Clan Disciplines and Efficient Vampires Post Black Hand

We've had two expansions (Anarchs and Black Hand) since I last did my analysis of who has the most efficient vampires in terms of in-clan disciplines. Not surprisingly, Black Hand really helped out several Sabbat clans which were lagging behind the power curve such as !Tremere and especially !Ventrue. Followers of Set also finally joined the ranks of all other major clans getting a 6-cap with PRE SER. Next up: !Salubri! :) Here's a quick summary of "improved" clans (apologies for the formatting): Clans needing 6 cap to achieve 2 in clans at superior having all 3 in-clan Followers of Set Ezekiel, Lord of Montreal 6 obf pot PRE SER (Beat out three 7-caps. YAY! All clans finally beat the 7-cap threshhold) Gangrel (2/3) Sophia Watson 6 ANI FOR obf pro (2/3 Gangrel didn't get new vamps until Anarchs, not quite Camille or Raven) Nosferatu (2/3) Sundown 6 ANI POT obf pre + special (Joins Gerard Rafin) Ventrue antitribu Charice Fontaigne 6 AUS DOM for pot (Joins Marlene, Infernalist) Clans needing 6 cap to achive all in clan superiors Tremere antitribu Selena 6 AUS DOM THA - special, Black Hand (HOT HOT HOT, Beats 8-caps Kij Dansky and Ian Forestal) Clans needing 7 cap to achive all in clan superiors Gangrel (2/3) Beckett 7 ANI cel FOR PRO + special (2/3 Gangrel didn't get new vamps until Anarchs) Malkavian (2/3) Quentin King III (ADV) 7 AUS cel DEM OBF pre + specials (Nice solid vampire with Merge technology, Beats Anatole and Jason) Ventrue antitribu Blackhorse Tanner 7 AUS DOM FOR + special, Black Hand (SOLID. Beat out 9-cap Gustav Mallenhous. !Ven also got 8-cap house Owain!) There are still three clans who don't receive a vampire with all three in-clans at superior until 9-capacity: Brujah (2/3), Lasombra and Toreador. I think all these 9-caps are pretty nice, but it still might be nice for each of these clans to get an 8-cap with all in clans at superior, perhaps including nice specials. FYI, the remaining clans which get their first vampires with in clans at superior at 8-cap are Assamite (Fatima and Husamettin), Brujah 1/2 (Tura), Nosferatu 1/2 (Ebanezer), Nosferatu 2/3 (Tammy), and Tremere 1/2 (Justine). Jeff

> Clans needing 6 cap to achive all in clan superiors > Tremere antitribu Selena 6 AUS DOM THA - special, Black Hand > (HOT HOT HOT, Beats 8-caps Kij Dansky and Ian Forestal) Interesting post. Did it ever strike to anyone else as REALLY strange this vampire exists? Joaquina Amaya CHI ANI FOR Cap 6 +1 stealth of equip actions I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... And what about Dolphin Black? AUS DEM OBF with no disadvantage... Oh, and Ian Forestal beats any vampire hands down....

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... There are a lot of random vampires with random seeming abilities in the post Jyhad-pre White Wolf takeover. Like you got Gerard (5 cap with 4 inferiors) and Judah (6 cap, 1 superior, 2 inferiors, Primogen) and then you got Sela (6 cap, 2 superiors, 2 inferiors, Bishop, + a conditional special). The avoided most of then when WW took over, but I'm still confused by Peter Blaine (4 cap with 3 inferiors + a conditional special). But then, as you note, there is Ian Forrestal... Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

The good ship rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad was dashed upon the rocks, killing all on board but Ulugh Beg II ... >> Clans needing 6 cap to achive all in clan superiors >> Tremere antitribu Selena 6 AUS DOM THA - special, Black Hand >> (HOT HOT HOT, Beats 8-caps Kij Dansky and Ian Forestal) > > Interesting post. > > Did it ever strike to anyone else as REALLY strange this vampire exists? > > Joaquina Amaya > CHI ANI FOR > Cap 6 > +1 stealth of equip actions > > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... > This isn't so horrible when you consider the other vampires she has to work with. And really, how often to Ravnos go equipping their own gear as an action, rather than stealing it or Horrid Reality? > And what about Dolphin Black? > AUS DEM OBF with no disadvantage... > She's not alone. There's Caliban too, with all 3 in-clan disciplines at superior. > Oh, and Ian Forestal beats any vampire hands down.... > Maybe paired up with some Harbingers or in some bizarre deck with a huge discipline spread, but leave him alone in a room with Richter for 2 minutes and he'll just be a wet coat of paint :) -- Kurt *Kill the nospam to reply* And after the spanking, the... I think I'll wait for the chicks to show up. -- RGMW outtake

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<br2rhb$2ku$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... > Did it ever strike to anyone else as REALLY strange this vampire exists? > > Joaquina Amaya > CHI ANI FOR > Cap 6 > +1 stealth of equip actions > > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... > > And what about Dolphin Black? > AUS DEM OBF with no disadvantage... Um... Caliban (ANI AUS VIC) 6, Tzimisce Ox, Viceroy of the Hollows (ANI OBF POT) 6, !Nosferatu Darrell Boyce, Consul (CEL OBF PRO) 6, !Gangrel Six-caps with all three in-clans at superior are pretty standard, at least for Sabbat clans. Kushiel

On 9 Dec 2003, Kurt wrote: > This isn't so horrible when you consider the other vampires she has to > work with. And really, how often to Ravnos go equipping their own gear > as an action, rather than stealing it or Horrid Reality? Treasured Samadji. David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On 9 Dec 2003, Kurt wrote: > This isn't so horrible when you consider the other vampires she has to > work with. And really, how often to Ravnos go equipping their own gear > as an action, rather than stealing it or Horrid Reality? Oh yeah..... and Coolers. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Um... > Caliban (ANI AUS VIC) 6, Tzimisce > Ox, Viceroy of the Hollows (ANI OBF POT) 6, !Nosferatu > Darrell Boyce, Consul (CEL OBF PRO) 6, !Gangrel > > Six-caps with all three in-clans at superior are pretty standard, at least > for Sabbat clans. I realize that Sabbath vampires have (and should have) a better discipline spread than the Cammies. It makes sense from a fluff PoV, but cammies have better politics and locations at their disposal to compensate for that. Also note that WotC designed a couple of sickly powerful cards, so the older Sabbath vampires tend to be really good, yes. With the current metagames, which tends towards midcaps, 6-7 caps with THREE in-clan superiors are a HUGE advantage. A six cap should have a serieus disadvantage if it has the three in-clans at superior. Not an advantage. All caitiffs have a disadvantage and they only have an inferior! I don't care about fluff when designing a card game (note, I care a LOT for the World of Darkness fluff) if it comes to balancing. The fact that some clans have 6 caps available with no disadvantages or even and advantage, while other don't, strikes to me as odd. I'm all for differences between clans, but please, at least make the vampires about equally strong. Be it with specials, or a very common (and useful) out-of clan. Like many of the Brujah have Dom added to their pre/pot/cel and a whole bunch of Tremere walk around with For. There's another vampire, one designed by WW by the way, that's really too strong Imho. Carna. 7 cap. Tremere AUS DOM THA Well, that's ok. The Tremere could use a 7-cap with three in-clans at superior and this seems fine to me. Now look at her specials. +1 Intercept (this is HUGE; we all know what a bitch Anton is...) Primogen (nice bonus; especially with the poor vote lineup clan Tremere has) Some dumb retainer sacrifice thing that gives blood. That's THREE advantages (let's make it two) PLUS three in-clans at superior. At cap 7? You'd be insane not to include her in every 2/3 Tremere deck. The other 7 caps in that group pale in comparison except Muaziz, but that's mainly because she has fortitude to go with her Archon status and inherent stealth. Anyway, I'm not saying the game becomes unplayable with vamps like this. Not in the least; a few power cards are never bad. I'm concerned, however, that with designing new vampires the selection of 5-6-7 caps becomes so good with respect to in-clan disciplines that every crypt will slowly turn into the same; especially at tournaments. Midcaps are already dominating the scene, let's not promote it by designing ever MORE very good midcaps. And ya, I love Richter. I actually have 2 original Sabbat copies (the ones that still say "+1 hand damage") and use those, along with a SW variant and my Sela's (also Sabbat; was she reprinted?). I can't see why anyone wouldn't use those two in !Brujah decks...

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:<br2rhb$2ku$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>... > > Clans needing 6 cap to achive all in clan superiors > > Tremere antitribu Selena 6 AUS DOM THA - special, Black Hand > > (HOT HOT HOT, Beats 8-caps Kij Dansky and Ian Forestal) > > Interesting post. > > Did it ever strike to anyone else as REALLY strange this vampire exists? > > Joaquina Amaya > CHI ANI FOR > Cap 6 > +1 stealth of equip actions > > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? I'm clairaudient. They were thinking 'Gee. We made all the Chimerstry cards really expensive. Superior CHI is worth less than most other disciplines.' > She has an ADVANTAGE > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... > She's good, but the special lacks synergy with the clan. > And what about Dolphin Black? > AUS DEM OBF with no disadvantage... > ...and don't forget Ox, 6 cap !Nos, ANI OBF POT > Oh, and Ian Forestal beats any vampire hands down.... Heh, funny. Now I _know_ you're just agitating with this post. DaveZ Atom Weaver

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > And ya, I love Richter. I actually have 2 original Sabbat copies (the > ones that still say "+1 hand damage") and use those, along with a SW > variant and my Sela's (also Sabbat; was she reprinted?). I can't see why > anyone wouldn't use those two in !Brujah decks... Sela is broken. Everyone knows that. She's got six points in disciplines, a minor title, a rather pointless special and +1 bleed. I think I've put her in every !Brujah deck I've made. Yes, by the way, Sela was reprinted in the Sabbat War !Brujah starter. As for Richter, the +1 strength is nice, but I think overall he's a little large and I don't care for him unless I'm also using the Fortitude for something. I don't really need +1 strength in my !Brujah rush decks, what with all the Signposts and Undead Strengths I play. That stuff usually gets the job done. My lineup usually includes Victor Tolliver, Jacob Bragg, Hugo and Jimmy Dunn (honorary member of the clan). Matt Morgan

> I'm clairaudient. They were thinking 'Gee. We made all the > Chimerstry cards really expensive. Superior CHI is worth less than > most other disciplines.' Superior Chi has Sensory Deprivation. If there's one minion card that hurts, it's this one. It's just that Ravnos lack ousting power aside from Week of Nightmares. Chi is a solid discipline. Fata Morgana > Bonding b/c of versatility. I personally have a liking for Amria and Apparition as a substitute for Fortitude. What about the new Mayapa-thingie. Also, Alpha Glint is just screaming Ravnos. > > She has an ADVANTAGE > > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... > > > She's good, but the special lacks synergy with the clan. Treasure Samadji? Bleed retainers to actually bleed decent? Laptops? > > Oh, and Ian Forestal beats any vampire hands down.... > > Heh, funny. Now I _know_ you're just agitating with this post. I was responsing to this: >Clans needing 6 cap to achive all in clan superiors >Tremere antitribu Selena 6 AUS DOM THA - special, Black Hand >(HOT HOT HOT, Beats 8-caps Kij Dansky and Ian Forestal) I wasn't complaining about Ian. He's good, but not God. Sela, Joaquina, Dolphin and Ox are.

> Jimmy > Dunn (honorary member of the clan). Funny, how you uncover yet another vampire that's simply too strong. Too bad I posess none. I usually play Richter since I have less need for UD strength and stuff, which makes my combat less card intensive. It's just playing style I suppose. Richter also perfecly synergizes with Pug Jackson; both have POT CEL pre for.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > Jimmy > > Dunn (honorary member of the clan). > > Funny, how you uncover yet another vampire that's simply too strong. Too > bad I posess none. True, but a couple of weeks ago I did see my predator's Jimmy Dunn explode as his predator influenced one. Sometimes that disadvantage hurts. > I usually play Richter since I have less need for UD strength and stuff, > which makes my combat less card intensive. It's just playing style I > suppose. > Richter also perfecly synergizes with Pug Jackson; both have POT CEL pre > for. Don't forget Miguel Santo Domingo! He has cel for POT PRE and a kick-ass special. Combine with the aforementioned Jimmy Dunn and maybe Jerry, the Blood Brother. Add combat, rush (at least two different types) and Freak Drives. I'd build it, but I'm already running too many combat decks. Matt Morgan

Kurt <kur...@nospam.optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<Xns944CB6...@211.29.133.50>... > > Joaquina Amaya > > CHI ANI FOR > > Cap 6 > > +1 stealth of equip actions > > > > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE > > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... > > > This isn't so horrible when you consider the other vampires she has to > work with. And really, how often to Ravnos go equipping their own gear > as an action, rather than stealing it or Horrid Reality? Stealing useful equipment requires that you get lucky enough to be facing a deck that also uses equipment - lots of decks don't. Horrid Reality works fine for weapons in combat, is useless for anything else. In the Scarce Years between WotC's cessation of supporting the game and Final Nights, lots of players didn't have access to many (or any) HR's. I've seen plenty of Ravnos decks equip with Laptops, the Eye, Catacombs for the Force of Will/Daring the Dawn decks, Meat Hooks (before the errata - the meat hook/apparition decks were nasty), etc. Especially since the Cache makes it possible get equipment on the cheap - I've had lots of fun over the years playing a Ravnos Talbot's Chainsaw multi-rush deck. Hm, I should go rebuild that deck, it's been a while... -John Flournoy

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Superior Chi has Sensory Deprivation. If there's one minion card that > hurts, it's this one. Well, except for that other one, the one who's name shall not be mentioned (think IC). > It's just that Ravnos lack ousting power aside from Week of Nightmares. What's your standard for "ousting power"? I see dominate decks restrain themselves to doing solid bleeds of three all the time, on account of metagames that use Archon Investigation. Ravnos can bleed for three easily. What they don't get is the surprise factor of conditioning, needing to lead with the Hack, nor the flexibility of Governing down. Neither of those bears that directly on ousting power, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

Although PtO is technically stronger, since it has inherent stealth and irreversible, Sens dep works not really much different. Sure, you can still Wake and Blood Doll and if you're lucky you have a Rutor's, but other than that, the targetted vamp is pretty much dead. Burning a Ravnos isn't really easy, though I suppose you could banish it... > What's your standard for "ousting power"? I see dominate decks restrain > themselves to doing solid bleeds of three all the time, on account of > metagames that use Archon Investigation. Ravnos can bleed for three > easily. What they don't get is the surprise factor of conditioning, > needing to lead with the Hack, nor the flexibility of Governing > down. Neither of those bears that directly on ousting power, though. Well, Ravnos need two cards to bleed for three. Like, Computer Hacking and Fata Morgana. Plus that's already an action. Conditioning can be played after block declinations or building up enough stealth. That's why you see Ravnos equipping Samadji's, Laptops and Tasha/Simmons. They also have trouble making more than two stealth since both Chi cards only give one each. Sure, Fortune Teller shop and Rom Gypsy help, but they are pretty expensive in an already blood intensive deck. Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. Let's also not forget you can bleed for 5 with just dom. I have been playing with a Dom/Aus deck (!Tremere mainly) that did Pulse/Govern/Conditioning after getting rid of AI's or Bounce with Revelations. That's 8 pool. If I can get that through only once, that minion was already worth its cost. Adding a splatter of Aus to a DOM bleeder really hurts the bleed defense. I'm currently working on a new version with more Revelations and some Tha mixed in (Rutor, Magic and that Obfuscate mask). I could just play Malks of course, but if you influence out Gilbert Duane in turn two, you can be sure he's in torpor before your next one. Plus Rutor allows me to Reveal and Bleed with the same vamp. I don't think AI should be a reason to never bleed for more than three; especially if you're a bleeder.

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Although PtO is technically stronger, since it has inherent stealth and > irreversible, Sens dep works not really much different. Except for the ways it is different that you go on to describe in the next sentence, plus a few more. > Sure, you can still Wake Which means you can block and bounce. That's half your minion back right there. I'm pretty sure you can't do any of that from the ashheap, which is where PTO leaves you. > and Blood Doll Or Minion Tap, or... dangit, that other card weenie guys like to play. You know the one. You can recycle the pool from that minion. Pretty huge. > and if you're lucky you have a > Rutor's, Or Animalism, or 2nd Trad/Obedience, or Precognizant Mobility, or others I'm probably not remembering. Chance of untapping after PTO? Zero. > but other than that, the targetted vamp is pretty much dead. Yeah, other than that. And Voting of course. Or sitting there to gain pool from an Ancient Influence. Or burnable for a Antedulivian Awakening. Or other uses. > Burning a Ravnos isn't really easy, though I suppose you could banish It's easier, by far, than bringing a vampire back from the ashheap. How hard is it, really? Knock them into torpor and diablerize. Bang. And please don't tell me that that is hard to do. Sure, it might take some work, given that the defensive options of their disciplines. But in the meantime, you've still got all the options I listed above, and if the table wants you put down, you'll be going down. Or at least that's how it goes IME. Oh yeah, your Ravnos also burn if you are *ousted*. Been on the ass-end of *that* calculation a few times, too. And, saving the best for last, SenseDep is a directed action, giving you some chance to stop it. PTO can be just a big "fuck you" from across the table. We're done with this one, right? > Well, Ravnos need two cards to bleed for three. True, but one of them is a generic stealth card as well, making it a lot easier to play with than Bonding. And bleed decks generally need two cards anyway. How many bleeds with a lone Conditioning do you see sail through? There's usually a stealth card of some sort floating around in there. > Like, Computer Hacking and Fata Morgana. Plus that's already an action. > Conditioning can be played after block declinations or building up > enough stealth. Yeah I said that. Ravnos aren't Malks. They aren't supposed to be. My point is that you can make a perfectly good bleed strategy out of Ravnos, even without Week of Nightmares (although of course you play that). The Path is the key element, not the Week. That's why I couldn't believe Noodleboy's statement last week that his playgroup ignores paths, when I *know* they are Ravnos nuts down there. > That's why you see Ravnos equipping Samadji's, Laptops > and Tasha/Simmons. Samadji's too good to ignore. Personally, I don't bother with Laptops or Retainers when I can bleed for three. I'm sure you can dig up the math i.e. it takes three turns for a laptop to be better than a hack and a few straight bleeds for one. > They also have trouble making more than two stealth Sure. Don't play them like Malks. My best Ravnos deck bends wall decks over like the bitches they are, and not by getting five million stealth. > Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. Maybe not, because bounce is way out of whack. But I don't play bounce, so I play AI. There are playgroups out there that do, too. Still, you are ultimately right, in that I wouldn't let the fear of AI hold me back, were I to build some mega-bleeder. > Let's also > not forget you can bleed for 5 with just dom. You can also get your head ripped off with just dom. Give and take. [ quoted text not captured ]

So one day I was playing a wacky Matthias & Tho deck, my cross table ally brought out Jimmy, my predator brought out Jimmy so boom, I Daemonically possessed Jimmy... I seldom find such amusement really it is a true story "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.031209...@hagbard.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ]

<snip PtO rant> Look, I know you hate PtO from the very depths of your heart, but it really isn't THAT bad. Yes, it's a bitch, but it requires a fucking INNER CIRCLE member to be the real bitch, while the Sens Dep can be played with any vamp that has CHI. Yes, PtO is stronger. > True, but one of them is a generic stealth card as well, making it a lot > easier to play with than Bonding. And bleed decks generally need two > cards anyway. How many bleeds with a lone Conditioning do you see sail > through? There's usually a stealth card of some sort floating around in > there. Any stealth a bleeder needs is stealth the Ravnos need as well. Also, lone Conditionings are pretty common over here. I already expressed my liking of Fata Morgana b/c of its versatility. > Yeah I said that. Ravnos aren't Malks. They aren't supposed to be. My > point is that you can make a perfectly good bleed strategy out of Ravnos, > even without Week of Nightmares (although of course you play that). The > Path is the key element, not the Week. That's why I couldn't believe > Noodleboy's statement last week that his playgroup ignores paths, when I > *know* they are Ravnos nuts down there. I know Ravnos aren't malks. They only have one bleed card, which is Fata Morgana. That makes them relatively poor bleeders, which was my point. You can make a bleeder out of an Assamite too, if you want. That doesn't make them strong bleeders. And I don't consider two-card bleeds for three good bleeders, no. > Samadji's too good to ignore. Personally, I don't bother with Laptops or > Retainers when I can bleed for three. I'm sure you can dig up the math > i.e. it takes three turns for a laptop to be better than a hack and a few > straight bleeds for one. It's not that simple. Ravnos have fortitude and as such access to Freak Drive and Force of Will. Equip Laptop, Freak, Bleed. Or equip, Force of Will. There are also card slot issues (especially with the aforementioned 2-card bleeds for three). Finally, I've seen multiple Ravnos bleeders that make heavy use of Heidelburg to bleed with their retainers and laptops twice per turn. I probably don't need to tell you that hurts. > > They also have trouble making more than two stealth > > Sure. Don't play them like Malks. My best Ravnos deck bends wall decks > over like the bitches they are, and not by getting five million stealth. Generating only two stealth, at the rate of one per card, so bleeding is becoming even MORE card intensive is a big weakness for a bleeder. So, you get blocked. What are you gonna do? Add even MORE cards to your 90card deck to survive combat? > > Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. > > Maybe not, because bounce is way out of whack. But I don't play bounce, > so I play AI. There are playgroups out there that do, too. Still, you > are ultimately right, in that I wouldn't let the fear of AI hold me back, > were I to build some mega-bleeder. That has nothing to do with building a mega-bleeder. If you're scared to bleed for more than 3 with any deck, just because he *might* play AI you're missing VP's. Sure, if you can choose between 3 now and 3 with the next vamp or 4 now and 2 with the next vamp, the choice is easy. If the choice is between 5 now and 4 with the second minion or "only 3 twice", I wouldn't really need time to think. Sure, it cost me games, but it won me more. > > Let's also > > not forget you can bleed for 5 with just dom. > > You can also get your head ripped off with just dom. Give and take. You can get your head ripped off with any discipline. The point? Ravnos still lack ousting power.

> Joaquina Amaya > CHI ANI FOR > Cap 6 > +1 stealth of equip actions > > I mean, wtf were they thinking when designing her? She has an ADVANTAGE > for crying out loud. A six cap with all in-clans at sup... They were thinking "most of the Ravnos suck, let's make a really good one." Let's examine the other initial Ravnos: 1 2 cap with chi (expected) 1 3 cap with chi and aus (fitting thematically as a phuri dae, but not something to include in a clan with only 10 vampires) 1 4 cap with for, CHI, and pro (um...they have animalism, right? When does it show up?) 1 5 cap with ani, for, chi, and cel (okay, finally, something has all three in-clans. Good) 1 6 cap with ANI, CHI, for, pot, and a conditional special (very good vamp) 1 7 cap with ANI, for, pro, dom, and +1 bleed (one of the least efficient 7 caps in the game) 1 8 cap with CHI, FOR, ani, pot, aus, and a special you have to pay to ATTEMPT to use (worst vampire in the game. Ever) 1 9 cap with CHI, FOR, PRO, tha, ani, and a decent special 1 9 cap with CHI, FOR, ANI, dom, cel, and a good special The clan suffered from some really bad design choices, Tereza being the most notable. In exchange for having only have the vampires be worth using, we get a six cap that has all three superiors and a special that comes in handy in about half the decks Joaquina appears in. Yeah, she's so broken. That's why Ravnos win so many tournaments. *rolls eyes* Fanboy

> Stealing useful equipment requires that you get lucky enough to be > facing a deck that also uses equipment - lots of decks don't. Horrid > Reality works fine for weapons in combat, is useless for anything > else. In the Scarce Years between WotC's cessation of supporting the > game and Final Nights, lots of players didn't have access to many (or > any) HR's. These days, HR just isn't as useful as it used to be. Concealed Weapon will get you that weapon now for no action, permanently, unless it's unique, does agg, or cost more than 2 pool. Okay...actionless meathook? Sounds great, and works with Appartion and Drawing out the Beast quite nicely (as you point out). Want something other than a weapon? PIer 13 or an action are the way to go (depending on whether it's unique or not). Cost prohibitive? Use the newly costed Cache. Action the problem? Freak Drive. Ravnos have no trouble getting equipement more efficiently than any other clan. They don't need HR anymore, making the card good only for surprise factor. Is that worth the 2 blood in a clan with blood management issues? I've stopped using it entirely in the post FN metagame. Fanboy

On 9 Dec 2003 15:52:29 -0800, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) scrawled: >1 8 cap with CHI, FOR, ani, pot, aus, and a special you have to pay to >ATTEMPT to use (worst vampire in the game. Ever) Actually, you don't have to pay merely for the attempt. Not for quite a while now. I think it was errataed before Final Nights, but at the very least it was MRP'd to be the cost of the action IN Final Nights. salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

<snip> I see dominate decks restrain themselves to doing solid bleeds of three all the time, on account of metagames that use Archon Investigation. <snip> Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. Hiya, I wonder:how you can put both of the above statemnts in the same post, and claim they are both correct? I agree withthe first one. I strongly disagree with the second one. As you clearly state, it's metagame dependent. Of the tournaments I see, lots of players tend to pack AI.Still less than what common sense would require, but nonetheless, lots of them. I could just play Malks of course, but if you influence out Gilbert Duane in > turn two, you can be sure he's in torpor before your next one. Small question: do peple actually torporize GD on sole account of him being a Malk? You gotta be kiddin, or they gotta be really...stupid, or? > I don't think AI should be a reason to never bleed for more than three; > especially if you're a bleeder. Indeed, I agree. It should teach you when to bleed for 3, and when to "up the stakes". It should also teach people not to be surprised when they have their vamps torched. greetz Jo

salem wrote: > On 9 Dec 2003 15:52:29 -0800, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) > scrawled: >>1 8 cap with CHI, FOR, ani, pot, aus, and a special you have to pay to >>ATTEMPT to use (worst vampire in the game. Ever) > > Actually, you don't have to pay merely for the attempt. Not for quite > a while now. I think it was errataed before Final Nights, but at the > very least it was MRP'd to be the cost of the action IN Final Nights. She received that errata in [RTR 23-JUN-1998]. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > <snip PtO rant> As a Ravnos player, it bugs me when people equate my playing SenseDep with their playing PTO. I was enumerating the ways in which they differ. > Look, I know you hate PtO from the very depths of your heart, but it > really isn't THAT bad. Keep asserting that. > Yes, it's a bitch, but it requires a fucking INNER CIRCLE member to be > the real bitch, while the Sens Dep can be played with any vamp that has > CHI. Which have won more tournaments, IC decks or Ravnos? You make up for lost time and lost pool in spades. > Yes, PtO is stronger. Understating the case, but ok. > Any stealth a bleeder needs is stealth the Ravnos need as well. Not entirely true. Ravnos are more likely to beat on you, so soft targets are more deterred against blocking. Plus, as you say, they won't be bleeding for six. > Also, > lone Conditionings are pretty common over here. In what? Weenie dominate bleed? How does a naked Conditioning bleed occur otherwise? If your answer is "weenie dominate" well, hey, that's broken too. Witness the steady stream of anti-weenie cards that come out with each set. I can't think of how else Conditioning all by itself works as a strategy. > I know Ravnos aren't malks. They only have one bleed card, which is Fata > Morgana. That makes them relatively poor bleeders, which was my point. And my point is that bleeding for three at one stealth, with two cards -- one of which can be used for stealth on anything else, which makes it's flow much superior -- is not "poor bleeding". It's not poor because that will oust someone with a high degree of confidence. If you are bleeding, and you are likely to win by it, then it isn't poor bleeding. Perhaps bleeds for 6 at 3 stealth are the poor ones, now that you mention it. > You can make a bleeder out of an Assamite too, if you want. That doesn't > make them strong bleeders. And I don't consider two-card bleeds for > three good bleeders, no. Why not? 3 is the magic number, you know. > It's not that simple. Hey! That's my line! > Ravnos have fortitude and as such access to Freak Drive and Force of > Will. Equip Laptop, Freak, Bleed. Or equip, Force of Will. First, FoW is ass. They don't generate enough vanilla stealth, and it all costs blood, and so does getting out of torpor, and they have blood management issues, and they tend to have inferior Fortitude. As to the rest, yeah I freak too... after getting the Samadji or Tier of Souling. Those cards are worth it. I don't think the bleed retainers/laptops are. If you're that concerned with amping your bleed, Dominate is their fourth discipline. Just Govern. Same blood you would've spent freaking. And yes, I *get* that if you grab a laptop on turn three it's going to result in more bleed in the long run. But you aren't going to pile your deck with them, and you are just as likely to see it late when it's bad as early when it's good. > There are also card slot issues (especially with the aforementioned > 2-card bleeds for three). I've been jumping up and down with this one, but you still don't get it: because FM is better than bonding, there are *less* card slot issues. You can get whacky with your +1 bleed, +1 stealth card and still flow it like butter. . And you aren't seriously saying that a core action that requires two cards generates "issues"? Again, I'd say three is a magic number and you are thus superior to the norm. > Finally, I've seen multiple Ravnos bleeders > that make heavy use of Heidelburg to bleed with their retainers and > laptops twice per turn. I probably don't need to tell you that hurts. Nope. But as you -- mistakenly -- tried to make the analogy with the Assamites, you can do that with anybody. > Generating only two stealth, at the rate of one per card, so bleeding is > becoming even MORE card intensive is a big weakness for a bleeder. So, > you get blocked. What are you gonna do? Add even MORE cards to your > 90card deck to survive combat? Red Herring, Mirror Image, and the threat of Sensory Deprivation means they don't need more stealth than that to bleed effectively. Red Herring is what you do when you get blocked, or play one of your other +1 stealth cards as S:CE. Or IotK. Or play Trap + Apparition, which is a nice, tight, two-card combat. And I don't build ninety card decks. > You can get your head ripped off with any discipline. The point? This is ridiculous. The point is that a mono-CHI deck is far, far less likely to get it's head ripped off than mono-DOM. > Ravnos still lack ousting power. Another unsupported assertion. The people I've ousted would tend to disagree with you. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 10 Dec 2003, wolflord wrote: > <snip> > I see dominate decks restrain themselves to doing solid bleeds of > three all the time, on account of metagames that use Archon > Investigation. > > <snip> Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. > I wonder:how you can put both of the above statemnts in the same post, > and claim they are both correct? I made the first statement, he made the second one. [ quoted text not captured ]

> I see dominate decks restrain themselves to doing solid bleeds of > three all the time, on account of metagames that use Archon > Investigation. > > <snip> Also, looking at the tournament level, AI isn't THAT common. > Hiya, > I wonder:how you can put both of the above statemnts in the same post, > and claim they are both correct? I quoted the first. The second is my own text (and experience for that matter) > I could just play Malks of course, but if you influence out Gilbert > Duane in > > turn two, you can be sure he's in torpor before your next one. > Small question: do peple actually torporize GD on sole account of him > being a Malk? You gotta be kiddin, or they gotta be really...stupid, > or? Yes they do. GD = being bled for 7 the next turn; unless you're lucky and he is a) a poor player b) has a poor deck c) plays a non-bleed Malk > Indeed, I agree. It should teach you when to bleed for 3, and when to > "up the stakes". It should also teach people not to be surprised when > they have their vamps torched. > greetz Agreed.

> Let's examine the other initial Ravnos: > 1 2 cap with chi (expected) > 1 3 cap with chi and aus (fitting thematically as a phuri dae, but not > something to include in a clan with only 10 vampires) > 1 4 cap with for, CHI, and pro (um...they have animalism, right? When > does it show up?) > 1 5 cap with ani, for, chi, and cel (okay, finally, something has all > three in-clans. Good) > 1 6 cap with ANI, CHI, for, pot, and a conditional special (very good > vamp) > 1 7 cap with ANI, for, pro, dom, and +1 bleed (one of the least > efficient 7 caps in the game) > 1 8 cap with CHI, FOR, ani, pot, aus, and a special you have to pay to > ATTEMPT to use (worst vampire in the game. Ever) > 1 9 cap with CHI, FOR, PRO, tha, ani, and a decent special > 1 9 cap with CHI, FOR, ANI, dom, cel, and a good special The original Ravnos were poor, yes. The newer ones are good. I believe Joaquina is too good. I never claimed she was broken. Making her a 7cap would be very justifiable. Also note that Gabrin is also an extremely good vamp for an 8cap that only misses FOR. > That's why Ravnos win so many tournaments. The same can be said about half a dozen other clans. Yet, they don't have such a vampire. I don't see any Assamite at cap 6 with OBF CEL QUI and, say, +1 stealth on actions to enter combat. You see a Follower of Seth at cap6 with PRE OBF SER and +1 stealth when performing actions that require Serpentis? Maybe a cap6 brujah with PRE CEL POT and a primogen title? I'm not saying she's broken. I never did. I merely stated I believe I find it odd.

texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote in message news:<f99d61c5.03120...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I expect it'd be worth it if the HR'ing vampire is, for example, an Illusion. "I block." "Okay, fight this illusion - oh, and he has a horrid flamethrower!" > I've stopped using it entirely in the post FN metagame. Same, pretty much. > Fanboy -John Flournoy

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: <snip analysis of DS Ravnos not being good> > The original Ravnos were poor, yes. The newer ones are good. > I believe Joaquina is too good. I never claimed she was broken. Making > her a 7cap would be very justifiable. I can't agree with that. 7 capacity vampires should get 8 points (or so) in stuff. Do you think a conditional +1 stealth is a 2 point ability? > Also note that Gabrin is also an extremely good vamp for an 8cap that > only misses FOR. Um...so what? Gabrin wasn't in print when Joaquina was designed. > > That's why Ravnos win so many tournaments. > > The same can be said about half a dozen other clans. Yet, they don't > have such a vampire. > > I don't see any Assamite at cap 6 with OBF CEL QUI and, say, +1 stealth > on actions to enter combat. I'd rather have Jalal, to be honest. > You see a Follower of Seth at cap6 with PRE OBF SER and +1 stealth when > performing actions that require Serpentis? Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. > Maybe a cap6 brujah with PRE CEL POT and a primogen title? No, but there's a 6 cap Brujah with CEL POT for pre and a Primogen title. Same number of points. There's also a 6 cap Brujah with CEL POT dom pre tha and a Primogen title. More points. > I'm not saying she's broken. I never did. I merely stated I believe I > find it odd. I think the other poster got it right. Joaquina makes up for Tereza and the others. By the way, what's the difference between "too good" and "broken?" Matt Morgan

> > > > That's why Ravnos win so many tournaments. > > > > The same can be said about half a dozen other clans. Yet, they don't > > have such a vampire. > > Well, actually the Ravnos do OK in tournaments. They get stealth on Baltimore Purge from coming second in one of the storylines, didn't they? > > I don't see any Assamite at cap 6 with OBF CEL QUI and, say, +1 stealth > > on actions to enter combat. > > I'd rather have Jalal, to be honest. > > > You see a Follower of Seth at cap6 with PRE OBF SER and +1 stealth when > > performing actions that require Serpentis? > > Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall > they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. > From my personal experience, I would disagree. I recently won a tournament with a Ravnos deck that I borrowed. I think it was the second time I had ever played the clan*, and I had not read the full text on several of the Chimestry cards until these games. The deck was good but not tweaked / optomised - the guy I borrowed it off (A Ravnos fancier) built it for me the day before the tournament. I would call that an easy clan to run. Have the FoS ever rated well in the storylines or other tournaments? I haven't noticed it. I play them a lot, know what all the cards do, and only occasionally win. I have never won a tournament with a dedicated FoS deck, or seen them win a tournament. I would call that hard to run. I've only seen 3 decks using any FoS win tournaments. One had Count Ormonde, for OBF dom. It was a Malk deck. One had a partial FoS crypt (weenies). It was an obf Computer Hacking bleeder with a smattering of Temptation and Summon the Serpent. Less than 10 FoS / Serpentis cards. The other had 3 copies of Hesha. It was an obf + specials deck (Pochtli / Hesha / Francois / Arika / Queen Anne), and it also had fewer than 10 FoS / Serpentis cards. *I think I played a trapparition deck, once, before Final Nights.

On 10 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > > You see a Follower of Seth at cap6 with PRE OBF SER and +1 stealth when > > > performing actions that require Serpentis? > > > > Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall > > they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. > > > From my personal experience, I would disagree. <snip personal experiences of Ravnos being better than Setites> Since you're talking about personal experiences, I can't say you're wrong, but I'd like to present a couple of facts: The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do. If you want to build a clan deck with superior disciplines, the Ravnos do well at 6 capacity with Joaquina and Vaclav. Sarisha is fine, if you don't need CHI. Setites used to have to go up to 7 capacity for the same thing (one vamp with all superiors and two more with two superiors and an inferior). Now they have Ezekiel, so that's a plus, but he's not even tournament legal yet, so we know none of the 10 winning decks used him. Better vamps in the Ravnos clan yet better tournament record for Setites suggests to me that Setites are an easier clan to run. After all, you can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? Matt Morgan

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:45:14 -0600, "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> scrawled: [snip] > After all, you >can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some >Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations >and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people >from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? not without a lot of Serpentis skill cards! :D [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, salem wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:45:14 -0600, "Matthew T. Morgan" > <far...@io.com> scrawled: > > [snip] > > After all, you > >can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some > >Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations > >and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people > >from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? > > not without a lot of Serpentis skill cards! :D Heh. You're forgetting Petru Sipos though! Matt Morgan

> I can't agree with that. 7 capacity vampires should get 8 points (or so) > in stuff. Do you think a conditional +1 stealth is a 2 point ability? Name a bunch of vamps that are 7 cap with 8 points. > Um...so what? Gabrin wasn't in print when Joaquina was designed. He;s from the same set as Joaqina. > I'd rather have Jalal, to be honest. I was just thinking up an example. > Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall > they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. You;re the only person on earth probably. If there's ONE clan that's hard to run ASIDE from Pre/Obf bleed, it's the Setites. > > I'm not saying she's broken. I never did. I merely stated I believe I > > find it odd. > By the way, what's the difference between "too good" and "broken?" A broken card is a card that gives you an unfair advantage over opponents and is almost impossible to deal with if you're on the receiving end. * Return to Innocence = broken * The old fifth trad was broken A too good card is one that you can include in every deck that can play it, even if it doesn't fit the theme of that deck. They're the no-brainers. * The Ivory Bow, even though it's Unique, is "too good" for one pool. * Joaquina is "too good" for six pool. If there's only five vampires in the game that have three in-clan superiors are cap 6, it's gotta be good no? One of these has a disadvantage, three have nothing, and she has an ADVANTAGE. That's too good. * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target only about 2/3 of the available vampires.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > I can't agree with that. 7 capacity vampires should get 8 points (or > so) > > in stuff. Do you think a conditional +1 stealth is a 2 point ability? > > Name a bunch of vamps that are 7 cap with 8 points. How many to a bunch? Carna. Edward Neally. Egothha. Ferox. Gillespi Giovanni. Gisela Harden, the Winnower. I'm quitting now because I think that's enough to qualify as "a bunch." 7 caps get 8 points. This is a guideline that LSJ has mentioned before. Note it's a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. > > Um...so what? Gabrin wasn't in print when Joaquina was designed. > > He;s from the same set as Joaqina. Joaquina is from Dark Sovereigns. Gabrin is from Final Nights. Joaquina was reprinted in Dark Sovereigns, so that might be the source of your confusion. > > I'd rather have Jalal, to be honest. > > I was just thinking up an example. Fine. Not saying that guy wouldn't be welcome among the Assamites. They could use the help. > > Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall > > they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. > > You;re the only person on earth probably. If there's ONE clan that's > hard to > run ASIDE from Pre/Obf bleed, it's the Setites. So go with pre/obf bleed. I think Setites can be quite strong and (as I mentioned in my other post) a lazily-built Setite deck can pick up a couple odd VPs. Crafting a good, competative Ravnos deck is, I think, quite a bit more difficult. Maybe I am alone in that view, but I'd be surprised if I were. > > > I'm not saying she's broken. I never did. I merely stated I believe > I > > > find it odd. > > > By the way, what's the difference between "too good" and "broken?" > > > A broken card is a card that gives you an unfair advantage over > opponents > and is almost impossible to deal with if you're on the receiving end. > * Return to Innocence = broken > * The old fifth trad was broken > > A too good card is one that you can include in every deck that can play > it, > even if it doesn't fit the theme of that deck. They're the no-brainers. > * The Ivory Bow, even though it's Unique, is "too good" for one pool. > * Joaquina is "too good" for six pool. If there's only five vampires in > the > game that have three in-clan superiors are cap 6, it's gotta be good no? > One > of these has a disadvantage, three have nothing, and she has an > ADVANTAGE. > That's too good. > * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target only > about > 2/3 of the available vampires. Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played around here all that often. I still don't think Joquina is giving the Ravnos any kind of unfair advantage. Yes, she's good, but she's also part of a clan that faces many challenges: no inherent bounce; few inherent titles; no easy way around S:CE; blood management. You want to talk broken? Look at Sheila Mezarin. She has 6 points in disciplines and +1 bleed for 6 pool. Sela has 6 points in disciplines, +1 bleed, a title and a special ability for 6 pool. There are other examples of vampires that really push the power curve, IMO. To me, Joaquina is just a good vampire in a clan that really needs her. Matt Morgan

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > He;s from the same set as Joaqina. No, he's not. Joquina is an original Dark Sovereigns vamp. Gabrin didn't get printed until Final Nights. > You;re the only person on earth probably. If there's ONE clan that's > hard to > run ASIDE from Pre/Obf bleed, it's the Setites. I assume you have reasons for this. Your statement is counterintuitive, to say the least. And today, I'm going to try out this "say the least" thing, instead of my usual. :) > * Joaquina is "too good" for six pool. If there's only five vampires in Joquina is a good vampire, but she doesn't clearly put you on the path to victory the way other "too good" cards do. On the contrary, her "too goodness" only offsets the mountain of liabilities you've saddled yourself with by choosing to play Ravnos. > * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target only > about > 2/3 of the available vampires. Nope, broken. Hey, you brought it back up, man. [ quoted text not captured ]

> No, he's not. Joquina is an original Dark Sovereigns vamp. Gabrin didn't > get printed until Final Nights. I stand corrected then. > > You;re the only person on earth probably. If there's ONE clan that's > > hard to > > run ASIDE from Pre/Obf bleed, it's the Setites. > > I assume you have reasons for this. Your statement is counterintuitive, > to say the least. And today, I'm going to try out this "say the > least" thing, instead of my usual. :) Pre/Obf bleed is not really playing Setites. That'd be the same as tooling up Ravnos with Dom and just bleed away. That's not playing Ravnos either. They don't have the Ser thing for nothing. > Nope, broken. Hey, you brought it back up, man. Actually, you did when I mentioned Sens Dep. PtO is too good. Not broken. I still know you hate it passionately, but it surely won't be banned anytime soon aka, it's not broken. It might be errata'd, aka it's too stron, but I doubt that. Sela is too strong as well. She's been broken if she had triple in-clan superiors instead of, what is it, Obt?

> How many to a bunch? > > Carna. Edward Neally. Egothha. Ferox. Gillespi Giovanni. Gisela > Harden, the Winnower. I'm quitting now because I think that's enough to > qualify as "a bunch." I restate. Name a bunch of 7caps with 8 points that ALSO have their 3 in-clans at superior. I, and many others, value that much and much more that 2-3 points in out-clans. > So go with pre/obf bleed. I think Setites can be quite strong and (as I > mentioned in my other post) a lazily-built Setite deck can pick up a > couple odd VPs. Crafting a good, competative Ravnos deck is, I think, > quite a bit more difficult. Yeah, cool, I have this cool setite-only discipline and all I get to do is Pre/Obf bleed. W00t. I'd rather play Malks, thank you. > > Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) Yah that made sense. I'm just saying that if you're playing Cammies, you're immune to it, which reduces it power significantly. That, combined with the fact that you need an IC member to do really nasty stuff with it, movs it from the "broken" to the "too good" group. > I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played around > here all that often. I just think that people who hardly play Cammies hate it because they lose a vampire to it every now and then. Yah, it can cost you games, but no less than a wellplaced bleed for 7 can cost you the game. You could just as well say "I bleed you for a good midcap that you can't influence out now, so you're kinda screwed this game". > I still don't think Joquina is giving the Ravnos any kind of unfair > advantage. Yes, she's good, but she's also part of a clan that faces many > challenges: no inherent bounce; few inherent titles; no easy way around > S:CE; blood management. They DO have access to a VERY strong S:CE card now in Aplha Glint, unpreventable aggrevated damage "just in case", which also doubles as some half-assed combat defense. Sure better than the two crap cards the Setites got. There isn't THAT much clans with inherent bounce. Lemme think Malk/!Malk Trem/!Trem Vent/!Vent Tzims Lasombra And a few random bloodlines with AUS, but I won't count those. Many clans suffer from not having bounce, so that's not an argument. Besides, there's a couple of very useful Ravnos with Dom. Gabrin, most notably. Blood management sucks for Ravnos. Totally true. It's their only major weakness. > You want to talk broken? Look at Sheila Mezarin. She has 6 points in > disciplines and +1 bleed for 6 pool. Sela has 6 points in disciplines, +1 > bleed, a title and a special ability for 6 pool. Sela's is close to broken. If she had CEL instead of Obt(?), she'd be broken. Now she's just "too good". > There are other examples of vampires that really push the power curve, > IMO. To me, Joaquina is just a good vampire in a clan that really needs > her. There are many more clans that need someone like her and yet, don't have. Like I said, odd design.

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03121...@fnord.io.com... > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target only > > about > > 2/3 of the available vampires. > > Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) > > I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played around > here all that often. I can remedy that situation if you like. :-) (There are two or three PtOs in my current version of the Zillah's Valley/Parity Shift deck. There could be five if I played with all my copies, I think.) > I still don't think Joquina is giving the Ravnos any kind of unfair > advantage. Yes, she's good, but she's also part of a clan that faces many > challenges: no inherent bounce; few inherent titles; no easy way around > S:CE; blood management. I agree. Her three superiors do not include DOM, PRE, or OBF; she is probably a priori not broken because of this. ;-) > You want to talk broken? Look at Sheila Mezarin. She has 6 points in > disciplines and +1 bleed for 6 pool. Sela has 6 points in disciplines, +1 > bleed, a title and a special ability for 6 pool. > > There are other examples of vampires that really push the power curve, > IMO. To me, Joaquina is just a good vampire in a clan that really needs > her. This is true, but even Sheila Mezarin and Sela are not really (in my opinion) "broken". To me, it's really hard to truly "break" vampires because of uniqueness and because the ones with high "point-to-cost" ratios still tend to be relatively expensive in pool (relative to your starting amount of 30). Sheila and Sela are definitely way better than, say, Adrianne (g1 Toreador, [aus cel pot pre] +1 bleed) - funnily they actually share a lot of the same skills, and all have +1 bleed, but Sheila has [AUS PRE cel for] and Sela has [POT PRE cel obt]. Given how much better they are, you could say that they're outside the old vampire-creation system and outmoding the vampires worse than them - which is true. But you still don't normally win games just because Sela is such a great vampire. (This is mainly because there are enough other vampires that are at least relatively close to Sela/Sheila power-wise that the other players are probably not actually using vampires that put them at a big disadvantage to you. In other words, if I haven't repeated myself too much already, vampire strength is very much a relative field and at any capacity above, say, five it's pretty hard to make them so much too good as to blatantly outclass the others.) I don't really want to go into a whole "definition of brokenness" argument here, but to me, "broken" usually means something like "so good that it's unfair", where "too good" is more like "stronger than it should be, based on comparisons to other cards, but not so much so as to be an auto-win kind of thing". "Broken" (to me) is something like an order of magnitude stronger than "too good". Josh the so-ound of sci-ence

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > How many to a bunch? > > > > Carna. Edward Neally. Egothha. Ferox. Gillespi Giovanni. Gisela > > Harden, the Winnower. I'm quitting now because I think that's enough > to > > qualify as "a bunch." > > I restate. > > Name a bunch of 7caps with 8 points that ALSO have their 3 in-clans at > superior. > I, and many others, value that much and much more that 2-3 points in > out-clans. Sorry, friend, but I'm not getting you. All of the above except Neally and Gisela have all their in-clan superiors. There are many vampires who fit the above criteria. I listed a few. Want more? > > So go with pre/obf bleed. I think Setites can be quite strong and (as > I > > mentioned in my other post) a lazily-built Setite deck can pick up a > > couple odd VPs. Crafting a good, competative Ravnos deck is, I think, > > quite a bit more difficult. > > Yeah, cool, I have this cool setite-only discipline and all I get to do > is Pre/Obf bleed. W00t. > I'd rather play Malks, thank you. Just because you feel Setites should include Serpentis cards doesn't mean they don't get played with few or no Serpentis cards. I don't see how your preference of Malk sleaze over Setite sleaze has anything to do with how easy of a clan they are to run. That the Setites can run simple stealth bleed decks pretty much means to me that they're easy to run. Ravnos stealth bleed? Not so good. > > Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) > > Yah that made sense. I was being ironic. > I'm just saying that if you're playing Cammies, you're immune to it, > which reduces it power significantly. That, combined with the fact that > you need an IC member to do really nasty stuff with it, movs it from the > "broken" to the "too good" group. Obviously this is a hot topic of debate. Personally I feel that at the very least PTO was a poor design choice, but I haven't actually witnessed it disrupting enough games to have much of an opinion on whether it should be banned. > > I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played > around > > here all that often. > > I just think that people who hardly play Cammies hate it because they > lose a vampire to it every now and then. Yah, it can cost you games, but > no less than a wellplaced bleed for 7 can cost you the game. You could > just as well say "I bleed you for a good midcap that you can't influence > out now, so you're kinda screwed this game". True enough, but Archon Investigation provides some incentive not to bleed for 7. There is no way to retaliate against PTO with a single card. PTO has less inherent risk involved. Bah! Now look, you've drawn me into this discussion when I don't even really have an opinion! > > I still don't think Joquina is giving the Ravnos any kind of unfair > > advantage. Yes, she's good, but she's also part of a clan that faces > many > > challenges: no inherent bounce; few inherent titles; no easy way > around > > S:CE; blood management. > > They DO have access to a VERY strong S:CE card now in Aplha Glint, I don't argue that Ravnos don't have good combat defense. FOR is good combat defense. ANI and CHI have some nice tricks too. I said they don't have an easy way around S:CE. Like if I wanted to make a Ravnos rush deck, I'd have a hard time with S:CE unless I were doing something like an Ivan POT deck or a Etienne CEL deck. > unpreventable aggrevated damage "just in case", which also doubles as > some half-assed combat defense. Sure better than the two crap cards the > Setites got. I kinda like the new Setite cards. Haven't played with them yet though, so I'll reserve judgment. Anyway, if the new Ravnos cards are better, then doesn't that suggest to you that the design team figured the Ravnos need more help? > There isn't THAT much clans with inherent bounce. > > Lemme think > Malk/!Malk > Trem/!Trem > Vent/!Vent > Tzims > Lasombra > > And a few random bloodlines with AUS, but I won't count those. Many > clans suffer from not having bounce, so that's not an argument. Besides, > there's a couple of very useful Ravnos with Dom. Gabrin, most notably. I'm aware. There are also several Setites with dom. > Blood management sucks for Ravnos. Totally true. It's their only major > weakness. I don't know if I agree with you there. All I'm saying is that the Ravnos are a hard clan to work with. You have to be careful what goes in the deck and what doesn't. You can't just pile up a bunch of stealth and bleed cards and call it a deck. I'm not saying you can't build a good Ravnos deck. I'm just saying it's not easy. > > You want to talk broken? Look at Sheila Mezarin. She has 6 points in > > disciplines and +1 bleed for 6 pool. Sela has 6 points in > disciplines, +1 > > bleed, a title and a special ability for 6 pool. > > Sela's is close to broken. If she had CEL instead of Obt(?), she'd be > broken. Now she's just "too good". Okay. Going with your definitions, Sela and Sheila are merely "too good." > > There are other examples of vampires that really push the power curve, > > IMO. To me, Joaquina is just a good vampire in a clan that really > needs > > her. > > There are many more clans that need someone like her and yet, don't > have. Like I said, odd design. It seems like 6 caps with all superiors are out of vogue with the design team as we haven't had one in a while. When did we get the last one? Sabbat War? Anyway, Setite fans have long been complaining about the dearth of mid-cap Setites with superior disciplines. They got Ezekiel who, I think, is pretty good. Maybe some of those other clans that need good midcaps will get them in upcoming sets. Matt Morgan

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03121...@fnord.io.com... > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > > * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target > only > > > about > > > 2/3 of the available vampires. > > > > Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) > > > > I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played > around > > here all that often. > > I can remedy that situation if you like. :-) (There are two or three > PtOs in my current version of the Zillah's Valley/Parity Shift deck. > There could be five if I played with all my copies, I think.) Actually, the only time I've ever played a PTO (although I own 3-4 of them) was when I played your Zillah's/Parity Shift deck. I called it at a point in the game that it looked like I was going to win, but after I burned Colin's Nu, it was fait acompli. Anyway, if your aim is to turn me into a rabid PTO-hater, go ahead and bust it out. I'll counter with a Hannibal/Leandro Derange+PTO deck that uses lots of skill cards so I can Derange and burn anyone I like. :) > > I still don't think Joquina is giving the Ravnos any kind of unfair > > advantage. Yes, she's good, but she's also part of a clan that faces > many > > challenges: no inherent bounce; few inherent titles; no easy way > around > > S:CE; blood management. > > I agree. Her three superiors do not include DOM, PRE, or OBF; she is > probably a priori not broken because of this. ;-) > > > You want to talk broken? Look at Sheila Mezarin. She has 6 points in > > disciplines and +1 bleed for 6 pool. Sela has 6 points in > disciplines, +1 > > bleed, a title and a special ability for 6 pool. > > > > There are other examples of vampires that really push the power curve, > > IMO. To me, Joaquina is just a good vampire in a clan that really > needs > > her. > > This is true, but even Sheila Mezarin and Sela are not really (in my > opinion) "broken". To me, it's really hard to truly "break" vampires > because of uniqueness and because the ones with high "point-to-cost" > ratios still tend to be relatively expensive in pool (relative to your > starting amount of 30). Okay, there was some tongue-in-cheekness that I guess was lost in my previous posts. I don't consider Sela or Sheila to be degenerate sleaze that turns VTES into a broken game of power cards. I do think they really push the design limits, but it's okay because there are only a few vampires like them and I don't think we're getting any more. So what you said. Matt Morgan

In article <braoaj$fei$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... > Pre/Obf bleed is not really playing Setites. Why not? What other clans besides the Baali have these two disciplines readily available to their vampires? > That'd be the same as > tooling up Ravnos with Dom and just bleed away. No, that requires bolting on a discipline, and relying on vampires that have dom as an out of clan. It's not remotely the same. > That's not playing Ravnos either. They don't have the Ser thing for > nothing. Who are you to dictate what "playing a clan" is? > Actually, you did when I mentioned Sens Dep. > > PtO is too good. Not broken. It can certainly end games real early. -- -Snapcase

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03121...@hagbard.io.com>... > On 10 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > > > > You see a Follower of Seth at cap6 with PRE OBF SER and +1 stealth when > > > > performing actions that require Serpentis? > > > > > > Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall > > > they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos. > > > > > From my personal experience, I would disagree. > > <snip personal experiences of Ravnos being better than Setites> > > Since you're talking about personal experiences, I can't say you're wrong, > but I'd like to present a couple of facts: > > The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many > (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do. This is partly cos FoS have been winning for longer. If you only include recent wins, the numbers are more even. Also, lots of the FoS decks are not *really* FoS decks. They tend to have a scatter of FoS cards in them, like the ones I gave anecdotal evidence of. Some facts from the TWA to support this: I looked at the last 3 FoS and Ravnos winners, and found: FoS decks: --The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Deck 5/12 of the crypt are Fos, 3 library cards require FoS or serpents --Serpents 11/13 of the crypt are Fos, 10 library cards require FoS or serpents --Lies and Obfuscations (aka Your Government) 5/12 of the crypt are Fos, 1 library card require FoS or serpents Ravnos decks: --Proto-Chemical 6/12 of the crypt are Ravnos, 8 library cards require Ravnos or Chimestry --So Long, and Thanks For all the Fish 12/12 of the crypt are Ravnos 51 library cards require Ravnos or Chimestry --Ravnos 12/12 of the crypt are Ravnos 6 library cards require Ravnos or Chimestry Totals FoS: 21 of 37 vampires, 14 Library cards Totals Ravnos: 30 of 36 vampires, 65 Library cards See the difference? PS I didn't consider Hunting Grounds as "counting" towards a clan's cards, cos they are universal. Also, I may have miscounted a card or two, but you get my point... FoS decks usually just happen to contain some FoS, rather than being "about" the FoS. > > If you want to build a clan deck with superior disciplines, the Ravnos do > well at 6 capacity with Joaquina and Vaclav. Sarisha is fine, if you > don't need CHI. > > Setites used to have to go up to 7 capacity for the same thing (one vamp > with all superiors and two more with two superiors and an inferior). Now > they have Ezekiel, so that's a plus, but he's not even tournament legal > yet, so we know none of the 10 winning decks used him. > > Better vamps in the Ravnos clan yet better tournament record for Setites > suggests to me that Setites are an easier clan to run. After all, you > can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some > Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations > and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people > from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? > > Matt Morgan Yep, but the inverse is also true: You can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by adding a draba module and a little fortitude onto a weenie animalism combat deck. Can you do the same thing with FoS?

John Flournoy expounded: > > Ravnos have no trouble getting equipement more efficiently than any > > other clan. They don't need HR anymore, making the card good only for > > surprise factor. Is that worth the 2 blood in a clan with blood > > management issues? > > I expect it'd be worth it if the HR'ing vampire is, for example, an > Illusion. "I block." "Okay, fight this illusion - oh, and he has a > horrid flamethrower!" I've had fun with Gabrin + Path in play (with maybe a mass reality). HR for a Deer Rifle (0/1 blood). Go Long. Shoot. If you hit play the DB Rounds :-) Worked ok but the shiny new Mayakillthemall is rather a lot nicer.

Matthew T. Morgan wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > >>>How many to a bunch? >>> >>>Carna. Edward Neally. Egothha. Ferox. Gillespi Giovanni. Gisela >>>Harden, the Winnower. I'm quitting now because I think that's enough >> >>to >> >>>qualify as "a bunch." >> >>I restate. >> >>Name a bunch of 7caps with 8 points that ALSO have their 3 in-clans at >>superior. >>I, and many others, value that much and much more that 2-3 points in >>out-clans. > > Sorry, friend, but I'm not getting you. All of the above except Neally > and Gisela have all their in-clan superiors. There are many vampires who > fit the above criteria. I listed a few. Want more? All 7-caps with at least 8 points (subjectively, depending on how one counts certain specials) that have 3 in-clan Disciplines at superior: Beckett Blackhorse Tanner Carna, The Princess Witch Egothha Ferox, The Rock Lord Gillespi Giovanni Greta Kircher Jessica Kanimana Belghazi Korah Matthias Quentin King III Qufur am-Heru Teresita, The Godmother Ublo-Satha Zachary [ quoted text not captured ]

> Sorry, friend, but I'm not getting you. All of the above except Neally > and Gisela have all their in-clan superiors. There are many vampires who > fit the above criteria. I listed a few. Want more? LSJ named all 16 of them. More than I thought actually. Even then, that's 16 out of 86, so the 8-points for a 7 cap is more an exception than a rule, it seems. I'm also still not buying the "should have 8 points" stuff anyway. An average 3cap has two points of stuff and the average 4cap has three. Joaquina is still a 6cap and she has 6,5 points of stuff. Since 0,5 point "specials" don't exist in the "guideline", it rounds to seven. If I have to compare her to other 6 caps with about the same point value (as in 6,5 or 7), here we go: Marlene the Infernalist (7 points of disciplines) --> She an in-clan at inferior (for) Rake (5 points if disciplines and I give him +2 for title + wacko special) --> Two in-clans at inferior (pot cel) Sela (you know her) --> I also think she's too good, but she lacks has only cel, for what it's worth Sheila Mezarin (6 points and +1 bleed) --> Yet another that has an in-clan at inferior (cel) Anvil (6 points, primogen) --> You guessed it, only pre. Artemis (7 point) --> Has no AUS, just aus Anyway, I could go on, but the list of 6 caps is quite long. Of all these sixcaps, there are a whole FIVE that have their three in-clans at superior. Honorable mention goes to Darrel Boyce, Consul who has CEL OBF PRO as !Gangrel. I'm not really sure what the supposed three in-clans of City gangrel are, but I guess it's CEL FOR PRO, though there's plenty of them without pro as well. Not that it would make a lot of difference to get the total to six. Of these, 4 are just plain six caps with just three disciplines. All of them are Sabbat as well (!Malk, !Nos, !Gangrel and Tzim in case youi cared), so it fits the better-bang-for-buck when it comes to disciplines theme that Sabbat vamps have, One (Selena) has a minor disadvantage and a minor advantage. She's also Sabbat. (!Trem) Joaquina has an /advantage/ and isn't even Sabbat to top it off. She should have been 7cap. > Just because you feel Setites should include Serpentis cards doesn't mean > they don't get played with few or no Serpentis cards. I don't see how > your preference of Malk sleaze over Setite sleaze has anything to do with > how easy of a clan they are to run. That the Setites can run simple > stealth bleed decks pretty much means to me that they're easy to run. > Ravnos stealth bleed? Not so good. Ravnos stealth bleed with compu hacking and Fata Morgana/FTS/Rom is pretty easy to run as well and might snatch a VP here and there. It's even far less fragile than a Setite Deck obf/pre bleeder since a) you can actually survive IG combat with Ravnos b) you won't handjam because Fata morgana is +bleed as well as stealth c) you can equip stuff/freak drive to save actions and increase bleed I'm not saying it's nessecarily a good deck, since it are three card bleeds, but then again, we were talking easy to run. A couple of Chi cards are easily worked into a deck. A couple of Ser cards not. Also, as said, a weenie Ani rush deck with minor for backup works pretty decent as well. > True enough, but Archon Investigation provides some incentive not to bleed > for 7. There is no way to retaliate against PTO with a single card. PTO > has less inherent risk involved. Bah! Now look, you've drawn me into > this discussion when I don't even really have an opinion! A simple delaying tactics, dread gaze or DI will just as well render that PtO useless. > I kinda like the new Setite cards. Haven't played with them yet though, > so I'll reserve judgment. Anyway, if the new Ravnos cards are better, > then doesn't that suggest to you that the design team figured the Ravnos > need more help? The design team also figured that it was a good idea to let only AUS and dom/DOM have access to bounce. They also figured it was a good idea to give Baltimore Purge to the Lasombra (god, of ALL clans...) > I don't know if I agree with you there. All I'm saying is that the Ravnos > are a hard clan to work with. You have to be careful what goes in the > deck and what doesn't. You can't just pile up a bunch of stealth and > bleed cards and call it a deck. I'm not saying you can't build a good > Ravnos deck. I'm just saying it's not easy. The same goes for Setites and I'd argue that it's actually harder for Setites. Having played both, I have to say my Ravnos are doing way better on their own than my Setites. Of course this all depends on personal taste, preference and experience, so I'll drop it. > Okay. Going with your definitions, Sela and Sheila are merely "too good." =) As is Joaquina. > It seems like 6 caps with all superiors are out of vogue with the design > team as we haven't had one in a while. When did we get the last one? > Sabbat War? Black Hand actually. Selena. And Dolphin Black was reprinted. Not sure about others. > Anyway, Setite fans have long been complaining about the dearth of mid-cap > Setites with superior disciplines. They got Ezekiel who, I think, is > pretty good. Maybe some of those other clans that need good midcaps will > get them in upcoming sets. Thank god for him. I'm bringing my Setites back to the design table for the 50th or so time now. Total VP's gained: 2. In like 15 games...

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Pre/Obf bleed is not really playing Setites. That'd be the same as > tooling up Ravnos with Dom and just bleed away. It is playing the Settites, since (as someone already pointed out) that's *the* clan that gets those discipines as clan disciplines. And before you pooh-pooh playing "simple" pre-obf bleed as a watered down obf/dom bleed, I got one word for you: Majesty. And I don't think having a mere ten "Settite" cards somehow make it less of a Settite deck: 1 Khobar Towers 1 Opium Den 2 Form of Corruption 6 Temptation Sure it's only 8 slots, but each of those cards give a powerful permenant effect. Are you prepared to assert that the deck would not be changed significantly by their subtraction? If not, then by god, that's a Settite deck! > I still know you hate it passionately, but it surely won't be banned > anytime soon aka, it's not broken. "Not banned soon" "as known as" "not broken". I reject this as a definition of not broken. At one point in time Return to Innocence was not going to be banned "anytime soon". Does this mean that it wasn't broken? Of course not. Just say you don't think it's broken and leave it at that; there are plenty of people who agree with you (including, apparently, LSJ). [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Pre/Obf bleed is not really playing Setites. > > Why not? What other clans besides the Baali have these two disciplines > readily available to their vampires? PRE comes at the 5cap and if you're looking for PRE OBF, you're playing 7 caps. There's one 3 cap with pre ser and a 4 cap with pre obf. So aside from the fact that I believe it's not really playing Setites, it's not gonna work awfully good either. > > That'd be the same as > > tooling up Ravnos with Dom and just bleed away. Then compare it to Ani/For weenie rush. That's not really playing Ravnos. > Who are you to dictate what "playing a clan" is? Who are you to do so? Or at least suggest so. It's generally accepted that you play a clan if 75% of your crypt is made up of vamps from that clan, so technically you're playing Setites, yes. Who are you to tell me to change my own definition of "playing Setites". If you're playing a clan with that "kewl that-clan-only discipline (like, hmm, Vic, Tha, Obt, Qui, Ser, Chi, Nec, Tha, San, Val, Myt, etc)" and not use that discipline AT ALL, you're, IMO not playing that clan. > It can certainly end games real early. As can this *first turn* influence Roland Bishop *second turn* Dom skill card on Roland Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth influence Laurent de Valois *third turn* Dom skill card on Laurent Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth w/ Roland Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth w/ Laurent And I've seen this more than once. Less extreme, a, say, Govern-Conditioning with Gratiano. That's also a bleed for *9*. Can be done in turn 3 btw, turn two if you happen to draw a Zillah's.

On 11 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > Also, lots of the FoS decks are not *really* FoS decks. They tend to > have a scatter of FoS cards in them, like the ones I gave anecdotal > evidence of. Why not? Five vampires of that clan = near certainty that you'll draw one and, therefore, can flow their specialty cards as you see them. As I said in my reply to Ulugh Beg, the best settite cards are permenants that can easily be bolted on to a stealth bleed core, yielding a S+B deck that yanks minions, puts its prey's bleeding game in park, and at least has a shot at S:CE'ing out of the combats other players employ to shut down your wicked, sleazy, stealth-bleed game. This *is* what the Settites are about. > --So Long, and Thanks For all the Fish > 12/12 of the crypt are Ravnos 51 library cards require Ravnos or > Chimestry Clearly, this guy is nuts. > You can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by adding a draba > module and a little fortitude onto a weenie animalism combat deck. Can > you do the same thing with FoS? Moot, because you can't do what you describe with the Ravnos either, as your caveat of "somewhat" well shows. Among the many problems with that deck, you have a self-described weenie deck, needing "some" Fortitude skill cards, and then a fat, horkin pile of Chimestry cards to get your weenies up to superior CHI, where the discipline becomes useful. There are other problems as well, but I'd be interested to see this deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > LSJ named all 16 of them. More than I thought actually. > Even then, that's 16 out of 86, so the 8-points for a 7 cap is more an > exception than a rule, it seems. You've left out the "with all 3 in-clan Discipline at superior" filter in that "exception than rule" statement. I don't recall your original assertion claiming majority, either. > I'm also still not buying the "should have 8 points" stuff anyway. An > average 3cap has two points of stuff and the average 4cap has three. 7 caps get 8 point under the current guidelines. 3 caps get 2. 4 caps get 3. > Joaquina is still a 6cap and she has 6,5 points of stuff. Since 0,5 > point "specials" don't exist in the "guideline", it rounds to seven. Joaquin has about 6.2 points of stuff. Maybe less. It rounds to 6. Also note that .5 rounds to both nearby integers - one or the other - not always to the next higher. > If I have to compare her to other 6 caps with about the same point value > (as in 6,5 or 7), here we go: Try with others of the same point value (as in 5.5 to 6.5) > Anyway, I could go on, but the list of 6 caps is quite long. Of all > these sixcaps, there are a whole FIVE that have their three in-clans at > superior. > Honorable mention goes to Darrel Boyce, Consul who has CEL OBF PRO as > !Gangrel. I'm not really sure what the supposed three in-clans of City > gangrel are, but I guess it's CEL FOR PRO, though there's plenty of them > without pro as well. Not that it would make a lot of difference to get > the total to six. CEL OBF PRO. > Joaquina has an /advantage/ and isn't even Sabbat to top it off. > She should have been 7cap. Not true. Then she'd be overcosted (even at the then-current rate of 7 gets you 7) by more than she's undercosted at 6. [ quoted text not captured ]

> It is playing the Settites, since (as someone already pointed out) that's > *the* clan that gets those discipines as clan disciplines. And before you > pooh-pooh playing "simple" pre-obf bleed as a watered down obf/dom bleed, > I got one word for you: Majesty. I got one for you as well: Obedience. > "Not banned soon" "as known as" "not broken". I reject this as a > definition of not broken. At one point in time Return to Innocence was > not going to be banned "anytime soon". Does this mean that it wasn't > broken? Of course not. Just say you don't think it's broken and leave it > at that; there are plenty of people who agree with you (including, > apparently, LSJ). Don't say it's broken, just beause YOU think it's broken.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > PRE comes at the 5cap and if you're looking for PRE OBF, you're playing > 7 caps. Luckily, pre/obf gets the job done. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > It's generally accepted that you play a clan if 75% of your crypt is > made up of vamps from that clan, so technically you're playing Setites, Who are you to say what's "generally accepted". Refutation is trivial, but I'll throw one out there as an example: Fatima Multi-rush. Assamite deck or not? Only five assamites in the crypt.... 5 copies of Fatima. Oh, and *0* Quietus cards. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I got one for you as well: > Obedience. And what do you do when you get blocked, chief? What do you do when you get rushed and you're tapped? Obedience is a great card, but it does not plug a hole like Majesty does (and yes, I have heard of this thing called "IG"... most tournaments are combat-lite, sadly). > Don't say it's broken, just beause YOU think it's broken. I've given reasons why I think it is, far better ones than your "it hasn't been banned, ergo it isn't broken" explanation. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Don't say it's broken, just beause YOU think it's broken. > > I've given reasons why I think it is, far better ones than your "it hasn't > been banned, ergo it isn't broken" explanation. I've you'd actually cared to read the whole thread, you'd know I've given more reason that just "it;'s broken" why I think it's not broken. Don't assume stuff before you actually know. Or should I say, read before you post.

> You've left out the "with all 3 in-clan Discipline at superior" filter > in that "exception than rule" statement. I don't recall your original > assertion claiming majority, either. Correct. It was kind of an argument gone a whole different, totally irrevelvant way. Actually, we were discussing the new BH vampires and at what capacity the triple inclan superior comes for every clan. I stated I thought Joaquina Amaya as an oddly designed vampire, since she's the only nonSabbat that has triple inclan superior at cap six and also the only one with an advantage at that. > 7 caps get 8 point under the current guidelines. When was "current" defined? Before or after Joaquina was designed? > > Anyway, I could go on, but the list of 6 caps is quite long. Of all > > these sixcaps, there are a whole FIVE that have their three in-clans at > > superior. > > Honorable mention goes to Darrel Boyce, Consul who has CEL OBF PRO as > > !Gangrel. I'm not really sure what the supposed three in-clans of City > > gangrel are, but I guess it's CEL FOR PRO, though there's plenty of them > > without pro as well. Not that it would make a lot of difference to get > > the total to six. > CEL OBF PRO. Very well. That'd make six. > Not true. Then she'd be overcosted (even at the then-current rate of > 7 gets you 7) by more than she's undercosted at 6. Maybe. Then again, if I compare he disciplines to other nonSabbat vampires (as good disciplines are a Sabbat strength), she seems pretty solid for a 7cap. I suppose she could use an extra, say, aus or so. At cap 7, I should be comparing her to Walter Nash and Gilbert Duane, who are both quite strong at cap7. On a note, is a prince title +1 or +2? I'd guess +1 with Primogen being +0,5. And how is Archon rated? +1? +1 stealth on all actions? +1? And that weird thing Qufur am Heru has (who's also very strong disciplinewise, actually). So yah, I agree she'd be overprized at 7. The whole point started with me pointing out that I think it's a strange design choice. Now that you've mixed in this, mind to elaborate on it? [ quoted text not captured ]

Ulugh Beg II wrote: >>7 caps get 8 point under the current guidelines. > When was "current" defined? Before or after Joaquina was designed? After. Moot, though, since Joaquina is a 6 and is appropriately designed under both the current and the contemporary scale (which both give 6 for 6). >>Not true. Then she'd be overcosted (even at the then-current rate of >>7 gets you 7) by more than she's undercosted at 6. > > Maybe. Then again, if I compare he disciplines to other nonSabbat > vampires (as good disciplines are a Sabbat strength), she seems pretty > solid for a 7cap. I suppose she could use an extra, say, aus or so. What "maybe"? 6.2 is .2 above 6 should get and .8 below 7 (and 1.8 below 8). > At cap 7, I should be comparing her to Walter Nash and Gilbert Duane, > who are both quite strong at cap7. On a note, is a prince title +1 or > +2? I'd guess +1 with Primogen being +0,5. And how is Archon rated? +1? > +1 stealth on all actions? +1? And that weird thing Qufur am Heru has > (who's also very strong disciplinewise, actually). So yah, I agree she'd > be overprized at 7. Archon? Archon is not rated. For the rest, see http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3DA457CF.760FEFF9%40white-wolf.com > The whole point started with me pointing out that I think it's a strange > design choice. Now that you've mixed in this, mind to elaborate on it? -- [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > I've you'd actually cared to read the whole thread, you'd know I've > given more reason that just "it;'s broken" why I think it's not broken. I did read the whole thread. In *your post I was responding to*, you gave a flimsy non-reason for why it isn't broken. Better to just say you don't think it is than offer that poor excuse for logic. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote in message news:br5lvl$7e9$1...@reader10.wxs.nl... > <snip PtO rant> > > Look, I know you hate PtO from the very depths of your heart, but it > really isn't THAT bad. > Yes, it's a bitch, but it requires a fucking INNER CIRCLE member to be > the real bitch, while the Sens Dep can be played with any vamp that has > CHI. Totally agree : a 4 cap like Salbatore can Paralyze any vampire (including IC) using a sensory deprivation. > I know Ravnos aren't malks. They only have one bleed card, which is Fata > Morgana. That makes them relatively poor bleeders, which was my point. > You can make a bleeder out of an Assamite too, if you want. That doesn't > make them strong bleeders. And I don't consider two-card bleeds for > three good bleeders, no. You're right : fata morgana + computer hacking = 3 for 2 cards. Compare to Govern +conditioning = 6 for 2 cards. You know what strong bleed means. Tossing a bleed for 3 is not being a big bleeder, for sure. > > Samadji's too good to ignore. Personally, I don't bother with Laptops > or > > Retainers when I can bleed for three. I'm sure you can dig up the > math > > i.e. it takes three turns for a laptop to be better than a hack and a > few > > straight bleeds for one. > > It's not that simple. > Ravnos have fortitude and as such access to Freak Drive and Force of > Will. Equip Laptop, Freak, Bleed. Or equip, Force of Will. > There are also card slot issues (especially with the aforementioned > 2-card bleeds for three). Finally, I've seen multiple Ravnos bleeders > that make heavy use of Heidelburg to bleed with their retainers and > laptops twice per turn. I probably don't need to tell you that hurts. Ooow ! i think you are trying to educate Mr cherryholmes about how the game is played outside his shack in the texan desert ! I admire your efforts ! =D > That has nothing to do with building a mega-bleeder. If you're scared to > bleed for more than 3 with any deck, just because he *might* play AI > you're missing VP's. This is true to some extent. What most bleeders do is bleed for 4 to let the A.I fall and then bleed for 6. And no, no minion tap to recover after that -you've spent your master phase by playing an out of turn that costed 3 pool, remember ? A.I. is good against the goofy "anneke plays legal manipulation" thing. Against a solid bleeder it's not even a cool prayer card. You can still say "i burnt one of his vampire before leaving the table". > > > Let's also > > > not forget you can bleed for 5 with just dom. > > > > You can also get your head ripped off with just dom. Give and take. > > You can get your head ripped off with any discipline. The point? > > Ravnos still lack ousting power. They are strong to lock opponents, but sadly not to kill them. I think your whole reasoning sounds right. I wanted to say so since there is only one voice souding, and it is against yours.

In article <brcqip$ktv$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, dontfe...@spam.me says... > PRE comes at the 5cap and if you're looking for PRE OBF, you're playing > 7 caps. > There's one 3 cap with pre ser and a 4 cap with pre obf. > So aside from the fact that I believe it's not really playing Setites, > it's not gonna work awfully good either. Luckily, presence and obfuscate are two of the disciplines that don't require superior to be effective (which is why they're two of the better disciplines in the game). > Then compare it to Ani/For weenie rush. That's not really playing > Ravnos. How many ani/for weenie rush decks include a majority of ravnos? There's a grand total of 1 Ravnos with capacity <5 with ani/for. There's 4 with capacity <6, and one of those is really crappy. > > Who are you to dictate what "playing a clan" is? > > Who are you to do so? Or at least suggest so. I wasn't. You said "doing X is not playing Y". I was asking what is your basis for declaring this. > It's generally accepted that you play a clan if 75% of your crypt is > made up of vamps from that clan, so technically you're playing Setites, > yes. So if you have a pre/obf bleed deck consisting of 75% settites, you have a settite deck. That wasn't so hard. > Who are you to tell me to change my own definition of "playing Setites". I told you to change nothing. > If you're playing a clan with that "kewl that-clan-only discipline > (like, hmm, Vic, Tha, Obt, Qui, Ser, Chi, Nec, Tha, San, Val, Myt, etc)" > and not use that discipline AT ALL, you're, IMO not playing that clan. Even if your deck consists of the above mentioned 75%? Why should your opinion be considered over the "generally accepted" definition? > As can this > *first turn* > influence Roland Bishop > *second turn* > Dom skill card on Roland > Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth Bounce to prey, prey takes 6 at +2 stealth. How nice. Or you get blocked by a nice guy with a fist and a Pack Tactics. > influence Laurent de Valois > *third turn* > Dom skill card on Laurent > Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth w/ Roland > Govern - Conditioning at +2 stealth w/ Laurent > And I've seen this more than once. Last I checked, including defense against bleeds in some form was called "good deck construction". And assuming 3 bounce cards, that's 18 pool you've just done to your grandprey. You're also assuming your prey attempts to block, to be cycling that stealth so quickly. > Less extreme, a, say, Govern-Conditioning with Gratiano. That's also a > bleed for *9*. Can be done in turn 3 btw, turn two if you happen to draw > a Zillah's. You mean a bleed for *7*. PTOing said Gratiano can also occur on turn 3. Pretty much puts you in "pause", wouldn't you agree? -- -Snapcase

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031212...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > I got one for you as well: > > > Obedience. > > And what do you do when you get blocked, chief? What do you do when you > get rushed and you're tapped? Using mass obfuscate, you are most of the time not going to be blocked. If you get blocked with tools like Lost in crowds+ Elder impersonation, odds are the blocker is not a good fighter since he had to spend 3+ auspex cards to catch you. Plus you can wake. You can even leave a vamp untapped to stop the rushes (most of them are at 0 stealth) AND deflect any bleeds coming at you. > Obedience is a great card, but it does not > plug a hole like Majesty does (and yes, I have heard of this thing called > "IG"... most tournaments are combat-lite, sadly). Now, really, explain me how obedience is worst than majesty when you play pre/obf or dom/obf ? when you play majesty you fear I.G, Psyche, Telepathic tracking, Dog pack (rarely seen, granted). And the card costs blood. When you play obedience (free reaction card) the only thing that can annoy is Perfect clarity (god, many rushers play that stuff) and a cross table direct intervention. Oh, and a warghoul is your doom too. On the overall, Obedience is better since the rusher never get the opportunity to play the cards in his hand ! Play 3 obedience in a row and he will suffocate on red cards with no rushes to play them -believe me he'll get pissed off =) now i'm curious to hear your counter arguments =)

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Reyda wrote: > Totally agree : a 4 cap like Salbatore can Paralyze any vampire (including > IC) using a sensory deprivation. He *can*, sure. Realistically, though, it's going to take him and a Path. Lacking the path, he pays three blood for the SenseDep, one blood for a stealth. This example assumes that a measley one stealth will make a "must block" action succeed. But assuming it does, now he's empty. Next turn he hunts, and again.... one intercept punks him into torpor, where he most likely gets munched. Not mention that when examining the strategy as a whole, you've chosen *Ravnos*. SenseDep is a kick-ass card, absolutely. But you've given up bounce, your bleed is adequate to get the job done but nothing like obf/dom, you have blood management issues. Etc etc.... it's been gone over in this very thread. Now examine the IC. He's got bounce. He's most likely got Obedience. 4 votes. 3 bleed. All the disciplines you want. Easy access to huge minion taps and voter caps or other tricks to recoupe the cost. Etc etc. Again, go look at the tournament winning deck archive and compare the number of "IC" decks to the Ravnos decks. Then take a deep breath, and remind yourself that moronism need not be a life-long affliction. > You're right : fata morgana + computer hacking = 3 for 2 cards. Compare to > Govern +conditioning = 6 for 2 cards. You know what strong bleed means. > Tossing a bleed for 3 is not being a big bleeder, for sure. Your bleed for 6 is at zero stealth. I block you. It's a bleed for zero. God, this one's going to be fun! > Ooow ! i think you are trying to educate Mr cherryholmes about how the game > is played outside his shack in the texan desert ! I admire your efforts ! =D He's trying, but his arguments have been poor. Yours, OTOH, are non-existant. > They are strong to lock opponents, but sadly not to kill them. I hope you are my prey some day. Why don't you come over to #vtes and show me what a real deck looks like? > I wanted to say so since there is only one voice souding, and it is against > yours. Yeah, I'm sure this is the whole reason. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Reyda wrote: > Using mass obfuscate, you are most of the time not going to be blocked. If > you get blocked with tools like Lost in crowds+ Elder impersonation, odds > are the blocker is not a good fighter since he had to spend 3+ auspex cards > to catch you. Plus you can wake. You can even leave a vamp untapped to stop > the rushes (most of them are at 0 stealth) AND deflect any bleeds coming at > you. "I will never be blocked so I don't have to answer the question." Check. "I will assume another vampire over here that doesn't do anything, and I will also assume he is arbitrarily big enough to Obey the rushing vampire." Check. Way to dodge the question, dork. Fact is, Obedience requires that you both meet the conditions to play a reaction card and that you be older than the opposing minion. Majest requires neither. And we're talking specifically about *Settites*, not whatever IC deck you are imagining as an excuse to hurl yourself at my ankles again. > Now, really, explain me how obedience is worst than majesty when you play > pre/obf or dom/obf ? Knucklehead, we're talking about Settites. The "I luv Arika" thread is over there...... > when you play majesty you fear I.G, Psyche, Telepathic tracking, Dog pack > (rarely seen, granted). Yep, you have to worry about serious combat decks that've taken steps to get around S:CE. On the flip-side, you don't impose any restrictions against tapping your own minions or being friggin *huge* to play it. Again, Reyda, I know you've got this secret crush on me, but this isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 11 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many > > (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do. > > This is partly cos FoS have been winning for longer. If you only > include recent wins, the numbers are more even. Maybe it took folks longer to figure out how to build tournament-winning Ravnos decks because they're a harder clan to win with? Just a thought. > Also, lots of the FoS decks are not *really* FoS decks. They tend to > have a scatter of FoS cards in them, like the ones I gave anecdotal > evidence of. Since there are no official definitions of what constitutes a Follower of Set deck and what does not, I will satisfied with however the archivist decides to organize things. There's little to gain in arguing this point. To me, these are Followers of Set decks: > Some facts from the TWA to support this: I looked at the last 3 FoS > and Ravnos winners, and found: > > FoS decks: > --The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Deck > 5/12 of the crypt are Fos, 3 library cards require FoS or serpents > --Serpents > 11/13 of the crypt are Fos, 10 library cards require FoS or serpents > --Lies and Obfuscations (aka Your Government) > 5/12 of the crypt are Fos, 1 library card require FoS or serpents And these are Ravnos decks: > Ravnos decks: > --Proto-Chemical > 6/12 of the crypt are Ravnos, 8 library cards require Ravnos or > Chimestry > --So Long, and Thanks For all the Fish > 12/12 of the crypt are Ravnos 51 library cards require Ravnos or > Chimestry > --Ravnos > 12/12 of the crypt are Ravnos 6 library cards require Ravnos or > Chimestry > > Totals FoS: > 21 of 37 vampires, 14 Library cards > > Totals Ravnos: > 30 of 36 vampires, 65 Library cards > > See the difference? This suggests to me that Ravnos rely heavily on Chimstery while Setites do well with just a smattering of Serpentis cards. That's nothing I didn't already know. Most of the Setite decks I make use Hunting Ground, an Opium Den or two, 2-3 Forms of Corruption and 6-7 Temptations. Presence is usually the vehicle for ousting (be it in the form of vote push or bleeds) and Obfuscate provides the stealth. The Serpentis stuff is basically for removing blockers, gaining additional bleeders or generally causing mayhem on my end of the table. Ravnos, on the other hand, get stealth, +bleed, strong actions (Sense Dep, etc.), S:CE, reduce stealth and more out of Chimerstry. Of course Ravnos decks use more Chimerstry cards than Setite decks use Serpentis cards. It's the nature of the disciplines. This also explains why there might be more crypt diversity in Setite decks. Not every minion needs to have Serpentis. Witness Hadrian Garrick's appearance in 7 out of the 10 decks listed under the heading "Followers of Set" in the TWA. > PS I didn't consider Hunting Grounds as "counting" towards a clan's > cards, cos they are universal. Also, I may have miscounted a card or > two, but you get my point... FoS decks usually just happen to contain > some FoS, rather than being "about" the FoS. > > > If you want to build a clan deck with superior disciplines, the Ravnos do > > well at 6 capacity with Joaquina and Vaclav. Sarisha is fine, if you > > don't need CHI. > > > > Setites used to have to go up to 7 capacity for the same thing (one vamp > > with all superiors and two more with two superiors and an inferior). Now > > they have Ezekiel, so that's a plus, but he's not even tournament legal > > yet, so we know none of the 10 winning decks used him. > > > > Better vamps in the Ravnos clan yet better tournament record for Setites > > suggests to me that Setites are an easier clan to run. After all, you > > can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some > > Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations > > and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people > > from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? > > > > Matt Morgan > > Yep, but the inverse is also true: > > You can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by adding a draba > module and a little fortitude onto a weenie animalism combat deck. Can > you do the same thing with FoS? Can I add a good defensive module to Followers of Set? Intercept, no, but many of the larger ones are nice for Obedience and Deflection. I haven't seen a weenie animalism combat deck that uses Draba. Seems to me that the necessity of ani CHI (surely you aren't playing the Drabas at inferior) would kind of wreck whatever weenie advantage you had. Got a decklist? I've yet to play a weenie animalism deck. If you have a good plan to make the above work, I'll be glad to build the deck and try it in my playgroup. Matt Morgan

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Reyda wrote: > Now, really, explain me how obedience is worst than majesty when you play > pre/obf or dom/obf ? It's worse when you're playing pre/obf, because you can't play the card. Settites, genius..... settites. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Who are you to say what's "generally accepted". Refutation is trivial, > but I'll throw one out there as an example: Story line event decks need 75% of the Crypt to be one clan because they represent a single clan in that case. It's called a "clan deck". Need more reasons? Think not. > Fatima Multi-rush. Assamite deck or not? Only five assamites in the > crypt.... 5 copies of Fatima. Oh, and *0* Quietus cards. So that's no Assamite deck. It's a Fatima one-trick deck.

> > I've you'd actually cared to read the whole thread, you'd know I've > > given more reason that just "it;'s broken" why I think it's not broken. > > I did read the whole thread. In *your post I was responding to*, you gave > a flimsy non-reason for why it isn't broken. Better to just say you don't > think it is than offer that poor excuse for logic. O M G , look who's talking! And exactly HOW many reasons did you give for its brokeness in THIS WHOLE FUCKING THREAD? *looks it up* Aaaaah, I see. Zero. At least *I* have the intelligence actually think before I answer posts instead of just looking at the quoted text.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Story line event decks need 75% of the Crypt to be one clan because they > represent a single clan in that case. And the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, which has been around far longer than storyline tournaments, requires 5 vampires of a given clan. > It's called a "clan deck". Need more reasons? It's called "trying to sound clever without having your shit in one sock." Need more of a clue? > Think not. Is this your personal credo? > So that's no Assamite deck. It's a Fatima one-trick deck. No. In this instance, it's a deck guaranteed to bring out a particular Assamite and 1 or 2 entirely disposable vampires. Further requiring clan-based decks to use their "signature" discipline is an even weaker criteria. How do you apply that rule to clans that don't have a unique discipline? The fact that a deck uses some unique combination of disciplines, even if the disciplines themselves aren't unique, is sufficient. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:57:09 +0100, "Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote: >O M G , look who's talking! I dunno, who? Somebody you could learn something from? >And exactly HOW many reasons did you give for its brokeness in THIS >WHOLE FUCKING THREAD? >*looks it up* >Aaaaah, I see. Zero. In this thread, sure. It's a tired, tired argument. I've personally made it on this newsgroup within the week.... it crept into the Succubus Club thread, and I think one other. I assume you've read them. Either way, the point is, you offered an argument for why it isn't broken: it hasn't been banned yet. As an observation, that's fine. As an argument, it's poor. I was being kind by saying you should just forego that poor argument and say "I don't think it is", since you could at least then claim some authority by popularity. >At least *I* have the intelligence actually think before I answer posts >instead of just looking at the quoted text. Please let's not bring your intelligence into this; I'd rather not go there. David Cherryholmes VEKN Prince of Durham, NC

> now i'm curious to hear your counter arguments =) Draba. That was easy. Fanboy

> In this thread, sure. It's a tired, tired argument. I've personally > made it on this newsgroup within the week.... it crept into the > Succubus Club thread, and I think one other. I assume you've read > them. Either way, the point is, you offered an argument for why it > isn't broken: it hasn't been banned yet. As an observation, that's > fine. As an argument, it's poor. I was being kind by saying you > should just forego that poor argument and say "I don't think it is", > since you could at least then claim some authority by popularity. Aaaah, it's getting better with every post. Aside from the "it's not getting banned observation", which I didn't even use as an argument, I've given a bunch more reasons in this thread why I don't think it's broken. Yet, you defend yourself by claiming "you were responding to a post that didn't contain any sensible reasons". Right. I can quote it for you if you wish. > Please let's not bring your intelligence into this; I'd rather not go > there. Feel cornered?

> > Story line event decks need 75% of the Crypt to be one clan because they > > represent a single clan in that case. > > And the Tournament Winning Deck Archive, which has been around far longer > than storyline tournaments, requires 5 vampires of a given clan. So who are you to say that the TWD has more authority than the WW rules on this? > It's called "trying to sound clever without having your shit in one > sock." Need more of a clue? It's called a futile attempt to defend one's wrong statements. Also, bad mouthing is a sign of more cluelessness. > > So that's no Assamite deck. It's a Fatima one-trick deck. > > No. In this instance, it's a deck guaranteed to bring out a particular > Assamite and 1 or 2 entirely disposable vampires. Further requiring > clan-based decks to use their "signature" discipline is an even weaker > criteria. How do you apply that rule to clans that don't have a unique > discipline? The fact that a deck uses some unique combination of > disciplines, even if the disciplines themselves aren't unique, is > sufficient. So if I play 5 copies of Karsh and 7 !Brujah and I always bring Karsh out first, I'm playing a Gangrel deck? And if I play Ani/For with 5 Ravnos and 7 gangrel, I'm playing Ravnos, even though there isn't a single Chi card in the deck? According to your silly definitions I am. That's why WW has ruled that 75% of the crypt needs to be of a single clan to represent a single clan. Also note that the TWD places several decks in more than one clan.

"The Fanboy" <texas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f99d61c5.03121...@posting.google.com... > > now i'm curious to hear your counter arguments =) > > Draba. > > That was easy. Draba does not prevent you to add stealth again. try something else ;)

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:00:31 +0100, "Ulugh Beg II" <dontfe...@spam.me> wrote: >Aside from the "it's not getting banned observation", which I didn't >even use as an argument, This was your statement: "I still know you hate it passionately, but it surely won't be banned anytime soon aka, it's not broken." The use of "aka" equates one thing with another. It's a form of logical argument. It's what I was responding to, not whichever other statements about PTO that you feel are defensible. >I've given a bunch more reasons in this thread >why I don't think it's broken. Great. Good for you. The one I just quoted sucks. >Yet, you defend yourself by claiming "you were responding to a post that >didn't contain any sensible reasons". I do. It didn't. >Feel cornered? No, just a little reluctant to follow this to its bitter end. Care to drop it? Note the lack of insulting you. I want this to end. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:41:17 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Draba does not prevent you to add stealth again. >try something else ;) Hey, you whipped up two minions to support your Obedience argument. Lookey! We've got two Ravnos. I Draba again. You don't have more distinct stealth modifiers to play, realistically. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031212...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Reyda wrote: > > > Using mass obfuscate, you are most of the time not going to be blocked. If > > you get blocked with tools like Lost in crowds+ Elder impersonation, odds > > are the blocker is not a good fighter since he had to spend 3+ auspex cards > > to catch you. Plus you can wake. You can even leave a vamp untapped to stop > > the rushes (most of them are at 0 stealth) AND deflect any bleeds coming at > > you. > > "I will never be blocked so I don't have to answer the > question." Check. frankly, to block a dedicated stealth deck, you need a dedicated intercept deck. And even like that, as it is the game is designed to give an edge to the offensive side. I think it's not beyond your comprehension. > "I will assume another vampire over here that doesn't > do anything, and I will also assume he is arbitrarily big enough to Obey > the rushing vampire." Check. How lame can you be ? Do you think i or any player here would pack obediences if they play with 5/6 capacity vampires in their crypts ? Frankly, do i ask you if you put vampire with presence when you want to play majesty ? > Way to dodge the question, dork. The dork is the guy relying on insults and not cdeveloping serious arguments : and you only. > Fact is, Obedience requires that you > both meet the conditions to play a reaction card and that you be older > than the opposing minion. And, aside from repeating things that everybody know, that i said just in the precedent post, and that will make everyone nod automatically, where is the point here ? > Majest requires neither. And we're talking > specifically about *Settites*, not whatever IC deck you are imagining as > an excuse to hurl yourself at my ankles again. Hell no. The subject here was : why play a setite obf/pre without serpentis when you can do a omd/obf deck and have better results. Your answer was something like "because you have access to majesty". I'm sorry, but i feel the urge to say that Obedience, a dominate card, makes up the loss for majesty. You've got memory problems or what ? Quotes : Ulugh beg : > Pre/Obf bleed is not really playing Setites. That'd be the same as > tooling up Ravnos with Dom and just bleed away. You: ] It is playing the Settites, since (as someone already pointed out) that's ] *the* clan that gets those discipines as clan disciplines. And before you ] pooh-pooh playing "simple" pre-obf bleed as a watered down obf/dom bleed, ] I got one word for you: Majesty. > > Now, really, explain me how obedience is worst than majesty when you play > > pre/obf or dom/obf ? > > Knucklehead, we're talking about Settites. The "I luv Arika" thread is > over there...... No, no... Read again... remember what you just wrote... > > when you play majesty you fear I.G, Psyche, Telepathic tracking, Dog pack > > (rarely seen, granted). > > Yep, you have to worry about serious combat decks that've taken steps to > get around S:CE. Come on... Are you trying to teach us something ? Everybody knows that serious combat decks (trap decks aside) have taken steps to get around S:ce simply because it's the most prevalent form of anti combat. Between I.G., psyche and thoughts betrayed, they have all a solution against S:ce. > On the flip-side, you don't impose any restrictions > against tapping your own minions or being friggin *huge* to play > it. being a 9 cap isn't freakin'hudge. A 9 cap can stop Beast, Theo, Fatima, Ellen Fence or Tariq. Notorious rushers aren't they ? Besides this, most rush-intensive decks work with midcaps. True, you are screwed if you play obedience when you fall on the "one man army" rush deck using Lazverinus, Karsh or Thetmes : but you would be screwed with your majesties anyway. > Again, Reyda, I know you've got this secret crush on me, but this > isn't even relevant to the topic at hand. Oh, no, i know you have a wife. Beside this i've got plenty of girls craving for me here. =)

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > So who are you to say that the TWD has more authority than the WW rules > on this? I'm not the one running around saying "It's not a clan deck. It's not a clan deck." If you want to adopt the storyline as your criteria, fine; I disagree with you. But leave the "It's generally known as" stuff alone. <snip "there is no perfect definition"> Agreed, there is no perfect definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:orjntvcc53i21slst...@4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 14:41:17 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >Draba does not prevent you to add stealth again. > > >try something else ;) > > Hey, you whipped up two minions to support your Obedience argument. > Lookey! We've got two Ravnos. > > I Draba again. You don't have more distinct stealth modifiers to > play, realistically. okay, now this is realistic =) you draba again, great, and so you block. Is your ravnos deck dedicated for combat ? If yes, even lightly, i'm screwed (carrion crow, aid from bats and i loose 6 blood). If not i'll bleed again next turn.

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > So who are you to say that the TWD has more authority than the WW rules > on this? The WW rules for storyline play place restrictions on deck construction. They do not define what is a "Ravnos deck" and what is not for the general game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > So if I play 5 copies of Karsh and 7 !Brujah and I always bring Karsh > out first, I'm playing a Gangrel deck? Yup. > And if I play Ani/For with 5 Ravnos and 7 gangrel, I'm playing Ravnos, > even though there isn't a single Chi card in the deck? Sure, if you want to call it a Ravanos deck. > According to your silly definitions I am. That's why WW has ruled that > 75% of the crypt needs to be of a single clan to represent a single > clan. For the purposes of playing in a limited environment Storyline tournament. What I'm really confused by in reading this particular discussion (that I am admitedly coming into late) is what difference it makes if a given deck can be called a "clan X" deck? I mean, am I missing something important? Other than a given Storyline tournament, there is zero need to be able to call a given deck a "clan X" deck. 'Cause it has zero game effect. If you want to call a deck that has 11 Giovanni and 1 Gangrel in it a "Gangrel Deck", who cares? What difference does it make? Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "The gun is good! The penis is bad!" -Zardoz

> > No, just a little reluctant to follow this to its bitter end. Care to > drop it? Note the lack of insulting you. I want this to end. Very well.

> > The WW rules for storyline play place restrictions on deck construction. > > They do not define what is a "Ravnos deck" and what is not for the general > game. It was my understanding these rules were instated so that the tournament win could be credited to a clan instead of to a deck. It even says so in the deck construction rules. Something to the extent to: Your deck represents a clan. To do so, you must have a crypt with at least 75% of the vampire of the same clan. Not true? If not, then what *is* the reason for instating the 75% rule?

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:02:18 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >frankly, to block a dedicated stealth deck, you need a dedicated intercept >deck. And even like that, as it is the game is designed to give an edge to >the offensive side. I think it's not beyond your comprehension. No, it isn't. But I've recently re-visited Pack Tactics and found it to be strong. Not that that really has anything to do with the original discussion, but we seem to've left that behind anyway. >How lame can you be ? Do you think i or any player here would pack >obediences if they play with 5/6 capacity vampires in their crypts ? >Frankly, do i ask you if you put vampire with presence when you want to play >majesty ? It started with Settites. Then Ulugh Beg said he'd rather just play obf/dom. I think you have to assume the average capacities of the crypts stay the same, or it's an even more stretched comparison. Hadrian Garrick can bleed, get blocked, and play Majesty. This is something Ozmo can't do. Ergo, there are advantages to playing Settite bleed over dom/obf bleed. Which was my point. >The dork is the guy relying on insults and not cdeveloping serious arguments >: and you only. Once again, this whole "causality" thing eludes you. How did you weigh in on this in the first place? >And, aside from repeating things that everybody know, that i said just in >the precedent post, and that will make everyone nod automatically, where is >the point here ? You apparently *don't* know it, because you are saying that you could just play Obedience in lieu of Majesty. One is a combat card, the other a reaction card. They do different things, and there are some advantages to either of them. You may choose the advantages inherent in Majesty, therefore there is a reason to play Settite bleed over Malkavian bleed. There are others advantages, of course, but Majesty is a very good on. >Hell no. The subject here was : why play a setite obf/pre without serpentis >when you can do a omd/obf deck and have better results. Your answer was >something like "because you have access to majesty". I'm sorry, but i feel >the urge to say that Obedience, a dominate card, makes up the loss for >majesty. OK, I'll try again: you can't play it if you are tapped. That requires two cards (a wake and an Obedience) for every one Majesty, or two vampires so that one can catch and Obey. Additionally, those vampires will be large. On the other hand, Majesty is vulnerable to S:CE where Obedience is not. If I were making a *stealth-bleed* deck, I would wish to tap out my minions as much as possible, and bleed as much as possible. For that strategy, Majesty is better. >Come on... Are you trying to teach us something ? Yes, I *am* trying to teach you something, but you aren't getting it. >Everybody knows that serious combat decks (trap decks aside) have taken >steps to get around S:ce simply because it's the most prevalent form of anti >combat. Between I.G., psyche and thoughts betrayed, they have all a solution >against S:ce. But Reyda, you've relied on your "oh so competitive metagame" as support in the past. What are all these viscious combat decks doing in your metagame? Why do I have to worry about IG? Sure, the card exists, but like AI, probably not in sufficient quantities in the environment I care about to deform my deck construction. If I see a deck like that, I lose. If I don't, I win (or have a good shot). The odds of the IG making the finals are even slimmer. Personally, *I* do take Tier 1 combat to tournaments, but it's an exception. >being a 9 cap isn't freakin'hudge. It is if you are trying to play a fast stealth-bleed deck. >Besides this, most rush-intensive decks work with midcaps. Actually, the large multi-rusher is in vogue at the moment. >True, you are screwed if you play obedience when you fall on the "one man >army" rush deck using Lazverinus, Karsh or Thetmes : but you would be >screwed with your majesties anyway. Possibly. Part of the "multi-rush" strategy is to pile so many actions and so many rushes in the deck that you just wail on them until they fail to draw one. It works, except for the "20 Obedience" IC decks, and those are acceptable odds. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:kbontvg4gkannflnj...@4ax.com... > On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:02:18 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >frankly, to block a dedicated stealth deck, you need a dedicated intercept > >deck. And even like that, as it is the game is designed to give an edge to > >the offensive side. I think it's not beyond your comprehension. > > No, it isn't. But I've recently re-visited Pack Tactics and found it > to be strong. Not that that really has anything to do with the > original discussion, but we seem to've left that behind anyway. yes, i do play a couple of pack tactics also when i have slot space. (...) > >And, aside from repeating things that everybody know, that i said just in > >the precedent post, and that will make everyone nod automatically, where is > >the point here ? > > You apparently *don't* know it, because you are saying that you could > just play Obedience in lieu of Majesty. where did i say 'in lieu' ? i said one makes up for the other. Plus you can always bounce bleeds with dominate. > One is a combat card, the > other a reaction card. They do different things, and there are some > advantages to either of them. Really ? Now you show me you figure what the icons on the left on the cards mean... =) And yes, each card has its advantage... =) > You may choose the advantages inherent > in Majesty, therefore there is a reason to play Settite bleed over > Malkavian bleed. There are others advantages, of course, but Majesty > is a very good on. Or you may choose the versatility of dominate. Bounce, obedience, steal ally/retainer/location (and now equipment), seduction, mind rape and all. > >Hell no. The subject here was : why play a setite obf/pre without serpentis > >when you can do a omd/obf deck and have better results. Your answer was > >something like "because you have access to majesty". I'm sorry, but i feel > >the urge to say that Obedience, a dominate card, makes up the loss for > >majesty. > > OK, I'll try again: you can't play it if you are tapped. That > requires two cards (a wake and an Obedience) for every one Majesty, or > two vampires so that one can catch and Obey. Yes, but usually you will influence more than one vampire. I am wrong ? Leaving a vamp untapped when you expect big rush, is it impossible to do ? > Additionally, those > vampires will be large. On the other hand, Majesty is vulnerable to > S:CE where Obedience is not. If I were making a *stealth-bleed* deck, > I would wish to tap out my minions as much as possible, and bleed as > much as possible. For that strategy, Majesty is better. One of those vamps has to be bigger than the others. Most decks include vampire biggers than the others. A lot of recent setite decks also pack obediences for combat defense (Nefertiti and Khaytall, anyone ?) Simply because obedience will clog the rusher's hand with red cards and he will not be able to cycle since he will not enter combat with you. He'll have to rush (and hopefully burn) someone else's vampires. On this precise point, Obedience is waaaay better than majesty. (...) > >Everybody knows that serious combat decks (trap decks aside) have taken > >steps to get around S:ce simply because it's the most prevalent form of anti > >combat. Between I.G., psyche and thoughts betrayed, they have all a solution > >against S:ce. > > But Reyda, you've relied on your "oh so competitive metagame" as > support in the past. What are all these viscious combat decks doing > in your metagame? well, they do what they are supposed to do : beat vampires up. > Why do I have to worry about IG? IG, Psyche, thought betrayed, Telepathic tracking. Any good combat deck will have those. If they rush you, you are safe if you pack obediences. Plus they won't play their game and lose huge amounts of time. > Sure, the card > exists, but like AI, probably not in sufficient quantities in the > environment I care about to deform my deck construction. If I see a > deck like that, I lose. Not necessarily. > If I don't, I win (or have a good shot). The > odds of the IG making the finals are even slimmer. Personally, *I* do > take Tier 1 combat to tournaments, but it's an exception. If you don't meet a deck like that, your prey may well be a obf/dom bleeder better than you since he will deflect your bleeds to his prey. You've got basically the same deck (obf + a bleed discipline) but the versatility of dom over pre gives the other player the edge. And with the last two sentence youre reasonning, why play combat at all then ? > >being a 9 cap isn't freakin'hudge. > > It is if you are trying to play a fast stealth-bleed deck. who said "fast" ? > >Besides this, most rush-intensive decks work with midcaps. > > Actually, the large multi-rusher is in vogue at the moment. at the moment... i can't be everywhere, so where on the planet earth ?

Ulugh Beg II wrote: >>The WW rules for storyline play place restrictions on deck > construction. > >>They do not define what is a "Ravnos deck" and what is not for the > general >>game. > > It was my understanding these rules were instated so that the tournament > win could be credited to a clan instead of to a deck. Correct. > It even says so in the deck construction rules. Something to the extent > to: > > Your deck represents a clan. To do so, you must have a crypt with at > least 75% of the vampire of the same clan. > > Not true? If not, then what *is* the reason for instating the 75% rule? The rule is, as stated, a restriction placed on deck construction by the storyline rules. It is not a definition/classification scheme for the general game. [ quoted text not captured ]

Ulugh Beg II wrote: > It was my understanding these rules were instated so that the tournament > win could be credited to a clan instead of to a deck. > It even says so in the deck construction rules. Something to the extent > to: For the purposes of the Storyline tournaments, yeah, the people in charge like seeing how particular clans as a whole do. But that doesn't mean that it has any greater significance in the large picture. If a given deck for said storyline tournament consisted of a crypt of 9 The Baron and 3 other random vampires, and didn't have a single Thanatosis card in the crypt, it still would be a "Samedi" deck (for the purposes of the Story Line tournament requirements) and would still count as a "Samedi" win if it won. But the only thing this has any impact at all on is the overall results of the Storyline tournament. > Your deck represents a clan. To do so, you must have a crypt with at > least 75% of the vampire of the same clan. > > Not true? If not, then what *is* the reason for instating the 75% rule? It is true that for the Storlyine tournaments, you need to have 75% of your crypt as a single clan, yes. Why? To add flavor to a fun tournament type. To further restrict deck building for a fun tournament type. To be able to declare a particular clan "the winner" of the Storyline tournament, as it gives the tournament series a sense of a greater picture. This being said, it has no bearing on anything else. And if you aren't playing a Storyline tournament, the 75% crypt rule doesn't exist, and whether or not a given deck is a "clan X" deck doesn't matter for any purpose. [ quoted text not captured ]

> okay, now this is realistic =) > you draba again, great, and so you block. > Is your ravnos deck dedicated for combat ? > If yes, even lightly, i'm screwed (carrion crow, aid from bats and i loose 6 > blood). If not i'll bleed again next turn. 1) I don't really need another Draba, since Ravnos have animalism (Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance, and the outferior of Falcon's Eye. 2) If I'm investing that much deck space to intercept and reactions, you can be damn sure I'm prepared to do something about combat. Options include Imposing Phantasm/Crows/Meat Hook/Drawing out the Beast style beatdown, Imposing Phantasm/Amria/Far Fatuus/Mayaparasatya on the additional, and more equipment based options. Chances are, you'll be rescuing on your next action. 3) Your entire argument is invalidated by the sheer volume of intercept Tzimice decks can generate, and they really only need one or two cards in a combat to put down a minion whose sole combat defense is Obedience. 4) Black Hand introduced enough intercept to choke a horse. There are now 6 cards that add 2 or more intercept. Only two of them are mutually exclusive (Pack Tactics and Elder Intervention). A minion with NO intercept-generating disciplines or titles can generate 3 intercept. Your "super stealth is unbeatable" idea is faulty, as it's easier to block uberstealth now than it ever has been. 5) What do you do when you're rushed by an 11 cap?

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.031211...@hagbard.io.com>... > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Joshua Duffin wrote: > > > > > "Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message > > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.03121...@fnord.io.com... > > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > > > > > * PtO is too good, even though it's Justi/IC only and can target > only > > > > about > > > > 2/3 of the available vampires. > > > > > > Only about 2/3, huh? Why bother printing it? :) > > > > > > I'll spare you the PtO rant, since it actually doesn't get played > around > > > here all that often. > > > > I can remedy that situation if you like. :-) (There are two or three > > PtOs in my current version of the Zillah's Valley/Parity Shift deck. > > There could be five if I played with all my copies, I think.) > > Actually, the only time I've ever played a PTO (although I own 3-4 of > them) was when I played your Zillah's/Parity Shift deck. I called it at a > point in the game that it looked like I was going to win, but after I > burned Colin's Nu, it was fait acompli. > > Anyway, if your aim is to turn me into a rabid PTO-hater, go ahead and > bust it out. I'll counter with a Hannibal/Leandro Derange+PTO deck that > uses lots of skill cards so I can Derange and burn anyone I like. :) Mind Rape/go anarch is easier to do, although you don't get Camarilla titled vampires with it. (so what you vote them into the ground anyway.) I love PTO (but then I play decks with up to 12-15 of them, so YMMV) I'd still say that if the card isn't broken, it's as close to broken as the game should ever come. Especially with the cardless GO TARGETABLE action. Kind of the same way the Sela et al push the boundaries of vamp construction just as far as we'd want to ever go. Cameron

On 13 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) wrote: >1) I don't really need another Draba, since Ravnos have animalism >(Raven Spy, Cat's Guidance, and the outferior of Falcon's Eye. And I've never bothered playing Draba without Raven Spies/Sport Bike, since Draba and +1 permenant intercept will stop most anything short of "block fails". However, I wanted to avoid introducing yet another card into the "oh yeah, well I play *this*" discussion. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:11:08 +0100, "Reyda" <true_...@hotmail.com> wrote: >where did i say 'in lieu' ? >i said one makes up for the other. Plus you can always bounce bleeds with >dominate. Look, I feel we're going in circles here. The point I was responding to was "well, I might as well be playing dom/obf". Of course there are advantages inherent in Dominate, and Obedience is one of them. But there are also advantages in pre/obf, and Majesty is one of those. Given the pro-active nature of a stealth-bleed deck, Majesty fits into that strategy more easily than Obedience. I'm not saying that Obedience isn't a strong card, nor that building strong decks around Obedience isn't possible. But, even disregarding Serpentis, the Settites have some attractive optoions, and running a straight stealth bleed strategy with easy access to S:CE is one of them. Do you really think that pre/obf is inferior in all ways to dom/obf, or are you just being argumentative? >Now you show me you figure what the icons on the left on the cards mean... Since you haven't admitted the ways the limitations of Obedience could render it less good than Majesty in certain situations, and since this follows from the nature of the two cards, it seemed needing pointing out. >Or you may choose the versatility of dominate. Bounce, obedience, steal >ally/retainer/location (and now equipment), seduction, mind rape and all. Yes you may. They are both viable choices. What is your position here? That no one should ever play pre-obf bleed, because dom/obf bleed exists? >Yes, but usually you will influence more than one vampire. I am wrong ? >Leaving a vamp untapped when you expect big rush, is it impossible to do ? Yes, but in the straight stealth-bleed strategy we are discussing, leaving a vampire untapped is a huge liability. This archetype generally forgoes defense for speed, so suggesting that you need to leave one minion untapped is not trivial, and runs counter to your actual strategy. >One of those vamps has to be bigger than the others. Most decks include >vampire biggers than the others. A lot of recent setite decks also pack >obediences for combat defense (Nefertiti and Khaytall, anyone ?) The fact that every deck has a "most big" vampire doesn't have any bearing on its capacity relative to the rest of the table. The fact that you *need* to be bigger than the oppostion to play Obedience is. And yes, there are some Settites with large minions with DOM. But given their lack of bleed defense, bringing out such minions is a very risky proposition. I would expect to see those minions more often in an obf/pre vote deck, where bloating with Voter Cap is an option. >Simply because obedience will clog the rusher's hand with red cards and he >will not be able to cycle since he will not enter combat with you. He'll >have to rush (and hopefully burn) someone else's vampires. On this precise >point, Obedience is waaaay better than majesty. Once you've met the prerequisites to play it (large, untapped vampire or twice as many cards), yes. Provided of course, it isn't your turn. And no, you can't simply discount the fact that you will be blocked. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <f99d61c5.03121...@posting.google.com>, texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: >5) What do you do when you're rushed by an 11 cap? Gasp in astonishment. -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:s3mntv4kt1tut25qt...@4ax.com... > In message <f99d61c5.03121...@posting.google.com>, > texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: > > >5) What do you do when you're rushed by an 11 cap? > > Gasp in astonishment. > > -- Derek thinking the same thing ! =D

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: > > >5) What do you do when you're rushed by an 11 cap? > > Gasp in astonishment. > Why? Ever been rushed by Wynn w/POT, or Goratrix/Lambach who have Master:Fortitude played on them just in case of KoR? -Antero

> Why? Ever been rushed by Wynn w/POT, or Goratrix/Lambach who have > Master:Fortitude played on them just in case of KoR? Kiss of Ra? Doesn't really bother me when I'm rushing. For Gora, I'd rather play Infernal Pact though.

In message <ea6a080a.03121...@posting.google.com>, nom...@jippii.fi (AL) mumbled something about: [ quoted text not captured ] No. And I've played for a LONG time. [ quoted text not captured ]

Matthew T. Morgan expounded: > On 11 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > > > The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many > > > (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do. > > > > This is partly cos FoS have been winning for longer. If you only > > include recent wins, the numbers are more even. > > Maybe it took folks longer to figure out how to build tournament-winning > Ravnos decks because they're a harder clan to win with? Just a thought. I think it's rather easier to get the cards you need for a good Setite Deck because a) more come in the Starter and b) they need fewer specialist cards. There's not much point using the Ravnos if you aren't going to use CHI imo (ok that's not a very well-foudned opinion but anyway..). If you are using CHI then you really need at least 3 Paths of Paradox to get anywhere. You then need to build you deck which probably wants a bunch of DS and/or AH cards and most likely multiple Gabrins so you need to collect rares/rare uncommons from 3 sets or buy a whole load of Starter decks. You probably need Freak Drives too... + of course ravnos are very difficult to go forwards with..

> > > Why? Ever been rushed by Wynn w/POT, or Goratrix/Lambach who have > Master:Fortitude played on them just in case of KoR? > And Obedience, of course. -Antero

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Ulugh Beg II wrote: > Kiss of Ra? > Doesn't really bother me when I'm rushing. For Gora, I'd rather play > Infernal Pact though. Yes, but both Wynn and Goratrix have been known to block an action or two. My last Wynn deck relied almost exclusively on the in-built rush, and used the freakotronic to tool up with retainers and toys and block. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Derek Ray wrote: > No. > And I've played for a LONG time. Yeah, but you know the deal with you and I and tables. I wonder what would happen if we went to a five-player tournament? Seriously, I've got the Wynn deck in question built IRL, and a Thetmes deck that aims for 12 cap, specificlly *for* the Obedience/Banishment angle. And while that's the result of a very specific competition within a particular playgroup, I would consider the IC question when designing a rush deck for a tournament. But I used "rush deck" and "tournament" in the same sentence, so clearly I'm nuts. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:21:00 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >If you want to call a deck that has 11 Giovanni and 1 Gangrel in it a >"Gangrel Deck", who cares? What difference does it make? coming into the final round of a tournament and you'e trying to work out where to sit: "what's he playing?" "oh, it's a gangrel deck" heh. heheheh. :D salem domain:canberra http://www.geocities.com/salem_christ.geo/vtes.htm

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:53:49 -0500, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >In message <ea6a080a.03121...@posting.google.com>, >nom...@jippii.fi (AL) mumbled something about: > >>Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> texas...@yahoo.com (The Fanboy) mumbled something about: >>> >>> >5) What do you do when you're rushed by an 11 cap? >>> >>> Gasp in astonishment. >>> >>Why? Ever been rushed by Wynn w/POT, or Goratrix/Lambach who have >>Master:Fortitude played on them just in case of KoR? > >No. > >And I've played for a LONG time. I played against a Gwendolyn multi-rush deck a few years back. I gasped in admiration. it was a nice deck. But, i have also never seen Wynn w/POT or Lambach/Goratrix w/ skill card. I've seen Lambach with Eye, and heard of Goratrix with Drum, but that's about as close as it gets. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03121...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > I would consider the IC question when designing a > rush deck for a tournament. But I used "rush deck" and "tournament" in > the same sentence, so clearly I'm nuts. ;) > If you're nuts I don't even *want* to know what I am, Mr. Ravnos in three DC tournaments. Colin Riggs seriously something

Peter D Bakija expounded: > If you want to call a deck that has 11 Giovanni and 1 Gangrel in it a > "Gangrel Deck", who cares? What difference does it make? Nah that's clearly a Malkavian Deck! (well you'd need to be to play it ;P) [disclaimer: the probably is a perfectly viable deck built on these lines -don't bother to tell me about it]

In message <Pine.GSO.4.21.03121...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>, David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> mumbled something about: >On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Derek Ray wrote: > >> No. > >> And I've played for a LONG time. > >Yeah, but you know the deal with you and I and tables. I wonder what >would happen if we went to a five-player tournament? I'd either gasp in astonishment, or: you'd be my grandpredator and grandprey in two games, and not draw Thetmes in the third round. ;) -- Derek Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music. It only stopped them hearing the distractions.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Derek Ray wrote: > you'd be my grandpredator and grandprey in two games, and not draw > Thetmes in the third round. ;) So you're envisioning a game on deckbot then? ;) David Cherryholmes Duke Radiology P.E.T. Facility (919) 684-7714 david.che...@duke.edu

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Colin Riggs wrote: > If you're nuts I don't even *want* to know what I am, Mr. Ravnos in three DC > tournaments. As long as the consensus remains "the Ravnos have no forward momentum", I'll keep abusing it. [ quoted text not captured ]

"David Cherryholmes" <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.031215...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu... > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Colin Riggs wrote: > > > If you're nuts I don't even *want* to know what I am, Mr. Ravnos in three DC > > tournaments. > > As long as the consensus remains "the Ravnos have no forward momentum", > I'll keep abusing it. Week of Nightmares is broken. :-) Josh colin is broken too and sensory deprivation is just plain wrong (to continue the hyperbolic stating of the obvious)

salem <salem_ch...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I played against a Gwendolyn multi-rush deck a few years back. I > gasped in admiration. it was a nice deck. > > But, i have also never seen Wynn w/POT or Lambach/Goratrix w/ skill > card. > I've seen Lambach with Eye, and heard of Goratrix with Drum, but > that's about as close as it gets. Wynn with POT may be obsolete design nowadays, but if IC members are seen often, a skillcard to Lambach/Goratrix is not so bad idea if one wants to take the odds that one can off the IC member before (inevitable)PTO. -Antero

Debate topic: FoS are easy to win with, Ravnos are not. Matt arguing for, me arguing against SNIP > Since there are no official definitions of what constitutes a Follower of > Set deck and what does not, I will satisfied with however the archivist > decides to organize things. There's little to gain in arguing this point. > > To me, these are Followers of Set decks: SNIP > > --Lies and Obfuscations (aka Your Government) > > 5/12 of the crypt are Fos, 1 library card require FoS or serpents > > And these are Ravnos decks: SNIP I think there is something to gain in arguing the point :D Your logic: 5 vamps + 1 card = a Follower of Set deck The fact that such a deck won a tournament can be used to support the idea that FoS are easy to win tournaments with. My refutation: These are actually multi-clan vote and bleed decks with a mild FoS flavour to them. By your logic, if a deck had 5 copies of Don Cruez and 1 Claws of the Dead, and was grouped as a Protean deck, you could point to it as proof that Protean is a strong tournament-winning discipline... irrespective of the other 89 cards in the deck being all about titles, votes and combat, and having nothing to do with Protean. The archivist may have just grouped such decks as FoS for convenience. Why draw conclusions from a unknown grouping system? > > > > > > Better vamps in the Ravnos clan yet better tournament record for Setites > > > suggests to me that Setites are an easier clan to run. After all, you > > > can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some > > > Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations > > > and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people > > > from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? > > > > > > Matt Morgan > > > > Yep, but the inverse is also true: > > > > You can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by adding a draba > > module and a little fortitude onto a weenie animalism combat deck. Can > > you do the same thing with FoS? > > Can I add a good defensive module to Followers of Set? Intercept, no, but > many of the larger ones are nice for Obedience and Deflection. > > I haven't seen a weenie animalism combat deck that uses Draba. Seems to > me that the necessity of ani CHI (surely you aren't playing the Drabas at > inferior) would kind of wreck whatever weenie advantage you had. > Please don't take too much notice of the specific example I gave. I pulled it out of my ass - I don't play Ravnos, remember :) The point I was trying to make is that either clan works, if you just sprinkle a little of their special stuff into a "regular deck". Let me restate it: YOU: After all, you can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by throwing together some Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls and whatever Temptations and Forms of Corruption you have lying around, right? It'll oust people from time to time. Can you do the same thing with Ravnos? ME: After all, you can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by throwing together (insert ANI / FOR strategy here, like Carrion Crows + Trap), and whatever (insert Chi cards, like Apparition) you have lying around. Can you do the same thing with FoS? Do you see what I mean now? You can phrase almost identical questions for both clans, so it doesn't really mean anything. > Got a decklist? I've yet to play a weenie animalism deck. If you have a > good plan to make the above work, I'll be glad to build the deck and try > it in my playgroup. > > Matt Morgan Are you after a weenie ANI decklist? I can give you a pretty good decklist, almost pure weenie with a pinch of fortitude (it's optimised for a high combat environment). I dont have a ANI / Draba deck... that was just my bad example. BTW, I'm not 100% sure why I'm holding up my end of this debate. I think it's cos FoS get a lot of hostility, and are percieved as a lot of threat, but are actually quite tricky to do anything with, IMO. Cheerio, Craig

On 17 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > YOU: After all, you can make a somewhat functional Setite deck by > throwing together some Presence bleed, stealth cards, some Blood Dolls > and whatever Temptations and Forms of Corruption you have lying > around, right? It'll oust people from time to time. Can you do the > same thing with Ravnos? > ME: After all, you can make a somewhat functional Ravnos deck by > throwing together (insert ANI / FOR strategy here, like Carrion Crows > + Trap), and whatever (insert Chi cards, like Apparition) you have > lying around. Can you do the same thing with FoS? The distinction here is that ANI/FOR is not, by itself, a particularly strong strategy, nor are the Ravnos the only clan to have access to those disciplines intrinsically. PRE/OBF is, and the Followers of Set are (disregarding the Baali, which I feel it is safe to do). [ quoted text not captured ]

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.03121...@hagbard.io.com>... > Since you're talking about personal experiences, I can't say you're wrong, > but I'd like to present a couple of facts: > > The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many > (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do. Aside from the issue that the TWA lumps decks very, very loosely into being representative of a given clan (with sometimes absurdly minimal vampires/crypt cards for a given clan), keep in mind that the TWA does not cover any of the storyline tourneys, which might be a better indication of how a Clan deck does. Semsith: Ravnos 7, Setites 4. Eye of Hazimel: again, Ravnos 7, Setites 4. Legion: Ravnos 2, Setites 6 (unofficially) So the two clans actually appear to be pretty balanced in terms of the ability to win tourneys when using Storyline-legal decks. > Better vamps in the Ravnos clan yet better tournament record for Setites > suggests to me that Setites are an easier clan to run. The results above make that statement irrelevant. > Matt Morgan -John Flournoy

On 18 Dec 2003, John Flournoy wrote: > So the two clans actually appear to be pretty balanced in terms of the > ability to win tourneys when using Storyline-legal decks. If you assume that equal "work" went into all decks, sure. Still, the fact remains that Temptation and Form of Corruption are available in the Settite starter, while Path of Paradox and Week of Nightmares are not in the Ravnos starter. Depending on how you wish to define "easier", this seems to make building and playing Settite decks easier, in a way. [ quoted text not captured ]

First, I want to address Peter's comment about why it matters whether something is a clan deck or not. It matters, to the extent that it's possible (which some would say is to no extent), for analyzing the clans relative strength in order to have a better idea what to design in the future to either maintain balance or increase balance. >> Who are you to dictate what "playing a clan" is? > >Who are you to do so? Or at least suggest so. This is a big problem when talking about clan decks - people don't agree. I have a Toreador deck in the TWDA; a mighty one third of the crypt is Toreador. I had thought that the TWDA rules for organizing decks were 50% or more and more than any other, then discovered it was only 5+ and at least as many as any other. The former I could understand though it still felt wrong, the latter shows a disdain for trying to categorize decks by clan. But, it's not just percentages of crypts. While people can argue whether it should be 50%, greater than 50%, two thirds, 75%, 100%, or whatever, I have problems with any "clan" deck using only one vampire from that clan. My intuitive concept of a "clan" deck is that you use the prevailing features of the clan, i.e. play to their strengths and try to work around their weaknesses. If for no other reason than that's what useful for analyzing clans. When using one vampire who has a particular special ability or discipline set that the rest of the clan lacks, I don't feel that the vampire's clan makes enough of a difference. >It's generally accepted that you play a clan if 75% of your crypt is >made up of vamps from that clan, so technically you're playing Setites, >yes. Not remotely generally accepted. I could see this as a possible standard, but it would require enough interest in establishing that sort of standard, would also cause me to build tournament decks quite differently assuming the TWDA maintained a listing of victories by clan. >Who are you to tell me to change my own definition of "playing Setites". Well, maybe it's mentioned somewhere, but I don't know what your definition is. I haven't decided what my preferred definition is. I kind of go with what I thought the TWDA was rather than what it is when I try to win with decks. You can certainly have your definition, but it's not any more useful to someone than the TWDA's or their own personal definitions. >If you're playing a clan with that "kewl that-clan-only discipline >(like, hmm, Vic, Tha, Obt, Qui, Ser, Chi, Nec, Tha, San, Val, Myt, etc)" >and not use that discipline AT ALL, you're, IMO not playing that clan. Well, should make an exception for disciplines that don't do anything like Valeren. Kind of joking. Actually, I don't much like this standard. There are clan specific cards which may define a deck and there are discipline combinations unusual outside of a particular clan that can define a deck. Both give an idea what a clan is good or bad at, which, again, is the whole point in bothering to define clan decks. >> Fatima Multi-rush. Assamite deck or not? Only five assamites in the > crypt.... 5 copies of Fatima. Oh, and *0* Quietus cards. >So that's no Assamite deck. It's a Fatima one-trick deck. Now, here's where I agree with you. Even if it were 12 copies of Fatima, I don't see how the *clan* is being shown off by the use of one of its vampires.

On 18 Dec 2003 18:59:43 GMT, cur...@aol.commetal (Curevei) wrote: >This is a big problem when talking about clan decks - people don't agree. I >have a Toreador deck in the TWDA; a mighty one third of the crypt is Toreador. >I had thought that the TWDA rules for organizing decks were 50% or more and >more than any other, then discovered it was only 5+ and at least as many as any >other. The former I could understand though it still felt wrong, the latter >shows a disdain for trying to categorize decks by clan. If you want any significant number of tournament winning decks to show up under a "clan" distinction at all, you must use 5+ and at least as many as any other. Over 85% of the original archive was undefined if using storyline rules. Most tournament winning decks are built around disciplines or titles, not around clans. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com/decks/twd.htm

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.031218...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 17 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > The distinction here is that ANI/FOR is not, by itself, a particularly > strong strategy, > In my experience, OBF PRE is pretty soft, and I see ANI FOR incessantly. That's probably due to the amount of combat where I play... so my personal experience is the opposite of yours, and the FoS / Ravnos debate collapses into qualitative anecdote. Oh well. nor are the Ravnos the only clan to have access to those > disciplines intrinsically. PRE/OBF is, and the Followers of Set are > (disregarding the Baali, which I feel it is safe to do). Huh? You *could* argue that one of the things that makes Ravnos strong is that they have easily available support disciplines, and therefore they get cheap support vampires - Bothwell, Leon and Muse all have ani & for, and only cost 3 pool. But instead you maintain that FoS are better, despite the fact that their out of clan support vampires tend to be infernal / costly. You must really, REALLY think that OBF PRE is glorious, and ANI FOR is utter poo. Cheerio, Craig

On 18 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > In my experience, OBF PRE is pretty soft, and I see ANI FOR > incessantly. That's probably due to the amount of combat where I > play... so my personal experience is the opposite of yours, and the > FoS / Ravnos debate collapses into qualitative anecdote. Oh well. That may be our experience, but it is fairly objective to look at what the disciplines are capable of. For instance, by your assertion that OBF/PRE is "pretty soft" I assume you mean that it is beaten up easily by ANI/FOR. Yet, PRE has S:CE, and ANI/FOR has no answer to it. Therefore, if your experience is that the former is "squished" by the latter, then I would conclude that the players of OBF/PRE in your group simply aren't availing themselves of a fairly obvious, and strong, strategy. > You *could* argue that one of the things that makes Ravnos strong is > that they have easily available support disciplines, and therefore > they get cheap support vampires - Bothwell, Leon and Muse all have ani > & for, and only cost 3 pool. No, I would argue that what makes Ravnos strong is Chimestry, which isn't found anywhere else and (though begging the question) is difficult to play. > But instead you maintain that FoS are better, despite the fact that > their out of clan support vampires tend to be infernal / costly. > You must really, REALLY think that OBF PRE is glorious, and ANI FOR is > utter poo. I think that stealth-bleed or stealth-vote coupled with S:CE is stronger than ANI/FOR. I think that Settites have ousting power without even beginning to touch upon their signature discipline, while the Ravnos do not. This makes the Ravnos more difficult to play, but not necessarily weaker once you've managed to do so. [ quoted text not captured ]

icantbelievehollow...@hotmail.com (Hollowboy) wrote in message news:<614f2a39.0312...@posting.google.com>... > But instead you maintain that FoS are better, despite the fact that > their out of clan support vampires tend to be infernal / costly. > > You must really, REALLY think that OBF PRE is glorious, and ANI FOR is > utter poo. Part of the reason Presence and Dominate are so strong, especially coupled with stealth, is that they can rapidly take advantage of a deck that either has a) No bounce, or b) Bad luck. If you're trying to play a deck (or a clan) without dom/AUS you could be in a world of hurt in no time flat just by virtue of your seating position. Ani/For doesn't even come close to this kind of power. If I'm playing *anything* and get a bad draw, you're going to have to have some serious Tier/Tasha/Laptop/Freak/Hack action before I even consider you a threat to oust me. If that happened against Dom/Pre + stealth, there's potential to be ousted by the 3rd to 5th turn, EASY. There's no comparison.

jeff...@hotmail.com (Jeff Kuta) wrote in message news:<621dd332.0312...@posting.google.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] No comparison? Er, how about 3-4 low / midcap Ravnos and 2-3 Embraces with a week of Nightmares? You can have that set up and bleeding for poo-loads by turn 5. I have been ousted by this combo early on to games. It's rare-heavy, so not a cheap deck to put together, but it is definately comparable with other fast bleeders. Amusingly, I have been ousted by this in a tournament, when I was playing FoS. I was the first one killed, very early on. A Canberra player, Shawn, did it with a finely tuned Nightmare deck (which sweeps tables more consistently than any FoS deck I have put together).

David Cherryholmes <david.che...@duke.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.21.03121...@petsparc.duhs.duke.edu>... > On 18 Dec 2003, Hollowboy wrote: > > > In my experience, OBF PRE is pretty soft, and I see ANI FOR > > incessantly. That's probably due to the amount of combat where I > > play... so my personal experience is the opposite of yours, and the > > FoS / Ravnos debate collapses into qualitative anecdote. Oh well. > > That may be our experience, but it is fairly objective to look at what the > disciplines are capable of. For instance, by your assertion that OBF/PRE > is "pretty soft" I assume you mean that it is beaten up easily by > ANI/FOR. Yet, PRE has S:CE, and ANI/FOR has no answer to it. Therefore, > if your experience is that the former is "squished" by the latter, then I > would conclude that the players of OBF/PRE in your group simply aren't > availing themselves of a fairly obvious, and strong, strategy. Actually, no... I never meant that one squished the other. Only that PRE OBF is soft (against combat). Just because I see ANI FOR incessantly doesn't mean that I don't see other disciplines. For example, I pretty often see ANI FOR *with* Immortal grapple - two Melbourne players are quite fond of Nos princes and potent Ravnos. I play a little bit of POT / for / ANI myself. The only pure ANI FOR deck I can recall is a deck of my own - it's standard weenie Animalism with a handful of "Prevent all Damage" cards, just so I can de-fang the unwary and hope to survive the Drawing out the Beast / Immortal Grapple combo. Sometimes. With stuff like this (and Tariq decks, and !Nos etc etc) seeing play, the FoS go splat (often, but not always), and the Ravnos go hard (often, but not always). But as I said, this is In My Experience. > > I think that stealth-bleed or stealth-vote coupled with S:CE is stronger > than ANI/FOR. I think that Settites have ousting power without even > beginning to touch upon their signature discipline, while the Ravnos do > not. This makes the Ravnos more difficult to play, but not necessarily > weaker once you've managed to do so. > > David Cherryholmes > Duke Radiology > P.E.T. Facility > (919) 684-7714 > david.che...@duke.edu I can't dispute that OBF PRE, alone, has the potential to give faster ousts than FOR ANI alone. However, you are now equating the clans with these disciplines, which is drifting off the original point... this debate began with Matt Morgan's satatement that: "Mid-cap Setites tend to do poorly discipline-wise, but I think overall they're an easier clan to run than Ravnos." Note the word "clan" :-) Matt used the TWA to support his statement, with: "The TWA has 10 Setite decks and 5 Ravnos decks. Setites win twice as many (reported) tournaments as Ravnos do." ...but since decks like "Lies and Obfuscations" are not IMO, FoS "clan" decks, I don't think it is great support for his argument. Lies and Obfuscations was a PRE OBF voter with 5 FoS vampire, zero serpentis cards, and just 1 FoS card - Opium Den. If this is typical OBF PRE stealth vote, then it's obvious why I don't consider such a voter to be a FoS clan deck. Similarly, I consider your argument about PRE OBF making for fast bleed as patchy support for the statement about FoS being "an easier clan to run than Ravnos". This is because, as far as I know, the typical PRE OBF bleed deck is heavier on the obf than the pre (to keep vampire size small), uses some disciplineless +bleed as well as presence (Hacking, retainers), features only about 50% FoS in the crypt, and doesn't use a lot of Serpentis. So yes, its a FoS option, but it's a little marginal to describe such an option as a FoS "clan" deck. It's not too much of a stretch (cos what exactly is a clan deck) - but still a bit iffy. Even with that objection aside, the Ravnos can match PRE OBF for bleed. With their Chimestry and Week of Nightmares options, along with Treasured Samadji and the +stealth permanents, the Ravnos as a clan can bleed just as well as FoS, and much more safely (cos they are much more durable against combat). Cheerio, Craig PS I don't intend any criticism of the TWA for clumping the decks the way they do. They have to be organised in some manner, and the way it is is probably as good as any.

Hollowboy expounded: > No comparison? Er, how about 3-4 low / midcap Ravnos and 2-3 Embraces > with a week of Nightmares? You can have that set up and bleeding for > poo-loads by turn 5. I have been ousted by this combo early on to > games. It's rare-heavy, so not a cheap deck to put together, but it is > definately comparable with other fast bleeders. Bringing us neatly back to the fact that it's harder to put a good Ravnos deck together ;) [not that it can't be jsut as powerful once you have done so -my current favourite is MayaKillThemAll: lots of blocks and torporing with a nice little bit of bleed -why bounce when you can splat them ;)]

"Timlagor" <Timlagor...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote > > [not that it can't be jsut as powerful once you have done so -my current > favourite is MayaKillThemAll: lots of blocks and torporing with a nice > little bit of bleed -why bounce when you can splat them ;)] Sounds like a nasty way to oust your predator. I trust it goes forwards moreso than backwards? Cheers, WES