don't sacrifice >Master phases for it, meaning you can conceivably play: > >Powerbase: Chicago >Powerbase: Washington >Powerbase: Mexico City >Powerbase: Montreal > >on your first four turns, and just sit on your butt and defend those, >while gaining something around 3 pool per turn. (the Omaya deck does >just that.) Again, if people steal from your Powerbases... they >aren't bleeding you for 6. In any deck that can reliably stop casual >0- or 1-stealth "i grab the powerbase" actions, they're definitely >worth it. I'd also like to say that Powerbases can be pretty cool. My favorite of course is Chicago (and then Washington D.C.) mainly because unlike Mexico City and New York, they don't actually get burned after blood is stolen. As Derek pretty much says, you just have to be able to protect them (to some degree). Unless of course the whole point is to distract other players. And as an additional point, Powerbases can also be invaluable for mananging the table. You can help other Methusalehs out by "letting" them steal. Most notably, I recall purposely using 3 pool to put 6 counters of PB:Washington D.C. to help prevent someone from getting ousted. =) Halcyan 2

[ quoted text not captured ] It IS a nice idea, but am i alone in thinking that Ascendance is actually a VERY good card? i certainly didn't used to think this but it absolutely cuts the mustard in my weenie allies/vote deck. Pool gain, like greed, is good IMO, and Ascendance as Reyda and Pat and Derek have been pointing out in this thread is just the best master-phase pool-gainer there is. Except maybe Ventrue Investment, but that requires a deck of !Ventrues. As for StI, i'm with the posters who say this card needs to have the deck built around it. Dave Hammond has a good one, and Anson is right at the heart of it, along with the Parthenon. i was also amused by Peter Bakija's intervention with the PArthenon/Secret Horde combo as ALL of his master-card section.

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:55:36 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >Right. So we agree that your previously-stated (although somehow snipped from > >above) conditions are not sufficient to show that a card is broken. > > What they demonstrate is that the game is broken. You can express the Ah. The moving target defense. > problem in two ways - that the overused cards are too good or that the > underused cards are not good enough. This will always be the case unless all cards are identical. See the standard iteration argument. I'd say that that alternative (all identical cards) would be more indicative of "broken" game than the current situation (broken in a different way, but broken nonetheless in that the game would no longer be fun to play). > How do you choose between these > two positions? What determines the correct balance point or norm? The developers and/or rules team. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:38:08 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Ah. The moving target defense. Ok let's go back to the original point then and start at the top. Minion Tap is broken - there is no question in my mind about this. Why? 1. With a single master phase action you can score yourself up to 11 pool - a huge amount compared to other cards. 2. Return to Innocence was banned because it could generate pool swings of this size. A precedent. 3. It can be readily combined with minion stealing cards like ToGP and Hostile Takeover to loot and pillage other players' minions rather than your own. 4. It can be readily combined with 5th Tradition to repeatedly drain and refill the same minion. 5. With NCL there is no limit to the number that you may include in a deck. 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. 7. The empirical evidence from the analysis of winning decks shows that this card is so effective at winning tournaments that it makes a wide swathe of lesser cards worthless. If you have a better way of proving that a card is broken, then let's hear it. >This will always be the case unless all cards are identical. See the standard >iteration argument. I'd say that that alternative (all identical cards) would >be more indicative of "broken" game than the current situation (broken in >a different way, but broken nonetheless in that the game would no longer be >fun to play). A straw man. Cards don't have to be identical to be balanced - they just need to have similar cost-effectiveness. And is the current prevalence of Minion Tap fun or is it monotonous and predictable? >The developers and/or rules team. Ah, the argument from authority. Andrew

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes: > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. Dan Quale, please get off Andrew's computer! Ex-VP or not, you have no right to post here using his name! (Is it just me, or didn't the verb "to tap" exist before there were collectible card games around? But then again, I'm not a native English speaker... >;-) ) > Andrew HG -- hg | The brain does process all sensation, Crowley said. If the brain @iki | is fully awake and conscious of what it is doing, why on earth .fi | should it treat any sensation as a less than orgasmic experience? | - Robert Anton Wilson, "Masks of the Illuminati"

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:35:24 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:38:08 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Ah. The moving target defense. > >Ok let's go back to the original point then and start at the top. >Minion Tap is broken - there is no question in my mind about this. With any luck you're back there responding to MINE, where I point out that Minion Tap itself is not the problem, or Sabbat decks based around enormous vampires would be thumping people repeatedly,... which they're not. >Why? > >1. With a single master phase action you can score yourself up to 11 >pool - a huge amount compared to other cards. With three Consanguineous Boons and four clan vampires, I can score myself 12 pool. With one Autarkis Persecution, Bribes, and ten weenies, I can score myself 11 pool. Come to think of it, with ten weenies I can use Tribute to the Master and do this. Minion Tap is designed for use on a single, large vampire. Below the 6 and 7-caps it's not worth it much to use Minion Tap. Tribute is designed for use on multiple tiny vampires. >2. Return to Innocence was banned because it could generate pool >swings of this size. A precedent. Not the precedent you'd like, though. It was banned because it generated one-action, one-turn ousts. A Minion Tap does not generate anywhere NEAR as game-breaking an effect; in two actions you can easily bleed for 12. >3. It can be readily combined with minion stealing cards like ToGP >and Hostile Takeover to loot and pillage other players' minions rather >than your own. Unless other players' minions have little or no blood on them, in which case you feel small and silly. It is much more logical to look to cards like ToGP and Hostile Takeover as the problem (if there is one); indeed, Mind Rape and Temptation are specifically worded to avoid ANY Masters being played on the borrowed minion at all, since you can also combine Golconda and several other Masters with ToGP and Hostile Takeover. >4. It can be readily combined with 5th Tradition to repeatedly drain >and refill the same minion. This indicates extremely high power on the part of 5th Tradition, as if 5th didn't exist, Minion Tap would be a one-shot deal, leaving your minion largely defenseless. A similar effect to 5th may be found in Giant's Blood, which may only be played once per game - hmmmmmm. >5. With NCL there is no limit to the number that you may include in a >deck. Totally irrelevant. There is also no limit to the number of Ascendances you can include in a deck. Big deal. >6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it >has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. Totally irrelevant. "Tap" has an alternate meaning specifying "drain from", as you well know. >7. The empirical evidence from the analysis of winning decks shows >that this card is so effective at winning tournaments that it makes a >wide swathe of lesser cards worthless. If you have a better way of >proving that a card is broken, then let's hear it. Of course, the empirical evidence from the analysis of LOSING decks shows that this card has been included in far more LOSING decks than winning decks. It is clearly, by itself, not that effective at winning tournaments. >A straw man. Cards don't have to be identical to be balanced - they >just need to have similar cost-effectiveness. And is the current >prevalence of Minion Tap fun or is it monotonous and predictable? Missing the target again, however. Look to 5th Tradition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hg6eetgedhqqumf8t...@4ax.com... > This indicates extremely high power on the part of 5th Tradition, as > if 5th didn't exist, Minion Tap would be a one-shot deal, leaving your > minion largely defenseless. A similar effect to 5th may be found in > Giant's Blood, which may only be played once per game - hmmmmmm. 5th Tradition is the problem, but only because Sabbat/Independents do not have access to it. If the Sabbat/Independents had an equivalent to the 5th, then everyone would be happy. Games would NEVER END, but everyone would be happy. ;-) Is the restriction of Prince/Justicar not enough? Is the inherent +1 stealth too much? Is this all fruitless as the card hasn't changed in 6-7 years and probably never will? oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster Prince of Caledon

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > 1. With a single master phase action you can score yourself up to 11 > pool - a huge amount compared to other cards. 11 is not the max. And gaining 11 takes a bit more than 1 MPA. It takes an 11-cap in your uncontrolled region and 11 transfers (and 11 pool). > 2. Return to Innocence was banned because it could generate pool > swings of this size. A precedent. Not true. RtI was banned because it could generate a large pool reduction. [snip combos] > 5. With NCL there is no limit to the number that you may include in a > deck. 90 is the limit in tournament play. > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. :-) Don't confuse the name of a card with what a card "says". > 7. The empirical evidence from the analysis of winning decks shows > that this card is so effective at winning tournaments that it makes a > wide swathe of lesser cards worthless. Not true. It shows that winning decks include this card, not that this card is a tournament winner. Check how many non-winning decks use the card. > If you have a better way of > proving that a card is broken, then let's hear it. I've stated previously that such things cannot be proven. You claim that such-and-such is proof; I merely refute that claim. > >This will always be the case unless all cards are identical. See the standard > >iteration argument. I'd say that that alternative (all identical cards) would > >be more indicative of "broken" game than the current situation (broken in > >a different way, but broken nonetheless in that the game would no longer be > >fun to play). > > A straw man. Cards don't have to be identical to be balanced - they > just need to have similar cost-effectiveness. And is the current > prevalence of Minion Tap fun or is it monotonous and predictable? Now you switch from "identical" to "similar". So now you endorse a "window" of cost/effect in which cards can be considered "balanced", even if some cards are at the top of the window and some at the bottom. Great. We agree again. > >The developers and/or rules team. > > Ah, the argument from authority. You asked the question. If you have a better answer, then let's hear it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> a écrit dans le message news: DE3B8DB296B70B35.6010D7AE...@lp.airnews.net... > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 07:38:08 -0400, LSJ wrote: > > >Ah. The moving target defense. > > Ok let's go back to the original point then and start at the top. okay, STI *sucks *... ;) > Minion Tap is broken - there is no question in my mind about this. > Why? > > 1. With a single master phase action you can score yourself up to 11 > pool - a huge amount compared to other cards. One word : Sudden Reversal. One other : Society of Leopold on the Minion Tapped vampire. More complex : rush the vampire when it's full of blood. When the minion tap comes, the gain will be minimized. > 2. Return to Innocence was banned because it could generate pool > swings of this size. A precedent. you can also make great pool swings with, say, Parity Shift. Steal your prey 5 pool and gain 5, that's a 10 pool swing. Btw, Return to In-nonsense was banned Especially because you could make that action unblockable or stealthy too easily. If the card worn the words "no action modifiers can be played during that action", i'm sure it would'nt have been banned. > 3. It can be readily combined with minion stealing cards like ToGP > and Hostile Takeover to loot and pillage other players' minions rather > than your own. Yeah. you know what ? Sudden Reversal. Hostile Takeover gives you pool to bring out other minions. ToGP requires a *ready* Justicar (something very specific) and a huge amount of pool to be effective. > 4. It can be readily combined with 5th Tradition to repeatedly drain > and refill the same minion. Yes. 5th T' Tactics fails when you've got some intercept. Else try Direct Intervention. Else rush the prince's butt, Entomb him, poke him, walkofflame him, Pentex him, sensorize him : it's only a vampire lik the ones you're using, you know... Come on, face other people's strategies instead of complaining. > 5. With NCL there is no limit to the number that you may include in a > deck. irrelevant. The debate is not about NCL. > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. irrelevant. "Beer on Tap" doesn't force you to turn your glass at 45-90° angle : It would waste your beverage on the ground each time you go to the pub. > 7. The empirical evidence from the analysis of winning decks shows > that this card is so effective at winning tournaments that it makes a > wide swathe of lesser cards worthless. If you have a better way of > proving that a card is broken, then let's hear it. A lot of bad decks also use Minion taps or blood dolls. That does not make them win. Using a card efficiently is quite another kettle of fish. > A straw man. Cards don't have to be identical to be balanced - they > just need to have similar cost-effectiveness. And is the current > prevalence of Minion Tap fun or is it monotonous and predictable? As is the current prevalence of Bleed Actions or Fortitude prevention. Hey guys, Bleeding with your minions is sooo predictable ! let's make games with hunting actions only. And forget Fortitude, this discipline is too monotonous : Andrew will be tired to see guys bleeding him or preventing damage from his strikes. > >The developers and/or rules team. > > Ah, the argument from authority. I prefer them to you =) i think i'm not the only one, cause with bozos like you the cards would change every week, errata will be the standards, and everyone would quit playing a game that changes continuously. > Andrew reyda =p

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:33:37 -0400, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> And Ive always said that stis are not my first choice for pool gain, > > Always? > > What you *said* was, and I quote, "STI rocks." Yup. Did that somehow imply that it was my first choice for pool gain? Nope. T

>> 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it >> has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. > > irrelevant. "Beer on Tap" doesn't force you to turn your glass at 45-90° > angle : It would waste your beverage on the ground each time you go to the > pub. Not to mention the somewhat gruesome idea of a "Minion Tap" in THAT context! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:33:37 -0400, Pat Ricochet > <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > >> >>> And Ive always said that stis are not my first choice for pool gain, >> >> Always? >> >> What you *said* was, and I quote, "STI rocks." > > > Yup. Am I to assume that your first choice for pool gain (whatever that is) not just "rocks," but "everloving r00lz the universe!!!!!!?" > > Did that somehow imply that it was my first choice for pool gain? Does that in *ANY* *WAY* imply, much less "say" that you have many other preferable methods for pool gain? > Nope. Glad you agree. Not saying the contrapositive of a statement isn't the same as making the statement, much less "always" making the statement. I hope for your sake that you know this, and instead are just making a typical USENET shabby effort to save face. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:23 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Not true. It shows that winning decks include this card, not that this >card is a tournament winner. Check how many non-winning decks use the >card. Are stats about losing decks available? Even if they are, one would have to treat them with care. Minion Tap is popular and so many decks at a tournament will include it. But only one deck gets to win the event. Still, we now know about one losing deck - Derek Ray's deck in the Atlanta qualifier. He used Powerbases and look where it got him - he didn't even make the final. And what was the most numerous card in the winning deck? Minion Tap at 10 copies. Q.E.D. Andrew

In message <DE3B8DB296B70B35.6010D7AE...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >1. With a single master phase action you can score yourself up to 11 >pool - a huge amount compared to other cards. You can score a great deal more than that, dear. >2. Return to Innocence was banned because it could generate pool >swings of this size. A precedent. "Because". Justify that. You state it like fact, which it isn't. There are *many* reasons why RtoI was banned. Pool swing was among them, but wasn't the only one. >3. It can be readily combined with minion stealing cards like ToGP >and Hostile Takeover to loot and pillage other players' minions rather >than your own. Certainly. Which could already have been emptied, and which you've quite possibly had to pay a great deal of pool for. >4. It can be readily combined with 5th Tradition to repeatedly drain >and refill the same minion. True. That combos exist doesn't make one card broken. It might mean there are several *good* cards which combo well together. Identifying which one is the problem card takes time and effort. The finger, there, could equally be levelled at 5th. >5. With NCL there is no limit to the number that you may include in a >deck. Indeed not. But with NCL, you can be hoisted by your own petard, by including too many. And it is very possible to include too many. >6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it >has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. Since when has a card's title counted for anything in mechanics? Temptation of Greater Power doesn't mean you have greater power. Blood Doll doesn't create a small plastic Barbie. Drain Essence drains some blood, not some of a creature's essence. Short Term Investment can be left for as long as you want, and a Protracted Investment can be emptied first. (By the way, Andrew, if you're going to troll intentionally, and want to do it effectively, including pointless pieces of wank like this one give them game away.) >7. The empirical evidence from the analysis of winning decks You have thrown together a few numbers. Presenting numbers does not constitute "analysis". I sincerely hope any person who's been involved in teaching you any mathematical or scientific discipline wondered why you were so stupid. >shows >that this card is so effective at winning tournaments that it makes a >wide swathe of lesser cards worthless. Not true. Many other cars have places regarding blood and pool management. However, their places are not necessarily the same place as Minion Tap. For instance, what *can't* Minion Tap do? It can't *lower* your pool size, for a start. Nor can it add blood to a minion - one of Blood Doll's great advantages. Blood Doll, once in play, can slowly lower your pool if you want it, or it can slowly increase a vampire's blood, and so on. Different functions. The Investment style cards give you very different functions. They don't allow blood management, only pool management. This, in and of itself, means that they are extremely different cards. One powerful function a card can have, regardless of what form it takes, is flexibility. Blood Doll can help you defend your pool, deplete your pool, defend a vampire or deplete a vampire depending on your needs. Short Term, once in play, can only help you generate pool. That's all it can do. Adding restrictions to Minion Tap/Blood Doll can't really seriously affect that dual-edged flexibility. Consider a hypothetical idea: Parity Shift, in terms of pool swing, is the most powerful 'damage' vote in the game. (Compare KRC and ConAg.) Yet its inherent restriction comes from the fact that it can't be pulled off easily multiple times - you end up with lots of pool - especially against a single target - they end up with very little pool indeed. Can Blood Doll help? Not easily. It's slow to pull off. Can Minion Tap? Not at all. It can't deplete your pool rapidly at all. Try an interesting idea for a vote deck, then. Toreador vote, maybe a few Grand Balls to stop blocks (Toreador have problems with stealth, of course). Presence helps the vote pass. Anson would make a good 'key' vampire. Two votes and his extra master special. Generate pool via Parity Shift. Deplete pool, as necessary, via Secret Horde. Gather Secret Horde back via Anson and the Parthenon as necessary. Pass Rumors, if necessary. A game-winner? Potentially. It's not going to run riot round the tournament scene, but it could do a lot towards shaking up a play-group. That cards have limited applications (thus, their utility function is much lower than a common or garden card) doesn't make them unplayable. Creative thinking helps makes them playable. Intelligent playing and deck construction - realising that two cards do *not* have the same function and shouldn't be treated as carbon-copies except for one being weaker than the other - contributes greatly. Yes, a card can be difficult to use. It can be 'weak' even when it works. However, >If you have a better way of >proving that a card is broken, then let's hear it. Were any of your statements: - true - backed up with actual evidence, not proof through assertion - weighty - represented a view of things as a whole, not one small section you might have a case to make. Thus far, you haven't done anything beyond say "This is broken, hear me roar." >A straw man. Cards don't have to be identical to be balanced Balanced, no. But to have an identical power/utility function - what you seem to want - they would. Some cards being "below" the average and some being "above" will happen in any situation where there is a differential. "Balanced" isn't a single point, it's a grey area. Some cards are more 'powerful' than others, some are less. We all accept that there are some differences. Moving from "There are differences" to "This card is broken" isn't a supportable proposition without a *lot* (one helluva lot) more work on your part. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <A7EB48C6C8813EAA.E745C62C...@lp.airnews.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:23 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Not true. It shows that winning decks include this card, not that this >>card is a tournament winner. Check how many non-winning decks use the >>card. > >Are stats about losing decks available? JOL has many - I've worked with them on statistical analysis in the past, for course-work. (The source of my investigation wasn't regarding the losing decks per se, but there was plenty of information there regarding them.) [ quoted text not captured ]

>===== Original Message From Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> ===== >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:23 -0400, LSJ wrote: >>Not true. It shows that winning decks include this card, not that this >>card is a tournament winner. > >Still, we now know about one losing deck - Derek Ray's deck in the >Atlanta qualifier. He used Powerbases and look where it got him - he >didn't even make the final. And what was the most numerous card in >the winning deck? Minion Tap at 10 copies. Q.E.D. Again, you "prove" only that a winning deck has been made with Minion Tap. You, again, have not shown that Minion tap "makes" a winning deck nor that Minion Tap is broken. So your "Q.E.D." is not appropriate, since what was to be proved was that minion tap is "broken". -- 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

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> > >6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > >has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. > > Since when has a card's title counted for anything in mechanics? > Temptation of Greater Power doesn't mean you have greater power. Blood > Doll doesn't create a small plastic Barbie. Drain Essence drains some > blood, not some of a creature's essence. Short Term Investment can be > left for as long as you want, and a Protracted Investment can be emptied > first. Let's find some more =) Drawing out the beast should make Beast Leather Face of Detroit leave play for 1 turn. Andreas, the bard of crete, should speak in rhyming sentences even if there's no madness of the bar in play. (And what if he gets Deranged ?) You should punch your opponent when playing Agressive Tactics. Coagulate Blood would show interesting possiblities in your town hospital. Run after your opponent for real when playing pursuit. Declare Slave auction illegal from now on. And when an opponent burns Talaq, pretend it's impossible 'cause he's immortal !

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Of course, levelling up can cause gameplay issues - it's not desirable >to simply replace Blood Doll/Minion Tap with NEW power-cards. It's >just desirable to get things like Short Term Investment into the game >as something which might be worth a damn. What about this? Off-shore Banking Unique Master Tap during your master phase to get one additional master phase action this turn. This master phase action can *not* be used to play master cards. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:06:52 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:58:23 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Not true. It shows that winning decks include this card, not that this >>card is a tournament winner. Check how many non-winning decks use the >>card. > >Are stats about losing decks available? Even if they are, one would >have to treat them with care. Minion Tap is popular and so many decks >at a tournament will include it. But only one deck gets to win the >event. Of course they're available. Attend some tournaments; watch and see how many decks attempt to Minion Tap. You'll see lots. A more accurate assessment would be how many decks with Minion Tap failed to even make the final. I can assure you that at least two of the decks in the Atlanta final did NOT use Minion Tap - Niki's weenie OBF horde and Patrick's Crypt Machine. I would wager Charles' Malkavian S&B didn't use Minion Tap either, and I'm not sure whether or not Norm's Blood Hunt/Anathema deck bothered to. >Still, we now know about one losing deck - Derek Ray's deck in the >Atlanta qualifier. He used Powerbases and look where it got him - he >didn't even make the final. And what was the most numerous card in >the winning deck? Minion Tap at 10 copies. Q.E.D. This is also a misleading statistic. I used Powerbases, the Rack, *AND* multiple Blood Dolls. My pool gain was far better than simple Minion Taps - I was never actually ousted, and I don't recall ever falling below 8 pool for ANY reason. However, my deck failed to make the final because of the traditional flaw in intercept decks - a lack of forward pressure. Purpose accomplished. (I could try to make excuses and point out that my prey in round 1 was an Assamite forward-bleeder, my prey in round 2 was a Gangrel forward-bleeder, and in round 3 was a weenie Night Moves horde... possibly the worst seating position possible for an intercept deck, but that would just point out that playing intercept comes with its own built-in drawbacks; what do you do when you sit behind someone who takes no actions but "I bleed my prey for X"? Answer: You hope like hell their prey survives until you can get enough minions out.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Janne Hägglund" <jhag...@siba.fi> > > > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. > > > Dan Quale, please get off Andrew's computer! Ex-VP or not, you have no > right to post here using his name! > > > (Is it just me, or didn't the verb "to tap" exist before there were > collectible card games around? But then again, I'm not a native English > speaker... >;-) ) I've always gotten a chuckle out of the use of 'tap' in the context of draining a vampire to your pool. Kind of like that Buffy movie "We're having a keg party... you're the keg." > hg | The brain does process all sensation, Crowley said. If the brain > @iki | is fully awake and conscious of what it is doing, why on earth > .fi | should it treat any sensation as a less than orgasmic experience? > | - Robert Anton Wilson, "Masks of the Illuminati" Ooooh! A fellow R.A. Wilson fan! Great shit. He is either the most intelligent author I have ever read or the most insane. I can never figure out which. Cheers, WES

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. I agree. Dammit, I really wish someone had told me earlier that you didn't *really* have to burn a card when it's text tells you to. I would have a much larger collection had I known that.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 04:50:26 GMT, Johan Lundstrom wrote: >Off-shore Banking >Unique Master >Tap during your master phase to get one additional master phase action >this turn. This master phase action can *not* be used to play master >cards. Not bad. But it shouldn't be unique. One can understand why The Parthenon is unique but offshore banking is everywhere - spam, in-flight magazines, etc. Andrew

On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:42:10 -0400, LSJ wrote: >Again, you "prove" only that a winning deck has been made with Minion Tap. You keep trying to dump the burden of proof on me. Maybe it's my use of Q.E.D. which is confusing you. What we have here is a matter of science rather than mathematics. The scientific method is to propound theories which fit the evidence. These can only be disproved rather than proved. Let's say my theory is that "Minion Tap is broken". What evidence or experiment might disprove this theory? Perhaps we would conduct a tournament of decks built around the competing cards - one deck built using Minion Tap, one deck built using STI, one deck built using Ascendance, etc. We then see which deck emerges on top and then repeat many times to gather some stats. I'm not sure that current tournaments would provide this evidence because my impression is that players have already made their mind up and disdain the use of cards like Ascendance and STI. The verdict is already in. Andrew

>===== Original Message From Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> ===== >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:42:10 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Again, you "prove" only that a winning deck has been made with Minion Tap. > >You keep trying to dump the burden of proof on me. Maybe it's my use You claimed that burden for yourself. If you wish to relieve yourself of that burden, then stop saying that "such-n-such necessarily means so-and-so". >of Q.E.D. which is confusing you. What we have here is a matter of >science rather than mathematics. The scientific method is to propound >theories which fit the evidence. These can only be disproved rather >than proved. Cute. In science, however, scientists don't claim their theories are proven, as you do, just because they've developed a theorem which fits some small sample. If you want to put yourself in that field, try stating your theorem precisely such that your results can be tested (and the tests repeated). Right now all you've got is "Minion Tap is a game winner". We already know that that's not the case, as many non-winning decks use Minion Tap. If you try "Winning decks always have Minion Tap", then that too is already refuted. What is it that you claim is Q.E.D.? If you're theorem was "there are some decks which have Minion Tap which have won games", then you can say Q.E.D. when you provide an example of such a deck. > Let's say my theory is that "Minion Tap is broken". >What evidence or experiment might disprove this theory? Perhaps we >would conduct a tournament of decks built around the competing cards - >one deck built using Minion Tap, one deck built using STI, one deck >built using Ascendance, etc. We then see which deck emerges on top >and then repeat many times to gather some stats. > >I'm not sure that current tournaments would provide this evidence >because my impression is that players have already made their mind up >and disdain the use of cards like Ascendance and STI. The verdict is >already in. So start conducting your own experiments and let us know how they go. This process is called playtesting. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Reyda" <re...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:9c7rur$1uvb$1...@news4.isdnet.net... [ quoted text not captured ] no telling what Up Yours! might do to the tournament scene! ;-)

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:07:54 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:42:10 -0400, LSJ wrote: > >>Again, you "prove" only that a winning deck has been made with Minion Tap. > >You keep trying to dump the burden of proof on me. Maybe it's my use The burden of proof *is* on you. You are proposing that something be done about an existing card. Therefore, tell us WHY something ought to be done about it. This puts it square on you, and nobody else. >of Q.E.D. which is confusing you. What we have here is a matter of >science rather than mathematics. The scientific method is to propound >theories which fit the evidence. These can only be disproved rather Stuff and nonsense. The scientific method is to generate a hypothesis/theory, and then conduct experiments to PRODUCE evidence that will either support (prove) or tear down (disprove) that hypothesis. Or, in this case, to analyse the existing evidence, which will still prove or disprove it. Simply stating something does not make it "proven". It's your theory that Minion Tap is broken. This means nothing until you either prove OR disprove it, other than Yet Another Momo(tm) has an opinion. >than proved. Let's say my theory is that "Minion Tap is broken". >What evidence or experiment might disprove this theory? Perhaps we >would conduct a tournament of decks built around the competing cards - >one deck built using Minion Tap, one deck built using STI, one deck >built using Ascendance, etc. We then see which deck emerges on top >and then repeat many times to gather some stats. Which wins? It's easy. The deck which packs the Parthenon and Rumors of Gehenna, along with 10 Sudden Reversals. >I'm not sure that current tournaments would provide this evidence >because my impression is that players have already made their mind up >and disdain the use of cards like Ascendance and STI. The verdict is >already in. (shrug) You totally ignore Blood Doll, yet it is my opinion that Blood Doll is a far more effective card than Minion Tap... and not the least reason being that it is much more innocuous than MT. A Minion Tap for 9 is likely to be Suddened from anywhere. A Blood Doll on Omaya on turn 3 will only be stopped by your predator.. but it can easily gain you 9 pool over the course of the game. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 06:45:31 -0400, LSJ wrote: >If you wish to relieve yourself of that burden, then stop saying that >"such-n-such necessarily means so-and-so". No, you should stop putting words in my mouth. My original statement was "What this indicates is that Minion Tap and Blood Doll are excessively good to the point of being broken.". You're the one who started demanding rigorous proof and statements of certainty. Have other cases of broken cards had this? What was the hard evidence against the Rowan Ring for example? >all you've got is "Minion Tap is a game winner". We already >know that that's not the case, as many non-winning decks use >Minion Tap. If you try "Winning decks always have Minion Tap", >then that too is already refuted. What is it that you claim >is Q.E.D.? If you're theorem was "there are some decks which >have Minion Tap which have won games", then you can say Q.E.D. >when you provide an example of such a deck. The actual proposition is that Minion Tap (and Blood Doll) are so much better than the other pool gain cards that they make them worthless for serious play. The numbers are such as to warrant the term "broken". >So start conducting your own experiments I've done more than enough free labour. My original purpose was to settle the red-faced shouting match about Ascendance vs STI. The asnwer to the question of which is the best turned out to be "neither of them". Having settled that matter, my work here is done. If you choose to ignore the evidence that Minion Tap is blatantly broken, that's your problem. Andrew

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:14:06 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Which wins? It's easy. > >The deck which packs the Parthenon and Rumors of Gehenna, along with >10 Sudden Reversals. Now that's an interesting point. I checked the sample again and, adding Sudden Reversal makes the master chart: 96 Minion Tap 81 Blood Doll 46 Sudden Reversal 23 Tribute to the Master 7 The Parthenon 3 Ascendance 3 Blood Puppy 3 Powerbase 3 Short Term Investment 0 Protected Investment/Secret Horde So, Sudden Reversal appears to be a middling sort of card while The Parthenon is not nearly as popular and successful as I would have expected. Andrew

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:55:16 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >I've done more than enough free labour. My original purpose was to >settle the red-faced shouting match about Ascendance vs STI. The >asnwer to the question of which is the best turned out to be "neither >of them". Having settled that matter, my work here is done. If you Interestingly, you successfully totally misread the matter. The question was never whether one or the other was the 'best'. It was which was better than the other. We long ago agreed that neither one was a very good choice for pool gain. >choose to ignore the evidence that Minion Tap is blatantly broken, >that's your problem. Of course, you haven't PRESENTED any evidence that it is, but that's quite beside the point in your mind, isn't it? I refer you to my own messages refuting your points, which you seem to be carefully avoiding any attempt at response to. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:39:43 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >Interestingly, you successfully totally misread the matter. The >question was never whether one or the other was the 'best'. It was >which was better than the other. We long ago agreed that neither one >was a very good choice for pool gain. I know that. I debated whether to use the term "better" or "best" and decided that the latter was more amusing. The superlative is accurate if one is only considering the two cards. >Of course, you haven't PRESENTED any evidence that it is I started by presenting evidence and have seen damn little evidence from the other side of the argument. I think you must be in denial. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] Andrew, you're giving the logical elegance of "Q.E.D." a drag through the mud of shoddy argumentation. I am pleased to recommend "Told you so!" as an alternative that fits the maturity of your logic in this thread. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:56:01 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:39:43 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>Interestingly, you successfully totally misread the matter. The >>question was never whether one or the other was the 'best'. It was >>which was better than the other. We long ago agreed that neither one >>was a very good choice for pool gain. > >I know that. I debated whether to use the term "better" or "best" and >decided that the latter was more amusing. The superlative is accurate >if one is only considering the two cards. Perhaps more amusing to your eyes, but significantly less accurate, since you were clearly considering more than just those two cards by phrasing your sentence as "The answer to the question of which is the best turned out to be 'neither of them'." You're just damned sloppy these days, I'm afraid. If you'd quit trying to be clever and start trying to THINK, it'd probably help. >>Of course, you haven't PRESENTED any evidence that it is > >I started by presenting evidence and have seen damn little evidence >from the other side of the argument. I think you must be in denial. (shrug) The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one calling for departure from the status quo. I say that Minion Tap itself is not the problem, and I *have*, in fact, given examples in one of the messages you ignored. Evidence? You made a statement that Minion Tap is broken because so many tournament winning decks have included it. Your statement can be read as "My pet is a dog because he has four legs." I refuted the statement by pointing out that many, many more NON-tournament-winning, NON-final-making decks have also included Minion Tap. My refutation can be read as "My pet has four legs. He is a cat. By your definition, he is a dog; therefore your definition is wrong." At this point, you are left with no evidence. You need to produce additional snippets of same for us to actually take anything you say seriously from here on out. However, from pretty much there on, you've huddled in silence except for random pots at LSJ and the occasional misstatement of the scientific method. Who exactly is in denial, now? [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, note that the Parthenon is Unique. And that it costs two pool, and so doesn't really belong on a list of pool gain cards, unless you're considering combos, but then you should put Restoration, 5th Tradition, Amadeo, and Blood Tears of Kephran on the list. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <DdUF6.24911$ii.27...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes >> And when an opponent burns Talaq, pretend it's impossible 'cause he's >> immortal ! >> >no telling what Up Yours! might do to the tournament scene! ;-) Make a tidy profit for whoever takes a camcorder along, I'd have thought. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <B70DC8DB.38D0%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu>, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> writes > Well, note that the Parthenon is Unique. And that it costs two pool, >and so doesn't really belong on a list of pool gain cards, unless you're >considering combos, but then you should put Restoration, 5th Tradition, >Amadeo, and Blood Tears of Kephran on the list. As well as all the hunting grounds. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9c8cq...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: >Ooooh! A fellow R.A. Wilson fan! Great shit. He is either the most >intelligent author I have ever read or the most insane. I can never figure >out which. The phrase you're looking for is 'deliberately obscurantist wanker.' I hope you've found t his helpful. gomi -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. - Gilbert and Sullivan, 'Pirates of Penzance'

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:14:06 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >(shrug) You totally ignore Blood Doll, yet it is my opinion that >Blood Doll is a far more effective card than Minion Tap... and not the >least reason being that it is much more innocuous than MT. A Minion >Tap for 9 is likely to be Suddened from anywhere. A Blood Doll on >Omaya on turn 3 will only be stopped by your predator.. but it can >easily gain you 9 pool over the course of the game. > That's my opinion of Blood Doll too and why I used 5 or 6 in my deck at Watford last weekend. My measly 3 VP clearly demonstrates that it's not broken. (Euro Brujah pot/CEL rush with a bit of vote - sandwiched between heavy fortitude in game three - oh, well) Very, very combat environment at Watford making the Brujah look like the bullies that they are (i.e. fine for beating up non-combat decks but struggling against tougher foes), but the winner played weenie dominate with Tribute to the Master for pool gain. Tom

"Tom Kassel" <thomas...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:3ae8707b...@news.ntlworld.com... > Very, very combat environment at Watford making the Brujah look like > the bullies that they are (i.e. fine for beating up non-combat decks > but struggling against tougher foes), but the winner played weenie > dominate with Tribute to the Master for pool gain. > > Tom Funny that, at the Lisbon tornament last weekend we also had lots and lots of combat decks (mostly Brujah and a couple of Tzimisce), and the winner was a weenie Dominate deck... I don't think he used Tribute to the Master though, at least I didn't see him use it, but I only played him at the final. (I played a Bru/!Bru Bruise&Bleed deck, finished at 2nd place) :-) BTW, what would be a 'tougher foe' for the Brujah? Only Gangrel can really hurt the Brujah and get away with it, other combat decks take at least as much damage as they dish out against Brujah... ? Flux

> an Assamite forward-bleeder, my prey in round 2 was a Gangrel > forward-bleeder, > possibly the worst seating position possible for an intercept deck, > but that would just point out that playing intercept comes with its > own built-in drawbacks; what do you do when you sit behind someone who > takes no actions but "I bleed my prey for X"? Answer: You hope like > hell their prey survives until you can get enough minions out.) See, I wasn't that much of a forward bleeder. I had alot of undirected actions in my deck. It's just with you sitting on my back, I wasn't about to give you the opportunity you were looking for. You made me go forward... :p Definitely one of the better games I've played. Sorrow --- "Are they dead?" - Pugsly "Does it matter?" - Wednesday

"Gomi no Sensei" <go...@best.com> wrote in message news:9c9nqe$o4m$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com... > In article <9c8cq...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote: > > >Ooooh! A fellow R.A. Wilson fan! Great shit. He is either the most > >intelligent author I have ever read or the most insane. I can never figure > >out which. > > The phrase you're looking for is 'deliberately obscurantist wanker.' > > I hope you've found t his helpful. Heh. That too, but I enjoy his books.

I think some sort of card to take blood dolls from others would be nifty. I claim no ® for the Idea. 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"

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:45:16 -0400, Pat Ricochet wrote: > Well, note that the Parthenon is Unique. And that it costs two pool, >and so doesn't really belong on a list of pool gain cards, unless you're >considering combos, but then you should put Restoration, 5th Tradition, >Amadeo, and Blood Tears of Kephran on the list. It should be fleshed out with all the Master cards first. Feel free to exert yourself. Andrew

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 00:52:11 -0400 (EDT), Trut...@webtv.net wrote: >I think some sort of card to take blood dolls from others would be >nifty. Indeed. Maybe it could be an action to steal any kind of permanent master like STI too. And for the instantaneous ones, you could have a Sudden Reversal that lived up to the name. When you go to drain Arika for ten pool, someone reverses the flow and you find that she drains ten of your pool instead! Andrew

>===== Original Message From "Flux" <fl...@netc.pt> ===== [ quoted text not captured ] Lazverinus and pot/for chums to my left (burned my Jimmy Dunn with his own too) and Wynn and chums to my right. Both used loads of damage prevention, with Wynn adding Drawing out the Beast so I couldn't even maneuver out of trouble. They both used enough IG that dodging wasn't helpful either. I spent the game discarding Taste of Vitae and Bum's Rush in hopes of seeing some of the (too few) votes I could have actually used. Tom ------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at: http://MailAndNews.com Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser. ------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >>Off-shore Banking >>Unique Master >>Tap during your master phase to get one additional master phase action >>this turn. This master phase action can *not* be used to play master >>cards. > >Not bad. But it shouldn't be unique. One can understand why The >Parthenon is unique but offshore banking is everywhere - spam, >in-flight magazines, etc. I've seen Anson/Parthenon decks go quite wild with Secret Hordes. It's a safety measure. ----------------------------------------------------------- Johan Lundstrom <jo...@algonet.se> "Knowledge is power. Power corrupts."

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:14:13 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >So, Sudden Reversal appears to be a middling sort of card while The >Parthenon is not nearly as popular and successful as I would have >expected. That unexpectedly low figure for the Parthenon has been nagging at me so I double-checked my figures. I was undercounting in some cases so I've gone back to the latest archive of 87 winning decks and recounted the masters of interest: 164 Minion Tap 153 Blood Doll 90 Sudden Reversal 31 Tribute to the Master 27 The Parthenon 5 Ascendance 4 Short Term Investment 4 Powerbase 3 Blood Puppy 0 Protected Investment/Secret Horde So the fans of Ascendance can now claim a small victory over the supporters of STI. And the gulf between Minion Tap, Blood Doll and the rest is even greater than it first appeared. Andrew

[ quoted text not captured ] If I thought anything useful could be concluded from it, I might. Any tournament player will tell you, seating position and table manipulation are both far and away more important than how many Minion Taps are in the deck. Actually looking at, and building and PLAYING some of the tournament winning decks that are posted, instead of just talking about them, is quite enlightening. Some of them are obviously built by excellent deck builders. Some of the others are either played by master table manipulators and/or played against a field of boneheads. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:41:43 -0400, Pat Ricochet wrote: > Actually looking at, and building and PLAYING some of the tournament >winning decks that are posted, instead of just talking about them, is quite >enlightening. Some of them are obviously built by excellent deck builders. >Some of the others are either played by master table manipulators and/or >played against a field of boneheads. I don't notice your name in the roll of honour. Is "Pat Richochet" a nom-de-guerre? Andrew

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:57:09 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:14:13 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: > >>So, Sudden Reversal appears to be a middling sort of card while The >>Parthenon is not nearly as popular and successful as I would have >>expected. > >That unexpectedly low figure for the Parthenon has been nagging at me >so I double-checked my figures. I was undercounting in some cases so >I've gone back to the latest archive of 87 winning decks and recounted >the masters of interest: It surprised me too at first. The Parthenon would seem to be an excellent card, allowing you two Master phases per turn... thus letting you put many more Masters in your deck... and so on. But what happens if you don't draw the Parthenon up early, and you've included, say, 20 Masters? Well... you probably explode gloriously with a handful of grey cards that you can't get rid of and can't play quickly enough. Bad. The immediate solution is to include more Parthenons. But then you GUARANTEE that you'll be discarding the others later; and you've upped it to say, 24 Masters now counting the extra copies. Is it REALLY worth it to have 24/90 Masters in a deck? Perhaps if they're good enough, and you can always play them... a few extra Golcondas, Hostile Takeovers, and the like are never bad, and chucking two Hostile Takeovers in a turn is usually enough to trash someone's game, especially if you trick them into paying a large amount to keep their vampire on the first one. What it comes down to is that the Parthenon requires a lot more support to use effectively than would be indicated at first glance - simply chucking a bunch more Masters in your deck won't cut it. Hence, the number of tournament winning decks who simply passed up the Parthenon and put fewer Masters in to simplify the issue. ---- [The following numbers of Andrew's were taken out of only 87 decks, indicating that multiple cards have been counted/used in some cases. Right next to these numbers should be one reading how many of those DECKS out of 87 actually used the card... unless that's what your previous numbers were. Upon examination, they couldn't possibly have been, as you have Minion Tap listed at '96', which is more than 87. THOSE numbers would be lovely to have.] >164 Minion Tap >153 Blood Doll > 90 Sudden Reversal This is important, and while Direct Intervention is a fairly new card (Sabbat), I would be curious to see how many winning decks were carrying at least a copy of DI -- that number would surely reveal something. What it indicates is that the effects of Master cards are becoming so widely varied, that it's almost NECESSARY to carry Sudden Reversals to prevent them ruining your day. Especially with things like Temptation of Greater Power, Hostile Takeover, etc. running around. > 31 Tribute to the Master > 27 The Parthenon > 5 Ascendance > 4 Short Term Investment > 4 Powerbase > 3 Blood Puppy > 0 Protected Investment/Secret Horde Not surprising: STI is better on the cost-to-MPA-to-pool ratio than both. Protracted is pay 3, use 7, gain 3. STI is pay 1, use 4, gain 2. If you pay 3, Secret is just another Protracted. But if you pay 1, it's only a gain-1. >So the fans of Ascendance can now claim a small victory over the >supporters of STI. And the gulf between Minion Tap, Blood Doll and >the rest is even greater than it first appeared. Again, the numbers are somewhat misleading; multiple copies of a card in a deck do not indicate as much as the card's very presence in a deck would. Both numbers taken together side-by-side would provide a very accurate picture, as it would show how many of any given card tend to be put in a deck. I'd expect Sudden to show 1 or 2 per, and be in almost EVERY deck, and MT/BD to show multiple per but not necessarily be in every deck. IF the numbers matched that, it would seem to indicate that Sudden is a far more critical card to winning than Minion Tap or Blood Doll... even though there's only 1 or 2 in a deck. You can poolgain in many ways, but you HAVE to stop the crucial Hostile. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] It's a phonetic spelling (well, first of all, it's spelled with only one "h") of Patrick O'Shea Patrickoshea Patricochet Pat Ricochet You know, say it 5 times fast and all. Hm. Looking at it now, you're right, it's missing. Should be the 1998 Praxis Seizure: Atlanta. I'll make sure that gets sent in, then. (You might as a few fellows, say David Davila, Todd Bannister, or Derek Ray, if you won't take my word for it.) You'll be happy to know that the deck I won with made good use of Minion Tap/5th sleaze, so be sure to add another bean to the little bins you've been counting into. And, as long as we're going to act like 5th graders, where's YOUR name? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 18:48:35 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:41:43 -0400, Pat Ricochet wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] More of a nom d'ecoute, frankly. Say it out loud and hear for yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:55:17 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: >This is important, and while Direct Intervention is a fairly new card >(Sabbat), I would be curious to see how many winning decks were >carrying at least a copy of DI -- that number would surely reveal >something. 38 decks out of 87 were packing a total of 52 Direct Interventions. >Again, the numbers are somewhat misleading; multiple copies of a card >in a deck do not indicate as much as the card's very presence in a >deck would. Both numbers taken together side-by-side would provide a >very accurate picture, as it would show how many of any given card >tend to be put in a deck. I'd expect Sudden to show 1 or 2 per, and >be in almost EVERY deck, and MT/BD to show multiple per but not >necessarily be in every deck. The deck count was 55 Blood Doll 54 Sudden Reversal 45 Minion Tap Note that this is more than half of the decks in every case. I'm not sure if this can be extrapolated to the field in general but it seems worse than the infamous Necro Summer of Magic during which 50% of the decks would typically be packing Necroptence. Andrew

LSJ <vte...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message news:3AF0...@MailAndNews.com... > In science, however, scientists don't claim their theories are > proven, as you do, just because they've developed a theorem > which fits some small sample. If you want to put yourself in > that field, try stating your theorem precisely such that > your results can be tested (and the tests repeated). Right now > all you've got is "Minion Tap is a game winner". We already > know that that's not the case, as many non-winning decks use > Minion Tap. If you try "Winning decks always have Minion Tap", > then that too is already refuted. What is it that you claim > is Q.E.D.? If you're theorem was "there are some decks which > have Minion Tap which have won games", then you can say Q.E.D. > when you provide an example of such a deck. Darn it all... all this time I thought Q.E.D. stood for quite easily done... ;-) oAFLORD aka Thomas Kuster VEKN Prince of Caledon

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 23:37:12 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote: >On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:55:17 -0400, Derek Ray wrote: > >>This is important, and while Direct Intervention is a fairly new card >>(Sabbat), I would be curious to see how many winning decks were >>carrying at least a copy of DI -- that number would surely reveal >>something. > >38 decks out of 87 were packing a total of 52 Direct Interventions. Yep. And Direct Intervention making an appearance in the !Brujah starter means that a card which was once notably rare is now next to common. Interestingly, 38 is closer to Minion Tap's 45 than either Sudden or Blood Doll are. It's been seen as not useful to pack more than 2 DIs, since you really should just provide your own defense, although that may change in the future with ridiculous pool-gain/Parthenon/Rumors of Gehenna decks that guarantee the DI is playable along with a normal master. However, this definitely indicates that at least one DI can certainly save your ass if used at the right time - and it'd be good to include one in each deck. >>Again, the numbers are somewhat misleading; multiple copies of a card >>in a deck do not indicate as much as the card's very presence in a >>deck would. Both numbers taken together side-by-side would provide a >>very accurate picture, as it would show how many of any given card >>tend to be put in a deck. I'd expect Sudden to show 1 or 2 per, and >>be in almost EVERY deck, and MT/BD to show multiple per but not >>necessarily be in every deck. > >The deck count was > >55 Blood Doll >54 Sudden Reversal >45 Minion Tap and your numbers were: 164 Minion Tap 153 Blood Doll 90 Sudden Reversal So that leaves us with: a little less than a 4:1 ratio for Minion Taps/deck, almost exactly a 3:1 ratio for Blood Dolls, a bit less than a 2:1 ratio for Sudden Reversals, and about a 1.5:1 ratio for Direct Interventions. this seems fitting, and I'd say it adds Sudden Reversal and DI to the list of "cards that should go in every tourney deck". Minion Tap being a transient and Blood Doll being a permanent reasonably account for the ratio point difference, and the Sudden/DI numbers also seem logical. >Note that this is more than half of the decks in every case. I'm not >sure if this can be extrapolated to the field in general but it seems >worse than the infamous Necro Summer of Magic during which 50% of the >decks would typically be packing Necroptence. However, this is the difference: as I understand the Necro Summer, you either had Necropotence, or anti-Necropotence, or you died miserably. The antis to MT/BD/SR/DI are not quite so 'direct'... indeed, they're quite varied. Minion Tap leaves you with a near-empty vampire. The problem doesn't come in when Minion Tap gains you the pool - it comes when you find a way to reload the vampire, meaning you have a resource for almost free. There are numerous ways to reload the vamp - there are also numerous ways to stop the reload (intercept is a biggie, but there's always the old "beat their ass while they're empty" idea too). If you didn't reload the vampire, he wouldn't have any blood to play all your cool cards. =) And if you Minion Tap for 6 in the face of a Malk S&B deck, you can rest assured that you've probably simply put a 'band-aid' onto a large, gaping wound. Blood Doll is significantly stronger, permitting you to either drain or assist the vampire as need be - and it's a permanent that can't be removed. However, the fact that it can be a DRAIN on your pool (have you never seen someone pushing 3-4 pool through multiple Blood Dolls in order to arrange rescues from torpor, etc?) means it's definitely not broken; it's simply an excellent resource management tool. The Powerbases fall short not because of the blood gain - they fall short because they do nothing BUT gain pool, and can't even put it onto your vampires. With no blood on vampires, Blood Doll doesn't make pool gain; and VERY frequently in the endgame, there's just no blood on ANYONE's vamps. Sudden Reversal and DI speak for themselves. But they cost your next Master phase action, and if you don't have them in hand, you can't use htem. If you put enough in the deck to have them in hand always, you run out of room for the beneficial Masters, and you end up losing, as you can't Sudden all your prey's AND predator's Masters. What we have here is just simply a case of some cards being inferior to the norm. If anything is to happen, it should be to improve the Powerbases in some fashion... perhaps that Chicago automatically gained a counter every untap, and you could burn a Master Phase to get ALL the counters yourself, or anyone else could take a 0-stealth action? Wild speculation, here, since wallpaper doesn't get upgraded that much. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "oaflord" <oaf...@sprint.ca> wrote in message news:BfFF6.5145$Ar3.1...@newscontent-01.sprint.ca... > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hg6eetgedhqqumf8t...@4ax.com... > > This indicates extremely high power on the part of 5th Tradition, as > > if 5th didn't exist, Minion Tap would be a one-shot deal, leaving your > > minion largely defenseless. A similar effect to 5th may be found in > > Giant's Blood, which may only be played once per game - hmmmmmm. > > 5th Tradition is the problem, but only because Sabbat/Independents do not > have access to it. If the Sabbat/Independents had an equivalent to the 5th, > then everyone would be happy. Games would NEVER END, but everyone would be > happy. ;-) > > Is the restriction of Prince/Justicar not enough? Is the inherent +1 > stealth too much? Is this all fruitless as the card hasn't changed in 6-7 > years and probably never will? > > oAFLORD > aka > Thomas Kuster > Prince of Caledon I agree it's the 5th Tradition that's criminal here. I really hope things are made to fix it because I'm immenesly tired of the boring Minion Tap/5th Tradition decks so many Camarilla decks are based on (and becuase of this I never play such decks ;-) ). Derek's "suggestion" of once per game would be something that could be very good for the game I think... Going the other way and give Sabbat and the Indeps something similar I don't think is a good idea because it will just make the game see even MORE of these boring monotonous and predictable decks. Maybe removing its stealth could be a solution too, but it kind of goes against the unspoken rule that non-directed actions almost always are at stealth (although Media Influence at superior is an exception, but it is also a discipline card with different inferior and superior abilities).

-- "Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B70DC46C.38CE%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] LOL....and what does Q.E.D. stand for/come from? Never seen it before (not native English).

Roger Carhult skrev i meddelandet <9d3si0$pbt$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>... >LOL....and what does Q.E.D. stand for/come from? Never seen it before (not >native English). > Ahh... That would be Latin, which is my native toungue! Quod est demonstrandum... Which would demonstrate, or "Vilket skulle bevisa" /Henkusmagus

In message <9d3s7n$oud$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, Roger Carhult <rogc...@student.luth.se> writes >I agree it's the 5th Tradition that's criminal here. I really hope things >are made to fix it because I'm immenesly tired of the boring Minion Tap/5th >Tradition decks so many Camarilla decks are based on (and becuase of this I >never play such decks ;-) ). Partly, giving something similar to the Sabbat would help. I think that's what Festivo dello Estinto was intended to do. I think *part* of the problem with Fifth Tradition: Horse Brutality isn't the card itself, it's the perception. "OH MY GOD! HE'S JUST GOT BACK TEN POOL! KILL MINION TAP!" And people want to work around Minion Tap, rather than 5th. If people have a lot more minor intercept in their decks, Fifth becomes less problematic. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 6 May 2001 17:56:06 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >I agree it's the 5th Tradition that's criminal here. I really hope things >are made to fix it because I'm immenesly tired of the boring Minion Tap/5th >Tradition decks so many Camarilla decks are based on (and becuase of this I >never play such decks ;-) ). Derek's "suggestion" of once per game would be Wasn't me. My suggestion is to start out by making it "only usable on a younger vampire." That should fix it, but good. You could still bring out Emerson and Democritus and MT/5th Emerson silly, but if you blow up one of the vampires, the blood gain stops. And you only have to save up intercept to stop ONE 5th per turn, instead of having to stop each individual one from filling themselves. That leaves it being useful (Prince decks will still be in great shape), but no longer can you have Volker just sit there and take 5th actions for you. >Maybe removing its stealth could be a solution too, but it kind of goes >against the unspoken rule that non-directed actions almost always are at >stealth (although Media Influence at superior is an exception, but it is >also a discipline card with different inferior and superior abilities). What unspoken rule? There are tons of undirected actions that aren't at stealth. Shadow of the Beast comes to mind, as well as several others. And there are tons of DIRECTED actions that -are- at stealth. -shrug- I don't know if I'd try to categorize in that fashion at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

-- "Henke" <d98...@stud.hh.se> wrote in message news:9d3t7q$q69$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk... [ quoted text not captured ] Ah the wellknown Henkus Magus (Rex)! Thank you for your eloquent and delicate answer on this matter, always such an honor to draw the attention of such a knowledgable linguist as you, to my simple posts :)

-- "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:oavaft0ufij9iipv7...@4ax.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I can't think of any non-discipline (although I came to think of a few discipline ones now like Black Metamorphosis) non-directed actioncard at the momment that isn't at +1 stealth, and most disciplinecards are as well. Also most directed ones aren't at stealth either unless they're disciplinecards where the superior version adds a stealth (e.g. Mind Nimb). Maybe it's just an impression I've got that nobody else have, but when you look at the game overall it's pretty much like this.

-- "Wes" <gh...@NOSPAMmnsi.net> wrote in message news:9c8gb...@enews3.newsguy.com... > > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> > > > 6. It doesn't do what it says. You can Minion Tap a minion until it > > has no blood at all but it still isn't tapped. > > I agree. Dammit, I really wish someone had told me earlier that you didn't > *really* have to burn a card when it's text tells you to. I would have a > much larger collection had I known that. > > No kidding! I miss my Disarms! No wonder they're hard to get by ;-)

Roger Carhult wrote: > what does Q.E.D. stand for/come from? Never seen it before (not > native English). It's an abbreviation for the latin "quod erat demonstrandum", meaning "which was to be demonstrated". -- 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/

On Sun, 6 May 2001 18:50:09 +0200, "Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote: >I can't think of any non-discipline (although I came to think of a few >discipline ones now like Black Metamorphosis) non-directed actioncard at the >momment that isn't at +1 stealth, and most disciplinecards are as well. Also Classifying 5th as "non-discipline" is technically accurate, but not necessarily a good measure: it requires a Prince or Justicar, which is its own restriction. Same with Blood Hunt and the Traditions - sure, they're disciplineless, but they need a Prince/Justicar. Of the totally restrictionless actions, there are several exceptions: Cull the Herd and Blood Bond have +1 stealth despite being (D), while Revelation of the Sire has NO stealth itself. >most directed ones aren't at stealth either unless they're disciplinecards >where the superior version adds a stealth (e.g. Mind Nimb). Maybe it's just >an impression I've got that nobody else have, but when you look at the game >overall it's pretty much like this. "pretty much" isn't a basis for a good assessment, though, what with all the exceptions floating around. A better one would be that the cards which produce powerful effects tend to either have high blood cost (Blood Bond's 2 blood) or zero stealth (Arson, Black Metamorphosis, Shadow of the Beast) or require superior in a discipline (Mind Numb, the Haunting). The weaker effects (Rave, the Embrace, Army of Rats) come with a built-in stealth to make them even worth doing in the first place; if you notice, very few of the no-restriction, low-cost cards do very much at all. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <tf4bft8fjcvbpn6h7...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [minion tap v. 5th] note that the Sabbat have a perfectly useful equivalent to Minion Tap/Fifth: Tribute/Blood Feast. It's slightly more limited in its realistically attainable maximum pool gain per cycle (MT/5th: 6-9 pool, TttM/BF: 3-6 pool), but works in quite an analogous fashion. Both can increase to theoretical infinity (with capacity-increasing cards for MT/5th and Embraces for Tribute/Feast). But both involve a master card that moves vampire blood to Methuselah pool, followed by an +1 stealth action requiring a title that replaces the vampire blood just lost. Kendrick and Korah are the cheapest vampires able to play Blood Feast, at 7 capacity. While, with Tap/Fifth, lower capacity makes the combo less effective, Tribute/Feast works better with a lower cap titled guy since you can afford more guys to Tribute. gomi -- Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. - Gilbert and Sullivan, 'Pirates of Penzance'

On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:53:46 +0000 (UTC), go...@best.com (Gomi no Sensei) wrote: >In article <tf4bft8fjcvbpn6h7...@4ax.com>, >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >[minion tap v. 5th] Warning. Long post. Mash "N" now if you don't want to see an in-depth analysis. =/ >note that the Sabbat have a perfectly useful equivalent to >Minion Tap/Fifth: Tribute/Blood Feast. It's slightly more >limited in its realistically attainable maximum pool gain >per cycle (MT/5th: 6-9 pool, TttM/BF: 3-6 pool), but works >in quite an analogous fashion. Both can increase to theoretical >infinity (with capacity-increasing cards for MT/5th and Embraces >for Tribute/Feast). Blood Feast is a great card, and TM/BF is certainly a nice combo. But the comparison tends to fall short when put into practice. =/ (see below) >But both involve a master card that moves vampire blood to >Methuselah pool, followed by an +1 stealth action requiring >a title that replaces the vampire blood just lost. Correct - and again, there are a couple of gotchas involved. >Kendrick and Korah are the cheapest vampires able to play Blood >Feast, at 7 capacity. While, with Tap/Fifth, lower capacity makes >the combo less effective, Tribute/Feast works better with a lower >cap titled guy since you can afford more guys to Tribute. Here's the problem. Let's compare the two deck styles. Minion Tap/5th requires large titled vampires - lending itself well to a vote deck. TM/BF requires a large number of vampires - lending itself well to a weenie lemming horde bleed-deck. So trying to build each of these... Kendrick/Korah are 7-caps with Obfuscate; this permits you to use Forgotten Labyrinth on your Blood Feast and pretty much guarantee it actually happening. The rest of your crypt can be a bunch of 2-caps (if you Tribute away from a 1-cap, he has to hunt, rendering Blood Feast worthless) - which gives you a risk of crypt-screw right away if you don't get Kendrick or Korah early on. Safest bet is 2 Kendrick and 2 Korah - with 4 out of 12, you should almost always have 1 in your opening crypt. To even the playing field, let's use Murat, Nikolaus, Greger, and Gilbert - who are also 7-caps with Obfuscate, letting you drop Forgotten Labyrinth on your 5th Tradition. The rest of your crypt can be any Prince or Justicar of any capacity; restricting ourselves to big ones with some form of OBF, we find Lucian, Sheldon, Selma, Klaus, Francois, Suhailah, and Queen Anne. That gives us 11 vamps; and I'd probably choose to add Lucretia in here as the 12th. She can't use the Traditions, but as a 10-cap she makes an excellent Minion Tap target, and her +1 stealth on all actions can't help but be good. Here also, with 4 out of 12, you should almost always have a 7-cap in your opening crypt; but you have no duplicates, and even if you get a poor draw, your larger vamps can still 5th with OBF. Also, with 5 Nossies, you can include some of the Nosferatu clan toys - and if you're brave, you can use the 3 Malkavians in the same way. The crypt selection is definitely in favor of MT/5th. Let's assume that you get good seating position (3rd) and an excellent crypt draw; Kendrick and three 2-caps for the Sabbat, and Nikolaus, Selma, Sheldon, and Lucian for the Camarilla. On turn three, both decks are ready for their first action. Let's also assume that libraries flow perfectly, just to simplify things - and nobody voluntarily lowers themselves to a level where they can't play Forgotten Labyrinth. Total pool amounts assume no predator, again to simplify things. Turn 3: Camarilla: Nikolaus uses his special to move 1 blood to Sheldon. Minion Tap for 4, then Nikolaus plays 5th Tradition on himself to refill completely. 4 transfers to Sheldon, and done. Total pool: 23. Sabbat: Tribute from Kendrick for 1, and whether he plays Blood Feast or not, his blood level remains at 6. 4 transfers, bringing out two 2-caps, and done. Total pool: 20. Turn 4: Camarilla: Nikolaus doesn't use his special (pointless), Minion Tap for 5, and he plays 5th tradition to refill. 4 more transfers, Sheldon comes out, and done. Total pool: 24. Sabbat: Tribute for 3, then Kendrick plays Blood Feast. The two 2-caps can take an action if they choose, and Kendrick's blood level is currently at 5. Transfer 2, bring out the next 2-cap, and done. Total pool: 21. Turn 5: Camarilla: Minion Tap Sheldon for 7. Sheldon plays 5th Tradition on himself, refilling. Nikolaus may take an action - with 5 votes on the table already, he has a good chance of passing his vote. 4 transfers to Selma, and done. Total pool: 27. Sabbat: Tribute for 4, and Kendrick plays Blood Feast (4 blood left afterwards). The three two-caps may take actions. Spend 1 and 4 transfers, see the next vampire (a 2-cap), and done. Total pool: 24. Turn 6: Camarilla: Minion Tap Sheldon for 8. Nikolaus plays 5th on Sheldon. Sheldon may call a vote, again with the 5 table votes. 4 transfers to Selma, who comes out, and done. Total pool: 31. Sabbat: Tribute for 4, Kendrick plays Blood Feast (3 blood left afterwards). Three 2-caps may take actions, transfer 2 to the next vampire who comes out. Total pool: 26. So we're more or less one-third to halfway through the game. The Camarilla bloat deck is 5 pool ahead; not an incredible amount, but let's look at the inherent advantages. The Camarilla deck has 3 minions and 7 table votes - its primary offense. All its votes can be called with Forgotten Labyrinth if necessary, which you are also using for your 5th Traditions and therefore probably have in hand at any given time. We assumed that it had no predator, but if necessary it can use 2nd Traditions to stop actions that simply don't need to happen, with a good probability of success. More likely, though, it has simply been ignoring its predator, since it's gaining pool like mad. It can continue to do this at the rate of 8 per turn, since now Nikolaus and Selma can each spend a bit of their blood to take the "refill Sheldon" action -- and with 7 votes, it may not be necessary to attempt to bring out Lucian yet, although I'd probably put 6 blood on him and let it sit for awhile. The Sabbat deck has 5 minions and 3 table votes, but this isn't its primary offense. Or should it be? It has 4 weenies available for its use, but they have almost no disciplines in common - so are they simply playing Computer Hacks each turn, and using disciplineless Dodge and Fake Out cards to save themselves? Possibly, and this could conceivably overwhelm a prey. Trying to have them call votes isn't necessarily the best idea, with only 3 votes available; Bribes is not a bad option, but it only goes so far. Early Crusades might help get a voter deck up and running, but the weenies' votes will only be at +1 stealth due to a lack of OBF. And there is no equivalent for 2nd Tradition in the Sabbat, so this deck relies a LOT more on its pool gain working properly. Worst of all, Kendrick can only go one more turn before the Tribute reduces him to 1 blood - and he no longer has the protection of Forgotten Labyrinth on the Blood Feast. So how to put a wedge in the pool gain? Obviously, kill the early vampire with a Rush deck. (Any deck capable of consistently generating +3 intercept will do, also; such decks are extremely rare, however.) If you kill Nikolaus after his first MT/5th, Sheldon still comes out next turn. It's a swing of 5 pool and 2 votes, but Sheldon can immediately 5th Nikolaus, who can then rescue himself with Forgotten Labyrinth; the machine is back, merely slowed down. The ability to play 5th Tradition on a vampire in torpor is huge. (The observant reader will note that 6 of the above-listed vampires have Fortitude, potentially making it quite difficult to even kill them.) If you EVER kill Kendrick, the deck is in bad shape. The weenies must immediately all take +1 stealth actions to rescue Kendrick, who will have to hunt at +1 stealth - a prime intercept target. The weenies themselves can still be Tributed from, so your pool gain is not in quite as bad shape; but every so often they're going to have to be taking hunt actions until they successfully get Kendrick back and keep him - and then the problem comes of how to refill Kendrick enough so that he can keep taking Blood Feast actions? The TM/BF combo removes one from him every turn, necessitating that at some point he get a Palatial Estate, Rack, or Hunting Ground - slowing down your pool gain. How about Sudden the pool grab? Well, Sudden Reversal hurts both decks about equally, really; the Camarilla deck can still get Sheldon and have 5 votes and 2 vamps for only 15 pool, while the Sabbat deck can still quickly get the three weenies and at least have numerical actions on its side for 13 pool. How to improve the Sabbat deck, which is falling way behind here? Well... the 2-caps can all go make Embraces as their actions, and eventually it can be a deck that simply bleeds for 1 each with 30 minions. eyeballing the numbers quickly, we get: Turn 4, starting with 20 pool. No Tribute, the 2-caps need their blood. They and Kendrick Embrace, and the Embraces get skill cards and hunt. A 2-cap is transferred out; total pool 18 and Kendrick on 4 blood. Turn 5, Tribute for 5 (three Embraces, Kendrick, and the fresh 2-cap). The 2-caps all hunt, as do the Embraces. Kendrick calls a Blood Feast afterwards, filling everyone up. Spend 1 and 4 to see one; total pool 22, Kendrick on 3 blood, and three 2-caps and three Embraces all on 2 blood. Turn 6, Tribute for 7. Kendrick calls the Blood Feast, and six minions can take any actions they like with 2 blood each. If you bring out the next 2-cap, your total pool sits at 27; one better than the previous example, and you have three extra minions from the Embraces. If you Tribute for 8 next turn, Kendrick will lose the protection of Forgotten Labyrinth for his Blood Feast action; however, it's sort of nice to have 8 minions in comparison to the Camarilla deck's 3. This looks much better, except for the problem of all the +1 stealth Embrace actions, and all the +1 stealth hunt actions. People blocking the Embraces' hunts is bad, because they can be easily punched into torpor and then the creating minion will have to hunt. People blocking the Embrace action is almost as bad, because it doesn't take much effort to do 3 damage. And while you've got 8 minions, sure, it's still not going to be easy to oust anyone, since your offense is at 0 stealth. Putting some Psychic Veils in the deck and using Obfuscate skill cards for the Embraces would be almost necessary. The obvious conclusion: Minion Tap/5th Tradition gets started faster, gains more pool overall, is more versatile/robust, and its pool gain serves as a direct complement to a vote-deck offense, which is inherently highly effective. Its natural stealth on the pool gain also assists in the offense; it will be able to oust people rapidly without needing to slow down its pool gain. It even has the option for strong defense as necessary. Tribute/Blood Feast, while gaining nearly as much pool and being a good complement to an equally effective weenie-bleed-horde offense, has an awful lot of moving parts, is slow-starting, and can be very fragile once begun -- any defense it can muster simply can't match up to the power of 2nd Tradition backed with Fortitude. The even more obvious conclusion is that if there is a problem with bloat decks being too powerful, it lies squarely with 5th Tradition; one of the Tribute/Blood Feast deck's weakest legs is that Kendrick will eventually run out of blood, and there is no easy way to get it back on him. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <nulbfto7md3p6poqh...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >On Sun, 6 May 2001 22:53:46 +0000 (UTC), go...@best.com (Gomi no >Sensei) wrote: > >>In article <tf4bft8fjcvbpn6h7...@4ax.com>, >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>[minion tap v. 5th] > >Warning. Long post. Mash "N" now if you don't want to see an >in-depth analysis. =/ HMm..... makes my computer go "bing". (Now, if you'd said "+"...) *grin* >>note that the Sabbat have a perfectly useful equivalent to >>Minion Tap/Fifth: Tribute/Blood Feast. It's slightly more >>limited in its realistically attainable maximum pool gain >>per cycle (MT/5th: 6-9 pool, TttM/BF: 3-6 pool), but works >>in quite an analogous fashion. Both can increase to theoretical >>infinity (with capacity-increasing cards for MT/5th and Embraces >>for Tribute/Feast). > >Blood Feast is a great card, It is indeed, but it's often left ignored for some reason. Probably that it came in Sabbat, whereas Fifth has been around for ages. >>But both involve a master card that moves vampire blood to >>Methuselah pool, followed by an +1 stealth action requiring >>a title that replaces the vampire blood just lost. > >Correct - and again, there are a couple of gotchas involved. > >>Kendrick and Korah are the cheapest vampires able to play Blood >>Feast, at 7 capacity. While, with Tap/Fifth, lower capacity makes >>the combo less effective, Tribute/Feast works better with a lower >>cap titled guy since you can afford more guys to Tribute. > >Here's the problem. Let's compare the two deck styles. Minion >Tap/5th requires large titled vampires - lending itself well to a vote >deck. TM/BF requires a large number of vampires - lending itself well >to a weenie lemming horde bleed-deck. So trying to build each of >these... Let's remember what else it can do, though. It *could* go for a weenie vote-push as well. Not *proper* vote push, but fast enough to get a vote passed with Presence to get a Diocese onto a vampire. Such could then allow shenanigins to go head with smaller vampires, using a baby vote deck. However, if we also turn to Media Influence, you can try that angle instead. It doesn't include the acting vampire, and doesn't have stealth, but could work well with a little Obfuscate thrown around. And it doesn't have to be a mono-Sabbat deck, since it works on untapped vampires, not just Sabbat vampires. It *doesn't*, of course, benefit the acting vampire - which is a bit of an arse, really - but if you're playing a weenie-ish presence bleed deck, it's worth bearing in mind. <snip - nice analysis> >So how to put a wedge in the pool gain? Obviously, kill the early >vampire with a Rush deck. (Any deck capable of consistently >generating +3 intercept will do, also; such decks are extremely rare, >however.) > >If you kill Nikolaus after his first MT/5th, Sheldon still comes out >next turn. It's a swing of 5 pool and 2 votes, but Sheldon can >immediately 5th Nikolaus, who can then rescue himself with Forgotten >Labyrinth; the machine is back, merely slowed down. The ability to >play 5th Tradition on a vampire in torpor is huge. (The observant >reader will note that 6 of the above-listed vampires have Fortitude, >potentially making it quite difficult to even kill them.) Were anyone to decide to attack 5th, then, a suitable re-write might: - target another vampire (this has long been a potential errata for it, which people have knocked around for years) - target a ready vampire >The even more obvious conclusion is that if there is a problem with >bloat decks being too powerful, it lies squarely with 5th Tradition; >one of the Tribute/Blood Feast deck's weakest legs is that Kendrick >will eventually run out of blood, and there is no easy way to get it >back on him. Not necessarily. It's the old ASD argument of "We see this is better, so therefore it is the problem." (I know you're saying "if", but we still have to be careful.) Take away the context of Blood Feast. Is 5th, in and of itself, a balanced card? Is the cost proper to its effect? Are the requirements sufficient? If it is more powerful than the mean average, how much more powerful is it? Is part of the problem that of exponential utility, rather than additive? Let me explain. Let's assume we're creating a game where we decide that the ability to invisible is worth 3 points <arbitrary numbers here, folks>, and the ability to hit someone with a stunning punch is worth 3 points. Would we then say the combined ability was only worth 4? Being able to go invisible *and* hit someone hard - well, that makes the hit almost guaranteed, and it makes your defence perfect, whereas on their own, they're sensible - defence and offence. Could we say that the cost might be closer to 3 *times* 3? 5th Tradition *and* Minion Tap are kind of part of the whole same thing. Together, they allow offence *and defence, in large quantities. Getting nine pool back from Queen Anne, and then allowing her to have full blood again - it splits the usual "push"-"pull" of the pool/blood dynamic. Under "normal" circumstances, you spend 5 pool to put 5 blood on a vampire and make them ready. 5 on that vampire, plus 25 in your pool, = 30. Hunting fundamentally allows that "rule" to be circumvented - fairly sensibly, too. And it's hard to abuse hunting, since you can't get blood back from the vampire. Giant's Blood is similarly hard to abuse - only usable once a game. And then you find cards like Restoration and Regeneration. Lots more blood, but stiffer requirements. Again, balanced. On the other side, we have Blood Doll. 1 blood off a vampire, 1 blood into your pool. Equilibrium. Minion Tap similar. X blood off, X pool in. The interesting part is where these two interact, allowing the same "rules bend" of one (in the sense of a card doing something not allowed by the basic, inherent rules of V:TES) to impact on the same "rules bend" of another. Kinda interesting thing to ponder, and I'm glad we're having this debate regarding Minion Tap and Fifth. It's one that's not been dug out for a while, and "now" we have interesting cards like Blood Feast and Media Influence to consider in line with it, it's useful to have it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 7 May 2001 14:30:50 +0100, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <nulbfto7md3p6poqh...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray ><lor...@yahoo.com> writes >>Warning. Long post. Mash "N" now if you don't want to see an >>in-depth analysis. =/ > >HMm..... makes my computer go "bing". (Now, if you'd said "+"...) >*grin* Well, I kind of LIKE the idea of people actually reading stuff. =) >>Blood Feast is a great card, > >It is indeed, but it's often left ignored for some reason. Probably >that it came in Sabbat, whereas Fifth has been around for ages. Also possibly that it actually requires -work- to make a deck with it, as opposed to the mindless obviosity of MT/5th. And I don't CARE if I just made a new word. :P >>Here's the problem. Let's compare the two deck styles. Minion >>Tap/5th requires large titled vampires - lending itself well to a vote >>deck. TM/BF requires a large number of vampires - lending itself well >>to a weenie lemming horde bleed-deck. So trying to build each of >>these... > >Let's remember what else it can do, though. It *could* go for a weenie >vote-push as well. Not *proper* vote push, but fast enough to get a >vote passed with Presence to get a Diocese onto a vampire. Such could >then allow shenanigins to go head with smaller vampires, using a baby >vote deck. It could, indeed. Supposing you pull a Crusade in your opening hand, you likely control Kendrick and an Archbishop then - the same 5 votes. But you have to keep pulling Crusades before people produce table votes, which can be tricky... and again, you don't have the same option of using built-in OBF to shovel the vote past intercept. Interesting side note: the Priscus "block" doesn't change voting as much as it seems. more casual crud: You control the lone Priscus, so you effectively have 3 votes. Someone hostile brings out a Cardinal. Votes tie 3 to 3. Someone hostile brings out a Priscus. Votes tie 0 to 0. A THIRD person brings out a Priscus. Votes pass or fail 3 to 0, depending on how the subvote goes and if anyone abstains from it. If you control a Cardinal, and two other people bring out Cardinals, votes will pass or fail 9-0 or 6-3... depending on how people vote and if anyone abstains. Same thing, but the numbers are x3. About the only thing you really can't do with a Priscus is stack multiples of them in a deck and provide quick vote lock for YOURSELF - you will only ever control 3 votes. >However, if we also turn to Media Influence, you can try that angle >instead. It doesn't include the acting vampire, and doesn't have >stealth, but could work well with a little Obfuscate thrown around. And >it doesn't have to be a mono-Sabbat deck, since it works on untapped >vampires, not just Sabbat vampires. It *doesn't*, of course, benefit >the acting vampire - which is a bit of an arse, really - but if you're >playing a weenie-ish presence bleed deck, it's worth bearing in mind. Tossing OBF skill cards around isn't too bad, but it is an extra moving part... and worse, it requires superior PRE to pull off, meaning your vampires start to get a little biggish. Gideon, Mariana, and Violette can alleviate the problem, but they lack any built-in stealth. The cheapest obf/PRE vampire is Greta, who is a good fit here - she takes nothing but Media Influence actions, true, but at least she serves as defense while tapped. Of course, you do need to figure out a way to get blood back on her. Interestingly, I -do- have a weenie PRE bleed deck that uses Marijava Ghouls... except it leans more towards the Enchant Kindred at 2 stealth/Media Influence at 1 side of things, as opposed to the "I-bleed-you-for-six-with-Legal-and-Aire" side. Better against bounce, and doesn't get killed out of hand as much. =) >Were anyone to decide to attack 5th, then, a suitable re-write might: > >- target another vampire (this has long been a potential errata for it, > which people have knocked around for years) >- target a ready vampire Yeah. Both of these were in my last suggestion, I think - or actually, I believe I said something like "another younger vampire". No 'ready' clause, but the extra restrictions help define who your Rush target should be. >>The even more obvious conclusion is that if there is a problem with >>bloat decks being too powerful, it lies squarely with 5th Tradition; >>one of the Tribute/Blood Feast deck's weakest legs is that Kendrick >>will eventually run out of blood, and there is no easy way to get it >>back on him. > >Not necessarily. > >It's the old ASD argument of "We see this is better, so therefore it is >the problem." (I know you're saying "if", but we still have to be >careful.) Well, exactly. The 'if' means "should we presuppose that it is a Bad Thing to have decks which gain more pool than anyone could possibly burn through, the primary offender will be 5th Tradition, as the hands-down best means to regenerate vampire blood." >Is part of the problem that of exponential utility, rather than >additive? Let me explain. (minor snip) >5th Tradition *and* Minion Tap are kind of part of the whole same thing. >Together, they allow offence *and defence, in large quantities. Getting >nine pool back from Queen Anne, and then allowing her to have full blood >again - it splits the usual "push"-"pull" of the pool/blood dynamic. > >Under "normal" circumstances, you spend 5 pool to put 5 blood on a >vampire and make them ready. 5 on that vampire, plus 25 in your pool, = >30. > >Hunting fundamentally allows that "rule" to be circumvented - fairly >sensibly, too. And it's hard to abuse hunting, since you can't get >blood back from the vampire. Giant's Blood is similarly hard to abuse - >only usable once a game. Even with a Blood Doll on the vampire, hunting is difficult to abuse. To consistently gain pool, you have to dedicate that vampire to doing nothing but hunting - which is a reasonable cost. You can stack things up like the Hungry Coyote, etc., but you still end up having to take the hunt action itself. Many decks will slap a Blood Doll on a 2-cap and let the 2-cap sit there the entire game doing nothing but hunt. Eventually the 2-cap gets blocked and killed, but normally it's long since paid for itself and gained a few pool besides. But again, this hardly seems abusive - one action to gain one pool, effectively. >And then you find cards like Restoration and Regeneration. Lots more >blood, but stiffer requirements. Again, balanced. However, 5th breaks this mold - costs 1 blood to gain as many as 11. Requiring a Prince/Justicar and requiring superior Fortitude are roughly the same... yet Fortitude's best effort is free-to-gain-3, and a Prince can spend 1 to gain 11? Hmmmm. >On the other side, we have Blood Doll. 1 blood off a vampire, 1 blood >into your pool. Equilibrium. Minion Tap similar. X blood off, X pool >in. > >The interesting part is where these two interact, allowing the same >"rules bend" of one (in the sense of a card doing something not allowed >by the basic, inherent rules of V:TES) to impact on the same "rules >bend" of another. Well, the whole V:TES thing is to combine cards to be greater than the sum of their parts. [ quoted text not captured ]

(snippersnip: an interesting discussion about 5th trad) BUT IMO, it's not only 5th that (may) need some fixing, the other traditions are also strong cards and unavailable to the Sabbat. Obviously, 3th and Creation Rites are app. the same card. 6th is almost never played with. That leaves us with: First tradition: VERY powerful card, but can turn the whole table against you. No Sabbat alternative. Second Tradition: untap + 2 intercept, without Aus or ani. Fourth: Can be copied by a vamp with DOM or PRES Fifth: Most powerful of 'em all. Anybody still wondering why Cammie decks are still the big majority? Jeroen

On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:14:35 GMT, "jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote: >(snippersnip: an interesting discussion about 5th trad) > >BUT > >IMO, it's not only 5th that (may) need some fixing, the other traditions are >also strong cards and unavailable to the Sabbat. The Camarilla's strength is its organization - the Traditions represent that organization. The Sabbat's strength is its raw brutality - the extra-nasty combat available to the Sabbat clans represents that brutality. 2nd Tradition ends up being somewhat less than impressive against a Tzimisce combat deck, for example - who -really- wants to untap and block Meshenka from getting a Revenant, possibly losing their vampire? >Obviously, 3th and Creation Rites are app. the same card. 6th is almost >never played with. > >That leaves us with: >First tradition: VERY powerful card, but can turn the whole table against >you. No Sabbat alternative. No need for it to be, either. Since it's a vote, not an action, it falls in the same category as Parity Shift. Strong card, yes, but so is Cardinal Benediction, which is something the Camarilla can't even remotely match. >Second Tradition: untap + 2 intercept, without Aus or ani. Matched up (somewhat) by Eternal Vigilance, which provides a permanent untap opportunity, but no intercept. EV is significantly weaker, yes, but the Sabbat -does- have an option if you choose to go that route. >Fourth: Can be copied by a vamp with DOM or PRES >Fifth: Most powerful of 'em all. > >Anybody still wondering why Cammie decks are still the big majority? Are they? The Camarilla is presently a hair more powerful than teh Sabbat, but in my eyes it's mainly because of 5th Tradition. 2nd is very strong, but again, it's becoming more and more hazardous to casually block actions these days without using Obedience - and the Sabbat don't have a WHOLE lot of Dominate floating around at high levels, unlike the Camarilla. The classic Ventrue "I block everything with 2nd, pool gain with 5th, and vote you to oblivion" deck tends to get its vampires beat up these days - so they start excluding the 2nd except for emergency situations. Of course, the Sabbat would rather block and thump you, so they don't need the Dominate. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > The Camarilla's strength is its organization - the Traditions > represent that organization. The Sabbat's strength is its raw > brutality - the extra-nasty combat available to the Sabbat clans > represents that brutality. I'm not sure that this is represented as well as it should be. The combat cards that are avaialable to the Sabbat are mostly from disciplines which are clan-based rather than sect-based. The sect-based cards are pretty much equivalent to the Camarilla ones, ie. Templar vs Archon. Cards like War Party don't really do as well for Sabbat-brutality as cards like 5th Tradition do for Camarilla-organization. The Sabbat should logically have equivalent or better access to blood as they often drain their victims when they hunt. Festivo Dello Estinto is an attempt at this though there should probably be an action that does something similar IMHO. Cheers, WES

On Tue, 8 May 2001 15:05:57 -0400, "Wes" <gh...@mnsi.net> wrote: > >"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> The Camarilla's strength is its organization - the Traditions >> represent that organization. The Sabbat's strength is its raw >> brutality - the extra-nasty combat available to the Sabbat clans >> represents that brutality. > >I'm not sure that this is represented as well as it should be. > >The combat cards that are avaialable to the Sabbat are mostly from >disciplines which are clan-based rather than sect-based. The sect-based >cards are pretty much equivalent to the Camarilla ones, ie. Templar vs >Archon. Cards like War Party don't really do as well for Sabbat-brutality as >cards like 5th Tradition do for Camarilla-organization. Two major Sabbat clans, however (Lasombra and Tzimisce), have access to some of the meanest combat in the game. The Lasombra have POT/OBT, and there is plenty of evil OBT running around. The Tzimisce are, of course, feared, as they can get you in so many ways. Also, by comparison, the Sabbat clans have better combat-oriented discipline sets. The Nosferatu Antitribu, for example, are almost entirely composed of superior POT, with obf/ani as almost a sideline, whereas the Camarilla Nossies are much more about OBF, with POT as a sideline. The Toreador Antitribu have tons of CEL if they wish to make a combat deck out of their Art of Pain and other toys -- not to mention Monkey-Man Miller. Even the !Brujah tend to have better fighters, although they are much closer in comparison with their Brujah counterparts. (But Richter, Amelia, Sela, and Jacko really set them apart - not to mention Sarah Brando, Victor Tolliver, Hugo, and even Rigby.) [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <9d9fr...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Wes <gh...@mnsi.net> writes >The combat cards that are avaialable to the Sabbat are mostly from >disciplines which are clan-based rather than sect-based. The sect-based >cards are pretty much equivalent to the Camarilla ones, ie. Templar vs >Archon. Cards like War Party don't really do as well for Sabbat-brutality as >cards like 5th Tradition do for Camarilla-organization. I've mentioned before that I'd have like to have seen 2nd Tradition "copied". Something like untap, +1 intercept, +1/2 hand damage, or something. Less subtle (less intercept) but more brutal. :-) A few more sect based cards wouldn't be bad, along the lines of Monomacy (the -1 bleed isn't that bad for bleed defence....) and War Party. >The Sabbat should logically have equivalent or better access to blood as >they often drain their victims when they hunt. Well, you could rationalise it as wasteful brutality, or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> > > Two major Sabbat clans, however (Lasombra and Tzimisce), have access > to some of the meanest combat in the game. The Lasombra have POT/OBT, > and there is plenty of evil OBT running around. The Tzimisce are, of > course, feared, as they can get you in so many ways. I agree of course, but I don't think that counts. The Sabbat as a sect, not the clans that make up the Sabbat, should have cards available to it that are equivalent to the power of the Camarilla's signature cards. There are some nice ones mind you, just not exactly the power-level that puts each sect on an equal level. Blood of the Sabbat appears to be an attempt to give the Sabbat an analog to 5th Tradition, and it's a nice card in many ways though not as versatile obviously. Actually... make that the *titles* that exist in the Sabbat should have equivalent cards. It's basically the Princes that have powerful cards not the Camarilla in itself. If you can build a deck around 'Princes', it should be possible to do so around 'Archbishops'. The current cards just don't inspire *that* many deck concepts... In terms of RPG vs. CCG, I don't think it really matters that the Camarilla is more organized than the Sabbat, or that the Sabbat is more brutal than the Camarilla. As cards go, it's all... 'dog poo' if you know what I mean. The important thing is that any player who chooses to concentrate on one sect, or one clan, or on one discipline should have more or less an equal footing with any other sect, clan, or discipline. I can tell you almost for certain that the only reason that the Sabbat are so prevalent in my local group is because of the availability of the Sabbat War set and me pressuring them to buy it :) Most of those players pine after the cards like 2nd and 5th and wish they had such cards available, especially for use with the cards they already own, ie Sabbat. Cheers, WES

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:0xntBeZK...@obeah.demon.co.uk... > Take away the context of Blood Feast. Is 5th, in and of itself, a > balanced card? Is the cost proper to its effect? Are the requirements > sufficient? If it is more powerful than the mean average, how much more > powerful is it? I'd say yes. On average, it will usually provide some 5+ blood to a vampire, as a +1 stealth action that requires a title. A prince title, for example, costs as much as an inferior discipline (in the point system for vamps), though all titled vampires are of large capacity, so we might compare it to a superior discipline. Still, compare to a few other cards with similar effects by themselves: Restoration: only 3 blood max, and only for the acting vampire. No blood cost though, but that's only 1 blood anyway. Govern the Unaligned: 3 blood and 3 transfers, but only on a younger vampire. It does have the added bonus of flexibility though. Blood Feast: on average, 3-4 blood. The acting vampire himself never gets anything from it. Media Influence: similar to Blood Feast. 5th Tradition seems to have been designed around the assumption that it'd be used on half-full vampires. Then the Minion Tap/5th Tradition combo would be fairly balanced with these other cards. This points the 'blame' to 5th Tradition, since Minion Tap can be equally combo'd with any of these other cards, yet it's effect won't be considered abusive. <snip> You make some interesting points, but I feel they are of no relevance here. Combo's are the heart of VTES (and most other CCGs), and they have to be considered when judging a card's balance (like RTI+DtD+Soul Gem, or the old Fame 'I-shoot-myself-in-the-foot' decks), but in this case we can compare 5th Tradition's effects directly with other existing cards, and I'm afraid the conclusion can only be that 5th Tradition is not balanced by itself. Flux