the replacement of burned dudes

Now I've heard the ruling, and I play by the rules, but do any of you think this is stupid?: I torporize Ozmo I diablarize Ozmo Somebody brings another one right out. ?? I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it.

"Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > If somebody > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. Because this isn't an RPG, it's a card game. Noal -- "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" -Plato -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Robert C Campbell Jr wrote in message <7gv52j$n0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>... >Now I've heard the ruling, and I play by the rules, but do any of you think >this is stupid?: > >I torporize Ozmo >I diablarize Ozmo >Somebody brings another one right out. > >?? > >I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody >could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come >right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. > Are you really that desperate for a "Real World" or RPG analogy that you can't get around it in the CCG? If you are, I can happily provide you with a few scenarios that would emulate this. A CCG is an abstract thing. If you can't think of an analogous circumstance in the PRG, you just need to get more creative. (Creative license is the forte' of Storyteller RPGs, after all...)

Robert C Campbell Jr wrote in message <7gv52j$n0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>... >Now I've heard the ruling, and I play by the rules, but do any of you think >this is stupid?: No. >I torporize Ozmo >I diablarize Ozmo >Somebody brings another one right out. > >?? > >I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody >could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come >right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. You killed a clone. Or You didn't torporize Ozmo - he faked the battle and you killed some innocent Anarch. Or The Metheselah controllng him, a being of such power that you can barely comprehend, used some magic-blood ritual to revive him. Or It's not really Ozmo who came out, it's someone who looks like him. Or Some Tremere/Ventrue/Lasombra used Domination to alter your memories so you *think* you killed Ozmo, but in reality, you didn't. Or It's only a card game. Lighten up and stuff. -Mark Langsdorf Former Jyhad Archivist http://www.io.com/~mlangsdo/RPGs/Jyhad/

> I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. Because it's in the mechanics of the game, pure and simple. There are many things that don't make sense in this game but you just go with it. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 7 May 1999 12:46:17 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Now I've heard the ruling, and I play by the rules, but do any of you think >this is stupid?: > >I torporize Ozmo >I diablarize Ozmo >Somebody brings another one right out. > >I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody >could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come >right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. Totally non-responsive to this question, and does anyone ELSE'S group have the peculiar sequence ours seems to, where bringing out Ozmo and Ozmo going to torpor at some point are 100% directly related? I can't think of a game recently where Ozmo successfully came out and survived. Why is this? =) (I think it was common at the Columbia tournament as well - ozmo appears to have, along with all that paint and stuff on him, a great big BULLSEYE on his forehead.) -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

> Totally non-responsive to this question, and does anyone ELSE'S group have the > peculiar sequence ours seems to, where bringing out Ozmo and Ozmo going to > torpor at some point are 100% directly related? I can't think of a game > recently where Ozmo successfully came out and survived. Why is this? =) (I > think it was common at the Columbia tournament as well - ozmo appears to have, > along with all that paint and stuff on him, a great big BULLSEYE on his > forehead.) Does ending the game as a 1 capacity vampire due to Violet Tremain's special ability count as surviving? He pretty much was hunting every round because he'd get Cryptic Mission'ed as well.=) p.

Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:7gv52j$n0$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net... > Now I've heard the ruling, and I play by the rules, but do any of you think > this is stupid?: > > I torporize Ozmo > I diablarize Ozmo > Somebody brings another one right out. > > ?? > > I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. Ummmm.... because the game was written that way? BTW, ever hear of the hero clause, the hero never dies. just in this case the heroes happen to be vampires which are undead creatures to begin with, what's preventing them from coming back from Diablerie or Burning?..... Vince

Patrick Harris wrote in message <373342FF...@alpinetaxi.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] Thats when you need Lalitha and a Corruption card... =) Check Dejanews for my Violet, the Depraved Setite deck, if you're interested 0:-)

> You killed a clone. Or > You didn't torporize Ozmo - he faked the battle and you killed some >innocent >Anarch. Or > The Metheselah controllng him, a being of such power that you can >barely >comprehend, used some magic-blood ritual to revive him. Or > It's not really Ozmo who came out, it's someone who looks like him. Or > Some Tremere/Ventrue/Lasombra used Domination to alter your memories >so you *think* you killed Ozmo, but in reality, you didn't. >-Mark Langsdorf >Former Jyhad Archivist Excellent answer :))))

On Fri, 7 May 1999, Robert C Campbell Jr wrote: > I torporize Ozmo > I diablarize Ozmo > Somebody brings another one right out. > > ?? > > I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. Perhaps you are not too familiar with Vampire fiction. How many times has Dracula been "burned" and still risen from the grave, in all the comics, books, and movies that deal with him? In "Interview with the Vampire" did not Louis and Claudia "burn" Lestaat? Was not the equivalent of a bloodhunt then called on Louis and Claudia? Was not Claudia burned in this bloodhunt? Did not Lestaat then turn out *not* to be dead? Having supposedly dead characters suddenly pop up again in perfectly within the spirit of all kinds of storytelling, especially in the horror vein. To give one possible explanation for your above example: Perhaps you only thought you attacked and diablerized Ozmo. But Ozmo had arranged another vampire to take his identity. Ozmo then goes into hiding for a time. Or, to take another explanation: Suppose Ozmo *is* dead? How does this prevent another, similar vampire, from later assuming his identity? Anyone with any imagination could invent a thousand other explanations. Such explanations are really required only in the case of diablerie, and perhaps handful of other cases in which "burning" clearly implies the destruction of a vampire. In most cases, however, "burning" could just as easily mean a complete loss of Methuselah influence over a particular vampire. Take "Golconda" for instance: In this case burning the vampire does not mean his physical destruction, but merely his withdrawal from the Jyhad from having obtained "inner peace". Lupus Australis ____ ____ \ \----/ / |()__()| __\ __ /__ / __\()/__ \ |/ \==/ \| | || |

> > I torporize Ozmo > > I diablarize Ozmo > > Somebody brings another one right out. > > > > ?? > > > > I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. There have been a lot of flippant (not to say they weren't amusing) answers to this question. I see more of an interesting rules possibility. I think it is relatively widely accepted that combat is one of the more difficult strategies to win tournaments with. It is by no means impossible, but it requires walking a very tight line - as PDB6 has often said. What if, when a vampire was burned, it couldn't be influenced back into play? Just think about it for a moment. Not only do we avoid making strange RPG conspiracy explanations, we add another possible strength - and consideration to playing combat decks. I am not suggesting a modification to the core rules, just that it be consider as another variant rule possiblity. Why should another methuselah be able to ignore your burning of a central vamp when you invest so much effort into it? Wouldn't it be much more interesting if playing an Amaranth/Decapitate had a permanent rather than a reversable effect Autarch. [ quoted text not captured ]

Autarch wrote: >>Why should another methuselah be able to ignore your burning of a central vamp when you invest so much effort into it? Wouldn't it be much more interesting if playing an Amaranth/Decapitate had a permanent rather than a reversable effect>> While interesting in theory and certainly makes more sense in terms of "game logic", I suspect that it would make vampire destruction too powerful. In most cases, it wouldn't matter if you couldn't get out a second burned vampire, but in certain situations, it would be really far more damaging than it needs to be. It makes some decks way too vulnerable to getting their main vampire killed (when they are already in danger of getting contested). It makes Jimmy Dunn special disadvantage null and void. It prevents someone from saying "Bwahahah! Ozmo didn't really get impaled on that big stick! It was a dupe! And now he's working for me!" Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com "I dunno, Marge. Trying is the first step towards failure." -Homer

On Sun, 9 May 1999 the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > > > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > > > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. > There have been a lot of flippant (not to say they weren't amusing) > answers to this question. I see more of an interesting rules > possibility. I think it is relatively widely accepted that combat is one > of the more difficult strategies to win tournaments with. It is by no > means impossible, but it requires walking a very tight line - as PDB6 > has often said. > What if, when a vampire was burned, it couldn't be influenced back into > play? Just think about it for a moment. Not only do we avoid making > strange RPG conspiracy explanations, we add another possible strength - > and consideration to playing combat decks. I am not suggesting a > modification to the core rules, just that it be consider as another > variant rule possiblity. > Why should another methuselah be able to ignore your burning of a > central vamp when you invest so much effort into it? Wouldn't it be much > more interesting if playing an Amaranth/Decapitate had a permanent > rather than a reversable effect I'm not sure I get your point. Burning a vampire is almost always a permanent effect. That copy of the card, as well as all the influence and blood invested in it, are gone permanently. Of course this does not prevent him from using further influence and pool resources to bring out another vampire. He has still lost his original pool investment, regardless of whether his next vampire turns out to be another copy of the same vampire or not. It is generally a bad thing to have too many multiples of the same vampire in your crypt, especially if you get them both on the opening draw. Unusual and creative deck designs will often risk this disadvantage in order to ensure that they get the vamp they need, but I see no reason why such decks should be disproportionately victimized by your proposed rule. For instance, it is rather sad that, if I want to make a SER-PRO-ANI deck, I must put 6 copies of Mirembe Kabbada in my crypt. For various reasons, I'd rather have multiple SER-PRO-ANI vampires to choose from. Why is your proposed rule needed in order to further penalize non-standart decks? You are also assuming that the rule will always help the combat deck that does the burning. This has not been generally true in my experience. There have been times when I have wanted to bring out a vampire (Duck, for instance), but could not because someone else had him out already. So guess what...I head across the table, beat the crap out of Duck, and then burn his ass. A little later, it turns out that Duck is working for me. This makes perfect sense to me from a storytelling standpoint. It turns out that I spared Duck's life after all, and now control him through terror, having fully demonstrated my ability to take his life at will. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 9 May 1999 the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > What if, when a vampire was burned, it couldn't be influenced back into play? > Just think about it for a moment. Not only do we avoid making strange RPG > conspiracy explanations, [... snip] To make another comment: I'm not sure why anyone feels that "strange RPG conspiracy explanations" are in any way inappropriate. I thought that the whole atmosphere of the game was based around ideas of complex, machiavellian intrigue, multi-layered plots and conspiracies, strange twists of fate, and intricate webs of illusion spun by ancient Methuselahs in which nothing is quite as it seems. Does anyone feel I am wrong about this? [ quoted text not captured ]

> > > > I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > > > > could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > > > > right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. > > > There have been a lot of flippant (not to say they weren't amusing) > > answers to this question. I see more of an interesting rules > > possibility. I think it is relatively widely accepted that combat is one > > of the more difficult strategies to win tournaments with. It is by no > > means impossible, but it requires walking a very tight line - as PDB6 > > has often said. > > > What if, when a vampire was burned, it couldn't be influenced back into > > play? Just think about it for a moment. Not only do we avoid making > > strange RPG conspiracy explanations, we add another possible strength - > > and consideration to playing combat decks. I am not suggesting a > > modification to the core rules, just that it be consider as another > > variant rule possiblity. > > > Why should another methuselah be able to ignore your burning of a > > central vamp when you invest so much effort into it? Wouldn't it be much > > more interesting if playing an Amaranth/Decapitate had a permanent > > rather than a reversable effect > > I'm not sure I get your point. Burning a vampire is almost always a > permanent effect. That copy of the card, as well as all the influence and > blood invested in it, are gone permanently. > > Of course this does not prevent him from using further influence and pool > resources to bring out another vampire. He has still lost his original > pool investment, regardless of whether his next vampire turns out to be > another copy of the same vampire or not. This is the difficulty. Why is it any different than contesting a vampire that is in play? I know that sometimes contestation can be explained as trying to ensure the loyalties of a single vampire, but couldn't it also be seen as the same when a vampire has "faked his death" (by being burned and then reinfluenced?) - the original methuselah wouldn't be too happy either way. > > It is generally a bad thing to have too many multiples of the same vampire > in your crypt, especially if you get them both on the opening draw. > Unusual and creative deck designs will often risk this disadvantage in > order to ensure that they get the vamp they need, but I see no reason why > such decks should be disproportionately victimized by your proposed rule. > > For instance, it is rather sad that, if I want to make a SER-PRO-ANI deck, > I must put 6 copies of Mirembe Kabbada in my crypt. For various reasons, > I'd rather have multiple SER-PRO-ANI vampires to choose from. Why is your > proposed rule needed in order to further penalize non-standart decks? OK, now this is a real problem. Some of these fringe decks are even harder to play than pure combat ("this deck only works if I get Marty Lechtansi out" is the only one I can think of off the top of my head). Need to consider this difficulty for a variant rule system, in order not to run into problems as ridiculous as those in the "War Of Ages" rules variants proposed by WotC. > > You are also assuming that the rule will always help the combat deck that > does the burning. This has not been generally true in my experience. > There have been times when I have wanted to bring out a vampire (Duck, > for instance), but could not because someone else had him out already. So > guess what...I head across the table, beat the crap out of Duck, and then > burn his ass. A little later, it turns out that Duck is working for me. > This makes perfect sense to me from a storytelling standpoint. It turns > out that I spared Duck's life after all, and now control him through > terror, having fully demonstrated my ability to take his life at will. OK, this makes a good point. COnsidering all of the above, I offer the following variant rule for consideration: Ashes to Ashes Place any vampire that is burnt during gameplay in a central location. All of these vampires may not be influenced into play. Any methuselah may burn 1 pool and four transfers during their influence phase to remove a vampire from this central location. This way, we can have both the semi-permanent "doused his ass" combat effects with "good" strange RPG conspiracies to allow vampires to return to play, thus not permanently crippling "theme" decks. I think you deserved to be reamed if you play a OTP that can't get over your core vampire being hosed - after all, who you gonna'call... when you get pentex subversion'd? Autarch [ quoted text not captured ]

the_a...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > I torporize Ozmo > > > I diablarize Ozmo > > > Somebody brings another one right out. > > > > > > ?? > > > [ quoted text not captured ] This "variant rule" has been suggested before, and is much more troublesome than it first appears: What use is the "special ability" of Hand of Conrad, or inferior Possession? What happens, for instance, when one Jimmy Dunn is burned by the arrival of a second? Can the second be burned by a third? What about vampires that wind up in the ash heap from Goodnight Sweet Prince? Even if they were already in play? What about vampires who are removed from play by Return to Innocence or Golconda? Can they be re-influenced? If not, what then about Illusions of Kindred? Why are concessions made (left) for unique allies who are burned? etc. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and DCI (tournament) rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.990509015856.19757D-100000@amanda>, Lupus Australis <jbwh...@dorsai.org> writes >I'm not sure why anyone feels that "strange RPG >conspiracy explanations" are in any way inappropriate. Okay, so that's three different types of damage we'll be dealing now? Who's for keeping track of hand damage separately, since you need to go through their health levels twice? -- James Coupe (Prince of Mercia, England) Vampire: Elder Kindred Network http://madnessnetwork.hexagon.net http://www.obeah.demon.co.uk

In article <7h50bc$tuh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_a...@hotmail.com writes >Ashes to Ashes >Place any vampire that is burnt during gameplay in a central location. All of >these vampires may not be influenced into play. Any methuselah may burn 1 pool >and four transfers during their influence phase to remove a vampire from this >central location. Why would you propose a variant that made decks centred around one vampire *much* less viable? [ quoted text not captured ]

> In article <7h50bc$tuh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, the_a...@hotmail.com writes > >Ashes to Ashes > >Place any vampire that is burnt during gameplay in a central location. All of > these vampires may not be influenced into play. Any methuselah may burn 1 pool > and four transfers during their influence phase to remove a vampire from this > central location. > > Why would you propose a variant that made decks centred around one vampire *much* > less viable? That's really nothing new. There are some variants that make hordes of vampires less viable. Those variants which are designed for using the really high capacity vampires, for example. They take all the weenies out of the game. Nobody forces variants (I hope). And you usually know what you're getting into beforehand, so you just design your deck accordingly. As different as this idea of "burned means burned" may be, I don't think it's that big a deal in a variant. You play with the ones you like, and not with the ones you don't like. I'm pretty sure that I play with a set of variant rules from time to time that nobody outside my playgroup uses or likes. p.

Sorrow wrote in message <7gv7cs$bbr$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... >> I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody >> could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come >> right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. > >Because it's in the mechanics of the game, pure and simple. >There are many things that don't make sense in this game but you just go >with it. Whatever. If you can errata every other card in the game, you might as well say, "burned dudes stay burned." It would solve many problems and eliminate many cheesey decks. It would even be an errata that made sense...

Mark Langsdorf wrote in message <7gv7o0$q9j$1...@amdint2.amd.com>... > You killed a clone. Or Okay, then I aught to be able to bring out Ozmo when somebody else already has him out without contesting. Mine's just a clone, right? > The Metheselah controllng him, a being of such power that you can >barely >comprehend, used some magic-blood ritual to revive him. Or Then I aught to be able to bring out a duplicate Ozmo on the basis of my immense power without contesting him. > It's not really Ozmo who came out, it's someone who looks like him. Or Ditto. > Some Tremere/Ventrue/Lasombra used Domination to alter your memories >so you *think* you killed Ozmo, but in reality, you didn't. Or I should be able to do that to everybody else so they just think the vamp I just brought out is Ozmo so he doesn't contest the other three Ozmos in play. I don't see how you can allow people to bring out a copy of a vamp that's been burned without throwing all the contesting rules out the window. I really don't. > It's only a card game. Lighten up and stuff. DISCLAIMER: I'm REALLY REALLY REALLY **NOT** trying to start a flame war or even put down other people's opinions. I'll say it again, I'm REALLY REALLY NOT. I've just always wanted somebody to errata that one little thing that doesn't make sense in the game, and instead they've errata'd everything BUT that.... ....argh....

Richard Zopf wrote in message <7gv7fh$s3h$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>... >Are you really that desperate for a "Real World" or RPG analogy that you >can't get around it in the CCG? If you are, I can happily provide you with >a few scenarios that would emulate this. A CCG is an abstract thing. If >you can't think of an analogous circumstance in the PRG, you just need to >get more creative. (Creative license is the forte' of Storyteller RPGs, >after all...) I've read a bunch of responses similar to this, and I totally see the point. But I have a rebuttal: Think how cool the game of Jyhad would be if you WEREN'T allowed to bring out copies of burned dudes. Combat decks would suddenly become worth playing. Stealth bleed decks that run around Five copies of Ozmo and Five of Didi Meyers would become useless, requiring their players to become CREATIVE with their vamp draws. The trillion master card Anson deck would grind to a halt unless their players planned to actually try to keep Anson alive. I think it'd be pretty cool. I really do. Some of you guys might try to institute it as a house rule in hard-core tournament style play (not sanctioned I'm sure, but hell...) and see exactly how that SMALL change effects the grand scheme of things.

In article <7ha7rs$f19$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody >>> could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come >>> right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. >> >>Because it's in the mechanics of the game, pure and simple. >>There are many things that don't make sense in this game but you just go >>with it. > >Whatever. If you can errata every other card in the game, you might as well >say, "burned dudes stay burned." It would solve many problems and eliminate >many cheesey decks. It would even be an errata that made sense... Ok, start from the beginning. What "problems" would such a fix solve, and which "cheesey" decks would it eliminate? IMHO the answer is none to both. I challenge you to find one to prove me wrong. -- /\ Jasper Phillips /VVVVVVVVVVVVVV|~"~"~"~"~"~"----------........____ jaz j^^^^^^^^^^^^^\/"~"~"~"~-----------........._____ ~"~--. * http://www.engr.orst.edu/~philljas/ "~"~'--`

PDB6 wrote in message <19990508233237...@ng51.aol.com>... >While interesting in theory and certainly makes more sense in terms of "game >logic", I suspect that it would make vampire destruction too powerful. In most >cases, it wouldn't matter if you couldn't get out a second burned vampire, but >in certain situations, it would be really far more damaging than it needs to >be. I don't think so at all. If you want to build an Anson deck, protect Anson. If you want to build an Ozmo deck, protect Ozmo. It's as simple as that. If you build your deck correctly, Ozmo can certainly survive rush combat long enough to bleed your prey for twelve to fifteen points. How is that now unbalancing to say that you don't have access to him when he gets burned. I just think tournament style jyhad is weighted way too heavily in the hands of the stealth-bleeders and not enough in the hands of the combat decks. This SLIGHT modification would offer up the possibility that you might get screwed playing a deck whose only cards are governs, cloaks, and conditionings. >It makes some decks way too vulnerable to getting their main vampire killed >(when they are already in danger of getting contested). It makes Jimmy Dunn Which might inspire players to broaden their horizons a little and play with 5 or 6 vamps in their draw. Hell, mabee even 8. How could this possibly be bad for game play? >special disadvantage null and void. It prevents someone from saying "Bwahahah! >Ozmo didn't really get impaled on that big stick! It was a dupe! And now he's >working for me!" Deckmaster Golden Rules handle the Jimmy Dunn problem, and you can still say that self same phrase with a GRAVE ROBBING or corruption... Make sense? Think about it a little...

In article <7ha8jh$fgf$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Richard Zopf wrote in message <7gv7fh$s3h$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>... >I've read a bunch of responses similar to this, and I totally see the point. >But I have a rebuttal: > >Think how cool the game of Jyhad would be if you WEREN'T allowed to bring >out copies of burned dudes. Combat decks would suddenly become worth >playing. Stealth bleed decks that run around Five copies of Ozmo and Five of >Didi Meyers would become useless, requiring their players to become CREATIVE >with their vamp draws. The trillion master card Anson deck would grind to a >halt unless their players planned to actually try to keep Anson alive. *Shrug* Combat decks are worth playing, the best ones I've seen don't even care since they don't generally burn. 5 Ozmo + 5 Didi decks are hardly a problem (as they're already useless), and trillion master Anson decks aren't any good either. I hardly see the game being any different at all. You're essentially making a theme argument for a mechanic that can be easily seen to work either way themewise. So there's no particular reason to change based on that. Other than that, you have game play issues. Duplicate vampires are already enough of a penalty, and the decks that need to use them generally aren't the best anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <7ha9a9$ftb$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >I just think tournament style jyhad is weighted way too heavily in the hands >of the stealth-bleeders and not enough in the hands of the combat decks. >This SLIGHT modification would offer up the possibility that you might get >screwed playing a deck whose only cards are governs, cloaks, and >conditionings. Hmmm. I never thought that S&B was really a strong tournament strategy. In any event, the best combat decks I've seen don't often burn their targets, but leave them wallowing in torpor, and so wouldn't even be affected. And a deck playing Governs, Cloaks, and Conditionings? That'll screw itself. IMHO the change your propose doesn't do what you want it to. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I've read a bunch of responses similar to this, and I totally see the point. > But I have a rebuttal: > > Think how cool the game of Jyhad would be if you WEREN'T allowed to bring out > copies of burned dudes. Combat decks would suddenly become worth playing. > Stealth bleed decks that run around Five copies of Ozmo and Five of Didi > Meyers would become useless, requiring their players to become CREATIVE with > their vamp draws. The trillion master card Anson deck would grind to a halt > unless their players planned to actually try to keep Anson alive. > > I think it'd be pretty cool. I really do. > > Some of you guys might try to institute it as a house rule in hard-core > tournament style play (not sanctioned I'm sure, but hell...) and see exactly > how that SMALL change effects the grand scheme of things. My group does use the "burned means burned" rule in friendly games. It doesn't really affect our games much, since we don't usually have those 8 copies of so-and-so crypts. Some of our decks do have multiple copies of a vampire if he just really shines when used in a particular deck, but it does make you lay it on the line for your vampires more. One thing to note, however, is that we usually play with larger vampires, and that also makes us want to protect them more. Even if we could bring them out again, we probably wouldn't as the vampires are pricey. p.

Robert wrote: >>I just think tournament style jyhad is weighted way too heavily in the hands of the stealth-bleeders and not enough in the hands of the combat decks. This SLIGHT modification would offer up the possibility that you might get screwed playing a deck whose only cards are governs, cloaks, and conditionings.>> I'm clearly the wrong guy to adress this point to. As it is, well designed and well played combat decks can do just fine at tournaments--if more people played them, they'd win more often. They are in no way tourney dominating, but they are competetive (and eat S+B decks for lunch, I might add...). I assure you that wheither or not a burned dude stays burned will not help the state of combat decks in tournaments. As to this not being errated--the reason it has not been errated is that it is not neccessary for game balance or to make rules work better. Errata is issued so that the game mantains balance and to clarify rules. As this issue does not affect either of this conditions of the game, there is no need to change it. The game was designed so that burned dudes did not stay burned, and as such, there is no real good reason to change it. I understand that one might like the logic of a change like this. I can even see why. Heck, I can even see how the game might seem more elegant if this had been the rule from the start. However, it simply is not necessary, and will damage far more than it fixes (which, as it fixes nothing, is completely unacceptable). [ quoted text not captured ]

>Stealth bleed decks that run around Five copies of Ozmo and Five of >Didi Meyers would become useless, requiring their players to become CREATIVE >with their vamp draws. The trillion master card Anson deck would grind to a >halt unless their players planned to actually try to keep Anson alive. About the "keeping Anson alive" part, that would really ruin the atmosphere of the game. I have to admit that in my games, I like keeping my vamps alive and trying not to waste them. But remember, we're supposed to be Methusalehs. We shouldn't really worry about keeping our vamps alive when they're such expendable resources. Reminds me of a post a few months ago when someone said that there should be cards specific to a individual vampire (like a card that only Anson could use or something). The idea appealed to me but would not be in the spirit of the game, since the focus of the game is on the STRUGGLE between Methusalehs, not the vampires that are mere pawns. Also, I would like to concur with several of the opinions already voiced on this subject. The concept of "burning" not necessarily being completely destroying does seem to make some sense as does the concept of "merely losing influence." Halcyan 2

On Tue, 11 May 1999 17:41:34 -0400 "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > > Sorrow wrote in message <7gv7cs$bbr$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... > >> I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If somebody > >> could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or anyone else) can come > >> right back out after I've doused his ass, then I'd like to hear it. > > > >Because it's in the mechanics of the game, pure and simple. > >There are many things that don't make sense in this game but you just go > >with it. > > > Whatever. If you can errata every other card in the game, you might as well > say, "burned dudes stay burned." It would solve many problems and eliminate > many cheesey decks. It would even be an errata that made sense... It would not solve any problems, since there is no problem caused by having a burned "dude" be controlled later. And, as I've already pointed out, such a rule introduces new problems: like with Jimmy Dunn (and winning contests in general), Goodnight Sweet Prince, etc. *and* doesn't cover "out-of-game cards stay out-of-game" (to handle Goldconda, etc.) which, if it did, would cause even more problems (Illusions of Kindred). All far too complicated to stand as a "solution" to a non-problem. Just because errata can be issued isn't a reason to issue every erratum. Some errata simply aren't useful. -- LSJ (vte...@wizards.com) VTES Net.Rep for Wizards of the Coast. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.wizards.com/VTES/VTES_Rules.html -- Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com Exchange ideas on practically anything (tm).

Robert C Campbell Jr wrote in message <7ha8jh$fgf$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>... > >Richard Zopf wrote in message <7gv7fh$s3h$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>... > >>Are you really that desperate for a "Real World" or RPG analogy that you >>can't get around it in the CCG? If you are, I can happily provide you with >>a few scenarios that would emulate this. A CCG is an abstract thing. If >>you can't think of an analogous circumstance in the PRG, you just need to >>get more creative. (Creative license is the forte' of Storyteller RPGs, >>after all...) > > >I've read a bunch of responses similar to this, and I totally see the point. >But I have a rebuttal: > >Think how cool the game of Jyhad would be if you WEREN'T allowed to bring >out copies of burned dudes. Combat decks would suddenly become worth >playing. Stealth bleed decks that run around Five copies of Ozmo and Five of >Didi Meyers would become useless, requiring their players to become CREATIVE >with their vamp draws. The trillion master card Anson deck would grind to a >halt unless their players planned to actually try to keep Anson alive. > >I think it'd be pretty cool. I really do. > >Some of you guys might try to institute it as a house rule in hard-core >tournament style play (not sanctioned I'm sure, but hell...) and see exactly >how that SMALL change effects the grand scheme of things. > I can see how the added dynamic might be "cool", as you say. But I can't see it as being incorporated into the base rules, or added to DCI tournament rules. The idea behind sanctioned tournaments is to get a playing field that isn't dominated by particular cards/combos, yet keeps the base rules to the game as close as possible, so that non-web surfing players might have a bit of a chance when they participate. Granted, this job hasn't been done perfectly, but that seems to be what's being aimed for. Start throwing in house rules like this, whether they alter the dynamnic favorably towards combat, or not, and many people are going to be left saying WTF? Rules changes to date have been based on issues that were seen as crippling certain aspects of the game. Reinfluencing burned vamps has yet to come up as an issue to date for anyone I know. I can't see it being argued as a necessary rules change in order to restore balance to some dynamic of the game. Thus, I can't see it as being incorporated into the base rules or into sanctioned tournament play. (I do think its a cute little house rule, though.) As an aside, I'd dispute your claim that this will help combat decks. If the proverbial 5+5 Ozmo/Didi deck were made, I'd be ecstatic with a Rush combat deck. Under current rules, my prey (5+5) could influence out a max. of 2 vamps. This gives me plenty of time to address the rest of the table. Also, if my prey can reinfluence after a vamp is burned, that provides me with another target to Rush. Effective rush is always a more debilitating way to attack your prey, when compared to the bleeding capabilities of a typical Rush deck. If he couldn't reinfluence, thats one less way to damage him... Regards, R. David Zopf Atom Weaver (& V:EKN Prince of Charlotte, NC)

>>> I JUST BURNED HIM!! Ozmo shouldn't be allowed to come back. If >>> somebody could give me a good explanation as to why Ozmo (or >>> anyone else) can come right back out after I've doused his ass, >>> then I'd like to hear it. > Whatever. If you can errata every other card in the game, you might > as well say, "burned dudes stay burned." It would solve many > problems and eliminate many cheesey decks. It would even be an > errata that made sense... In case all of you forgot, vampires with Necromancy can use Possession to bring a vampire from the ash heap to the active region with blood on it. Why is it not plausible that all methuselahs are capable of doing something that the minions they control are able to do? Personally, I don't think that "burned dudes stay burned" make any sense whatsoever. I also don't see why a deck that focuses on one vampire is neccessarily cheesy. Noal [ quoted text not captured ]

>Ok, start from the beginning. What "problems" would such a fix solve, >and which "cheesey" decks would it eliminate? > >IMHO the answer is none to both. I challenge you to find one to >prove me wrong. Okay. There's an expansion Tremere, I can't think of the name off hand, that can burn blood for bonus bleed. I'm sure you know of the guy. Here's what I saw (not naming any names here, but I was at his house last night.) a friend of mine do with a deck once: Brings the guy out. Gives him a fortitude master. Takes an action to go get the Soul Gem. Force of Will to directed +2 his prey. Uses, uhh, daring the dawn (I think that's the card) to make it unblockable. Burns all the blood off the guy to make it like an eight or nine bleed. Takes his two ag (one from force of will and one from daring the dawn) and burns. Soul Gem goes into effect, and guess who comes right back out: The same vamp. Because of the skill card, the new copy is one cap lower so it comes strait back into play after taking its two agg, with the soul gem. (he only has one vamp in his crypt, just a zillion copies) Next turn he hunts to become tapped so he can run the same gambit over and over again. An unblockable bleed for eight or so every turn and the dude with DOM out to bounce in the mean time. Only has to bring out one vamp, so he's got plenty of pool sitting around. Cool idea, huh? Ever seen a better crowbar to the rules? I mean, the deck is sweet and all, but I still maintain it's cheesey as screw. Cheese beyond cheese. And would be made ineffective by that slight change in the rules we were talking about. Ahem. Challenge met?

> In case all of you forgot, vampires with Necromancy can use Possession > to bring a vampire from the ash heap to the active region with blood on > it. Why is it not plausible that all methuselahs are capable of doing > something that the minions they control are able to do? I agree with you totally here, and that is a very good point. > Personally, I don't think that "burned dudes stay burned" make any sense > whatsoever. I can see "burned dudes stay burned" as a way to make Possession and whatever master card that is more useful. I would only really want that rule imposed in variants though. Not tournament play. > I also don't see why a deck that focuses on one vampire is neccessarily > cheesy. I don't think it's necessarily the one vampire that makes it cheesy. I think it's more the strategy used with the vampire. For example, I don't think the Cailean deck is that cheesy. I do think the Spiridonas deck is cheesy. p.

In article <7hc8kj$tfl$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, Robert C Campbell Jr <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>Ok, start from the beginning. What "problems" would such a fix solve, >>and which "cheesey" decks would it eliminate? >> >>IMHO the answer is none to both. I challenge you to find one to >>prove me wrong. > >Okay. > >There's an expansion Tremere, I can't think of the name off hand, that can >burn blood for bonus bleed. I'm sure you know of the guy. [Soul Gem and +x bleed Tremere trick snipped] >Cool idea, huh? Ever seen a better crowbar to the rules? I mean, the deck is >sweet and all, but I still maintain it's cheesey as screw. Cheese beyond >cheese. And would be made ineffective by that slight change in the rules we >were talking about. > >Ahem. >Challenge met? *Shrug* Not IMHO. It's a slow combo that isn't overtly powerfull, and is fairly vulnerable. It's a good example though, because it's about as nasty as you can "abuse" this rule. Weenie bleed/vote decks aren't bothered by it, intercept decks easily stop the Soul Gem, combat decks premptively strike, anyone with bleed bounce just thanks you, etc. IMHO it's a very strong effect when it works, but quite slow to get off, and something most decks can handle. Sure it can be effective, but I hardly see it as either a problem or cheesey. I don't even think it'd end up being tournament competitive. [ quoted text not captured ]

Robert C Campbell Jr wrote: > >Ok, start from the beginning. What "problems" would such a fix solve, > >and which "cheesey" decks would it eliminate? > > > >IMHO the answer is none to both. I challenge you to find one to > >prove me wrong. > > Okay. > > There's an expansion Tremere, I can't think of the name off hand, that can > burn blood for bonus bleed. I'm sure you know of the guy. Spiridonas. Ancient Hearts. 9 capacity. Tremere. > Here's what I saw (not naming any names here, but I was at his house last > night.) a friend of mine do with a deck once: > > Brings the guy out. Which takes a minimum of two turns *if* you get an Info Highway or a Tomb of Ramses out on your first turn (or on your second if you go late enough in the rotation). Typically takes three turns. By this time, a good rush deck will be guaranteed a vampire with which to rush Spiro and clobber him silly. Probably even torporize him. But, not every deck is a rush deck, so... > Gives him a fortitude master. > Takes an action to go get the Soul Gem. Which should be blocked. Many decks can find +1 intercept by the fourth turn. Then what? One intercept and this deck is shut down. > Force of Will to directed +2 his prey. That's just +1, since he ony has basic Fortitude. But anyway... > Uses, uhh, daring the dawn (I think that's the card) to make it unblockable. Unblockable by vampires. But OK (most decks don't have allies out to block with). But (as an aside) this deck will get shut down hard by an Arms Dealer deck (or a Garou deck). Your point still stands, though. > Burns all the blood off the guy to make it like an eight or nine bleed. Right. "All the blood" = 8 ('cause he still has to pay one for the FoW). Total bleed = 1+1(FoW)+6(special) = 8. So, if you're playing one of the decks that hasn't shut down this deck already (i.e., not a rush deck and not an intercept deck), what is your bleed defense? Bounce. Bounce shuts this deck down, and gets a good boost in oust its own prey while doing it. > Takes his two ag (one from force of will and one from daring the dawn) and > burns. Soul Gem goes into effect, and guess who comes right back out: The > same vamp. > > Because of the skill card, the new copy is one cap lower so it comes strait > back into play after taking its two agg, with the soul gem. (he only has one > vamp in his crypt, just a zillion copies) > > Next turn he hunts to become tapped so he can run the same gambit over and > over again. An unblockable bleed for eight or so every turn and the dude Assuming you can keep playing Fortitude skill cards on him *and* he never gets rushed. > with DOM out to bounce in the mean time. Only has to bring out one vamp, so > he's got plenty of pool sitting around. His predator isn't doing anything to him, even though he has no defense whatsoever? > Cool idea, huh? Ever seen a better crowbar to the rules? I mean, the deck is > sweet and all, but I still maintain it's cheesey as screw. Cheese beyond > cheese. And would be made ineffective by that slight change in the rules we > were talking about. > > Ahem. > Challenge met? Well, it may be cheesy, but it is not a problem deck. (But, since [citation lost]'s challenge included "both" criteria, looks like you met the challenge. Good job.) This deck is not particularly effective against: intercept, rush, or bounce. Most decks have at least one of those. And, as I've pointed out several times (and have yet to be answered on), your proposed change to the rules is not "slight". It causes big problems with contesting, etc. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 12 May 1999 12:07:00 -0400, "Robert C Campbell Jr" <bj...@mindspring.com> wrote: >Okay. > >There's an expansion Tremere, I can't think of the name off hand, that can >burn blood for bonus bleed. I'm sure you know of the guy. Spiridonas. =) >Here's what I saw (not naming any names here, but I was at his house last >night.) a friend of mine do with a deck once: [neat trick snipped] >Cool idea, huh? Ever seen a better crowbar to the rules? I mean, the deck is >sweet and all, but I still maintain it's cheesey as screw. Cheese beyond >cheese. And would be made ineffective by that slight change in the rules we >were talking about. I saw this deck get played once too. It ran into a couple obvious problems, making it not near as effective as it looks at first glance. First problem: Deflection. When you bleed your grandprey for 11, it's a very bad thing. And you know how many Deflections our group tends to pack... this deck would be terribly entertaining but a risky play in a tournament. =) Especially when you ran out of Spiridonii. Second problem: Pentex Subversion, Sensory Deprivation, Mind Rape, you name it. Any "hose this vampire" card someone has handy completely shuts the deck down. Pentex Subversion is the flavor I saw get used - slap it on him, he can't take actions, and can't get out any other vampires to take actions to remove it. Sense Dep would do the same, and you should know better than most of us how much fun that is. >Ahem. >Challenge met? Well, it's certainly cheesy (consider the source) but I dunno if it's overpowering cheese. =) Just kinda hilarious. -- Derek (replying by email? remove the nospam from my domain :)

Robert Campbell wrote: >>Cool idea, huh? Ever seen a better crowbar to the rules? I mean, the deck is sweet and all, but I still maintain it's cheesey as screw. Cheese beyond cheese. And would be made ineffective by that slight change in the rules we were talking about.>> Funny? Yes. Effective? Possibly. Overpowering to the point of requiring errata to fix it? Not in a million years. It is very slow (requires 9 point vampire), very vulnerable to Rush, Bleed Bounce, even light intercept. If you manage to pull it off even once, your prey simply isn't trying hard enough (or, he is playing a deck that kills someone so fast he doesn't care.) [ quoted text not captured ]