Issues I have with KoT spoiled cards

Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of course. So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns : 1) The flattening of the disciplines We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) - intercept in For etc. Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's not good c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already. 3) Buy it or leave Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new strategies etc). Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough. 4) Reprints in the boosters Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players ? So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like the way it's going. So, what thinketh thou ? ------------ Orpheus

On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > 1) The flattening of the disciplines I agree. This is starting to get absurd. > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel- cards that are canceled, or? Card text: Dark Influences 2 pool Master: out of turn. Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead. > 3) Buy it or leave I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of this. > 4) Reprints in the boosters Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem! Also, I would like to add a fifth issue: 5.) Why the spoilers? How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit annoying. Just a bit :)

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > I agree. This is starting to get absurd. > >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel- > cards that are canceled, or? Card text: > > Dark Influences > 2 pool > Master: out of turn. > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > burned instead. "That card cannot be played again..." I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ? >> 3) Buy it or leave > > I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power > curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of > this. Maybe he thinks this isn't "too high". But then we all have our standards. This sure is a change from previous expansions, now maybe some players will prefer this to what they found was "dull expansions". I don't hink I will. >> 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or > like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis > Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem! Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost). > Also, I would like to add a fifth issue: > 5.) Why the spoilers? > > How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit > annoying. Just a bit :) Most of the spoilers on the french forum came from this newsgroup. ;) --------- Orpheus

In message <490acab2$0$3109$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes: >as...@hotmail.com wrote: >> On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >>> 4) Reprints in the boosters >> >> Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or >> like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis >> Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem! > >Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list >there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost). It's a base set. The point of base sets is to recycle cards back into the hands of newbies (or other people who haven't had access to particular sets). If you buy a few cards that you don't want along the way, trade them with someone who wants them. And, as ever, if you only want the new cards, you're quite welcome to buy singles. I'd be unsurprised if TheLasombra or someone put together packs of KoT Commons or KoT booster vampires, or similar. But the reprint policy can never be dictated solely by the needs of oldbies, or some cards wouldn't ever be reprinted because we all have a truckload from Jyhad, V:TES and Sabbat. Also, with most sets of boosters, having them good for draft is a useful aim. Reprinting useful, staple cards in starters only removes them from drafting. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> > I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel- > > cards that are canceled, or? Card text: > > > Dark Influences > > 2 pool > > Master: out of turn. > > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > > burned instead. > > "That card cannot be played again..." > > I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and > everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ? > I'm pretty sure you understand it correctly. and I think it's fine. You need some extra strength for that extra pool. Once this card is played it will be rather hard to get any use of additional DI1's or DI2's. Regarding the minion tap "hoser". Currently I think that card is really nice. It won't really hose minion tap and seems to me to be what Vessel should have been to Blood Doll. a slight hoser which won't mean people will stop playing Minion Tap. > > I don´t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power > > curve" rises to high, the game will die. I´ve heard LSJ is aware of > > this. > > Maybe he thinks this isn't "too high". But then we all have our standards. > This sure is a change from previous expansions, now maybe some players will > prefer this to what they found was "dull expansions". I don't hink I will. > Doesn't these cards seem to be about as powerful as the CE cards? I've only seem a few spoilers that seems too strong to me. Could you menion some examples of cards that are overpowered? > > Not a large problem if it´s GOOD reprints (Preternatural Strenght), or > > like one none-rare per booster. But if I have to draw my 14th Praxis > > Seizure Dallas or 17th Tasha Morgan as a rare - sure, it´s a problem! > > Yes, and that's why I'm waiting to know the proportions, but on the list > there are lots of cards I really don't need anymore of (even Torn Signpost). > Agreed, we'll have to wait for the complete setlist. But keep in mind that this is a base-set, it should include alot of staple reprints. > > Also, I would like to add a fifth issue: > > 5.) Why the spoilers? > > > How could all these cards leak out to France? I think it´s a bit > > annoying. Just a bit :) > > Most of the spoilers on the french forum came from this newsgroup. ;) Most spoilers are from the fact that the set was pre-released at the NAC and players who attended the NAC bought cards which they now spoiled. Regards Alex

On 31 Okt, 10:33, a...@student.chalmers.se wrote: > > > I don´t know, but did you misunderstand the card? It is other cancel- > > > cards that are canceled, or? Card text: > > > > Dark Influences > > > 2 pool > > > Master: out of turn. > > > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > > > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > > > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > > > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > > > burned instead. > > > "That card cannot be played again..." > > > I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and > > everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ? > > I'm pretty sure you understand it correctly. and I think it's fine. > You need some extra strength for that extra pool. Once this card is > played it will be rather hard to get any use of additional DI1's or > DI2's. Wait, wait, wait... Yes, of course it is the card that is cancelled that cannot be played again THIS TURN. But I referred to the sentence "The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is canceled". Sorry. BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you think?

as...@hotmail.com wrote: > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you > think? Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird? i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

On Oct 31, 6:10 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a > > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you > > think? > > Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird? > i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. > I agree. I don't say this enough, I think: "Good job, LSJ and WW team." At least in regards to that method of hosing, and also on the new cards so far (and the last few sets as well, truth be told). Oh wait, I forgot, the theme of this thread is, "the sky is falling."

On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > 1) The flattening of the disciplines I'm not real psyched about this myself, but I'll hold judgement till I see cards in play. > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is ok in my book. > 4) Reprints in the boosters This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes. > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > ? 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. -Peter

On Oct 31, 5:06 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > I understand that it is the cancelled card that cannot be played, and > everyone on the french forum understood it thus. Am I wrong ? My predator plays Deflection to bounce a bleed of 5 to me. I play Dark Influences to cancel the Deflection. My predator (and presumably everyone) can't play Deflection for the rest of the turn. -Peter

On Oct 31, 6:31 am, as...@hotmail.com wrote: > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you > think Makes sense. DI2 costs more pool (which is significant), has a slightly stronger effect (to make up for the extra pool cost), and then hoses future DI. Like, really, I would have rather seen DI get banned and no more cards like it made. But if that isn't going to happen, this is better than not. -Peter

James Coupe schrieb: > But the reprint policy can never > be dictated solely by the needs of oldbies, or some cards wouldn't ever > be reprinted because we all have a truckload from Jyhad, V:TES and > Sabbat. Just in case if anyone wants to dump me a truckload of V:TES Sabbat cards. Here is my adress (we even got a delivery gate for trucks): Andreas Nusser Maximilianstraße 93 67346 Speyer Germany regards, Andreas

Salem wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing >> a anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t >> you think? My point exactly. > Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is > weird? i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. Although some people were arguing that BD was a little too good (which Vessel isn't), there hasn't been the kind of "this is bad for the game" rant that there is over DI. So the comparison can't be made, really. ----------- Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know this card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case" strategy doesn't work, so it's even more a silver bullet. And if you can't play one because another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just adds more randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it, despite its hosing of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself. ------------- Orpheus

On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of > course. > > So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what > it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns : > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > - intercept in For > etc. > > Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict > what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks > do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. ....but if they cost more then you create blood management issue which must be compensated for. > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. ....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct Intervention. > 3) Buy it or leave When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your 1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then that's just life. Put up or shut up. Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the old strategies. > 4) Reprints in the boosters ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that true? Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

<as...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:74b72eff-88bb-45cf...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On 31 Okt, 08:15, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > > 3) Buy it or leave > > > > Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in > > fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan > > Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on > > Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4 > > compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big > > difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who > > buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most > > CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I > > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and > > even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new > > strategies etc). > > Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I > think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game, > because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough. > > I don“t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power > curve" rises to high, the game will die. I“ve heard LSJ is aware of > this. Here's a real damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't place for White Wolf. It is not possible to design new cards and make them relevant if they have to continually fear "raising the power curve". I think they used to be more conservative. As a result, people complained they weren't printing anything good so there was no point to buying the new expansions; all the "tournament cards" came from the original set. Now that they print more usable cards - "Uh, oh! They're raising the power curve!" Also, I don't know about you but I always overestimate the power of new cards when they're being discussed in the newsgroup. When I get them in hand and try to build decks, they're always less useful. It's a bad time to try to understand what's going on with the power curve right now. It may be getting pushed up a bit over time. It can't be helped. > > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going > > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if > > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players I believe Keepers of Tradition was designated a "base set" - just like 3rd Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other expansions after Camarilla Edition. That means: 1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards. 2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level. 3) All the vampires in the boosters are new. So veteran players who have all the previous sets (for the most part), if we want the new vampires and new library cards, we have to take a bunch of reprints dumped on us for which we mostly have little need. It is a problem because it makes the new library cards relatively rarer than their ostensible rarity level. It would help if they'd bump new library card rarity levels: make new library cards that qualified to be rare in a normal set uncommon in a base set; new library cards that would normally be uncommons into commons in a base set; and make new cards that would normally be common into C2s or C3s in a base set. New library cards that are printed as rares in a base set should be extreme corner case cards, or base sets just shouldn't have any new rare cards. Of course, all this would be a problem in later base sets because then their rarity levels would need to get bumped back down - causing players to complain because players don't like cards changing rarity. Oh, well. Fred

On Oct 31, 10:21 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know this > card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case" strategy doesn't > work, so it's even more a silver bullet. That strikes me as kind of the whole point of the card--make DI less of a certain defense. I mean, it is kind of an obtuse (roundabout) solution, but I suspect the whole reason to print this card is specifically to foil "I know this card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in my hand just in case". > And if you can't play one because > another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just adds more > randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it, despite its hosing > of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself. Or, it encourages you to just not use DI in the first place. Which accomplishes the same thing. But cleaner. -Peter

On Oct 31, 1:10 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a > > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you > > think? > > Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird? > i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. Same here. I'm liking the new DIv2... costs a bit more but is more powerful and somewhat hoses the old DI. It's also a nice help versus many common archetypes, including the oh so common Kindred Spirits bleed bazooka. "What, I can't play Kindred Spirits again this turn?" :D The new set is sounding like pretty good news, though of course we'll have to wait until it's released to figure out a final opinion. I don't even mind the (alleged) "flattening" of disciplines, provided that it doesn't totally go overboard. We'll see. //Petri

On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > ? It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards in this set. Since this is a core set, that should make the ratio of reprints to new library cards somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:1, which I think will make you feel a lot better than you did about 3rd. > Orpheus -John Flournoy

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > true? That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to die". Nope. In fact, I am an alien disguised as human waiting for you to let down you guard so I can attack and eat your brain! Geeze, Norm, you have to keep an open mind about these things! X13-Krzzzzzt! (or, as I'm known in my human form, Fred)

"John Flournoy" <carn...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0fac8aa9-dcba-49fe...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards > in this set. Since this is a core set, that should make the ratio of > reprints to new library cards somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:1, > which I think will make you feel a lot better than you did about 3rd. Was it 100? I thought it was 60: 20 on each rarity level. (Granted, I don't know where I read this, I just thought I did somewhere.) Also, aren't there normally 100 cards at each rarity level, rare, uncommon, and common? So that would make the ratio 2:1, best case. (Of course, that would still be much better than 3E, which had only 36.) Fred

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Orpheus wrote: > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) Likely to annoy a War Ghoul here and there. I'll bet most !Malk decks that make it to major finals don't bother with this. They just stick to good old bleed cards with stealth cards. It's worked so far. > - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) Costs a blood. I don't think it's that great for most Tremere decks, although you might splash a couple. Most of the time Theft will be better or you could Magic up a Leather Jacket. This card doesn't turn Thaumaturgy into Fortitude. > - intercept in For And this one seriously doesn't turn Fortitude into Auspex. Fortitude is often found with Auspex. Will you play +1 intercept on a (D) action or will you play Enhanced Senses? > etc. > > Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict > what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks > do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. Disciplines are still extremely specialized. Nobody is going to build a Fortitude intercept deck and assume it'll be just as good as weenie aus. > b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer > cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a > Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices. > Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That > flattens the crypts out, and it's not good You do still have to make tough choices though. What if you put 8x Obfuscate s:ce in your KS deck and nobody rushes you? You could fail to draw that crucial Eyes of Chaos and lose the table. > c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's > always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good > justification for intercepting with For, i.e. > > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a > little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the > principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark > Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, > you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I > understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That > means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your > prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have > to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to > S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already. Dark Influences isn't a no-brainer like you say it is. We all know how powerful Direct Intervention is when combined with multiple master phase actions and Anthelios. Dark Influences doesn't give you that. You cancel a card for 2 pool. Now you CAN recycle it back, but why on earth would you want to? You'll pay 2 pool to try to cancel a card but the first DI2 cancels the second one. With DI1 at least you'd only be paying 1 pool to have your own card cancelled (assuming someone else played a DI2 - your card works normally if they didn't). > 3) Buy it or leave > > Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in > fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan > Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on > Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4 > compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big > difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who > buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most > CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and > even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new > strategies etc). > > Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I > think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game, > because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough. This totally remains to be seen. I remember when people were talking about how Beretta 9mm will change everything. I expect you'll still be able to win games with just Jyhad cards. > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > ? It's a base set and there are all kinds of reprints that all kinds of people want. Heart, Unmasking, Jake Washington, Mind Rape, The Embrace, etc. That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it. Matt Morgan

On Oct 31, 10:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > > > > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > > true? > > That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it > or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal > is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to > die". 1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for new players which is the lifeblood of the game 2nd, what problem do you see? 3rd, you are a centered self-self player whose long goal is a term of imprisonment for all games to die new. :P [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <0fac8aa9-dcba-49fe...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups .com>, John Flournoy <carn...@gmail.com> writes: >It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards >in this set. I last saw 60 - 20 at each rarity. Possibly some others in pre-cons. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <490ae7b4$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> writes: >as...@hotmail.com wrote: >> BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a >> anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you >> think? > >Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird? >i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. More generally, making good cards that dis-incentivise older cards that are still playable cards for their own purposes. Hosers that are only hosers just don't get played much. I may disagree with the specifics of any given card, but the general thrust - make playable cards that aren't just corner-case hosers - is good. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > 1) The flattening of the disciplines I agree. Out of discipline powers should at least be really costly or hurt. Like the way Celerity had two sources of stealth, but they cost you two (and now they have a third for CEL and 1, which seems to be part of the flattening). I'd say that the key powers might be being maintained by shifting discipline key powers into more versitile cards (eg Murmurs) for a card efficiency advantage... but then I see cards like Deep Song, which give animialism bleed and another rush. No Trace is particularly annoying to me... it seems far too cheap and easy, at the very least it shouldn't be usable when blocking (because if you're going to try and stop me and then just disappear, I'd just keep on going). Yeah, yeah... snakes on sportbikes. The thing is that Gemini's Mirror was an appropriate way for obfuscate to do combat defence, it didn't need S:CE, too. I suppose it's only a matter of time before we start seeing more anti-S:CE tech to counter all this. Hopefully, it won't also be targeted at hosing IG by name. Disciplineless bleed also seems to be being made easier to access, things like Leverage, Camera Phone, and Monkey Wrench (for anarchs)... which seems to be a plan to guarantee that everyone has easy access to some ousting power. > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. I think the interesting thing to note about DI2 is that once you play it, you're the only player at the table that can have a card cancelled with impunity. Everyone else at the table is immune for one card. That and the whole "put in play" thing seems to be geared to making sure that this one gums up the DI/Anthelios machine. I keep getting the feeling that DI1 might be up for banning and this is it's more expensive replacement... but that whole, "cannot play that card again this turn" makes it seem like DIe is supposed to be balanced against DI1. > 3) Buy it or leave Personally, I think that the fact that every new set gives all new vampires is enough reason to keep buying new sets. > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > ? in a b Because this is a base set for the Camarilla, it's going to be reprint heavy and large. The good news is that it has more new cards than 3rd and the distribution should be more uniform. However, the size is still an issue... if there are 100 commons and 5 common slots in a booster, you can only expect 1.8 (if the distribution is flat like most sets, that means about 80% 2s, 20% 1s with a couple cards of variablity allowing for maybe a 3 or 0) of any given common in a box (if things are flat). If things are more random like SoC or badly mixed like 3rd, that goes out the window... you can get really lucky and get 7 of a common in a box, or really unlucky and see only 1 or the common you most want in 3 boxes. I'm no fan of the large sets... it'd be nice if they had a lower rarity for new cards. Making the new ones C2s would up the expected value to 3 (with some 2s and some 4s), bringing it closer to a medium sized set (where you typically get around 5). Sure that makes older cards harder to get for people, but on the other hand new cards are easier to trade for handfuls of old cards that the veterans don't want in theirs. Brent Ross

I think DI2 will change the mindset of how to play DI1/2. People will be less likely to hold it for a key play for fear DI2 will be played before they get the chance. This will reduce the effectivness of the DI's. Once DI2 is in play, would you be more likely to hold your DI1, play it (cracking the box) or discard it? DI2's effect is so strong. I think we will see it played. Even w/ the future shut drop of one cancel card will not stop the timing issue (does any 2 meth a DI1/2) What's more I think it is good for combat deck's(but maybe I remember it wrong) want to cancel an IG or Frenzy well you need two of the card. There are so many cancel cards in the game, my previous statement about mindset is probably wrong. DI2 is just a stronger DI. Are going to allow yourself to be grappled/rotshrekiced just to keep the cancel window half closed? Matt Anybody want a peanut

In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan <far...@io.com> writes: >That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it. Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing happiness for most players with every set. (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:74abe781-481d-4f84...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 31, 10:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > > > news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > > > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > > > true? > > > > That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it > > or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal > > is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to > > die". > > 1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for > new players which is the lifeblood of the game I'm not arguing for never reprinting. I'm not even arguing for never reprinting in boosters. I'm just saying the way they do it causes the problem Orpheus described. > 2nd, what problem do you see? That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective. But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem. > 3rd, you are a centered self-self player whose long goal is a term of > imprisonment for all games to die new. :P Sure. That's why I spend so much money on the game. I'm trying to make it die out. Fred

On Oct 31, 10:16 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message [ quoted text not captured ] No, you're correct. I double-checked - 20 rares, uncommons and commons. > Fred -John Flournoy

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 31, 10:21 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> I'm really not sure about this, Peter. Because now, even the "I know >> this card can be DIed so I'll keep one more in had just in case" >> strategy doesn't work, so it's even more a silver bullet. > > That strikes me as kind of the whole point of the card--make DI less > of a certain defense. I mean, it is kind of an obtuse (roundabout) > solution, but I suspect the whole reason to print this card is > specifically to foil "I know this card can be DIed so I'll keep one > more in my hand just in case". Well, if some players (myself included) complained about DI1, it wasn't because if wasn't powerful *enough*, but because it was already way too powerful, even if you could keep a card in hand. So now it's just worse. >> And if you can't play one because >> another player played one which hasn't been cancelled yet, it just >> adds more randomness and compromises planning, so I really hate it, >> despite its hosing of a card I already hated and, partly, of itself. > > Or, it encourages you to just not use DI in the first place. Which > accomplishes the same thing. But cleaner. I don't think it will. The card is way too powerful? Sure, you'll want to play 1 or 2 in a game, but it will be game-changing. Whoever plays it first wins. Let's play Jungle Speed now ? ------- Orpheus

>> I don“t blame WW trying to sell more boosters. But if the "power >> curve" rises to high, the game will die. I“ve heard LSJ is aware of >> this. > > Here's a real damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't place for White > Wolf. You are right on this. > It is not possible to design new cards and make them relevant if they > have to continually fear "raising the power curve". I think they > used to be more conservative. As a result, people complained they weren't > printing anything good so there was no point to buying the new > expansions; all the "tournament cards" came from the original set. Now > that they print more usable cards - "Uh, oh! They're raising the power > curve!" Sure. But, speaking only for myself, I've bought each of the previous (non-Imbued) expansion, and right now I don't know if I'll buy KoT or not (in which case I don't think I'll be able to play competitively for very long). So it does bother me more than "stagnation". A few good cards isn't a problem, AAMoF they are required !! But a bunch of "much better cards than before" is a problem to me. I don't want to feel "obligated to buy", that's just how I am. > Also, I don't know about you but I always overestimate the power of > new cards when they're being discussed in the newsgroup. When I get them > in hand and try to build decks, they're always less useful. It's a bad > time to try to understand what's going on with the power curve right now. Sure. This works for lots of cards. But then there are no-brainers where you KNOW it's good by easy comparison with existing cards. > It may be getting pushed up a bit over time. It can't be helped. Over time and a bit : been there, done that. Just compare average G1 and G3. Now it's getting more and more so, is all. [ quoted text not captured ] These are very good suggestions, thanks Fred ! If WW reads you, and if they didn't already apply such a strategy to KoT (which is why I asked about it) they should start with the next "base edition" set ! > Of course, all this would be a problem in later base sets because > then their rarity levels would need to get bumped back down - causing > players to complain because players don't like cards changing rarity. > Oh, well. Not a problem for me, because as you said the "real" rarity is a whole different thing. Just see how the commons were in LoB (because there were many different cards) or the new cards in 3rd Ed ! ------------- Orpheus

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > I'm not real psyched about this myself, but I'll hold judgement till I > see cards in play. Ok, let's speak about it later then (if I'm still in the game, not sure as of now...). >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it > prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful > for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which > basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is > ok in my book. As I said in another answer, it just makes the effect more random : the first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like it at all. >> 4) Reprints in the boosters > > This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the > boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new > players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the > boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes. > >> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new >> players ? > > 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. > 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new cards. ------------- Orpheus

James Coupe wrote: > In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan > <far...@io.com> writes: >> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it. > > Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing > happiness for most players with every set. You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or something like that ? > (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.) The sentence that makes the most sense in your post. ------------- Orpheus F'tagn

XZealot wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not >> fakes, of course. >> >> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, >> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my >> concerns : >> >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines >> >> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that >> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : >> >> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) >> - intercept in For >> etc. >> >> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because >> >> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to >> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature >> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is >> less a part of the game. > > ....but if they cost more then you create blood management issue which > must be compensated for. And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything. Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple). >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > ....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct > Intervention. You misunderstood my point, so your answer makes no sense : the hosers and DI2 are two different things, separated by a coma, not ":". >> 3) Buy it or leave > > When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your > 1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then > that's just life. Put up or shut up. Your example makes no sense at all. Beast / Theo or cel gunners could destroy Malks wayyyy back. Street Cred or Anarchy change nothing fondamental. So please find better examples. Or shut up. ;) > Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the > old strategies. Certainly not the strategies, but several older cards yes. And several interesting combos too, see the flattening part. >> 4) Reprints in the boosters > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > true? I wonder what makes you reach that silly conclusion. If it's a drug pass it around. My trouble is more or less what Frederick Scott has developped, and I see you are already in a discussion with him. Just consider that I agree with his points on the "rarer" part and you'll (hopefully) get my PoV. ------------ Orpheus

On Oct 31, 1:40 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > > Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it > > prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful > > for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which > > basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is > > ok in my book. > > As I said in another answer, it just makes the effect more random : the > first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and > maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like > it at all. Not quite. The first one to play it becomes the table target of all DIs (1 and 2). Because the DIs are only cancelled if they target "another Methuselah", which would be anyone other than the controller, which would be the person who played it. This would continue until a second playter plays DI2, at which point there would be two table targets, at least one of which would be freed by the next DI play. So the first player is also somewhat hosed, as they have no target they can effectively DI cards on again until they "play" another DI (of course that's not a big deal if you only play one... but you'd still have to deal with becoming the DI target). And, yeah, the second player is somewhat hosed, in that they might not have their optimal DI target available. Which is bad if it means not being able to cancel a big bleed card or a rush like you planed to use DI, but with DI2 in the game now that's less reliable defense so you shouldn't be planning on DI as ironclad anymore. But they can still smack the person who did that to them, which is something... so their DI isn't entirely worthless (and if they play a big stack of DI they might be willing to toss a DI to regain the ability to target their next DI freely... meaning that we might see some decks with more DIs than ever). Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 1:07 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Well, if some players (myself included) complained about DI1, it wasn't > because if wasn't powerful *enough*, but because it was already way too > powerful, even if you could keep a card in hand. So now it's just worse. I'm not seeing how it is "just worse" now; DI2 costs an extra pool. And the existence of DI2 means that, generally speaking, only the first DI1/2 that sees play will have any effect, and the rest of them become dead cards (as no one is likely to play a DI or DI2 just to let other folks play them more in the future). Which means that playing DI is now risky (if I put DI in my deck, and someone plays DI2 before I draw my DI, my DI is now likely just a dead card). So using multiples of them (or DI2) becomes foolish. So the likely effect is fewer DIs in circulation in general. Yes. The individual effect of DI2 is more powerful than DI1. 'Cause it costs an extra pool, and provides diminishing returns (how is putting 2+ DI2 in your deck going to help much? If you play the first, the rest are dead, unless you spend 2 pool and a MPA to get the first DI2 off the table, which seems wildly counterproductive to me). But due to the effect of the card, it is unlikely that more than 1 will go off per game. Which strikes me as completely reasonable. > I don't think it will. The card is way too powerful? Sure, you'll want to > play 1 or 2 in a game, but it will be game-changing. Whoever plays it first > wins. Let's play Jungle Speed now ? Giant's Blood works the same way. And is arguably more powerful than DI ever was. DI2 means, likely, that there will be fewer DI effects floating around. And yes, the first person to play theirs "wins". Which means that people will want to play theirs early to avoid getting frozen out. Which means that people won't hold them for the best possible play. Which means that "winning" in this case will often mean "playing it early for a minimal effect or at a not particularly important moment, just so you don't just have to discard it later". -Peter

Orpheus wrote: > Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, > of course. > > So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, > and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my > concerns : > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that > were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > - intercept in For > etc. > > Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to > predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature > it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is > less a part of the game. > b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of > nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to > include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to > make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha > / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's > not good > c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I > know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any > good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. > > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new > cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a > fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand > is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs > 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when > you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the same card can't > be played again ?! That means that if you're a stealth bleeder and > get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one > again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to include various rushes. But no > IG either ? And now you've got access to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A > no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already. > 3) Buy it or leave > > Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good > cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the > crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a > deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the > Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What > this means is that there will be a big difference not only in > variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and those > who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most CCGs, but > that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards > and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play > variety, new strategies etc). > Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other > activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT > or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be good > enough. > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new > non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so > we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons > of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the > proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to > starters, which are way enough for new players ? > > So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty > sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like > the way it's going. > > So, what thinketh thou ? > ------------ > Orpheus So far, the only issue that really concerns me about these spoilers (i think i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the total lack of *new* camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which definitively seems to be *not* a "breaking news" card anyway) Anyway, i'll wait some weeks to have the cards in hand, before giving a real judgment.on the set best Emiliano, NC Italy www.italybynight.org

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > I'm not real psyched about this myself, but I'll hold judgement till I > see cards in play. > >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Dark Influences costs 2, which is significant. To make up for it, it > prevents you from playing the same card that turn. Which is painful > for a lot of decks. And it also foils the next DI effect. Which > basically means both it and old DI are "play one per game". Which is > ok in my book. > >> 4) Reprints in the boosters > > This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the > boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new > players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the > boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes. > >> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new >> players ? > > 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. > 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. > I can see your points However, about the "new players" argument, i think that it will be matter of debate in near future, given the actual VTES status . best Emiliano, NC Italy

On Oct 31, 1:40 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > As I said in another answer, it just makes the effect more random : the > first player to play it has a very strong effect, the next one is hosed, and > maybe another one plays it and gains a huge advantage again... I don't like > it at all. Once the first one is played, no more will be played. Are *you* gonna spend pool and an MPA just so that someone else can play DI later on? DI2 has the same effect (more or less) of making DI say "only one DI may be played per game" (just like Giant's Blood. And Ancient Influence). And in the process, making DI cost 2 pool instead of 1. I mean, sure, it is possible that everyone will just ignore DI2 and nothing will change. But DI2 seems advantageous enough to justify using, and playing it early to gain an advantage in both the short (as you cancelled a card) and long (as no one else will ever play a DI for the rest of the game) term. > Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I > hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new > cards. It is a base set. All base sets have had reprints and new cards in the boosters (see: Sabbat War, CE, 3rd). As it gives new players access to cards they need, old players cards access to cards they still need (I don't have enough Freak Drives yet. And hopefully, there will be On the Qui and Vessel in the boosters, as I don't have enough of those either). And there are always new vampires in the boosters. So yeah, it might not be the greatest plan ever, in terms of benefiting long time players, but it is a basic marketing device, and all the other base sets have worked the same way. -Peter

The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of them are playable. Hide the Mind Approximation of Loyalty Disengage Fae Contortion Determine False Resonance Goundfighting Terra Incognita any Abombwe card Any of them will take DI2 out, assuming the wording is correct. Matt

On Oct 31, 2:15 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything. > Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a > pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple). No Trace (the obf S:CE) costs 1 blood according to the reports I've seen. Which puts it as more expensive than similar S:CEs... Meld with the Land, Staredown, and Spiritual Intervention, all of which offer full S:CE at superior and a more limited defence at inferior and cost no blood. It's also weaker than the Presence S:CE standards, which is available unlimited at inferior for 1 blood. Protean S:CE is, of course, right off the scale and super twinky. So it is at the bottom of the S:CE scale and will often be trumped by the offering of a different discipline in decks that want it. A Settite deck will just use Presence, a City Gangrel deck will use Protean, Nosferatu might use Flesh Bond (the 2R attack doesn't require range like No Trace) does. It's only decks with no other access to S:CE that will even look at it. But still, I also don't exactly like the idea or direction of the card. I like powers more "School" based than "Realm" based... where you have to go to a particular School of Magic to get a particular type of effect rather than having each Magical Realm cover almost all the same ground but in their own flavour. In a School system you have to mix and match what you care about and accept some holes. In a Realm system you just choose what role you want (Death Mage, Life Priest, Nature Druid... they all end up with all the same key powers) and go. The only consequence of your choice is that you'll be slightly less powerful in some areas. Realm systems are less interesting to play, IMHO. Brent Ross

mat...@gmail.com wrote: > The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of > them are playable. > Hide the Mind > Approximation of Loyalty > Disengage > Fae Contortion > Determine > False Resonance > Goundfighting > Terra Incognita > any Abombwe card Iron Heart Botched Move

On Oct 31, 2:40 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > Once the first one is played, no more will be played. Are *you* gonna > spend pool and an MPA just so that someone else can play DI later on? 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed" clause (but IDNHCIH). 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2 in front of them. Of course, if there are two DI2s out you'll be cancelled by the other one... so at that point it gets somewhat locked. The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you (the controller of the card). You essentially become a target for cancellation effects, which is one of the downsides. 3) As Matt points out, there are many cancel cards that might get rid of the DI2 for you. Brent Ross

In article <9e6611d5-1b7b-4000...@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed" > clause (but IDNHCIH). That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much. > 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2 > in front of them. I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are interpreting it is reading too much into the text. > The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like > Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you > (the controller of the card). This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

In article <b5875fb0-71c9-45d8...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, mat...@gmail.com wrote: > The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of > them are playable. > > Hide the Mind > Approximation of Loyalty > Disengage > Fae Contortion > Determine > False Resonance > Goundfighting > Terra Incognita > any Abombwe card Sure. But most of these aren't super common, compared to DI. And unless you are playing a lot of them, playing 1 just to get rid of the DI2 in play (unless you have, like, a DI in your hand also) seems not that likely to pay off. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 31, 12:30 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <b5875fb0-71c9-45d8-8759-d199d25d4...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, > > matt...@gmail.com wrote: > > The number of cards that will cancel a minion card is high. Many of > > them are playable. > > > Hide the Mind > > Approximation of Loyalty > > Disengage > > Fae Contortion > > Determine > > False Resonance > > Goundfighting > > Terra Incognita > > any Abombwe card > > Sure. But most of these aren't super common, compared to DI. And unless > you are playing a lot of them, playing 1 just to get rid of the DI2 in > play (unless you have, like, a DI in your hand also) seems not that > likely to pay off. > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Fair enough

On Oct 31, 12:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <9e6611d5-1b7b-4000-bb99-730cfee30...@b31g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, > > bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > > 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed" > > clause (but IDNHCIH). > > That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But > even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no > purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much. > > > 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2 > > in front of them. > > I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something > along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another > methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are > interpreting it is reading too much into the text. > > > The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like > > Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you > > (the controller of the card). > > This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not > looking at the spoiler right now. Dark Influences Cardtype: Master: out of turn. Cost: 2 pool Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead. If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).

On Oct 31, 12:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of > course. > > So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and what > it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns : > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude as well! > - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? My greatest difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and only prevents damage from strikes. > - intercept in For > etc. > > Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict > what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks > do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act that, seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're just playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to hurt you". > b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer > cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a > Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt choices. > Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). That > flattens the crypts out, and it's not good This is a boon in my books. Oh, so you mean I can now play 3/4ths of the Tremere/!Tremere I have because they can now actually survive heavy combat? I don't have to devote 10+ cards to try to graft on a discipline that dilutes the focus of my deck? GREAT! Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized. > c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know it's > always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good > justification for intercepting with For, i.e. I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment on it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/ younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to Presence, but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to overcome their awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what they're doing). Deep Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me to be getting in tune with the Beast within all vampires, whether your own (+1 bleed), or inducing it in others (the enter combat). > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a > little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the > principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand is Dark > Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, > you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if I > understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! That > means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your > prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have > to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access to > S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already. I can understand the frustration of stymied combat. But I'm not of the school that non-combat decks should be at the mercy of combat oriented ones. > 3) Buy it or leave > > Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards in > fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts (Ranjan > Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth on > Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4 > compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a big > difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players who > buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most > CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and > even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new > strategies etc). He's not a copy of Ranjan, having FOR instead of PRE. I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that much a concern. There are still ridiculously powerful vampires all the way back to Jyhad. There's little point in recycling discipline spreads and abilities, there has to be new spins on vampires, or there's not point in playing the new vampires. And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and João Bilé can't even attempt to block it!). > Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, I > think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game, > because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough. Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning decks. This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still make winning decks if you've never bought anything since original Jyhad. All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what keeps the game interesting. > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really going > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already own if > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > ? There's been enough comments on this. Just adding my vote to saying that I don't see this as a bad thing. You can't pack enough reprints in just the starters, nor should new players be forced to buy a ton of starter decks just to get cards they haven't had a chance to get before. > So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty sure > that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like the way > it's going. > > So, what thinketh thou ? > ------------ > Orpheus I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth - didn't happen. Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat the only way to go - didn't happen. Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper - hasn't happened. Certainly, there will be new cards to put into decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Oct 31, 3:25 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > > 1) The text I've seen reported for DI2 has the "No cost is payed" > > clause (but IDNHCIH). > > That might be the case--I'm not looking at the spoiler right now. But > even then, you are still using a very limited resource for likely no > purpose but to benefit other folks. Unlikely to happen much. Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel cards. Until you cancel a cancel, you won't be able to cancel with a DI2 in front of you. Other players will be less restricted because they can at least hit you. > > 2) More can be played... you just play them on the player with a DI2 > > in front of them. > > I don't know that this is the case. The spoiler I saw said something > along the lines of "any card played to cancel a card played by another > methuselah is cancelled..." I think interpreting this in the way you are > interpreting it is reading too much into the text. > > > The key thing here is that once the DI2 is in play it's like > > Powerbase: Madrid... "another Methuselah" means anyone other than you > > (the controller of the card). > > This strikes me as questionable interpretation. But then again, I'm not > looking at the spoiler right now. Spoiler says: " Put this card in play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead." Of course, the use of "no cost" in that text marks it as unreliable. English does have some ambiguity with the wording, but in game terms a card played will almost always cancelling another Methuselah's minion card, the exceptions to that are rare and atypical (most are explicit about not targetting yourself). Things like Andrew Stuard and Blood of Sandman don't count here because they're not played. The only cases I can see that are missing a restriction that prevents playing a card to self-cancel are Abombwe Reflexes, Power of All, Soul Decoration, and Disengage. It seems rather odd to single those out... especially when it would be clearer to introduce the cancelling minion into the DI2 text, so the "another Methuselah" would have something to be "another" from. As it is, the subject is "the next card", and so I default to assuming that "another Methuselah" means "other than the controller of this card"... like the two dozen plus Master cards that use the phrase. I look at it and see a hokey limitation against self-cancel vs. a well established precedent for what "another Methuselah" means and go with the later as more sane. It just makes more sense to me that you'd become a target (and have to play nice for a while) for breaking the rules of the Jyhad and getting directly involved. DI2 is more along the lines of what DI1 should have been to begin with (which is why it occasionally causes my cardban-sense to tingle about DI1)... it's more expensive, it doesn't play as nice with Anthelios (or other ways to use it more often), and the "become a target, and lose your next cancel" penalty just seems to fit right in (more than the "freeze the whole table out from cancelling" boon interpretation). Well, I guess we won't have an official answer until the set comes out (unless LSJ decides to jump in with a hypothetical interpretation of what such text on a card would mean in game terms). Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > as well! Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/ presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge", especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no one to stop me). I liked the idea that if you managed to actually beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity. But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this flattening is heading. Brent Ross

In article <99834f93-6324-4648...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the > card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel > cards. Sure (now that I have read the spoiler recently :-)--you can play a DI, spend an MPA but not cost a pool so that someone else can play DI in the future--how many DIs are in anyone's deck, such that it is going to really be worth the effort to do this? DI shows up a lot. But even when it shows up a lot, people don't have more than 2-3 tops. If I have 2x DIs in my deck, if someone plays DI2 before I get off one of my DIs, what is the percentage for me to play one of my DIs just to allow me to play my second, which: A) I might never draw into. B) Might get foiled by the *next* DI2 that I just opened the door for. > It seems rather odd to single those out... > especially when it would be clearer to introduce the cancelling minion > into the DI2 text, so the "another Methuselah" would have something to > be "another" from. As it is, the subject is "the next card", and so I > default to assuming that "another Methuselah" means "other than the > controller of this card"... like the two dozen plus Master cards that > use the phrase. I'm reading "another methuselah" as an indicator of what the DI2 in play cancells--a card that cancels a card played by another methuselah--rather than "another methuselah" being a limiter of what cards will be cancelled by the DI2 in play (i.e. my reading of DI2 is the one in play will cancel the first card played by anyone that cancels a card played by another methusealh [as opposed to the methuselah playing it] and then it will leave play). My interpretation strikes me as lot less confusing (i.e. any card that cancels a card played by another methuselah sets off the DI2 in play) than yours does (i.e. any card that cancels a card played by another methuselah than the one who originally played the DI2 card sets off the DI2 in play). But that might just be me. [ quoted text not captured ]

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> > 4) Reprints in the boosters >> > >> > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new >> > non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new >> > cards, so we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts >> > and get tons of cards we already own if we want those new cards? >> > What will the proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep >> > reprints to starters, which are way enough for new players > > I believe Keepers of Tradition was designated a "base set" - just > like 3rd Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other > expansions after Camarilla Edition. That means: > > 1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards. > 2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level. > 3) All the vampires in the boosters are new. I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards). Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

In article <9bb4f6ea-0844-41cd...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > Dark Influences > Cardtype: Master: out of turn. > Cost: 2 pool > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > burned instead. > > If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross > is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion > cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths > minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If > another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as > well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one > or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and > their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost). Yeah, I'm not seeing that. "The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played..." is, in my reading, an indicator of what kid of card is cancelled (i.e. a card that cancels another methuselah's minion card) not an indicator of who is playing what. Just like if it said "The next card played that would allow a tapped minion to untap or react as if untapped" or "The next card played that would increase a minions bleed". These are examples of cards that get played and do not indicate who is playing them; a card "played that would cancel another methuselah's minion card" is a type of card, not an indication of who is playing what. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] > their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I can see the interpretation either way. To me, though, it's meant to affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own (specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation, it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead." There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts. Paying 2 pool to make yourself the target of cancellation cards isn't going to see many decks soon, even if they prevent the use of the original cancelled card for the turn. Chris, Thrall of Arika

Peter D Bakija wrote: > > Dark Influences > > Cardtype: Master: out of turn. > > Cost: 2 pool > > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > > burned instead. > Yeah, I'm not seeing that. "The next card played that would cancel > another Methuselah's minion card as it is played..." is, in my reading, > an indicator of what kid of card is cancelled (i.e. a card that cancels > another methuselah's minion card) not an indicator of who is playing > what. Just like if it said "The next card played that would allow a > tapped minion to untap or react as if untapped" or "The next card played > that would increase a minions bleed". These are examples of cards that > get played and do not indicate who is playing them; a card "played that > would cancel another methuselah's minion card" is a type of card, not an > indication of who is playing what. Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence, it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples. Your interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your turn from cancellation responses. It is more balanced an idea to assume that the word 'another' is not a long way of saying 'a' and that now you are the one restricted, unless somebody gets you off the hook.

On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 4:21 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> > wrote: > > > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > > as well! > > Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to > never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/ > presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent > down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge", > especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I > think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no > one to stop me). I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the ground ... why should that stop my rampage? Presumably the idea is that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to disappear from sight right in front of people). > I liked the idea that if you managed to actually > beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified > to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity. Don't play against Setites much? *grins* > But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change > the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't > care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this > flattening is heading. > > Brent Ross As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld. And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions, there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set. Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no one to use? Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Oct 31, 2:03 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > I can see the interpretation either way. To me, though, it's meant to > affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own > (specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation, > it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah > plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no > cost) and this card is burned instead." That says something completely different that would allow YOU to be the only one that could cancel a minion card without burning the DI2. > There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic > Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts. DI2 stipulation is the canceling of a minion card as it is played. TVP cancels a referrendum not the card as it is played, Red Herring and Psychomachia cancel the action not the card as it is played, Primal Instincts cancels the strike not the card as it is played. > Paying 2 pool to make yourself the target of cancellation cards isn't > going to see many decks soon, even if they prevent the use of the > original cancelled card for the turn. Not the point but I am also not very certain about that. Stopping multiple Kindred Spirits, KRC's, Governs, Comp Hacks, etc. can be valuable indeed.

[ quoted text not captured ] Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just discard the Master you don't want right now and use it later. One example among many... ----------- Orpheus

[ quoted text not captured ] It seems like you are correct, but the only hook that you are on is people can still cancel your minion cards. while I admit that is bad it is no different than if you had not played it. (unless you think people will use you to cycle)

In article <490b7dd5$0$1533$426a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just discard the > Master you don't want right now and use it later. One example among many... Recursivity already makes DI nighmarish. With DI2, it recurses half as much. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <acea96b6-6d11-4eed...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence, > it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples. A "card that cancels another methuselah's card as played" is a type of card. > Your > interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you > to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your > turn from cancellation responses. My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes away. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 31, 5:07 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Oct 31, 6:10 am, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote:> as...@hotmail.com wrote: > > > BTW, these cancelling-cards is not good for the game, I think. Doing a > > > anti-DI-card that also is a DI is a weird way of fixing DI, don´t you > > > think? > > > Like making an anti-blood doll card that is also a blood doll is weird? > > i like it, myself. I thought it was a novel way to do things. > > I agree. I don't say this enough, I think: "Good job, LSJ and WW > team." At least in regards to that method of hosing, and also on the > new cards so far (and the last few sets as well, truth be told). I'll chime in on this as well. As a professional game designer, I have vast respect for the balancing, elegance, and fun that LSJ has created in recent expansions. Dark Influences even has the same initials as Direct Intervention! Ira

On Oct 31, 5:03 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > > Dark Influences > > Cardtype: Master: out of turn. > > Cost: 2 pool > > Cancel a minion card as it is played. No cost is paid. That card > > cannot be played again for the remainder of the turn. Put this card in > > play. The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's > > minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is > > burned instead. > > > If this is the official text (which makes the most sense) then bwross > > is correct. Players can still cancel your (the controller's) minion > > cards without burning the DI2. If you want to cancel another meths > > minion card then you would burn the DI2 instead (at no cost). If > > another meth plays a DI2 on you then they will have a DI2 in play as > > well. At this point another meth playing a cancel card will burn one > > or both of the DI2's depending on who they attempt to play it on and > > their cancel card will be canceled no matter what (at no cost).- Hide quoted text - > > I can see the interpretation either way. To me, though, it's meant to > affect cards that cancel someone elses minion cards, not your own > (specifically, to curb the use of DI). For the above interpretation, > it would be more correct to say "The next card another Methuselah > plays that would cancel a minion card as it is played is canceled (no > cost) and this card is burned instead." That's not the same at all. That would let "you" (the controller) play as much DI as you please, when the exact opposite is true... the controller of the DI2 can't play a cancel card without it being cancelled unless he does so on himself. The interpretation requires that "another Methuselah" be attached to the target of the cancellation (which the phrase "another Minion's minion card" does perfectly) and not the player of the cancelling card (which not having "another Methselah" taked onto "The next card" does perfectly). My interpretation also curbs DI... if someone across the table plays a DI2 and you have a DI in hand you have these options: 1) Play it on something they do (if only to cycle the card) which might end up more beneficial to your prey or predator who are adjacent to that player. 2) Discard it. 3) Have it cancelled by using it on someone else just to cycle and get rid of the DI2... only beneficial if you're playing a lot of DI so you can assume a better chance of being next to the post. Essentially, if you were planing on using DI1 to defend against your predator, a DI2 in play by anyone else will kill that plan dead. > There are a few cards that will cancel your own actions. Telepathic > Vote Counting, Red Herring, Psychomachia at pre, Primal Instincts. We've already covered this... none of those are relevant here. The first three cancel actions, not cards (which might not exist)... the last one cancels a strike, not a card (which might not exist). For DI2, as worded in the spoiler, you need to cancel the play of an actual card. These simply do not do that... see my list above for some that actually do (Abombwe, Soul Decoration, etc)... it essentially requires doing abberant behaviour (although sometimes useful, like cycling Abombwe out of your hand, they're always somewhat weird). Also, note that self-cancellation by the DI2-intent player isn't a valid strategy under either interpretation. You can't actively design a deck to play DI2 and clear it with Abombwe... both interpretations require a DI2 deck to pack cancellation cards usable against others with the plan of using them to clear the way for the DI2. Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 4:50 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <99834f93-6324-4648-8333-638566f99...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, > > bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > > Well, if my interpretation is correct, it's essentially tossing the > > card (and perhaps a MPA if it's a DI) to regain your ability to cancel > > cards. > > Sure (now that I have read the spoiler recently :-)--you can play a DI, > spend an MPA but not cost a pool so that someone else can play DI in the > future--how many DIs are in anyone's deck, such that it is going to > really be worth the effort to do this? DI shows up a lot. But even when > it shows up a lot, people don't have more than 2-3 tops. If I have 2x > DIs in my deck, if someone plays DI2 before I get off one of my DIs, > what is the percentage for me to play one of my DIs just to allow me to > play my second, which: > > A) I might never draw into. > > B) Might get foiled by the *next* DI2 that I just opened the door for. You know, talking DI stategy between us is pretty silly right now. I read your argument and it completely doesn't fit with my interpretation... so naturally it makes no sense. For example, I see your situation and add: C) Look at playing that DI against the player with the DI2 in front of them. It won't be cancelled and you might be able to get some benefit. If benefit is unlikely, discard it like any other card you're unlikely to benefit from because of the way the game's playing. An option which makes no sense under your interpretation. Which is why we really can't talk about DI2 except in the cases where it's the same under both interpretations. Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 5:35 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > > > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > > > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > > > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > > > as well! > > > Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to > > never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/ > > presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent > > down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge", > > especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I > > think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no > > one to stop me). > > I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or > Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the > ground ... why should that stop my rampage? That always bothered me too. Earth Melding in the RPG was too slow for combat by default... the fast version (which might not be allowed) was extremely expensive. Neither prevented the Garou from just digging up the earth where you melded and doing nasty things... you really needed to get away first. What Earth Melding was good for was doing things into the day... anywhere there's dirt you can make a temporary haven. I would have made it another Protean stealth card instead (or made it cost blood for the S:CE). Still there's the difference that an Earth Melded foe is still present and could pop up behind you (perhaps that's how they do it... they make you try to play Whack-a-Mole to distract you till sunrise makes you go home (they don't have to leave)). Getting the hell out of Dodge means that there's no one there to stop me, so I just go on with destruction. Of course, you could say that the obfuscator is blinking about trying to distract them (rather odd for a card called *No* Trace)... but that's how Realm systems work. You can always find some interpretation to give any powersource any ability... you just add the flavouring. For example, if you want a Potence intercept card... welcome, "Unwilling Informant". If you want it you can do it... but that doesn't mean you sould. > Presumably the idea is > that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to > foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is > actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the > Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to > disappear from sight right in front of people). > > > I liked the idea that if you managed to actually > > beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified > > to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity. > > Don't play against Setites much? *grins* The difference there is that the caught Setite actually stays around for the combat and pulls a "Kneel before Zod" on you. > > But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change > > the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't > > care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this > > flattening is heading. > > As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As > described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends > cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare > to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld. Yep, I'm glad that it really isn't so good as to really impact the game much. It's the general idea of it and other recent cards passing out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more playable than making them less important. For example, if No Trace was like Sense the Savage Way (in requiring >6 cap) I'd have less of a feeling that things were getting washed out. That sort of design would essientally add new levels to disciplines... "exalted" inferior and superior abilities available only to those with thick blood (it's too bad that it's too late to make Govern the Unaligned require high capacity). At the highest levels of any discipline borders really start to blur because beings that get to that point should have big benefits. > And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions, > there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of > cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set. > Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no > one to use? Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of Gehenna for the game, IMHO. If all they can do now is wash out the disciplines into flavoured copies of each other to make new library cards, I'd rather them just make new vampires and reprint library cards. Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 3:16 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel > something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes > away. Exactly. DI2 something on your predators turn and then you are protected on your turn from cancellation unless someone burns the DI2 and then you can be targeted. If we are talking about DI's then 2 different meths will have to work together to stop you. Seems a little too strong that way for the one who played it. Well worth 1 more pool then a normal DI.

In message <490b435c$0$6021$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan >> <far...@io.com> writes: >>> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it. >> >> Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing >> happiness for most players with every set. > >You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or something >like that ? > >> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.) > >The sentence that makes the most sense in your post. You'd probably do better revising the concepts of "humour" and "ROT13". Both are integral to Usenet. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

In message <490b4307$0$12000$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes: >Peter D Bakija wrote: >> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. >> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. > >Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I >hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new >cards. Of course they want to print some new cards in it too. Most sets won't thrive on the sales to new players alone. So you put in some cards that will appeal to newbies, some that will appeal to oldbies. Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely reprints. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 31, 5:35 pm, Thrall of Arika <christopher.ack...@amec.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:39 pm, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > > > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > > > > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > > > > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > > > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > > > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > > > as well! > > > Obfuscate had the appropriate pieces already in place: stealth to > > never get caught, Sleep Unseen to never get rushed, and maneuvers/ > > presses/Gemini's Mirror for when you block and have to tie an opponent > > down for a while. It didn't need a "get the hell out of dodge", > > especially on blocks (because if someone disappears with No Trace, I > > think I should just continue Rampaging the building because there's no > > one to stop me). > > I don't see it as any different that someone with Protean or > Viscissitude coming up to you and then disappearing into the > ground ... why should that stop my rampage? That always bothered me too. Earth Melding in the RPG was too slow for combat by default... the fast version (which might not be allowed) was extremely expensive. Neither prevented the Garou from just digging up the earth where you melded and doing nasty things... you really needed to get away first. What Earth Melding was good for was doing things into the day... anywhere there's dirt you can make a temporary haven. I would have made it another Protean stealth card instead (or made it cost blood for the S:CE). Still there's the difference that an Earth Melded foe is still present and could pop up behind you (perhaps that's how they do it... they make you try to play Whack-a-Mole to distract you till sunrise makes you go home (they don't have to leave)). Getting the hell out of Dodge means that there's no one there to stop me, so I just go on with destruction. > Presumably the idea is > that your blocking minion distracts the acting minion long enough to > foil their plans, and you 'disappear without a trace', which is > actually a mid-range Obfuscate ability in the RPG (Vanish from the > Mind's Eye, which probably should have done this, as it allows you to > disappear from sight right in front of people). Of course, you could say that... but that's how Realm systems work. You can always find some interpretation to give any powersource any ability... you just add the flavouring. For example, if you want a Potence intercept card... welcome, "Unwilling Informant". If you want it you can do it... but that doesn't mean you should. The thing is that Obfuscate already had the "distract the acting minion long enough" approach... maneuvers, presses to end, and most importantly Gemini's Mirror... which is essentially just that. The description of No Trace as "get the hell out of dodge" is exacty counter to that. You need a Trace so the minion you're blocking is actually distracted... running away and leaving them to their business is a crappy way to stop someone. > > I liked the idea that if you managed to actually > > beat someone's obfuscate on their action that meant you were qualified > > to not have them just blink out at the first opportunity. > > Don't play against Setites much? *grins* The difference there is that the caught Setite actually stays around for the combat and pulls a "Kneel before Zod" on you. It's very different when the acting minion is the one that's doing the leaving and has no desire to fight or continue with their action... No Trace is the blocker leaving. > > But as I say above, No Trace isn't broken and isn't going to change > > the game much (because almost everyone has a better option or doesn't > > care to bother with S:CE already). I just don't like where all this > > flattening is heading. > > As long as the power of the card remains in check, I'm all for it. As > described above, No Trace is sort of the bottom rung of Combat Ends > cards, while still actually being useful. It certainly doesn't compare > to the level of Majesty or Earth Meld. Yep, I'm glad that it really isn't so good as to really impact the game much. It's the general idea of it and other recent cards passing out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more playable than making them less important. For example, if No Trace was like Sense the Savage Way (in requiring >6 cap) I'd have less of a feeling that things were getting washed out. That sort of design would essientally add new levels to disciplines... "exalted" inferior and superior abilities available only to those with thick blood (it's too bad that it's too late to make Govern the Unaligned require high capacity). At the highest levels of any discipline borders really start to blur because beings that get to that point should have big benefits. > And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions, > there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of > cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set. > Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for no > one to use? Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article > <acea96b6-6d11-4eed...@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, > Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote: >> Then there would be no reason for the word 'another' in that sentence, >> it would just use the word 'a' as in your two examples. > > A "card that cancels another methuselah's card as played" is a type of > card. > >> Your >> interpretation would make for a ridiculous card that would allow you >> to DI something on your predators turn and protect yourself on your >> turn from cancellation responses. > > My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel > something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes > away. The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new tremere guy...etc.. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe

James Coupe wrote: > In message <490b4307$0$12000$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus > <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes: >>Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. >>> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. >> >>Of course. But then they don't *have* to have new cards too. Or at least I >>hope no shitty Rare or even Unco takes one of the scarce slots of the new >>cards. > > Of course they want to print some new cards in it too. Most sets won't > thrive on the sales to new players alone. So you put in some cards that > will appeal to newbies, some that will appeal to oldbies. > > Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely > reprints. > Blood Shadowed Court seemed to do ok. Not that I've seen any sales figures. It depends on the reprints, I'd say. [ quoted text not captured ]

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Orpheus wrote: >> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, >> of course. >> >> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, >> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my >> concerns : >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines >> >> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that >> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : >> >> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) >> - intercept in For >> etc. >> >> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because >> >> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to >> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature >> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is >> less a part of the game. >> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of >> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to >> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to >> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha >> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's >> not good >> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I >> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any >> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. >> >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. >> >> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new >> cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a >> fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't understand >> is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs >> 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when >> you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the same card can't >> be played again ?! That means that if you're a stealth bleeder and >> get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one >> again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to include various rushes. But no >> IG either ? And now you've got access to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A >> no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it already. >> 3) Buy it or leave >> >> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good >> cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the >> crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a >> deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the >> Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What >> this means is that there will be a big difference not only in >> variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and those >> who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most CCGs, but >> that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why I >> liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards >> and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play >> variety, new strategies etc). >> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other >> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT >> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be good >> enough. >> 4) Reprints in the boosters >> >> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new >> non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so >> we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons >> of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the >> proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to >> starters, which are way enough for new players ? >> >> So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty >> sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like >> the way it's going. >> >> So, what thinketh thou ? >> ------------ >> Orpheus > > So far, the only issue that really concerns me about these spoilers (i think > i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the total lack of *new* > camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which definitively seems to be > *not* > a "breaking news" card anyway) I thought Scourge just required a titled vamp? Could well be a non-cam titled vamp... [ quoted text not captured ]

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > > Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? My greatest > difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps > so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and > only prevents damage from strikes. only opposing strikes, wasn't it? So it's not combinable with Burst of Sunlight. Which is probably just as well. :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Oct 31, 9:29 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still > free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that > gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new > tremere guy...etc.. Veil of Darkness doesn't apply here... it doesn't cancel a card, the card just has no effect. Card text: "Each turn, when a vampire plays his or her first card that turn that requires any Disciplines, that vampire's controller reveals the top card of his or her library (before drawing to replace). If it is a master card, the original card has no effect (no cost is paid), and in addition, if the original card required Obtenebration [obt], the vampire burns 2 blood." Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 3:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict > what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the decks > do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. It seems very counterintuitive to me to say that it takes more skill to read and adapt to a predictable situation than to read and adapt to an unpredictable one. John Eno

Salem wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> Orpheus wrote: >> So far, the only issue that really concerns me about these spoilers >> (i think i saw around 30 of 60 among the new ibray cards) is the >> total lack of *new* camarilla-specific cards, scourge apart (which >> definitively seems to be *not* >> a "breaking news" card anyway) > > I thought Scourge just required a titled vamp? Could well be a non-cam > titled vamp... Really ? So that's isn't any better in the respect of my concern :-)

In message <490bb15e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: >> Very few sets would shift significant numbers if they were solely >> reprints. > >Blood Shadowed Court seemed to do ok. Not that I've seen any sales figures. > >It depends on the reprints, I'd say. Oh, sure, there are some exceptions - Sabbat War was also heavily reprints, with a very few new cards. But that was a specific situation, where it was the first release of cards into the game for a VERY long time. But BSC and, to a lesser extent, the Tenth Anniversary Tins are a different kettle of fish to a reprint-only base set, being static sets with known contents. That in itself can appeal to oldbies who think "Oh yeah, I'll spend twenty dollars and get a couple of copies of everything", rather than "Oh shit, I need to buy an unpredictable - and probably large - number of boosters to get those couple of vamps I was missing." [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <490b7dd5$0$1533$426a...@news.free.fr>, > "Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > >> Anson. Anthelios. Recursivity can also be used for timing, just >> discard the Master you don't want right now and use it later. One >> example among many... > > Recursivity already makes DI nighmarish. With DI2, it recurses half as > much. Agreed. But when it does hit the table it impacts it twice as much. All in all, no problem solved at all. ------------ Orpheus

bwross wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:15 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing >> anything. Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway >> and bloat like a pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever >> without a grapple). > > No Trace (the obf S:CE) costs 1 blood according to the reports I've > seen. Which puts it as more expensive than similar S:CEs... Meld with > the Land, Staredown, and Spiritual Intervention, all of which offer > full S:CE at superior and a more limited defence at inferior and cost > no blood. It's also weaker than the Presence S:CE standards, which is > available unlimited at inferior for 1 blood. Protean S:CE is, of > course, right off the scale and super twinky. So it is at the bottom > of the S:CE scale and will often be trumped by the offering of a > different discipline in decks that want it. A Settite deck will just > use Presence, a City Gangrel deck will use Protean, Nosferatu might > use Flesh Bond (the 2R attack doesn't require range like No Trace) > does. It's only decks with no other access to S:CE that will even > look at it. Ok. > But still, I also don't exactly like the idea or direction of the > card. I like powers more "School" based than "Realm" based... where > you have to go to a particular School of Magic to get a particular > type of effect rather than having each Magical Realm cover almost all > the same ground but in their own flavour. In a School system you have > to mix and match what you care about and accept some holes. In a > Realm system you just choose what role you want (Death Mage, Life > Priest, Nature Druid... they all end up with all the same key powers) > and go. The only consequence of your choice is that you'll be > slightly less powerful in some areas. Realm systems are less > interesting to play, IMHO. > > Brent Ross Totally agreed. --------------- Orpheus

James Coupe wrote: > In message <490b435c$0$6021$426a...@news.free.fr>, Orpheus > <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> writes: >> James Coupe wrote: >>> In message <2008103110...@fnord.io.com>, Matthew T. Morgan >>> <far...@io.com> writes: >>>> That may annoy you, but I think most players are happy about it. >>> >>> Making decisions that annoy Orpheus is a key way of providing >>> happiness for most players with every set. >> >> You mean, like disagreeing with James Coupe on every subject, or >> something like that ? >> >>> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.) >> >> The sentence that makes the most sense in your post. > > You'd probably do better revising the concepts of "humour" and > "ROT13". Both are integral to Usenet. Humour is as unknown to necromancers as the real meanings of death are to the non-initiated. I didn't know about ROT13, quite a fun concept ! Oh, but wait, I don't have humour, so... Bah, forget about it (http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZyoUn7Vk). ------------ Donnie Orpheus

On Oct 31, 11:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > news:74abe781-481d-4f84...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Oct 31, 10:11 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > > >news:bfc42dca-5fa2-4846...@t18g2000prt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > > > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > > > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > > > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > > > > true? > > > > That's a false dichotomy, Norm. I do see a problem here, but believe it > > > or not, I am NOT a "selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal > > > is for there to be no new players entering the game and for the game to > > > die". > > > 1st, it is not a false dichotomy. Never reprinting cards is bad for > > new players which is the lifeblood of the game > > I'm not arguing for never reprinting. I'm not even arguing for never > reprinting in boosters. I'm just saying the way they do it causes the > problem Orpheus described. > > > 2nd, what problem do you see? > > That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large > number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones > "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that > will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that > I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective. > But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem. No, it doesn't make it rarer, but they have the appearance of being more desirable over the short term. For example, Weighted Walking stick was a new card in Camarilla. Players wanted them. They were desirable, yet no less rare than anything else printed in the Camarilla set that was on that sheet. Weighted Walking stick was reprinted, several times, and no one is complaining now how they can't get Weighted Walking Sticks. Reprints are good.

On Oct 31, 1:15 pm, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > >> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not > >> fakes, of course. > > >> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, > >> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my > >> concerns : > > >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines > > >> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that > >> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > >> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > >> - intercept in For > >> etc. > > >> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > >> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to > >> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature > >> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is > >> less a part of the game. > > > ....but if they cost more then you create blood management issue which > > must be compensated for. > > And what if they don't ? I don't recall the Obf S:CE costing anything. > Prevent in Tha for 1 is a joke (you'll steal blood anyway and bloat like a > pig now that you don't fear guns or whatever without a grapple). Obf S:CE costs a blood. Preventing a limited amount from opposing minions strikes for 1 blood is okay, and will go into my Hector Trelane deck but nowhere else. > >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > > ....everyone is already playing a cheaper more effecient hoser Direct > > Intervention. > > You misunderstood my point, so your answer makes no sense : the hosers and > DI2 are two different things, separated by a coma, not ":". Your grammar is confusing me. Please restate your point. If it is two points, then please restate them separately. > >> 3) Buy it or leave > > > When is this new? If you get caught flatfooted while playing your > > 1994 Malk S&B by a Karsh/Beast Anarch Deck with Street Cred then > > that's just life. Put up or shut up. > > Your example makes no sense at all. Beast / Theo or cel gunners could > destroy Malks wayyyy back. Street Cred or Anarchy change nothing > fondamental. So please find better examples. Or shut up. ;) Again, new stuff blindsides players who don't keep up. ....and Anarchy changes everything. > > Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the > > old strategies. > > Certainly not the strategies, but several older cards yes. And several > interesting combos too, see the flattening part. > > >> 4) Reprints in the boosters > > > ....only in base sets. If that is a problem for you then you are a > > selfish, self-centered player whose long-term goal is for there to be > > no new players entering the game and for the game to die. Is that > > true? > > I wonder what makes you reach that silly conclusion. If it's a drug pass it > around. > > My trouble is more or less what Frederick Scott has developped, and I see > you are already in a discussion with him. Just consider that I agree with > his points on the "rarer" part and you'll (hopefully) get my PoV. Again, see my point about Weighted Walking Sticks and how reprints even out demand over the long term.

In article <490bb0e9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> wrote: > The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still > free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that > gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new > tremere guy...etc.. I think in the end, what we have is a card with somewhat ambigious wording. Which should be easy enough to resolve. LSJ? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <b71dada8-9377-4530...@e38g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Robert Scythe <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 3:16 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > My interpretation makes for a card that allows one player to cancel > > something, and then no one else to cancel anything till the DI2 goes > > away. > > Exactly. What are we disagreeing about here? > DI2 something on your predators turn and then you are > protected on your turn from cancellation unless someone burns the DI2 > and then you can be targeted. Ok. > If we are talking about DI's then 2 > different meths will have to work together to stop you. Seems a little > too strong that way for the one who played it. Well worth 1 more pool > then a normal DI. I'm not seeing so much what you are talking about with "2 different meths will have to work together to stop you". The way I am reading the card, DI2 effectively says "only one DI1/2 may be played per game.", unless someone (yourself included) decides to take the hit and kill the DI2 on the table. If no one is willing to suck it up (or, like, play a Disengage for no effect), then no more DI for anyone. The disagreement that I'm involved in is that some folks read this card such that once it is in play, no one can play a DI1/2 *unless* it targets the person who put the DI2 into play. Which strikes me as a unecessarily complicated way to interpret the card. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <76607579-4311-49fc...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>, bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > You know, talking DI stategy between us is pretty silly right now. Sure. I'm not really talking about strategy so much as explaining how I'm reading the card to work, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:15 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not >> fakes, of course. >> >> So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, >> and what it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my >> concerns : >> >> 1) The flattening of the disciplines >> >> We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that >> were drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : >> >> - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > as well! Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will sooner or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting. Anyway, thematically Obf is logicial, for the balance of the game I think it's quite bad. And more than anything, it's bad for creativity : why go to the trouble of giving the Malks Pro for S:CE anymore ? No reason really, so here's a (difficult yet interesting) concept killed on the spot. Let's just make Aus / Obf Princes decks without it now, the crypts will be no-brainers. >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > > Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? In Aus / Tha walls, yes, it is very good. Of course it doesn't endure against full combat decks, but against many other things including bruise'n'bleed or Eurobrujahs or whatever it does pretty well. > My greatest > difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps > so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and > only prevents damage from strikes. It will protect from Pot LR strikes, from ranged aggrav strikes etc, so yes I do believe it makes a big difference. Once more, I'd been working on several versions of Tha / Dom / For crypts, finding it to be an interesting albeit difficult concept, rendered more viable with recent crypts, but now I really don't see why I should bother. Bang, another dead concept ! Another no-brainer ! See what I mean ? I'm sure you do. >> - intercept in For >> etc. >> >> Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because >> >> a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to >> predict what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature >> it, all the decks do everything) and the skill required to play is >> less a part of the game. > > How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something > unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act that, > seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're just > playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to hurt you". The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if we caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any deck so I can stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can intercept, just not as much or with more cost than if he had Aus". We're not there yet, of course, but getting there. So what do they do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus (only on D actions, boooh !). And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess we'll have to get Aus : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for sale] Intercept. ;) Less skill, more randomness. >> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of >> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to >> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to >> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha >> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's >> not good > > This is a boon in my books. Oh, so you mean I can now play 3/4ths of > the Tremere/!Tremere I have because they can now actually survive > heavy combat? I don't have to devote 10+ cards to try to graft on a > discipline that dilutes the focus of my deck? GREAT! Well, I for one don't like no-brainers. Tha works already pretty well against most forms of combat because of its ability to maneuver and the versatility of the range of its strikes, and you could even prevent 1 without a discipline, not to mention that Magic of the Smith could get you a jacket. But of course with For it would be more efficient in a combat-heavy environment. So you had to adapt to your metagame and maybe change your crypt for one with less choice. In other words, use your brain to better the players who wouldn't make that effort. Less brains, zombies go hungry. Not good. > Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal > number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a > much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they > can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized. Well, seeing that the disciplines that got better are already used by some of the most popular clans, I just think that we'll always see the same vampires from those clans, and less and less of the ones with that "4rth discipline that could make a difference". >> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I >> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any >> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. > > I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment on > it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/ > younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to Presence, > but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to overcome their > awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what they're doing). Deep > Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me to be getting in tune > with the Beast within all vampires, whether your own (+1 bleed), or > inducing it in others (the enter combat). As I said the roleplay isn't the more important factor to me here. But still, your justification for Deep Song doesn't convince me at all, and Paragon seems far-fetched at best. Looks to me like they made cards to increase the powers of some disciplines, then thought "we'll have to justify that now" and found the best-fitting name possible. Not an easy task, not very succesful in my book. >> 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. >> >> Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new >> cards a little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a >> fan of the principle but I can understand it. What I can't >> understand is Dark Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! >> Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, you can't play one more right away. But in >> the turn when you play it, if I understood the card correctly, the >> same card can't be played again ?! That means that if you're a >> stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your prey's Bum's Rush >> and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll have to >> include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access >> to S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it >> already. > > I can understand the frustration of stymied combat. But I'm not of the > school that non-combat decks should be at the mercy of combat oriented > ones. Certainly. No concept should be at the mercy of any other one. Which is why I find that Charismatic Aura, while very strong, is a good card (the Toreador should be more "charismaticly hard to hit" than other clans). But what I hated with DI1 already was, once more, the no-brainer part : "I include a card in my deck and it will be useful for every situation ; no matter how carefully drawn a plan is, I can thwart it". Now DI2 does the same but even worse, and not only for the combattants : the bleeder, voter, whatever who waits patiently to have all the cards for a kill now can be totally screwed by just one card and can't even be saved by a second identical card. So I guess it will encourage variety in the choice of cards, which isn't bad in the whole picture, but isn't easy or viable in many decktypes (I mean, if you bleed with Dem you have 2 action cards, yes ?!). >> 3) Buy it or leave >> >> Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good >> cards in fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the >> crypts (Ranjan Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a >> deflecter, and +1 stealth on Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the >> Giovanni just got shite in G4 compared to the old-school...). What >> this means is that there will be a big difference not only in >> variety, but in real efficiency between players who buy KoT and >> those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of most >> CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons >> why I liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your >> old cards and even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for >> play variety, new strategies etc). > > He's not a copy of Ranjan, having FOR instead of PRE. Did I say copy ? I said twin, close enough but not totally identical. ;) > I can see what > you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that much a concern. There are > still ridiculously powerful vampires all the way back to Jyhad. This is true. > There's little point in recycling discipline spreads and abilities, > there has to be new spins on vampires, or there's not point in playing > the new vampires. It is of course a good point. Vampires have to be interesting, that doesn't mean that there has to be a rise in power. At all times there have been better vamps than others, and we sure need to see some new "core" vamps. There are other alternatives too : I might develop another time, but some minion cards could provide alternatives to vamps like Anson, and therefore make other groups more attractive. It's a difficult balance to maintain between making new, interesting vamps and not just making them better and better. But I'd like that balance to be maintained as much as possible. There have been rises in power between groups until now, I'm just afraid that we go over the edge now. >And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn > the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and João Bilé can't even > attempt to block it!). I guess you haven't fought any Ventrue VDA swarm deck recently. The turn when they put the VDA in play is the turn when they kill you, and possibly their next prey. >> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other >> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT >> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be >> good enough. > > Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning decks. > This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still make > winning decks if you've never bought anything since original Jyhad. It certainly was the case, except for some very good cards introduced in recent expansions, like Jake Washington, Carlton etc. > All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what > keeps the game interesting. This is where we disagree. I think it is more powerful ways of doing the same old things. Rise in the power curve. Cards that you _need_ in order to be competitive. Me no like. >> 4) Reprints in the boosters >> >> Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new >> non-reprint cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so >> we're really going to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons >> of cards we already own if we want those new cards ? What will the >> proportions be ? And why the hell didn't they keep reprints to >> starters, which are way enough for new players ? > > There's been enough comments on this. Just adding my vote to saying > that I don't see this as a bad thing. You can't pack enough reprints > in just the starters, nor should new players be forced to buy a ton of > starter decks just to get cards they haven't had a chance to get > before. As you said it's been discussed in the rest of the thread. I think Fred Scott's proposal is the best yet. >> So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty >> sure that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't >> like the way it's going. >> >> So, what thinketh thou ? >> ------------ >> Orpheus > > I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up > with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth - > didn't happen. But it became a stapple card in every Aus deck. Add the new Tremere ally and the new +2 cept card and I think Carna will just get a big raise for her old job. > Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat > the only way to go - didn't happen. Whoever said that never read the card. The new card is even better (stackable with Torn) but more costly, so although it's very, very good, I don't think we'll see it everywhere. > Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper > - hasn't happened. In Paris, if you play a BD, you know that it'll last between 1 and 3 turns. So in most decks people will prefer Vessel now. > Certainly, there will be new cards to put into > decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see > KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing. Did I say that ? Sometimes I drink too much polluted blood and forget what I've been saying. ;) But I recall being more in the lines of "a set you *must* buy", not "*the only set you need*" Although with the reprints... lol ----------- Orpheus

> It's the general idea of it and other recent cards passing > out abilities you used to have to work in another discipline for. The > more that happens the more the importance of differnent disciplines > gets washed out. It also means that you can play lower average > capacity in your crypt if you only really need one discipline for most > things. I'd rather have game design work towards making fatties more > playable than making them less important. >> And really, what else can be done? To continue to release expansions, >> there needs to be new cards. I can't see making alternate versions of >> cards we already have being enough to draw people to invest in a set. >> Do we really need more Press/Dodge/Maneuver cards for Obfuscate for >> no one to use? > > Yeah, it's just that the flattening of disciplines marks the start of > Gehenna for the game, IMHO. If all they can do now is wash out the > disciplines into flavoured copies of each other to make new library > cards, I'd rather them just make new vampires and reprint library > cards. > > Brent Ross All my multiple identities agree with you on both counts Brent. ----------- Multiple Orpheus

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:gefr7g$o4f$1...@aioe.org... > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> I believe Keepers of Tradition was designated a "base set" - just >> like 3rd Edition and Camarilla Edition but unlike any of the other >> expansions after Camarilla Edition. That means: >> >> 1) The boosters include mainly reprint library cards. >> 2) The boosters include a few new library cards at each rarity level. >> 3) All the vampires in the boosters are new. > > I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new > vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards). Hmmm. No "uncommon" rarity level? Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] If it is unpredictable, you cannot, by essence, predict it. And if you need to adapt to every unpredictable thing, you'll go for strong decks that can resist / adapt to everything. But then of course if / when every deck can do most things, it won't require much skill to pick one, will it ? ------------ Orpheus

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-E95250.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <490bb0e9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <kell...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> The way i read it is almost like that, except methuselah's are still >> free to cancel their OWN cards. If there's a way to do that. Oh, that >> gehenna card that screws obtenebrate...that sort of thing. the new >> tremere guy...etc.. > > I think in the end, what we have is a card with somewhat ambigious > wording. Which should be easy enough to resolve. LSJ? It SHOULD be easy to resolve... ...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-) Fred

Tetragrammaton wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >>> 4) Reprints in the boosters >> >> This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the >> boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new >> players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the >> boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes. >> >>> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new >>> players ? >> >> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. >> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. >> > > I can see your points > However, about the "new players" argument, i think that > it will be matter of debate in near future, given the actual > VTES status . What is in your view the actual VTES status ? ------------- Orpheus

On Nov 1, 9:53 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > > The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if we > caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any deck so I can > stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can intercept, just not as > much or with more cost than if he had Aus". We're not there yet, of course, > but getting there. So what do they do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus > (only on D actions, boooh !). And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess > we'll have to get Aus : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for > sale] Intercept. ;) > I do not think this slope is as slippery as you seem to think. Just for the record, the only argument I agree with you on is the ratio of reprints to new cards. The fact that it's a large set with mostly reprints makes the new cards effectively much more rare than they really are. I still have no Baltimore Purges, which was only uncommon in CE, and the only reason I finally have a decent number of Weighted Walking Stick and High Ground are because I bought them as singles. I've gotten 3 Assamite starters from LotN, and even still I wouldn't have nearly as many sticks as I wanted, if not for the singles of them I got. I hated 3rd Edition because of how few new cards there were, and the new cards were pretty good, and just seemed impossible to get. I've always felt that a reasonable approach to buying cards was "buy boosters until the commons are no longer useful to you". And obviously *all* the commons don't have to be useful, but in most sets, you'll get a relatively flat distribution of the commons, and thus I will probably buy until I have 5 or more of most of the commons. With 3rd Ed, it sucks to buy a pack and get 1 Grooming the Protege, 3 new vamps, and a bunch of other cards that go straight into the giveaway pile. If I'm lucky there's a rare that I didn't already have a bunch of, but the chances of it being one of the new rares is pretty small. Even in a base set, I'd like to get at least half of the pack as "desirable" cards (at least towards the beginning of opening packs - the ratio would go down as one got plenty of certain commons and vampires). By desirable, I mean new library cards, new vampires, and reprints that *I* still want. Obviously, that's subjective, but I think it's subjective in a way that most older players could reach a reasonable consensus on whether or not it's done well. I don't think that the mix of old-and-new in 3rd Ed and Cam were done very well. Of course, making the set "playable" for newer players is a separate concern that somewhat conflicts with making the set "desirable" for older players. But I still think it could have been done better in 3rd Ed and Cam - *I* certainly didn't buy very much of those sets. I'm planning on buying more of KoT, because I think it will be done better. But we'll have to see...

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:e0185be0-d62d-431c...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 31, 11:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message > > > 2nd, what problem do you see? > > > > That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the large > > number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the new ones > > "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge problem that > > will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also not saying that > > I have a better alternative, at least from White Wolf's perspective. > > But neither of these alters the fact that it causes a problem. > > No, it doesn't make it rarer, but they have the appearance of being > more desirable over the short term. It depends on what you mean by "rarer". In the context of the set, no, it doesn't - by definition. But because the set is less desirable in general terms to buy (only new players can make full use of all the cards), it effectively makes them rarer. It's a simple question of supply and demand: all players want the new cards; only new players really have use for the reprints (or at least, new players will always have more use for reprints than older players). > For example, Weighted Walking stick was a new card in Camarilla. > Players wanted them. They were desirable, yet no less rare than > anything else printed in the Camarilla set that was on that sheet. > > Weighted Walking stick was reprinted, several times, and no one is > complaining now how they can't get Weighted Walking Sticks. Individual examples will always vary. I sure liked Ivory Bow reprints when I saw them because Ivory Bow is relatively useful rare card. But an individual anecdote doesn't prove anything. > Reprints are good. OK. I can get behind that statement. Fred

In article <ee_Ok.7774$gD3....@newsfe01.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I was told that there are 300 cards in the set, of which 100 are new > > vampires, 60 are new library cards, and 140 are reprints (library cards). > > Hmmm. No "uncommon" rarity level? When was the last time that there was a significant number of "uncommons" that weren't vampires? For the last (significant?) number of releases, the rarities were: -Common -Uncommon (mostly vampires, if not all vampires) -Rare Yeah, occasionally, there would be a few non vampire cards in the vampire slots, but not usually many. Although I could be misremembering how things have gone. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <490c6d65$0$7740$426a...@news.free.fr>, "Orpheus" <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will sooner > or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting. There is already enough S:CE available one way or the other that if you really want to use S:CE, well, it isn't that hard to do. But as noted, what makes Malkavians strong is that most of the time, they just ignore combat all together (i.e. the "just pretend I don't have combat cards" response to being rushed). That they can suddenly, relatively easily use S:CE from Obfuscate (I haven't seen the spoiler yet, just heard that the card exists; is it S:CE at inferior obf or only superior?) is unlikely to really have that much of an impact on their overall effectiveness; they could already use manuever/dodge at obf (which as a single card is often better against, like, Immortal Grapple than other kinds of S:CE combat defense). Or disguised weapons. Or AUS Dodge/press to end. All of which are likely just as good against non super focused combat as S:CE is. And against focused combat (i.e. Immortal Grapple rush), Obfuscate S:CE isn't likely to actually help that much. So in the end, even with a Obf S:CE card, I suspect that the good Malkavian decks *still* are just going to play without combat cards anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Vk_Ok.7775$gD3....@newsfe01.iad>, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > It SHOULD be easy to resolve... > > ...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that > the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-) Sigh. Yeah. That happens a lot, doesn't it. I can hope, however. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-89DE3C.1...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >That they can suddenly, relatively easily use >S:CE from Obfuscate (I haven't seen the spoiler yet, just heard that the >card exists; is it S:CE at inferior obf or only superior?) is unlikely >to really have that much of an impact on their overall effectiveness; 1 blood. obf: S:CE at long range. OBF: S:CE. Potentially good, and I'd prefer we'd left the Malks with a hole in their defence, but I doubt it's going to set the world on fire anytime soon. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <pdb6-C9BA65.1...@nntp.aioe.org>, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> writes: >When was the last time that there was a significant number of >"uncommons" that weren't vampires? Third Edition. The 300+ card base sets have, historically, had uncommons. The expansion sets haven't, or have had a few on the vampire sheet. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <AEyUJtNe...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > 1 blood. obf: S:CE at long range. OBF: S:CE. > > Potentially good, and I'd prefer we'd left the Malks with a hole in > their defence, but I doubt it's going to set the world on fire anytime > soon. Huh. Yeah, I too would rather have seen Obfuscate not get S:CE, but I also don't think it is going to make a huge impact on Malkavian effectiveness overall--you need to have OBF, really, to make it worth using on a regular basis. Which means making your crypt that much bigger and less quick. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <dWgztxLX...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > Third Edition. Huh. Well then. I stand corrected. > The 300+ card base sets have, historically, had uncommons. The > expansion sets haven't, or have had a few on the vampire sheet. I guess I wasn't paying attention to how the base sets worked. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:15:02 +0100, Orpheus <orphe...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Ok, all that follows is true only if the spoiled cards are not fakes, of > course. > > So I read the spoilers, and I am very concerned about what I read, and > what > it implies for the (near) future of the game. Here are my concerns : > > 1) The flattening of the disciplines In principle I agree. I once wrote that I will quit playing if we get unconditional stealth for Auspex and unconditional intercept for Obfuscate. In reality, though, there are more ways you can think about this. One way to think is that each discipline should be good for one thing, or a set of very well-defined things, and the availability of effects tied to a specific discipline should be governed by the availability of that discipline. E.g. Dominate is the discipline for bleeding - to build a deck that is good with bleeding, graft on Dominate. This line of thought is more strictly adhering to the V:tES roots of the game (as in, paths defined in the earlier sets) and was I beleive the dominant designer thinking until CE. Another way to think is that each discipline should be more or less good for anything, with some disciplines being better at some things (identified as their core strengths) but still offering ways to interact with multiple elements of the game. This thinking probably represents a breaking of sorts with the thinking prevalent in the earlier V:tES sets, but if the cards are well-designed, it can be actually closer to the V:tM roots of the game than the previous school of thought. I'm more and more subscribing to the latter school of thought. The reason is one of game mechanics. To keep the disciplines tight, and offer more options, you primarily need to increase the number of available vampires. Since each player is looking for something different, that means, printing lots of vampires, and allowing them to be combined freely. This however leads to an escalation of effectiveness with the existing tier 1 concepts - e.g. more smaller-cap minions with DEM OBF means good old !Malk S&B just got another bit stronger. The tradeoff for finally having 4 Samedi with Auspex for your Samedi wall deck is having to face a crypt of 12 different DEM OBF minions with capacity 6 or below. Whereas, if you allow each discipline a reasonable, although below-the-power-curve interaction with different elements of the game, you allow players to take their favourite clans, or vampires, and tweak the decks around them to their tastes, without having much impact on the decks already at or close to the power curve. Of course it needs to be done with consideration. > We have several spoiled cards which go right out of the lines that were > drawn for the disciplines (with a few exceptions like Sonar) : > > - S:CE in Obf (like the !Malks needed more help !) > - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > - intercept in For > etc. I think S:CE for Obf makes perfect sense. We probably didn't get it earlier because of game balance concerns, not because of conceptual reasons. I also think that Thaumaturgy is THE discipline that should be able to do anything and everything, although with less efficiency than dedicated disciplines. It is blood magic after all, and the various paths & rituals out there more or less allow you to do everything, with either greater blood cost or higher opportunity cost (to represent that you somethimes need many hours or rare components to complete a ritual). I was looking at the card and was, like, "wow, prevent for Thaumaturgy. That's odd. Oh well, makes sense.". I'm not decided on the third one, though, it still does seem odd... > Why do I have trouble with this ? Well, because > > a) If all the disciplines do everything, we have less elements to predict > what a deck can do (because in the long run, to caricature it, all the > decks > do everything) and the skill required to play is less a part of the game. I agree with the statement although not the conclusion. I beleive that if everything does everything, although in different ways, skill becomes even more important, because you cannot rely on stereotypes to judge what your opponent will do. > b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of nobrainer > cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to include S:CE in a > Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to make tough crypt > choices. > Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha / For anymore, and why ??). > That > flattens the crypts out, and it's not good Ok, I kinda disagree about this part. If you want to include S:CE in your Dem/Obf deck, you will probably want to go with OBF guys (whereas previously you were ok with some OBF guys and some obf guys). Or, you need to build in lots of manoeuvres. The DEM / OBF deck will have better combat defence at the cost of needing to go for higher average crypt. Seems like a good tradeoff for the game (especially with all the weenies around). As for Thau prevent - if you want serious prevention, you still go for Fortitude. Burst of Sunlight + Armor of Vitality is still awesome. Don't overrate strike-restricted prevention. It's good but not game-breaking. e.g. your opponent hits you for 3 normal damage. Would you rather prevent 4 damage for 1 blood and hit for hands, or steal 2 blood? What if it's more damage? > c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I know > it's > always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any good > justification for intercepting with For, i.e. Specifically this one may be true, but the other examples are I think actually quite in line with the RPG. E.g. to come up with a silly example, Potence isn't the discipline you typically associate with stealth. But just how awesome it is if you want to infiltrate a place to be able to easily bend bars, climb walls or simply break down security doors. Not as effective as sneaking, evesdropping and hacking, but if done quickly, probably even more efficient. example: B & E Action Modifier pot: +2 stealth. Only usable on a (D) action. You cannot increase the stealth any further. POT: as above, and the first minion attempting to block takes 1 unpreventable damage. [NOTE: this is not an actual spoiler. This is not an actual card. I just made it up now to illustrate a point. I'm not saying or implying that this card would be good for the game.] > 2) The hosers that you have to play, DI2. > > Ok, so Blood Doll and Minion Tap were too good, and here come new cards a > little less good that replace them and hose them ? I'm not a fan of the > principle but I can understand it. Well, I can't see how these hosers can be any good for the game. E.g. Vessel. Takes a perfectly OK card (Blood Doll) and replaces it with a slightly weaker version specifically hosing the 1,000,000 copies of Blood Dolls in circulation. Too rock-paper-scissors for me, and not on the strategy level. > What I can't understand is Dark > Influences, because it's even worse than DI1 !! Ok, it costs 2 pool ; ok, > you can't play one more right away. But in the turn when you play it, if > I > understood the card correctly, the same card can't be played again ?! > That > means that if you're a stealth bleeder and get rushed, you can DI2 your > prey's Bum's Rush and she can't play one again in the turn ? Ok, she'll > have > to include various rushes. But no IG either ? And now you've got access > to > S:CE... NASTY !! :( A no-brainer card, worse so than DI1. Hate it > already. I'm actually intrigued by Dark Influences. Main suggestions vs. DI were - cost should be higher, restriction should be Predator/Prey, number of uses should be limited. I guess DI2 tries to do it all in one... I'd say, let's wait and see. Or we can just keep on asking to "BanDI" :) > 3) Buy it or leave > > Yes, there are some good cards in the spoilers. Some much too good cards > in > fact. I see a rise of power in the library, and also in the crypts > (Ranjan > Rishi's twin with a ridiculous weakness for a deflecter, and +1 stealth > on > Embraces in a clan with VDA ?! And the Giovanni just got shite in G4 > compared to the old-school...). What this means is that there will be a > big > difference not only in variety, but in real efficiency between players > who > buy KoT and those who don't. Yes, I know it's one of the principles of > most > CCGs, but that's what I don't like about them and one of the reasons why > I > liked VTES so much : you could keep on playing it with your old cards and > even be competitive (I still bought new extensions for play variety, new > strategies etc). > > Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other activities, > I > think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT or leave the game, > because soon my other decks will no longer be good enough. Wow, I see some overreaction here. I mean, just how broken would be a 6-cap vampire with 7 points of disciplines, no drawback? And with a title to boot? Enter Anvil, introduced in Jyhad. Or, an 5-cap vampire with 6 points of disciplines and an insignificant drawback? Rigby, Crusade Vanguard on the stage. Or the 7-cap guy that plays all combat cards for free? I don't think we need to introduce Mr. "Hidden Lapse" Dragos. We've always had very powerful vampires around. Let's wait and see how the new guys will perform. We've heared a lot of hype when 3rd came out. Yet the only vampire from 3rd that I see played a lot is Neighbor Jon (probably due to AUS and +1 Intercept on a 5-cap). > 4) Reprints in the boosters > > Is that true ? Because in 3rd it was a problem to get 10 new non-reprint > cards, and in KoT there are lots of (good) new cards, so we're really > going > to have to go through tons of boosts and get tons of cards we already > own if > we want those new cards ? What will the proportions be ? And why the hell > didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new > players > ? I think the choice of reprints is not perfect but quite ok. Some highly sought-after cards were selected (I'm missing still some, e.g. I didn't see Grooming the Protégé reprinted yet) but we have Kiwis, Unmasking, etc. - I think this is the way to go, if a card is highly sought after / expensive, then reprint it, players will really appreciate it. > So, although I may be wrong about the real consequences, I'm pretty sure > that the game will never be the same after KoT. And I don't like the way > it's going. > > So, what thinketh thou ? > ------------ > Orpheus If I would need to list the sets after which the game was never the same again, in order of "never-the-same-againness", KoT wouldn't make my top 3. Even if I limit myself of how much "bad" things the set introduced, it still wouldn't make it. Of course I haven't seen all the cards yet, but so far it seems like a solid, playable set, good if you buy into it, survivable if you miss out. -- Regards, Daneel

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <Vk_Ok.7775$gD3....@newsfe01.iad>, > "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> It SHOULD be easy to resolve... >> >> ...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that >> the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-) > > Sigh. Yeah. That happens a lot, doesn't it. I can hope, however. > LSJ usually doesn't answer rules questions for cards that aren't officially released yet. And the man does have only so much time in a day... best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

John Flournoy wrote: > On Oct 31, 10:16 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> "John Flournoy" <carne...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0fac8aa9-dcba-49fe...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >>> It has been stated previously that there's about 100 new library cards >>> in this set. Since this is a core set, that should make the ratio of >>> reprints to new library cards somewhere in the neighborhood of 1:1, >>> which I think will make you feel a lot better than you did about 3rd. >> Was it 100? I thought it was 60: 20 on each rarity level. (Granted, I >> don't know where I read this, I just thought I did somewhere.) >> >> Also, aren't there normally 100 cards at each rarity level, rare, >> uncommon, and common? So that would make the ratio 2:1, best case. >> (Of course, that would still be much better than 3E, which had >> only 36.) > > No, you're correct. I double-checked - 20 rares, uncommons and > commons. Well, there's 100 vamps, so only 200 library cards, of which 20 rares, 20 uncommons, and 20 commons are new, and the other 140 are old, leaving approximately 47 old for each rarity. Or are there 400 cards total, of which 300 are library cards? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 1, 11:10 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > If it is unpredictable, you cannot, by essence, predict it. And if you need > to adapt to every unpredictable thing, you'll go for strong decks that can > resist / adapt to everything. No such decks exist. > But then of course if / when every deck can do > most things, it won't require much skill to pick one, will it ? But that won't be the case, because it still won't be possible to make a deck that has an answer to everything that might be fielded against it. John Eno

On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 00:44:55 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >>> (Vg'f cbffvoyr V unir zvfernq jung lbh vagraqrq.) >> >> The sentence that makes the most sense in your post. > > You'd probably do better revising the concepts of "humour" and "ROT13". > Both are integral to Usenet. Furrfu... EBG13 vf fb byq, erny ubg ebyyref hfr 2EBG13 abjnqnlf... -- Regards, Daneel

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Thrall of Arika <christoph...@amec.com> wrote: > I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up > with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth - > didn't happen. Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat > the only way to go - didn't happen. Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper > - hasn't happened. Certainly, there will be new cards to put into > decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see > KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing. > > Chris, Thrall of Arika Bowl of convergence is a major pain in the ass. It didn't kill stealth - it just forces decks who rely on stealth as the delivery mechanism to include more of it (especially block fails cards). Vessel *has* made Blood Doll mostly wallpaper (and as more Vessels become available, it will most likely continue to do so). So although not all of the initial hype is later proven, some of it turns out to be true. -- Regards, Daneel

In message <opujzbe6...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: >Furrfu... EBG13 vf fb byq, erny ubg ebyyref hfr 2EBG13 abjnqnlf... It does, after all, provide double the security. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT), XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > Although, in no way have any of the new cards invalidated any of the > old strategies. Some of them try to invalidate some of the staple cards from older sets, though. -- Regards, Daneel

On Nov 2, 1:57 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Vessel *has* made Blood Doll mostly wallpaper (and as more Vessels > become available, it will most likely continue to do so). I still regularly use Blood Dolls. In some decks you can't afford to wait to benefit from a Vessel (or even use it to put blood on). The fact that you at least get to use a BD once (and profit if you bloat) before a Vessel can destroy it makes it still worthwhile to play... and you typically get at least 2 or 3 (in my meta, you often can get more... because BDs are still widely used because of their efficiency). The card that has replaced some of the BDs in my decks (excepting the ones where Vessel is correct) is Grooming. Brent Ross

On Nov 1, 5:04 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > E.g. to come up with a silly example, Potence isn't the discipline you > typically associate with stealth. But just how awesome it is if you want > to infiltrate a place to be able to easily bend bars, climb walls or > simply break down security doors. Not as effective as sneaking, > evesdropping and hacking, but if done quickly, probably even more > efficient. Yep, Potence is the uberdicipline because all problems are just nails. Want to "Form of Mist" through a door or by an opponent... POW... walk on through the "mist" of the former door/opponent. Want to Earth Meld... dig a hole. Need to know if there's someone obfuscated in a room... grab someone with auspex and physically encourage them to tell you (make sure to show off the shrunken Malk heads on your belt as an incentive). Need to obfuscate past a guard... cold cock him (or rip his head off if you want the effect to be more permanent). There is simply nothing the Potence hammer cannot do. i just think that's a bad idea to bring that sort of thinking into the card game... the reality is more sureal and much more grainy than the RPG. Brent Ross

On Oct 31, 3:50 pm, Andreas Nusser <timew...@scram.de> wrote: > Just in case if anyone wants to dump me a truckload of V:TES Sabbat > cards. Here is my adress (we even got a delivery gate for trucks): Andreas, that's priceless! :D Everything I've heard about the upcoming set so far seems rather promising to me, except that I'm not that keen having the disciplines flattened. It must be a pain in the ass to design good new cards that are usable, but not owerpowered as well as not giving a discipline an effect that it basically shouldnät have access to. At least too cheaply. Especially the last few expansion have been REALLY balanced on this, although YMMV... Most of all, at least at the time of writing this, I think that the ratio of new cards in KoT sure sounds like a winner! Cheers, Janne / Lönkka

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Vessel *has* made Blood Doll mostly wallpaper > (and as more Vessels become available, it will most > likely continue to do so). Evidence? Proof? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

[ quoted text not captured ] I am guessing it varies heavily from one group to the next. Blood dolls are all but extinct in my local play group (and have been since Vessel hit), however I did see a few poking about at the nation australian tournament (most of which got zapped). I'd say the number of blood dolls played has definitely decreased in the areas I have played in. simcof

On Nov 1, 6:33 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > If we are talking about DI's then 2 > > different meths will have to work together to stop you. Seems a little > > too strong that way for the one who played it. Well worth 1 more pool > > then a normal DI. > > I'm not seeing so much what you are talking about with "2 different > meths will have to work together to stop you". Well, one would need to burn the DI2 and then the other will be free to DI you, what can't you see? >The way I am reading the > card, DI2 effectively says "only one DI1/2 may be played per game.", > unless someone (yourself included) decides to take the hit and kill the > DI2 on the table. If no one is willing to suck it up (or, like, play a > Disengage for no effect), then no more DI for anyone. The disagreement > that I'm involved in is that some folks read this card such that once it > is in play, no one can play a DI1/2 *unless* it targets the person who > put the DI2 into play. Which strikes me as a unecessarily complicated > way to interpret the card. Unnecessarily complicated does not factor in if it actually works as such. How would you word it if it was supposed to work in the fashion that I (and others) am proposing?

Frederick Scott wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:e0185be0-d62d-431c...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> On Oct 31, 11:24 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> >> wrote: >>> "XZealot" <xzea...@cox.net> wrote in message >>>> 2nd, what problem do you see? >>> >>> That putting a small number of new library cards in amongst the >>> large number of reprint library cards has the effect of making the >>> new ones "rarer" than they should be. I don't think it's a huge >>> problem that will cause the death of game or anything. And I'm also >>> not saying that I have a better alternative, at least from White >>> Wolf's perspective. But neither of these alters the fact that it >>> causes a problem. >> >> No, it doesn't make it rarer, but they have the appearance of being >> more desirable over the short term. > > It depends on what you mean by "rarer". In the context of the set, > no, it doesn't - by definition. But because the set is less desirable > in general terms to buy (only new players can make full use of all the > cards), it effectively makes them rarer. It's a simple question of > supply and demand: all players want the new cards; only new players > really have use for the reprints (or at least, new players will > always have more use for reprints than older players). > The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players in the game.(almost: there are exceptions to this i think, but very few). VTES has a stable player base that does not rejuvenate year after year. As it stands now, it's a game produced (kudos to ww for this) for well-know groups of players, all over the world. Given this fact, there are *very* few (new) players that "have use for the reprints" sets after sets, with a large number of players that *wants* to get just the new cards alone - and i think it's for these reasons (lots of reprints/difficulties in finding the new cards from boosters) that third edition didn't got much success. On the other side, LoTN and Twilight rebellion were much appreciated, with no reprints at all in boosters. Unless the WW/CCP plans to change something with the vtes line product, (thus putting lots of efforts and resources to attract a lot of new players for real) i think that the question "new players" is really a void one right now. Emiliano

In message <1VxPk.13081$8%.10516@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players >in the game. Please provide backing for this statement. Not just assertion, actual evidence. (Note that anecdotes are not the same as evidence.) Additionally, if a game wants to attract and keep new players, it needs to provide tools useful to those players. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1VxPk.13081$8%.10516@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players >> in the game. > > Please provide backing for this statement. Not just assertion, actual > evidence. (Note that anecdotes are not the same as evidence.) > > Additionally, if a game wants to attract and keep new players, it needs > to provide tools useful to those players. Honestly, i think the evidence comes from almost any vtes stable playgroup. Anyway, just checking the attendances in the last 4 years at Nac or EC: LCQ Nac 2005: 57 LCQ Nac 2006: 43 LCQ Nac 2007: 41 LCQ Nac 2008: 40 LCQ EC 2005: 150 LCQ EC 2006: 126 LCQ EC 2007: 109 LCQ EC 2008: 159 it should be evident enough: the number of players tend to remain the same over the years, just with minor or major up&down from 2005 to 2008 (nac even dwindling in the attendance curve). So, given the picture, i think it's OK to get "tools for new players" (i think third editions and demo kits were great and the only two tools we got so far for this) , but only as dedicated products, as the already cited third edition kits, or starters with lots of reprints, but not with lots of reprints in the sets' boosters. just my two cents Emiliano

In message <PnzPk.13176$8%.9436@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >Honestly, i think the evidence comes from almost any vtes stable playgroup. Anecdote, not evidence. You understand the difference, right? >Anyway, just checking the attendances in the last 4 years at Nac or EC: > >LCQ Nac 2005: 57 >LCQ Nac 2006: 43 >LCQ Nac 2007: 41 >LCQ Nac 2008: 40 > >LCQ EC 2005: 150 >LCQ EC 2006: 126 >LCQ EC 2007: 109 >LCQ EC 2008: 159 > >it should be evident enough: No, that's just a really, really, really bad attempt at proving a point with statistics you've grabbed out of your ass. Assume that some players are leaving the game for whatever reason and... >the number of players tend to remain the same over the years, ... means that they're being replaced from somewhere. i.e. Your evidence only holds if your assumption holds, for which you've provided no evidence. Try again. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <PnzPk.13176$8%.9436@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <no...@usa.com> writes: >> Honestly, i think the evidence comes from almost any vtes stable >> playgroup. > > Anecdote, not evidence. You understand the difference, right? > >> Anyway, just checking the attendances in the last 4 years at Nac or >> EC: >> >> LCQ Nac 2005: 57 >> LCQ Nac 2006: 43 >> LCQ Nac 2007: 41 >> LCQ Nac 2008: 40 >> >> LCQ EC 2005: 150 >> LCQ EC 2006: 126 >> LCQ EC 2007: 109 >> LCQ EC 2008: 159 >> >> it should be evident enough: > > No, that's just a really, really, really bad attempt at proving a > point with statistics you've grabbed out of your ass. > You asked some evidence, i provided it. If numbers are not enough evidence for you, then your problem, not mine. So please don't flame only because you got no argument on this right now. > Assume that some players are leaving the game for whatever reason > and... > >> the number of players tend to remain the same over the years, > You asked evidence in the first place, i provided it. You now answer with anedoctes. That's enough i think

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] If I may... You see, you provided evidence that the amount of players remains about the same. But that is *not* evidence there are no new players. It's just evidence that the amount of new players is about the same as the amount of players leaving the game. (Like the population of a country. It may be stable, not rising or falling, but people are still dying and being born all the time.) HG

On Nov 3, 1:35 am, Robert Scythe <robe...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > Well, one would need to burn the DI2 and then the other will be free > to DI you, what can't you see? I wasn't really seeing what you were talking about in the conext presented. But if all you are saying is "if DI2 works that way [i.e. the way I think it does], then it'll take 2 people playing DI to stop one of your cards", then sure. Which I suspect means that no one will do that. As it is just too much work. Which goes back to "the first person who plays DI2 is pretty much the only person who will get to DI anything". Which is akin to "only 1 DI may be played per game". > Unnecessarily complicated does not factor in if it actually works as > such. Which remains to be seen. > How would you word it if it was supposed to work in the fashion > that I (and others) am proposing? I don't know. But differently than it is apparently worded. -Peter

On Nov 3, 2:44 am, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players > in the game. I don't know that that is the case--our group has grown by 4 or 5 new players since 3rd came out. I can't imagine that we are that unusual. -Peter

> The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players > in the game.(almost: there are exceptions to this i think, but very few). That's just total bullshit. If there were no new players then you would see signifigant declines (like 25% to 50%) in the player base as we lose players all the time for all sorts of reasons. I have been through 6 playgroups that I have built myself after the previous one disbanded for whatever reason (I can assure you that it had nothing to do with the cards themself). I figure that between myself personally and/or the princes I set up, I have taught the game and given enough experience to qualify them as "decent" players to well over 200 players. Now that is real new players. On the other hand, I have watched almost as many players (if not more) quit the game for every reason under the sun (job, wife, kids, marriage, sports, hunting, church, moving, smells funny, too much hair, smile too much).

On Nov 3, 6:10 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Unnecessarily complicated does not factor in if it actually works as > > such. > > Which remains to be seen. Hence the word 'actually'. > > How would you word it if it was supposed to work in the fashion > > that I (and others) am proposing? > > I don't know. Probably because it reads just fine the way it is. >But differently than it is apparently worded. I think the key word in it's text is 'another'. A permanent put into play that refers to another usually means 'not you' (like Bleeding the Vine and the Powerbases).

[ quoted text not captured ] How many new players joined your playgroup in the last year for example ? How many in the last four ? For what i can see in italy, those attendance numbers reflects well enough a reality in which the players base remains, more or less, always the same, with minor changes due (few) new players coming in the playgroups, from time to time. That's pretty normal for a complicated game like vtes after all.

[ quoted text not captured ] We have, more or less, the same numbers about new players, each year (speaking of italy as a whole, not as local playgroups) In fact, i think that isn't enough to support the notion that boosters would need badly *lots* of reprints for those new players. Starters should suffice, plus all other tons of cards old players can lend (often for free, or for a very few money) to the newbies - in fact, since third edition, the "only new cards in boosters" has been the approach with sword of caine, lords of then night, twilight rebellion. And that has been good so far, imho

[ quoted text not captured ] Slightly; you are, after all, fairly strongly associated with a college campus, which has a reliable turnover of folks every year, even if the "old standbys" of the Ithaca group aren't in flux. - D.J.

XZealot wrote: >> The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players >> in the game.(almost: there are exceptions to this i think, but very >> few). > > That's just total bullshit. If there were no new players then you > would see signifigant declines (like 25% to 50%) in the player base as > we lose players all the time for all sorts of reasons. That can be an argument, i see. However, that can mean also that for one new coming in, one old player give up - not really a positive fact for a game community that is interested and active in increasing the player base, and not just letting it with the same numbers. > I have been > through 6 playgroups that I have built myself after the previous one > disbanded for whatever reason (I can assure you that it had nothing to > do with the cards themself). I've been in 4-5 different playgroup as well, from time to time, with some major changes due players leaving and some longstanding players never changing. You can "exchange" some people, yes, (some few quit the game, some few new come in), but the reality is that the vast majority of the players just don't need a set with lots of reprints these days. This is what i experience here - maybe in countries where english is the native language the game can get more reciclying from old to new players. Here, now after 14+ years of vtes, the playgroups tend to be stable with very minor changes due new players coming in, or old ones leaving. > I figure that between myself personally > and/or the princes I set up, I have taught the game and given enough > experience to qualify them as "decent" players to well over 200 > players. Now that is real new players. > > On the other hand, I have watched almost as many players (if not more) > quit the game for every reason under the sun (job, wife, kids, > marriage, sports, hunting, church, moving, smells funny, too much > hair, smile too much). Sure

In message <NnFPk.13658$8%.7579@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: > Starters should suffice, plus all other tons of cards old players can >lend (often for free, or for a very few money) to the newbies - in fact, >since third edition, the "only new cards in boosters" has been the approach >with sword of caine, lords of then night, twilight rebellion. >And that has been good so far, imho Erm, the approach has always been to put reprints in the boosters in base sets. White Wolf didn't suddenly change tack after Third Edition. Sabbat War? Reprints in boosters. Camarilla Edition? Reprints in boosters. Third Edition, reprints in boosters. Note also how Dark Sovereigns and Ancient Hearts lacked reprints, but Sabbat had a whole load of reprints. Again, a set pretty much intended to be fully playable on its own, but also to supplement existing cards. You want Keepers of Tradition not to be a base set. That's fine. White Wolf made a different decision to you. Please stop beating the horse. It is already dead. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <N9FPk.13634$8%.12069@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >For what i can see in italy, You're confusing "anecdote" with "evidence" again. Self-selecting anecdotes are *not* evidence. How things are for you is very different from: - how things are globally - how White Wolf wants to progress things globally. Even if there aren't many new players globally, they simply won't be able to get started with complex sets that appeal immensely to oldbies (e.g. Bloodlines). So you don't make every set a complex, oldbie- focused set. But you probably make some of them more complex. This is pretty much what White Wolf does - it's also what (for example) Wizards do with Magic. Base sets that appeal to newbies? Yup. More complex sets that add depth to the game too? Yup. You'd almost think it was planned. However, you do typically want to make newbie-friendly sets also appealing to oldbies. Why? Then stores will buy copies for the oldbies, and newbies can browse buy and think "Hey, that looks interesting, I'll pick that up!" If no-one else is buying the newbie- friendly set, the newbie will never see it. Magic often does this, with older cards reprinted that people want, alternate art (for the oldbies who are also collector types), updated text (where appropriate), and so on. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 10:30 am, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > XZealot wrote: > >> The fact, plain and simple, it's that there are *not* new players > >> in the game.(almost: there are exceptions to this i think, but very > >> few). > > > That's just total bullshit. If there were no new players then you > > would see signifigant declines (like 25% to 50%) in the player base as > > we lose players all the time for all sorts of reasons. > > That can be an argument, i see. > However, that can mean also that for one new coming in, > one old player give up - not really a positive fact for a game > community that is interested and active in increasing the player > base, and not just letting it with the same numbers. The fact that we are remaining stable is good IMHO. Certainly it would be better if we were experirencing explosive growth. I just can't see how we expect to stay viable if there are no new players. <snip the parts where we agree.>

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:cd621e3f-81c5-4f40...@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >But differently than it is apparently worded. > > I think the key word in it's text is 'another'. A permanent put into > play that refers to another usually means 'not you' (like Bleeding the > Vine and the Powerbases). I don't think anyone's disputing the 'not you'. The question is, who is the 'you' that it's not. 'Another methuselah' with respect to the guy who's playing the card that would cancel a minion card or 'another methuselah' with respect to the guy who played the Dark Influences? I guess you could convince me that it isn't a slam dunk which meaning is conveyed by the wording. But I have to agree with Peter that there's an insanely complex, difficult-to-explain interpretation of the card (the latter) or a very simple one (the former). I'm just not seeing what the purpose would be of designing the card to work the latter way, with all the headaches it will cause explaining it to everybody. As for why the word 'another' is in the sentence, that's simple enough. To exclude cards any methuselah might play which would cancel their own cards from the effect. Just my guess about the affair. My guesses are notoriously bad. Fred

"Tetragrammaton" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message news:NnFPk.13658$8%.7579@tornado.fastwebnet.it... > In fact, i think that isn't enough to support the notion that > boosters would need badly *lots* of reprints for those new players. > Starters should suffice, plus all other tons of cards old players can > lend (often for free, or for a very few money) to the newbies - in fact, since third edition, the "only new cards in boosters" has > been the approach with sword of caine, lords of then night, twilight rebellion. I have to disagree with this this. Reprinting cards in precons is very useful, no question. But I don't think you can rely on those alone to make sure old cards can be available to new players (or, indeed, to create a new supply for older players who didn't manage to get hold of a card the first time it was printed). The problem is that its a requirement for precon decks that they be at least somewhat reasonable as play decks, which affects their makeup. Certain kinds of cards are useable in only very specific types of decks, and there aren't enough precon decks in existence to cover all the different types of deck archetypes. Reprinting only cards that fit into some precon deck somewhere would distinctly skew the nature of what got reprinted over time. I think the concept of 'base sets' is really needed, in some form. Whether the current form is a good or bad idea is a different question. But I like being able to recommend certain in-print sets to new players which will give them a good cross-section of starting cards with which to work. I'm also pretty sure that it can't be questioned that the game gets new players. If it didn't, it would be dead by now - because old players drop out too often for it to continue without a new supply of players from somewhere. Fred

On Nov 3, 11:02 am, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I don't think anyone's disputing the 'not you'. The question is, who > is the 'you' that it's not. 'Another methuselah' with respect to the > guy who's playing the card that would cancel a minion card or > 'another methuselah' with respect to the guy who played the Dark > Influences? I guess you could convince me that it isn't a slam dunk > which meaning is conveyed by the wording. But I have to agree with > Peter that there's an insanely complex, difficult-to-explain interpretation > of the card (the latter) or a very simple one (the former). I'm just not > seeing what the purpose would be of designing the card to work the latter > way, with all the headaches it will cause explaining it to everybody. > I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I agree with yours and Peter's reading of the card, which means that you are almost certainly wrong... ;) > As for why the word 'another' is in the sentence, that's simple enough. > To exclude cards any methuselah might play which would cancel their own > cards from the effect. > The other explanation of the word 'another' is that it seems like more natural English to have 'another' in there, ignoring the possibility that a methuselah could cancel his own cards, and that there's no ulterior motive for the word 'another'. The end result being that DI2 ignores cards that a methuselah plays to cancel his/her own cards, not necessarily because those cards are particularly desirable to ignore, but because the natural way to talk about cards like DI is as "cards that cancel cards another methuselah is playing", and it wasn't necessary to change the wording to *not* ignore those cards. At least, it seems that way to me. That paragraph confuses me, but the point is that maybe "another" wasn't necessarily put *in* there for a purpose, it just wasn't taken out. Thus leading to a relatively small subset of exceptions to cards being cancelled by a DI2 on the table.

On Nov 3, 10:51 am, Robert Scythe <robe...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > Probably because it reads just fine the way it is. It does read fine the way it is. And can just as easily be read the way I am interpreting it as not (i.e. that "a card that cancels a card played by another methuselah" is describing a type of card, not a target). But until the actual card is actually seen, and we can get an actual ruling, this is all mostly pointless. > I think the key word in it's text is 'another'. A permanent put into > play that refers to another usually means 'not you' (like Bleeding the > Vine and the Powerbases). Unless it is a reference to a card type and not a target. -Peter

> I don't think anyone's disputing the 'not you'. The question is, who > is the 'you' that it's not. 'Another methuselah' with respect to the > guy who's playing the card that would cancel a minion card or > 'another methuselah' with respect to the guy who played the Dark > Influences? I guess you could convince me that it isn't a slam dunk > which meaning is conveyed by the wording. But I have to agree with > Peter that there's an insanely complex, difficult-to-explain > interpretation > of the card (the latter) or a very simple one (the former). I'm just not > seeing what the purpose would be of designing the card to work the latter > way, with all the headaches it will cause explaining it to everybody. > > As for why the word 'another' is in the sentence, that's simple enough. > To exclude cards any methuselah might play which would cancel their own > cards from the effect. > > Just my guess about the affair. My guesses are notoriously bad. I didn't even think about the insanely complex, difficult-to-explain interpretation of the card until someone brought it up here. I can't imagine it working that way, as it would not only be, as mentioned, a nightmare to explain but also would make the card inferior to regular DI for double the cost. I mean, is the chance the guy might hold another grapple/bum's rush really worth an extra pool?

On Nov 3, 11:15 am, "Tetragrammaton" <n...@usa.com> wrote: > We have, more or less, the same numbers about new players, each year > (speaking of italy as a whole, not as local playgroups) > In fact, i think that isn't enough to support the notion that > boosters would need badly *lots* of reprints for those new players. You need to have staple cards in circulation. That is simply the way that CCGs work. And they can't just be in fixed starters, as that drastically limits what you can put into circulation in the first place. > Starters should suffice, plus all other tons of cards old players can > lend (often for free, or for a very few money) to the newbies That isn't a good business model. Having staple cards that new players always need, and older players might need too, and are certainly good for sealed/draft events readily available in boosters? A much stronger business model. - in fact, > since third edition, the "only new cards in boosters" has been the approach > with sword of caine, lords of then night, twilight rebellion. > And that has been good so far, imho Which is because Third was a base set, which has reprints. Non base sets, for the most part, have not reprints. There are stand outs-- Anarchs had reprints as they were cards that hadn't been reprinted since, like, Sabbat War. Legacies came with reprints, as they also hadn't been reprinted for a long time, and went with the clans in the set. Other than that, you generally get reprints in base sets (CE, 3rd) and non reprints in not base set boosters. -Peter

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:08:33 -0800, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> Vessel *has* made Blood Doll mostly wallpaper >> (and as more Vessels become available, it will most >> likely continue to do so). > > Evidence? Proof? Tournaments attended. Decks seen. No footage if that's what you're looking for. :) -- Regards, Daneel

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:40:57 -0800 (PST), bwross <bwr...@mail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 5:04 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> E.g. to come up with a silly example, Potence isn't the discipline you >> typically associate with stealth. But just how awesome it is if you want >> to infiltrate a place to be able to easily bend bars, climb walls or >> simply break down security doors. Not as effective as sneaking, >> evesdropping and hacking, but if done quickly, probably even more >> efficient. > > Yep, Potence is the uberdicipline because all problems are just > nails. :-) > i just think that's a bad idea to bring that sort of thinking into the > card game... the reality is more sureal and much more grainy than the > RPG. I don't mind if it is done with consideration to the realistic limitations. E.g. you can't just punch through everything because eventually there will be repercussions. If this is captured well in the game, I'm all for it. -- Regards, Daneel

James Coupe wrote: > In message <N9FPk.13634$8%.12069@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, > Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >> For what i can see in italy, > > You're confusing "anecdote" with "evidence" again. Self-selecting > anecdotes are *not* evidence. How things are for you is very > different from: > > - how things are globally > - how White Wolf wants to progress things globally. > > Are you speaking for WW ? If yes, that's fine - else you're bringing anedoctes. I just checked the attendance trend at lcq in the last four years, that's all. Again, if numbers are anedoctic to you, can't do nothing. > Even if there aren't many new players globally, they simply won't be > able to get started with complex sets that appeal immensely to oldbies > (e.g. Bloodlines). So you don't make every set a complex, oldbie- > focused set. But you probably make some of them more complex. This > is pretty much what White Wolf does - it's also what (for example) > Wizards do with Magic. Base sets that appeal to newbies? Yup. More > complex sets that add depth to the game too? Yup. You'd almost > think it was planned. Base sets (boxes) appeal newbies if there's a notable number of newbies interested in the game - else the single or two newbies a year-per-playgroup will just end up in buying something here and there (not entire base sets boosters boxes), with old players lending him/them the rest of the base/staple cards. On the other side, if there are not newbies, and the player base is composed mostly by old players (as it is for VTES) , new sets (base or not) appeal these ones only if they plan to *not* get a huge bunch of reprints from base set to base set. <snip>

James Coupe wrote: > In message <NnFPk.13658$8%.7579@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton > <no...@usa.com> writes: >> Starters should suffice, plus all other tons of cards old players can >> lend (often for free, or for a very few money) to the newbies - in >> fact, since third edition, the "only new cards in boosters" has been >> the approach with sword of caine, lords of then night, twilight >> rebellion. >> And that has been good so far, imho > > Erm, the approach has always been to put reprints in the boosters in > base sets. White Wolf didn't suddenly change tack after Third > Edition. Sabbat War? Reprints in boosters. Camarilla Edition? > Reprints in boosters. Third Edition, reprints in boosters. In fact, i'm saying that third edition was pretty crappy, with the huge tons of reprints. On the other side, precons and third's edition kits were great instead.

In message <1dHPk.13838$8%.354@tornado.fastwebnet.it>, Tetragrammaton <no...@usa.com> writes: >Are you speaking for WW ? >If yes, that's fine - else you're bringing anedoctes. No, and no. I'm pointing out that your so-called evidence is anecdotal. That's not the same as bringing forward my own evidence. You want to know why? Because my "evidence" would just be self-selected anecdotes too. I'd be repeating the problem that I'm pointing out. That would be, you know, stupid. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <opuj11su...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Going back to the Camarilla Conclave in August in the TWDA, I find approximately: 15 decks using Blood Doll (but not Vessel) 18 decks using Vessel (but not Blood Doll) 6 decks using both Some decks using Minion Tap, some decks using no obvious blood gain masters at all (including an Imbued deck, where this is all irrelevant, obviously) Since I've done this in a hurry, I've possibly made a mistake or two. However, approximately 21 decks in the TWDA over the last 2.5 months using Blood Doll suggests rumours of its wallpaperedness may be exaggerated. Is it as popular as it used to be? Pretty much no. I'm sure many of those decks using it would be using some number of Blood Dolls instead. In the decks using both, it tended to be slightly fewer Blood Dolls and a couple more Vessels - but then, Vessel is a Trifle, so that may happen. Standard disclaimers about the TWDA. However, it certainly seems possible to craft a deck using Blood Doll and win tournaments with it. It certainly seems possible to craft a deck using Vessel and win with it. It seems quite likely that this will vary from place to place, and metagame to metagame. This seems, all round, like a pretty good thing and an interesting mix. Given that Vessel slows down your pool gain just that little bit, it makes for an interesting choice if you're expecting to face fast, aggressive decks that will take advantage of the extra pool or two you're missing. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 1, 6:53 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Thrall of Arika wrote: > > Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you > > get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long overdue. > > Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've got Fortitude > > as well! > > Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will sooner > or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting. Anyway, thematically Obf is logicial, > for the balance of the game I think it's quite bad. And more than anything, > it's bad for creativity : why go to the trouble of giving the Malks Pro for > S:CE anymore ? No reason really, so here's a (difficult yet interesting) > concept killed on the spot. Let's just make Aus / Obf Princes decks without > it now, the crypts will be no-brainers. Because Protean combat ends is much more effective than this Obfuscate one, perhaps? Protean offers more varied stealth to add to your stealth pool. If you have sufficient blood gain, you can go ahead and make your bleeds unblockable ... add in surprise aggravated damage ... The addition of No Trace has no real effect on making your Malkavian Protean deck. People design such decks for the challenge of it, not that Malkavians desperately need to have combat ends to survive. > >> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) > > > Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? > > In Aus / Tha walls, yes, it is very good. Of course it doesn't endure > against full combat decks, but against many other things including > bruise'n'bleed or Eurobrujahs or whatever it does pretty well. Well, as it should, Thaumaturgy is mostly a combat discipline, it should be effective in combat, and in combating other combat decks. > > My greatest > > difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only helps > > so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a blood, and > > only prevents damage from strikes. > > It will protect from Pot LR strikes, from ranged aggrav strikes etc, so yes > I do believe it makes a big difference. Once more, I'd been working on > several versions of Tha / Dom / For crypts, finding it to be an interesting > albeit difficult concept, rendered more viable with recent crypts, but now I > really don't see why I should bother. Bang, another dead concept ! Another > no-brainer ! See what I mean ? I'm sure you do. Why? Fortitude offers you all you want and more. Much better and varied damage prevention, Freak Drives, all the day/dawn block hosing, etc. Just because there is a prevent now for Thaumaturgy doesn't mean you have to rush out and only use it. Again, it's the challenge of making the deck work in the first place, which this card has no bearing on. > > How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something > > unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act that, > > seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're just > > playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to hurt you". > > The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if we > caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any deck so I can > stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can intercept, just not as > much or with more cost than if he had Aus". We're not there yet, of course, > but getting there. So what do they do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus > (only on D actions, boooh !). And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess > we'll have to get Aus : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for > sale] Intercept. ;) We have that already, though. When you see an Assamite hit the table, do you automatically know what kind of deck you're facing? In the end, what other decks can do isn't at all a concern. Unless you're holding some theme night where you know what kind of deck you're facing, what does it matter if someone brings their Setite stealth/bleed with Presence combat ends, or their new Nosferatu stealth/bleed with Obfuscate combat ends? > Less skill, more randomness. Don't agree with this logic. Going into a tournament, you have no idea what you're going to face in your opponents. More varied available deck types doesn't make it any more random in what you'll face as it did before. > >> b) The deckbuilding skills also are less required, because of > >> nobrainer cards. For instance, as of before KoT, if you wanted to > >> include S:CE in a Obf/dem deck, or prevent in a Tha deck, you had to > >> make tough crypt choices. Now, no more (so who will want to play Tha > >> / For anymore, and why ??). That flattens the crypts out, and it's > >> not good > > > This is a boon in my books. Oh, so you mean I can now play 3/4ths of > > the Tremere/!Tremere I have because they can now actually survive > > heavy combat? I don't have to devote 10+ cards to try to graft on a > > discipline that dilutes the focus of my deck? GREAT! > > Well, I for one don't like no-brainers. Tha works already pretty well > against most forms of combat because of its ability to maneuver and the > versatility of the range of its strikes, and you could even prevent 1 > without a discipline, not to mention that Magic of the Smith could get you a > jacket. But of course with For it would be more efficient in a combat-heavy > environment. So you had to adapt to your metagame and maybe change your > crypt for one with less choice. In other words, use your brain to better the > players who wouldn't make that effort. Sure, and as I said, 3/4 of the vampires go unused (An exaggeration, of course, but not too far off the mark. I've not used about 11 out of 48 Tremere, and that's because I play Tremere a lot. I've used 23 of 48 Nosferatu, most of which haven't been used since Jyhad), because they're not worth the effort to graft on the desired discipline to survive combat, say, or to get S:CE. The game currently is based around a pool of a select few number of vampires, with random weenies thrown in for support, and a large chunk of vampires we could get more use out of decorating things with than playing. The new cards certainly won't have me using every vampire in decks, but I think it will let us dust off a large number of them to play more varied decks, which will make things more interesting overall. > Less brains, zombies go hungry. Not good. Please .. won't you help these poor, starving zombies? Don't let good brains go to waste .. feed a zombie today. > > Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal > > number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a > > much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they > > can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized. > > Well, seeing that the disciplines that got better are already used by some > of the most popular clans, I just think that we'll always see the same > vampires from those clans, and less and less of the ones with that "4rth > discipline that could make a difference". True, people will still use strong vampires .. but if those ones with the 4th discipline were so crucial, then they were the ones you mostly saw. Now we'll get to see other vampires. > >> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I > >> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see any > >> good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. > > > I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment on > > it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/ > > younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to Presence, > > but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to overcome their > > awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what they're doing). Deep > > Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me to be getting in tune > > with the Beast within all vampires, whether your own (+1 bleed), or > > inducing it in others (the enter combat). > > As I said the roleplay isn't the more important factor to me here. But > still, your justification for Deep Song doesn't convince me at all, Why not? Near half of what the Animalism discipline is all about is control and manipulation of the Beast. (Drawing out the Beast, Terror Frenzy, Conquer the Beast, Crimson Fury, Instinctive Reaction, Song in the Dark, Song of Serenity, Taunt the Caged Beast, Unburdening the Bestial Soul). > and > Paragon seems far-fetched at best. Looks to me like they made cards to > increase the powers of some disciplines, then thought "we'll have to justify > that now" and found the best-fitting name possible. Not an easy task, not > very succesful in my book. Personally, I don't think the name fits well, but I can see what the intent of the card is, and it's in tune with what Presence _should_ be able to do. Presence isn't all about immediate manipulation, it's about affecting the emotions of others, singly and en masse. Cowing down those so that they are less likely to want to interfere with your plans is perfect for Presence. > > I can understand the frustration of stymied combat. But I'm not of the > > school that non-combat decks should be at the mercy of combat oriented > > ones. > > Certainly. No concept should be at the mercy of any other one. Which is why > I find that Charismatic Aura, while very strong, is a good card (the > Toreador should be more "charismaticly hard to hit" than other clans). But > what I hated with DI1 already was, once more, the no-brainer part : "I > include a card in my deck and it will be useful for every situation ; no > matter how carefully drawn a plan is, I can thwart it". Now DI2 does the > same but even worse, and not only for the combattants : the bleeder, voter, > whatever who waits patiently to have all the cards for a kill now can be > totally screwed by just one card and can't even be saved by a second > identical card. So I guess it will encourage variety in the choice of cards, > which isn't bad in the whole picture, but isn't easy or viable in many > decktypes (I mean, if you bleed with Dem you have 2 action cards, yes ?!). Sorry, but to me, this is a good thing. I've seen the recent Kindred Spirit winning decks with 20+ compies of Kindred Spirits. I'm not a huge fan of stealth/bleed, but when I play, I do so with varied effects. But even so, it doesn't kill your ability to bleed, just not so effectively, for 1 turn. I don't see why these hyper-specialized decks can't be 'forced' to adapt with the inclusion of new cards, if say my Thaumaturgy combat decks needs to adapt to Enkidu rush without new cards. > >And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn > > the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and João Bilé can't even > > attempt to block it!). > > I guess you haven't fought any Ventrue VDA swarm deck recently. The turn > when they put the VDA in play is the turn when they kill you, and possibly > their next prey. No, I can't say that I have. Most Ventrue decks I've seen, including mine, just go to the killing votes from the get-go, without the building up of Embraces/Progeny to power it on later turns. And hey, now you can actually defend yourself against this tactic with DI2. *grins* > >> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other > >> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of KoT > >> or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer be > >> good enough. > > > Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning decks. > > This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still make > > winning decks if you've never bought anything since original Jyhad. > > It certainly was the case, except for some very good cards introduced in > recent expansions, like Jake Washington, Carlton etc. Well, certainly .. there's no point in having new cards if you don't actually end up using them. Which is why I'm supportive of giving new ways of doing things to disciplines/clans. To me, it gives me a feeling that I can now build decks using other interesting vampires, without having to resort to the tried and true. While I love Arika, there have been times I've wanted to try different Ventrue vote concepts, but it usually came back to basing it around Arika simply for the stealth. Now with Perfect Paragon, it seems like we have a chance to see other, varied Ventrue decks. Of course, Arika will use it too, but not we don't have to rely on Arika to still have an effective deck. Certainly, there will be decks with the tried and true, using the new tech, but at least for me, I'll be looking at making use of a lot more vampires that just sit in my stacks because I have to specialize so much to be competitive in the first place. > > All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what > > keeps the game interesting. > > This is where we disagree. I think it is more powerful ways of doing the > same old things. Rise in the power curve. Cards that you _need_ in order to > be competitive. Me no like. I don't see it. Time will tell. Certainly there are some good cards, that will likely become staples in a number of decks. But I haven't really seen anything that is going to overshadow any of the tried and true decks out there. I think it's more the case where there will be _more_ tried and true concepts added to the mix, which to me is a good thing. > >> So, what thinketh thou ? > >> ------------ > >> Orpheus > > > I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come up > > with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill stealth - > > didn't happen. > > But it became a stapple card in every Aus deck. Add the new Tremere ally and > the new +2 cept card and I think Carna will just get a big raise for her old > job. Sure, Bowl is a 'no-brainer' for Auspex decks (poor zombies!). And yet as we've seen in recent days, good ol' stealth/bleed is still winning handily. And Auspex decks do just as well without the Bowl coming up. As for the Carna scenario, the new Auspex card doesn't give anything to Carna she didn't already have access to, and better (Enhanced Senses already gave her +2 intercept, without any limitation). Yes, the superior gives a wake, but then she can't use another for the +2 intercept. And the Tremere ally, while a neat concept, doesn't truly add much more to the mix. It's just another way to get intercept that could have come from intercept locations, Bowl and retainers, or transient Auspex cards. > > Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat > > the only way to go - didn't happen. > > Whoever said that never read the card. The new card is even better > (stackable with Torn) but more costly, so although it's very, very good, I > don't think we'll see it everywhere. I agree .. though Preternatural Strength is a good, strong card. I wish I had one. I believe the new cards also has a 'burn if you go to torpor' clause, which also limits it. > > Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper > > - hasn't happened. > > In Paris, if you play a BD, you know that it'll last between 1 and 3 turns. > So in most decks people will prefer Vessel now. That's 1-3 pool for free. Seems good in my books still. If Vessels are so destabilizing, perhaps some Washes will help stem the tide. In our metagame, Blood Dolls are still more common. Myself, I use 1 or 2 Vessels in place of 1 or 2 Blood Dolls in my deck designs (usually 4 BDs in a deck). The fact that it'll take 2 more turns before I start to profit from it keeps me from going all out Vessels (and sometimes you just can't afford the 1 pool to play it). > > Certainly, there will be new cards to put into > > decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't see > > KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing. > > Did I say that ? Sometimes I drink too much polluted blood and forget what > I've been saying. ;) > > But I recall being more in the lines of "a set you *must* buy", not "*the > only set you need*" > > Although with the reprints... lol Well ... perhaps not said directly, but implied certainly :) I don't see any need to buy into the set, unless you're looking for the cards to vary decks you already have or plan on making. Perfect Paragon will certainly be strong for Presence vote decks (especially weenie ones), but it's not going to make Bewitching/Awe obsolete. No Trace will help Obfuscate decks be more defensive, but it's not going to do anything that's not already available, just open up the options for it. Now if I want to play stealth/bleed with a S:CE angle, I don't have to turn to the Setites, or graft on Presence or Protean. With the animalism bleed card, Nossies can now actually compete a bit more on the bleed part as with Setites, Assamites and Gangrel. I think it's great that now if you see a Nossie, it's not automatically going to be either a weenie animalism deck or a Princes deck. Chris, Thrall of Arika

[ quoted text not captured ] The Blood Doll vs. Vessel situation reminds me of the contest about strategy X and strategy Y (where each round each participant needs to choose to pursue strategy X or Y, and depending on the choices, accumulate points - the more Xs are put, the more points are divided among the players, but players putting Ys get more points). Now, where I play, mostly everyone puts Y - they play Vessel. If you are participating at a tournament where everyone still uses Blood Dolls, you will not be at a disadvantage. -- Regards, Daneel

Orpheus wrote: > Tetragrammaton wrote: >> Peter D Bakija wrote: >>>> 4) Reprints in the boosters >>> >>> This is the new base set. Base sets *need* to have reprints in the >>> boosters if you want to keep making the game accessible to new >>> players; CE had reprints in the boosters, 3rd had reprints in the >>> boosters, this has reprints in the boosters. That's how it goes. >>> >>>> didn't they keep reprints to starters, which are way enough for new >>>> players ? >>> >>> 'Cause they aren't enough for new players. Base sets have reprints. >>> 'Cause other wise, they aren't base sets. >>> >> >> I can see your points >> However, about the "new players" argument, i think that >> it will be matter of debate in near future, given the actual >> VTES status . > > What is in your view the actual VTES status ? > ------------- > Orpheus As discussing elsewhere here: a game with big potential but with a too much old player base, that does not rejuvenates enough with the infusion of new players in the stable game scene. In a word: too few new players. I appreciated the WW effort to making up some stuff specifically for newbies, such as the third edition player's kits (the best thing done for newbies these years by WW , imho). Actually, i wish the WW will do something like that for koT also, maybe including all of the six cam clans in a sort of "KoT player's kit" , with the 6 clan base cards (hunting grounds, titled vampires etc).

On Nov 3, 1:40 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > > The Blood Doll vs. Vessel situation reminds me of the contest about > strategy X and strategy Y (where each round each participant needs to > choose to pursue strategy X or Y, and depending on the choices, > accumulate points - the more Xs are put, the more points are divided > among the players, but players putting Ys get more points). Now, where > I play, mostly everyone puts Y - they play Vessel. > IMHO, most of those people will soon realize that in an environment with no Blood Dolls, Vessel isn't particularly worth the spot in the deck, except for decks that need to do blood manipulation during the untap phase. Without Blood Dolls to blow up, Vessel just isn't that good, and I think a lot of decks do better with Grooming the Protege, Minion Tap, or something else. At some point, Vessel usage seems likely to decrease to the point where Blood Dolls are perfectly viable again. That's what Vessel was designed to do - instead of 80% of decks throwing in 4-6 Blood Dolls as a no-brainer, there's a more informed choice. Does this deck need to be able suck blood back off of vampires? Do I have the MPA's available to use Blood Dolls when I may only gain a pool or 2 from each of them? Does Minion Tap (or the new Minion Tap clone) make more sense to gain that pool in a larger burst? Does Grooming the Protege make more sense for a similar reason plus transfer acceleration? Or do I need to use a Trifle that delays the pool gain by 2 turns, but can keep my prey from bloating if they play with Blood Dolls? That's what I generally see. Vessel is not all-pervasive because it just isn't that good if there's no Blood Doll in play that you want to blow up. It just doesn't make sense to play Vessel in very many decks if you don't see Blood Dolls. If your play group is completely focused on them, then *you* should go a different route and avoid the whole Vessel-Blood Doll fight completely...

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:55:22 -0800 (PST), Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > On Nov 3, 1:40 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > >> The Blood Doll vs. Vessel situation reminds me of the contest about >> strategy X and strategy Y (where each round each participant needs to >> choose to pursue strategy X or Y, and depending on the choices, >> accumulate points - the more Xs are put, the more points are divided >> among the players, but players putting Ys get more points). Now, where >> I play, mostly everyone puts Y - they play Vessel. > > IMHO, most of those people will soon realize that in an environment > with no Blood Dolls, Vessel isn't particularly worth the spot in the > deck, except for decks that need to do blood manipulation during the > untap phase. Without Blood Dolls to blow up, Vessel just isn't that > good, and I think a lot of decks do better with Grooming the Protege, > Minion Tap, or something else. At some point, Vessel usage seems > likely to decrease to the point where Blood Dolls are perfectly viable > again. ...except, I don't really see how people will switch back to Blood Doll. If everybody is using Vessel, you don't bring Blood Dolls, because they simply get blown up before you can say "specific card hosers suck". People might switch to alternative solutions, but that will not eliminate Vessel to allow Doll to sneak back in, because to many players there aren't many real alternatives. > That's what Vessel was designed to do - instead of 80% of decks > throwing in 4-6 Blood Dolls as a no-brainer, there's a more informed > choice. Does this deck need to be able suck blood back off of > vampires? Do I have the MPA's available to use Blood Dolls when I may > only gain a pool or 2 from each of them? Does Minion Tap (or the new > Minion Tap clone) make more sense to gain that pool in a larger > burst? Does Grooming the Protege make more sense for a similar reason > plus transfer acceleration? Or do I need to use a Trifle that delays > the pool gain by 2 turns, but can keep my prey from bloating if they > play with Blood Dolls? I don't consider this an informed choice. I call this a gamble. If you bring Dolls and your prey and predator bring Vessels you wasted those 4-5 slots, period. > That's what I generally see. Vessel is not all-pervasive because it > just isn't that good if there's no Blood Doll in play that you want to > blow up. It just doesn't make sense to play Vessel in very many decks > if you don't see Blood Dolls. If your play group is completely > focused on them, then *you* should go a different route and avoid the > whole Vessel-Blood Doll fight completely... You're writing to the guy who has used cards like Gird Minions, Sermon of Caine and Life in the City in tournament decks since they were printed. I never was a big fan of Blood Dolls. I didn't see a need to hose it, though. It wasn't a too strong card even before Vessel got printed. -- Regards, Daneel

On Nov 3, 3:30 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > ...except, I don't really see how people will switch back to Blood Doll. > If everybody is using Vessel, you don't bring Blood Dolls, because they > simply get blown up before you can say "specific card hosers suck". > People might switch to alternative solutions, but that will not > eliminate Vessel to allow Doll to sneak back in, because to many players > there aren't many real alternatives. The game theory is this: 1) If enough people are playing Vessel to counter Blood Dolls (which is what you're saying), eventually people will give up on Blood Dolls entirely. 2) Vessel isn't generally a very good card if no one is playing Blood Dolls. 3) Because of #2 above, people will begin looking to non-Blood Doll, non-Vessel sources of poolgain. 4) If enough people use NBDNV sources of poolgain, people will stop playing Vessel (again, because of #2 above). 5) At this point, Blood Doll can come back into usage, and the cycle can repeat. I'm not saying whether or not that's currently happening or will happen, but that's the theory that Chris is using. John Eno

XZealot <xze...@cox.net> wrote: > On the other hand, I have watched almost as many players (if not more) > quit the game for every reason under the sun (job, wife, kids, > marriage, sports, hunting, church, moving, smells funny, too much > hair, smile too much). World of Warcraft... [sigh] Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

"Kushiel" <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:274c968a-f9df-4776...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 3, 3:30 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > > ...except, I don't really see how people will switch back to Blood Doll. > > If everybody is using Vessel, you don't bring Blood Dolls, because they > > simply get blown up before you can say "specific card hosers suck". > > People might switch to alternative solutions, but that will not > > eliminate Vessel to allow Doll to sneak back in, because to many players > > there aren't many real alternatives. > > The game theory is this: > > 1) If enough people are playing Vessel to counter Blood Dolls (which > is what you're saying), eventually people will give up on Blood Dolls > entirely. > 2) Vessel isn't generally a very good card if no one is playing Blood > Dolls. > 3) Because of #2 above, people will begin looking to non-Blood Doll, > non-Vessel sources of poolgain. ...or just put the card slots to some other use than pool gain. This possibility rests on the assumption that having pool gain isn't that important unless it can be done well. I suspect the answer is somewhat moderate: that pool gain is still important but not _as_ important. So instead of swapping out 8 Blood Dolls for 8 Vessels, players might find it reasonable to swap out, say, 8 Blood Dolls for 5 or 6 Vessels. The logic is that Blood Dolls don't perform as well as they used to (because they're vulnerable to frequent eliminate from Vessels) and Vessles don't work as well as Blood Dolls used to (because of the cost and mechanics of the pool gain), so it's not as important to draw them as often as you would when you packed 8. If you fail to draw one in a game, it's not as much of difference as not drawing a (pre-Vessel) Blood Doll was. > 4) If enough people use NBDNV sources of poolgain, people will stop > playing Vessel (again, because of #2 above). > 5) At this point, Blood Doll can come back into usage, and the cycle > can repeat. ...or, rather, people will start converting some Vessels back to Blood Dolls because Vessels become relatively less attractive and Blood Dolls become relatively more attractive. And the cycle repeats... Anyway, however you think about, it's the same. On the other hand, if one assumes that Vessels are just too good to ever get converted back to Blood Dolls and that pool gain is just too important not to pack pretty much the same supply of Vessels as one used to pack Blood Dolls, then I think it would be fair to suggest that Blood Doll was a better card than it needed to be anyway. Fred

On Nov 3, 12:50 pm, "Izaak" <m...@nospam.com> wrote: > I didn't even think about the insanely complex, difficult-to-explain > interpretation of the card until someone brought it up here. Which explanation is complex at all? They're both dirt simple. Either "another Methuselah" refers to someone other than the canceller or it refers to someone other than the controller of the DI2. That's all there is to it... they're both equally complicated, you just check that you've got the right "another" when a minion card is cancelled. Nothing to it either way. Brent Ross

[ quoted text not captured ] I also do not understand why an argument for it to not working in this fashion is that it is overly complicated and hard to explain. It has nothing to do with a balance issue just a 'that's too hard to wrap my head around'. I do believe that it will be a little bent to be able to say "I played it first so I get the advantage" with a card that can potentially be stronger than a DI (which people have been having concerns with for years now) so I hope it doesn't work that way. But I'm sure that nobody will have too difficult a time explaining its proper mechanic either way.

In article <fffbc76e-cdd3-4e68...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > Slightly; you are, after all, fairly strongly associated with a > college campus, which has a reliable turnover of folks every year, > even if the "old standbys" of the Ithaca group aren't in flux. Maybe, but we aren't associated with a game store, so we lose that particular influx that comes from visibility in a public place. Thinking of the last 4 guys we got. we got: -Ex college guy who decided to stay in town. -Local grown up game player (sucked in through, maybe, Warhamer players?) -Local high school kid who, Ironically, we met at a (now closed) game store. -1 actual Cornell student. So you might be on to something. But college kids have not, historically, been a strong feeding system. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:cbb6b95c-d8cb-403b...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If that turns out to be the intent of the card, then like a lot of things in this game, it will be reasonable enough to play once you can convince people it actually works that way. It's the having-to- convince-everyone-new-to-it part that I'd not look forward to. Fred

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But college kids have not, historically, > been a strong feeding system. Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 6:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > If that turns out to be the intent of the card, then like a lot of > things in this game, it will be reasonable enough to play once you > can convince people it actually works that way. It's the having-to- > convince-everyone-new-to-it part that I'd not look forward to. It's certainly looking like it's going to be one of those things... like Rotschrek, Stutter-Step, or the universal fungibility of life with "play cards as a vampire" allies (or the reason why a [pot] ally can now use Torn Signpost but not Preternatural Strength). Brent Ross

"bwross" <bwr...@mail.com> wrote in message news:1937acd6-c6a0-40be...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 3, 6:49 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > If that turns out to be the intent of the card, then like a lot of > > things in this game, it will be reasonable enough to play once you > > can convince people it actually works that way. It's the having-to- > > convince-everyone-new-to-it part that I'd not look forward to. > > It's certainly looking like it's going to be one of those things... I'm not sure why you say that. It's still my expectation that the interpretation will turn out to be the one I think is the far more intuitive. Fred

In article <geo3tq$ok2$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores > across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( Holy crap. Tell me about it--Ithaca has, like, 40K college students. And we can't keep a single game store alive for more than a year. I don't understand the world... [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:pdb6-55C14F.2...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <geo3tq$ok2$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: >> Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores >> across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( > > Holy crap. Tell me about it--Ithaca has, like, 40K college students. And > we can't keep a single game store alive for more than a year. I don't > understand the world... I'm not sure why anyone would think college students would be such a mainstay of support for game stores. It's probably true that many of us who are gamers began before or during college. And college students have the time (or make it) and certainly the energy to spend on games. But what they don't have is the money! And especially in the case of CCGs, where the game companies aren't happy unless they can dump a new expansion on players every 6 months or more, students don't strike me as the ideal demographic. From my years as a gamer, I'd say it's young adults, post education but pre-family years, who are probably in the ideal situation for purposes of commercial institutions who want to make money selling games. The same kind of folk who spend lots of money on all sorts of hobbies and pursuits. It may be that a lot of gaming interest expressed in any demographic has been diverted from physical games to online gaming. I'm sure that's no small part of the reason game stores are having a tougher time of it nowadays. Fred

Peter D Bakija wrote: > In article <geo3tq$ok2$1...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: >> Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores >> across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( > > Holy crap. Tell me about it--Ithaca has, like, 40K college students. And > we can't keep a single game store alive for more than a year. I don't > understand the world... > College kids classically don't have that one thing that keeps game stores open: money. best - chris -- Super Fun Cards www.superfuncards.com *NEW Website!* auct...@superfuncards.com

[ quoted text not captured ] Best time to get kids into hobby games is between the ages of 10 and 13. a) They can handle abstract strategy b) Their parents will still fund their interests c) Their parents will often support interests that are intellectual/creative d) They have yet to find the opposite gender quite so compelling e) They have plenty of off time to hang out with each other Best time for a game store to reap the rewards of the seed planted between the ages of 10 and 13: post college, pre kids. a) They now have disposable income b) They now realize that being a geek won't count against them in the gender pursuits (sometimes even counting for them) c) They still have time since they don't have kids yet, but are out of school [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 3, 5:16 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > > If that turns out to be the intent of the card, then like a lot of > > > things in this game, it will be reasonable enough to play once you > > > can convince people it actually works that way. It's the having-to- > > > convince-everyone-new-to-it part that I'd not look forward to. > > > It's certainly looking like it's going to be one of those things... > > I'm not sure why you say that. It's still my expectation that the > interpretation will turn out to be the one I think is the far more > intuitive. Me, too. But your intuitive does not agree with mine. I still think that if it works your way it'll be a little bent whereas the other way seems reasonable.

On Nov 3, 8:22 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <geo3tq$ok...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: > > > Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores > > across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( > > Holy crap. Tell me about it--Ithaca has, like, 40K college students. And > we can't keep a single game store alive for more than a year. I don't > understand the world... > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Here in Ann Arbor we can't get the collage kids to even look at us (despite the fact that their are like 6 collages in the area), hell the only collage students we got started playing before they were in collage. The store we play at is really a comic book store with some play space for magic players.

On Nov 3, 8:22 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <geo3tq$ok...@aioe.org>, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: > > > Tell me about it. Here in Las Vegas, *three* comic and/or gaming stores > > across the street from UNLV have closed over the last few years. :( > > Holy crap. Tell me about it--Ithaca has, like, 40K college students. And > we can't keep a single game store alive for more than a year. I don't > understand the world... > > Peter D Bakija > p...@lightlink.comhttp://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html > > "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" > -Gaff Here in Ann Arbor we can't get the collage kids to even look at us [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] Which is why it's going to be one of those things. The fact that people are reading the card in two different ways means that, one way or the other, there's going to be some explaining to do. Brent Ross

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Nov 1, 6:53 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> Thrall of Arika wrote: >>> Perhaps not, but really, if there's any discipline that can help you >>> get the hell out of dodge, it's Obfuscate .. I say it's long >>> overdue. Heck, Animalism can end combat, with two cards if you've >>> got Fortitude as well! >> >> Ani S:CE is an aberration already. Looks like every discipline will >> sooner or later get an S:CE, that's vomiting. Anyway, thematically >> Obf is logicial, for the balance of the game I think it's quite bad. >> And more than anything, it's bad for creativity : why go to the >> trouble of giving the Malks Pro for S:CE anymore ? No reason really, >> so here's a (difficult yet interesting) concept killed on the spot. >> Let's just make Aus / Obf Princes decks without it now, the crypts >> will be no-brainers. > > Because Protean combat ends is much more effective than this Obfuscate > one, perhaps? Not compared to the changes in crypt necessary. If I can play 7-8-Caps rather than 10-Caps I'm more than ready to pay 1 blood each S:CE, and choose guys with sup Obf (they'll probably have it anyway, while when you must add Pre or Pro they don't always). > Protean offers more varied stealth to add to your > stealth pool. > If you have sufficient blood gain, you can go ahead and > make your bleeds unblockable ... add in surprise aggravated damage ... Annecdotical compared to what Obf can do by itself. Not to mention that most Malks (for instance) will have inferior Pro, which isn't that good for stealth. > The addition of No Trace has no real effect on making your Malkavian > Protean deck. People design such decks for the challenge of it, not > that Malkavians desperately need to have combat ends to survive. Sorry to say that this statement is wrong. "People" make decks to win, at least good players do and even more so in tournament. Of course some of us want to have fun too, but if the "challenge" just consists in making a deck the hard way when it can work much better without complicating things, very few players will choose to go that way, for understandable reasons. And I've seen titled Malks decks where Pro was added solely "to survive" rush decks (those without IG obviously, but it's quite efficient against rushing allies). >>>> - prevent in Tha (again, like they needed it) >> >>> Is Thaumaturgy combat sweeping all the time where you are? >> >> In Aus / Tha walls, yes, it is very good. Of course it doesn't endure >> against full combat decks, but against many other things including >> bruise'n'bleed or Eurobrujahs or whatever it does pretty well. > > Well, as it should, Thaumaturgy is mostly a combat discipline, it > should be effective in combat, and in combating other combat decks. It already is. >>> My greatest >>> difficulty with Thaumaturgy is in surviving combats. Theft only >>> helps so much. Even Rego Motus won't be a cure all. It costs a >>> blood, and only prevents damage from strikes. >> >> It will protect from Pot LR strikes, from ranged aggrav strikes etc, >> so yes I do believe it makes a big difference. Once more, I'd been >> working on several versions of Tha / Dom / For crypts, finding it to >> be an interesting albeit difficult concept, rendered more viable >> with recent crypts, but now I really don't see why I should bother. >> Bang, another dead concept ! Another no-brainer ! See what I mean ? >> I'm sure you do. > > Why? Fortitude offers you all you want and more. Much better and > varied damage prevention, You don't need it, you steal blood. One prevent card (two with Glancing Blow) is enough to make the difference. > Freak Drives, You don't need it, you have Rutor's Hand. Of course those other cards offer good possibilities, but not enough for the cost in crypt now that we have Rego Motus. > all the day/dawn block hosing, The only thing that can be done now only with For. And I've played it, I can tell you from experience that it's fun but not very competitive. Anyway, my point exactly : those options are now not interesting enough anymore to go into the trouble of an alternative crypt. All because of one small card. And there are several like that in the set. > etc. Just because there is a prevent now for Thaumaturgy doesn't mean > you have to rush out and only use it. Again, it's the challenge of > making the deck work in the first place, which this card has no > bearing on. No. The challenge is making the best possible deck in a given concept. If your concept is Dawn Op / Weather Control, you need For. If it is anything else, you just don't need For anymore and it would be silly to go for a considerably bigger crypt just to add difficulty (or maybe you're so much better than the rest of your playgroup and you want added handicap ? Maybe you can play Laibon with a hand tied behind your back ?). >>> How so? Predictability makes things easier. Reacting to something >>> unexpected, and using your resources effectively to counter-act >>> that, seems to me would require greater skill than say "Oh, you're >>> just playing fortitude, so I just stealth by rather than try to >>> hurt you". >> >> The trouble is that after a while everyone can do everything. So if >> we caricature it a bit we end up with : "ok, I'm playing just any >> deck so I can stealth ; and he's playing just any deck so he can >> intercept, just not as much or with more cost than if he had Aus". >> We're not there yet, of course, but getting there. So what do they >> do ? Give us +2 int. with inferior Aus (only on D actions, boooh !). >> And when we can get that with Cel too, I guess we'll have to get Aus >> : +3 Intercept / AUS + [years that VTES has been for sale] >> Intercept. ;) > > We have that already, though. When you see an Assamite hit the table, > do you automatically know what kind of deck you're facing? Soon anough, yes. But of course there are a few variants with each deck, and that is good ! But all the disciplines shouldn't do everything. > In the end, > what other decks can do isn't at all a concern. Unless you're holding > some theme night where you know what kind of deck you're facing, what > does it matter if someone brings their Setite stealth/bleed with > Presence combat ends, or their new Nosferatu stealth/bleed with > Obfuscate combat ends? Nosferatu stealth / bleed ? That must be good ! Let me pick Setites please... ;) As for S:CE for Nosferatu, it's more of a problem with the current Tier1 deck in that clan : Nosfe Princes. But they already have a S:CE now, so... Sure, in the swiss version of the deck the goal was to go fast, so there is no combat at all in it, but in an environment with, say, lots of Shamblings (happens a lot here) a few S:CEs might just save the day. Too late to beat that particular horse now anyway, but the example is still valid. >> Less skill, more randomness. > > Don't agree with this logic. Going into a tournament, you have no idea > what you're going to face in your opponents. More varied available > deck types doesn't make it any more random in what you'll face as it > did before. That is where you don't understand my point. I'm not talking more varied archetypes, which is good !!! I'm talking inpredictability of disciplines because of their flattening, which in my opinion is bad. Very different things. Do you see the difference ? [ quoted text not captured ] Agreed, although some crypts are much better than others (the !Malks or Trems/!Trems have pretty good overall crypts !!). > The new cards certainly won't have me using every vampire in decks, > but I think it will let us dust off a large number of them to play > more varied decks, which will make things more interesting overall. Some cards will do that, and that's good, and that's what makes me want to buy KoT. Some cards killed existing concepts, and that's bad, and that's what makes me *not* want to buy KoT. >> Less brains, zombies go hungry. Not good. > > Please .. won't you help these poor, starving zombies? Don't let good > brains go to waste .. feed a zombie today. BRAAAAIIIIINNSSS !!! >>> Sure, coming up with that perfectly tuned deck that uses a marginal >>> number of vampires is gone, but we now have opportunities to see a >>> much greater variety of vampires in play, due to the fact that they >>> can now compete a bit more with those that are highly specialized. >> >> Well, seeing that the disciplines that got better are already used >> by some of the most popular clans, I just think that we'll always >> see the same vampires from those clans, and less and less of the >> ones with that "4rth discipline that could make a difference". > > True, people will still use strong vampires .. but if those ones with > the 4th discipline were so crucial, then they were the ones you mostly > saw. Now we'll get to see other vampires. I'm afraid not, Chris. I just think it will get back to the main, "easy" vamps. Sticking to the Trem/!Trem example, there is a perfect midcap crypt available, if we don't use an outside discipline we will just see the same old vampires over and over again. >>>> c) Of course the last argument is the roleplaying part, even if I >>>> know it's always been secondary in a CCG, but I really don't see >>>> any good justification for intercepting with For, i.e. >> >>> I think I've missed the intercept for Fortitude, so I can't comment >>> on it. But something like Perfect Paragon (pre +3 votes, PRE allies/ >>> younger vampires -1 intercept) effectively gives stealth to >>> Presence, but I can see the RPness of it (it's harder for some to >>> overcome their awe at such 'perfection' and attempt to stop what >>> they're doing). Deep Song (ani +1 bleed, ANI odd rush) seems to me >>> to be getting in tune with the Beast within all vampires, whether >>> your own (+1 bleed), or inducing it in others (the enter combat). >> >> As I said the roleplay isn't the more important factor to me here. >> But still, your justification for Deep Song doesn't convince me at >> all, > > Why not? Near half of what the Animalism discipline is all about is > control and manipulation of the Beast. (Drawing out the Beast, Terror > Frenzy, Conquer the Beast, Crimson Fury, Instinctive Reaction, Song in > the Dark, Song of Serenity, Taunt the Caged Beast, Unburdening the > Bestial Soul). Of course it is ! But this has nothing to do with a bleed bonus. A rush I can get, there already are some in the game anyway. It might be a good card for the discipline, though. But it's thematically bad. >> and >> Paragon seems far-fetched at best. Looks to me like they made cards >> to increase the powers of some disciplines, then thought "we'll have >> to justify that now" and found the best-fitting name possible. Not >> an easy task, not very succesful in my book. > > Personally, I don't think the name fits well, but I can see what the > intent of the card is, and it's in tune with what Presence _should_ be > able to do. Presence isn't all about immediate manipulation, it's > about affecting the emotions of others, singly and en masse. Cowing > down those so that they are less likely to want to interfere with your > plans is perfect for Presence. Whatever. See bwross' stuff about Realms. [ quoted text not captured ] DI is and has always been a no-brainer, it _abstains_ people from adapting, because it does everything by itself. But it can thwart a good plan, still all by itself, and now it isn't even possible to plan it better by keeping another copy of the card in hand. It is a silver bullet. That cannot be good. For further argumentation see all the previous DI discussions and erase all the "but you can play another one" argumentations. >>> And if weenie Ventrue with VDA is annoying you, burn >>> the darn VDA (heck, use a titled vampire and Jo�o Bil� can't even >>> attempt to block it!). >> >> I guess you haven't fought any Ventrue VDA swarm deck recently. The >> turn when they put the VDA in play is the turn when they kill you, >> and possibly their next prey. > > No, I can't say that I have. Most Ventrue decks I've seen, including > mine, just go to the killing votes from the get-go, without the > building up of Embraces/Progeny to power it on later turns. And hey, > now you can actually defend yourself against this tactic with DI2. > *grins* > >>>> Therefore, depending on how much I get to play with my other >>>> activities, I think the only choice I make will be : buy lots of >>>> KoT or leave the game, because soon my other decks will no longer >>>> be good enough. >> >>> Why not? Cards from Jyhad are still staples in a ton of winning >>> decks. This isn't going to change with KoT. I'm sure you can still >>> make winning decks if you've never bought anything since original >>> Jyhad. >> >> It certainly was the case, except for some very good cards >> introduced in recent expansions, like Jake Washington, Carlton etc. > > Well, certainly .. there's no point in having new cards if you don't > actually end up using them. Which is why I'm supportive of giving new > ways of doing things to disciplines/clans. To me, it gives me a > feeling that I can now build decks using other interesting vampires, > without having to resort to the tried and true. The variations in Pre S:CE shows us that there can be new and interesting cards, even worth replacing Majesty in several decktypes, without flattening the disciplines. > While I love Arika, > there have been times I've wanted to try different Ventrue vote > concepts, but it usually came back to basing it around Arika simply > for the stealth. Now with Perfect Paragon, it seems like we have a > chance to see other, varied Ventrue decks. Of course, Arika will use > it too, but not we don't have to rely on Arika to still have an > effective deck. Not sure if it will make such a difference. But for the reconrd we already have many Ventrue stealthless decks which win tournies, some based on Vignes, some on Embraces, even some old school Princes. And if the Ventrue needed stealth some other cards could be made. This is a Pre card, and gives Pre more power. Weenie Pre, come back !!! > Certainly, there will be decks with the tried and true, using the new > tech, but at least for me, I'll be looking at making use of a lot more > vampires that just sit in my stacks because I have to specialize so > much to be competitive in the first place. From what I've seen in that particular set, the good ol winning concepts will just become better / good again (Palla Grande for instance). >>> All KoT does is add more ways of doing the same thing, which is what >>> keeps the game interesting. >> >> This is where we disagree. I think it is more powerful ways of doing >> the same old things. Rise in the power curve. Cards that you _need_ >> in order to be competitive. Me no like. > > I don't see it. Time will tell. Sure will ! Generally speaking of course, because I'm mainly stating my own opinion / feeling here, not just a general trend. > Certainly there are some good cards, > that will likely become staples in a number of decks. But I haven't > really seen anything that is going to overshadow any of the tried and > true decks out there. I think it's more the case where there will be > _more_ tried and true concepts added to the mix, which to me is a good > thing. Then you didn't read any of what I said, because I listed a few concepts which are dead now. >>>> So, what thinketh thou ? >>>> ------------ >>>> Orpheus >> >>> I think we've got a bit of pre-release "zomg!", which seems to come >>> up with every expansion. Bowl of Convergence was going to kill >>> stealth - didn't happen. >> >> But it became a stapple card in every Aus deck. Add the new Tremere >> ally and the new +2 cept card and I think Carna will just get a big >> raise for her old job. > > Sure, Bowl is a 'no-brainer' for Auspex decks (poor zombies!). lol > And yet > as we've seen in recent days, good ol' stealth/bleed is still winning > handily. Some other concepts win too, mainly allies in our parts. > And Auspex decks do just as well without the Bowl coming up. Tha decks always get the Bowl soon. ;) Anyway, Unique cards are not guaranteed to come up, but there are several of them (sure to get, say, either the bowl or the KRCG soon enough) and the Bowl does make a difference. > As for the Carna scenario, the new Auspex card doesn't give anything > to Carna she didn't already have access to, and better (Enhanced > Senses already gave her +2 intercept, without any limitation). It's cumulative. It gives +2 int to weenie Aus with inferior discipline. It does change things. > Yes, > the superior gives a wake, but then she can't use another for the +2 > intercept. Poor girl !! Where will she find that cept now ?! Oh, but wait... > And the Tremere ally, while a neat concept, doesn't truly > add much more to the mix. It's just another way to get intercept that > could have come from intercept locations, Bowl and retainers, or > transient Auspex cards. Waht you're saying is : Bowl doesn't make a big enough diffence ; the Aus card neither ; and the ally neither. Let's admit you're right. Now let's put all of those together, plus Carna and co, and we have ? A stealther's worst nightmare !! >>> Preternatural Strength was going to make Potence combat >>> the only way to go - didn't happen. >> >> Whoever said that never read the card. The new card is even better >> (stackable with Torn) but more costly, so although it's very, very >> good, I don't think we'll see it everywhere. > > I agree .. though Preternatural Strength is a good, strong card. I > wish I had one. > > I believe the new cards also has a 'burn if you go to torpor' clause, > which also limits it. Cry me a Potence River. ;) >>> Vessels made Blood Dolls wallpaper >>> - hasn't happened. >> >> In Paris, if you play a BD, you know that it'll last between 1 and 3 >> turns. So in most decks people will prefer Vessel now. > > That's 1-3 pool for free. Seems good in my books still. Depending on the decks, yes. For most decks, so-so. > If Vessels are > so destabilizing, perhaps some Washes will help stem the tide. In our > metagame, Blood Dolls are still more common. Myself, I use 1 or 2 > Vessels in place of 1 or 2 Blood Dolls in my deck designs (usually 4 > BDs in a deck). The fact that it'll take 2 more turns before I start > to profit from it keeps me from going all out Vessels (and sometimes > you just can't afford the 1 pool to play it). I agree that BDs aren't wallpaper yet, but they certainly have become much scarcer in play. >>> Certainly, there will be new cards to put into >>> decks, and new vampires with decks built around them. But I can't >>> see KoT becoming the _only_ set with cards worth playing. >> >> Did I say that ? Sometimes I drink too much polluted blood and >> forget what I've been saying. ;) >> >> But I recall being more in the lines of "a set you *must* buy", not >> "*the only set you need*" >> >> Although with the reprints... lol > > Well ... perhaps not said directly, but implied certainly :) Never ! "Only set worth playing" mean forfeinting all previous cards. Why would anyone in a sane mind do that when they can add KoT sweetness to all the previous sugar ?!? > I don't see any need to buy into the set, unless you're looking for > the cards to vary decks you already have or plan on making. Make decks better and win more (or not loose more against players who do include KoT in theirs) ? > Perfect > Paragon will certainly be strong for Presence vote decks (especially > weenie ones), but it's not going to make Bewitching/Awe obsolete. People have mentionned that it was Awe that would be dead now (especially if the Minion Tap hoser sees lots of play too). > No > Trace will help Obfuscate decks be more defensive, but it's not going > to do anything that's not already available, just open up the options > for it. Ease them up a lot ! Believe me, I've juggled with Pre in a Dem deck, it's easier said than done !! > Now if I want to play stealth/bleed with a S:CE angle, I don't > have to turn to the Setites, or graft on Presence or Protean. You can just play the more versatile bleed discipline, the one that can let you threaten who you want on the table, and all that in a deflecting clan. How is that good ? Do you imply that this just killed Setite S'n'B too ? ;) > With the > animalism bleed card, Nossies can now actually compete a bit more on > the bleed part as with Setites, Far from it > Assamites and Gangrel. I don't see the link with those 2 ?? > I think it's > great that now if you see a Nossie, it's not automatically going to be > either a weenie animalism deck or a Princes deck. I don't think that a +1 bleed will open a new concept, you could already do that disciplineless. The rush / bleed option is certainly a good option, it is just thematically wrong in my book. But it is now the worst of the cited cards in the lot for me ! As a matter of facts, if there had just been one or two such cards in the set it would have been unconspicuous, as were sonar and co. But there are a lot of them, and the message seems to be : "we don't care about the meaning of the disciplines anymore". And that is what I disclike. Wow, that was long (as was your previous answer). Hope it helps you understand My PoV at least. Cheers, Orpheus

On Nov 3, 9:54 pm, Robert Scythe <robe...@exploretalent.com> wrote: > Me, too. But your intuitive does not agree with mine. I still think > that if it works your way it'll be a little bent whereas the other way > seems reasonable. By "a little bent", do you mean "too powerful"? If DI2 works the way I think it does, it strikes me as no more significant than errating DI to say "Only 1 may be played per game" (like on Giant's Blood and Temptation of Greater Power and whatever). Except even less severe--if you play the first DI2, you get to shut people out (unless someone is willing to suck it up and take the hit to reset the system). But if you play it first, you are likely not holding on to it for an optimal play, as you have it in hand and want to play it before you get shut out (like Giant's Blood--often, Giant's Blood gets played early on just to avoid getting shut out). This all strikes me as totally reasonable--the first person to play it gets to shut everyone else out (kind of). Just like Giant's Blood. Which works fine. -Peter

On Nov 3, 9:03 pm, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > College kids classically don't have that one thing that keeps game > stores open: money. And yet they can buy all that beer... -Peter

On Nov 4, 4:05 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Thrall of Arika wrote: > > Because Protean combat ends is much more effective than this Obfuscate > > one, perhaps? > > Not compared to the changes in crypt necessary. If I can play 7-8-Caps > rather than 10-Caps I'm more than ready to pay 1 blood each S:CE, and choose > guys with sup Obf (they'll probably have it anyway, while when you must add > Pre or Pro they don't always). That's certainly a fair point. If you're just grafting on Protean/ Presence strictly for combat ends, then yes, that's a concept that is likely not to be as effective now. But you weren't making a deck to use Protean, you were making a malkavian deck that could S:CE. How you got it didn't matter (considering you have been trying both). Now you can instead focus on using Malkavians you want, rather than being forced to use the ones who happen to have Protean/Presence out-of- clan. I still fail so see how this is bad. Now, the combination of everything for one clan, as you discuss below, I can see as more of a concern. > > Protean offers more varied stealth to add to your > > stealth pool. > > If you have sufficient blood gain, you can go ahead and > > make your bleeds unblockable ... add in surprise aggravated damage ... > > Annecdotical compared to what Obf can do by itself. Not to mention that most > Malks (for instance) will have inferior Pro, which isn't that good for > stealth. I'm not saying that people graft on Protean to do all these things, just that the options are there. If you are using Protean, you can make use of the entire discipline, not just use it for Earth Meld. Heck, you can add in Homunculi so that your bleeders can untap to Misdirect .. that would certainly be a strong effect for the deck. > > The addition of No Trace has no real effect on making your Malkavian > > Protean deck. People design such decks for the challenge of it, not > > that Malkavians desperately need to have combat ends to survive. > > Sorry to say that this statement is wrong. "People" make decks to win, at > least good players do and even more so in tournament. Of course some of us > want to have fun too, but if the "challenge" just consists in making a deck > the hard way when it can work much better without complicating things, very > few players will choose to go that way, for understandable reasons. > > And I've seen titled Malks decks where Pro was added solely "to survive" > rush decks (those without IG obviously, but it's quite efficient against > rushing allies). Well, we just have different views. If you are just concerned with winning, and S:CE was viewed as your best defense, then you should be making a Setite deck, not a Malkavian one. Your choice, however, was to go a more difficult, challenging route by using a rare out-of-clan discipline to augment your deck with S:CE. > > Why? Fortitude offers you all you want and more. Much better and > > varied damage prevention, > > You don't need it, you steal blood. One prevent card (two with Glancing > Blow) is enough to make the difference. > > > Freak Drives, > > You don't need it, you have Rutor's Hand. If you can get the action off ... and can afford the 4 blood/going to torpor. It's just that in my mind if you're going to go through the trouble of grafting on a discipline, you should be making use of that discipline. Heck, Theft is near good enough as a prevent until you hit someone with some combat. Glancing Blow is only good for defense against Aggro Poke, with a high cost (not replacing until your untap). > Anyway, my point exactly : those options are now not interesting enough > anymore to go into the trouble of an alternative crypt. All because of one > small card. And there are several like that in the set. How is it interesting that if I want to have a Thaumaturgy deck that can prevent, I basically have 8 Tremere/!Tremere to choose from before using discipline skills (skipping Kyoko since she has no Thaum to speak of)? Of which I can't even use all of them due to grouping. I could go out of clan, certainly, and stock up on 9+ caps, but even then it leaves me with a very small selection. It just seems we have different views on what is 'interesting'. I can certainly see the appeal of a deck-building challenge, I do it far too often myself. But I find it just as interesting to have an option to use vampires I wouldn't have considered before because I now don't have to look for obscure out-of-clan disciplines, and then build decks around those particular vampires because of the need of the grafted on discipline. > > etc. Just because there is a prevent now for Thaumaturgy doesn't mean > > you have to rush out and only use it. Again, it's the challenge of > > making the deck work in the first place, which this card has no > > bearing on. > > No. The challenge is making the best possible deck in a given concept. If > your concept is Dawn Op / Weather Control, you need For. If it is anything > else, you just don't need For anymore and it would be silly to go for a > considerably bigger crypt just to add difficulty (or maybe you're so much > better than the rest of your playgroup and you want added handicap ? Maybe > you can play Laibon with a hand tied behind your back ?). Well, the specific combo mentioned here requires Fortitude for the actual combo, not to prevent. And Rego Motus won't help this deck concept at all, at least in regards to preventing the aggravated damage from Weather Control. And since you're using Fortitude as a main concept for the deck, the Fortitude prevents will serve you much better for any potential hit back than Rego Motus will. But I can see what you're saying. As with most any expansion, decks ideas and concepts will change. Some become more effective, others less so. It's inevitable. Lazvernius used to be a popular rusher around here way back when, but fell to the wayside, especially with Enkidu's arrival. Still, it doesn't mean you can't make an effective Laz rush deck, just that there are other, potentially more potent (pun intended) versions out there. > > In the end, > > what other decks can do isn't at all a concern. Unless you're holding > > some theme night where you know what kind of deck you're facing, what > > does it matter if someone brings their Setite stealth/bleed with > > Presence combat ends, or their new Nosferatu stealth/bleed with > > Obfuscate combat ends? > > Nosferatu stealth / bleed ? That must be good ! Let me pick Setites > please... ;) That's my point. People laugh at the concept of Nosferatu stealth bleed, because currently, though they certainly have the stealth, they have little bleed punch, unlike other Obfuscate clans. Yes, they can tool up with equipment/retainers, but then so can the other clans, who still have their discipline punch cards. Sure, +1 bleed is pretty much a dime a dozen nowadays, but it at least provides some bleed potential for a few clans that are noticeably lacking in it. > As for S:CE for Nosferatu, it's more of a problem with the current Tier1 > deck in that clan : Nosfe Princes. But they already have a S:CE now, so... > Sure, in the swiss version of the deck the goal was to go fast, so there is > no combat at all in it, but in an environment with, say, lots of Shamblings > (happens a lot here) a few S:CEs might just save the day. Too late to beat > that particular horse now anyway, but the example is still valid. Yes, so if the 'fast' Nos Princes deck starts packing No Trace to defend itself, it starts losing speed as card slots are taken up with defense, rather than offense. And now Nos Princes have an option to play defensively in combat, rather than hoping their offensive combat scares people off. > >> Less skill, more randomness. > > > Don't agree with this logic. Going into a tournament, you have no idea > > what you're going to face in your opponents. More varied available > > deck types doesn't make it any more random in what you'll face as it > > did before. > > That is where you don't understand my point. I'm not talking more varied > archetypes, which is good !!! I'm talking inpredictability of disciplines > because of their flattening, which in my opinion is bad. Very different > things. Do you see the difference ? I can see the difference, I just don't agree that it's bad. To me, predictability is bad. I shouldn't be able to guess what your deck can do upon seeing one vampire, or one discard. I should be forced to be on my toes. If I see Nossies, I shouldn't be thinking "great, don't have to worry about dealing with bleeds". But my statement wasn't to do with the predictability of disciplines, it was in regards to making a deck. What other decks can and can't do doesn't matter when you're building your deck. The fact that Obfuscate has a Combat Ends doesn't matter, since you could just as easily have faced a Presence deck with Combat Ends, or a Protean one. If your deck isn't designed to handle combat ends, then what does it matter how that combat ends comes about? Now I do agree that it affects your own deck design options. Most any new card will do that, so moreso than others (i.e. Vessel). > > Sure, and as I said, 3/4 of the vampires go unused (An exaggeration, > > of course, but not too far off the mark. I've not used about 11 out of > > 48 Tremere, and that's because I play Tremere a lot. I've used 23 of > > 48 Nosferatu, most of which haven't been used since Jyhad), because > > they're not worth the effort to graft on the desired discipline to > > survive combat, say, or to get S:CE. The game currently is based > > around a pool of a select few number of vampires, with random weenies > > thrown in for support, and a large chunk of vampires we could get more > > use out of decorating things with than playing. > > Agreed, although some crypts are much better than others (the !Malks or > Trems/!Trems have pretty good overall crypts !!). Yes, there are a lot of good choices. And I do agree with you that people will still use these good vampires with the new cards. I do think though, that we'll be using more of our vampires overall, though, since they can now more easily fit in with some deck ideas. > DI is and has always been a no-brainer, it _abstains_ people from adapting, > because it does everything by itself. But it can thwart a good plan, still > all by itself, and now it isn't even possible to plan it better by keeping > another copy of the card in hand. It is a silver bullet. That cannot be > good. I can see what you're saying, but I can't really feel sorry for Malkavian bleed decks that are forced to maybe wait an extra turn to oust. I really can't. If your deck is a one-trick pony, that's the price you pay if something gums up the works. > > Certainly there are some good cards, > > that will likely become staples in a number of decks. But I haven't > > really seen anything that is going to overshadow any of the tried and > > true decks out there. I think it's more the case where there will be > > _more_ tried and true concepts added to the mix, which to me is a good > > thing. > > Then you didn't read any of what I said, because I listed a few concepts > which are dead now. The concept isn't dead, just the particular method. You still have your Malkavian stealth/bleed with combat ends deck. It's just using Obfuscate now, instead of Protean/Presence. Now, if your goal was to make a Protean Malkavian deck, that's something different. > > As for the Carna scenario, the new Auspex card doesn't give anything > > to Carna she didn't already have access to, and better (Enhanced > > Senses already gave her +2 intercept, without any limitation). > > It's cumulative. It gives +2 int to weenie Aus with inferior discipline. It > does change things. > > > Yes, > > the superior gives a wake, but then she can't use another for the +2 > > intercept. > > Poor girl !! Where will she find that cept now ?! Oh, but wait... > > > And the Tremere ally, while a neat concept, doesn't truly > > add much more to the mix. It's just another way to get intercept that > > could have come from intercept locations, Bowl and retainers, or > > transient Auspex cards. > > Waht you're saying is : Bowl doesn't make a big enough diffence ; the Aus > card neither ; and the ally neither. Let's admit you're right. Now let's put > all of those together, plus Carna and co, and we have ? A stealther's worst > nightmare !! Certainly, Carna was already a stealther's worst nightmare. The addition of another +2 intercept (conditional on it being directed) I don't think changes things. She could already pack on Mr. Wintrop, Sports Bike, Bowl, Corpse Minion, Enhanced Senses, Spirits Touch, Precognition, Burnt Offerings, Eagle's Sight, Melange, My Enemy's Enemy, Telepathic Misdirection, Sins of the Cauchemar, plus a slew of intercept locations, Biothaum Experimenting and gaining Raptors or Raven Spies. All of which help against Vote decks, blocking equips/ recruits, etc. Sure, Eye of Argus could be thrown in to the mix, but do you really think it's changing the fact that Carna can be an impassable intercept wall? The most likely use of the card is the superior, which gives you a Wake without the drawback. But then, it should be more potent, as it requires AUS, rather than being disciplineless. It'll also help out clans who have aus out-of-clan, in better defending themselves. > I agree that BDs aren't wallpaper yet, but they certainly have become much > scarcer in play. I guess it's just because it hasn't happened here. I mean certainly, people play Vessels, but I know for myself that more than once I'd have preferred a Blood Doll over Vessel in my hand. That fact alone will keep me playing Blood Dolls, even at the risk of getting removed later on. > > No > > Trace will help Obfuscate decks be more defensive, but it's not going > > to do anything that's not already available, just open up the options > > for it. > > Ease them up a lot ! Believe me, I've juggled with Pre in a Dem deck, it's > easier said than done !! To play Devil's Advocate here .. why bother? You have perfectly good stealth/bleed with S:CE with Setites. > > Now if I want to play stealth/bleed with a S:CE angle, I don't > > have to turn to the Setites, or graft on Presence or Protean. > > You can just play the more versatile bleed discipline, the one that can let > you threaten who you want on the table, and all that in a deflecting clan. > How is that good ? Do you imply that this just killed Setite S'n'B too ? ;) No, by the simple fact that No Trace isn't as good as Presence or Protean combat ends. Sure, your Malkavian gets out of combat, and that's about it. Setites and bleeding Gangrel have the option to go do something else, or defend the homefront more easily by virtue of being untapped (or for Setites, to gain more bleed, or do damage to the opposing minion). > > With the > > animalism bleed card, Nossies can now actually compete a bit more on > > the bleed part as with Setites, > > Far from it I did said "a bit", not that they would be on the same level. > > Assamites and Gangrel. > > I don't see the link with those 2 ?? Assamites now make strong stealth/bleeders ... gangrel have strong stealth/combat ends. Nossies have ... well, stealth out the wazoo, and not much else (in regards to bleeding and combat defense). They have great offense combat-wise, but if the deck isn't fighty, their only option was to hope they could out-maneuver their opponent, and that they didn't then have ranged combat. > > I think it's > > great that now if you see a Nossie, it's not automatically going to be > > either a weenie animalism deck or a Princes deck. > > I don't think that a +1 bleed will open a new concept, you could already do > that disciplineless. The rush / bleed option is certainly a good option, it > is just thematically wrong in my book. But it is now the worst of the cited > cards in the lot for me ! As a matter of facts, if there had just been one > or two such cards in the set it would have been unconspicuous, as were sonar > and co. But there are a lot of them, and the message seems to be : "we don't > care about the meaning of the disciplines anymore". And that is what I > disclike. > > Wow, that was long (as was your previous answer). Hope it helps you > understand My PoV at least. > > Cheers, > > Orpheus I do, I do agree that you make some valid points, and have some valid concerns. Without seeing the whole set of cards, it's hard to say. While some cards do add new abilities to disciplines, it's hard to tell if such cards will really have that huge an impact. While I can certainly see No Trace adding to Malkavian decks, evidence has shown that Malkavian decks have done just fine without such combat defense. The same for Rego Motus for Tremere, though again (despite personal experience), they have stood up relatively well without prevent. Will these cards make these decks stronger? More than likely. But it's not as if these are totally foreign concepts, it'll just now be easier to build such deck concepts, especially for those with smaller card pools. Will it be game breaking? I highly doubt it. Even the cards I thought were "holy cow, what were they thinking", on reflection, simply strong cards, and not the end of the game a we know it. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:00:12 -0800 (PST), Kushiel <invisibl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 3:30 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> ...except, I don't really see how people will switch back to Blood Doll. >> If everybody is using Vessel, you don't bring Blood Dolls, because >> they >> simply get blown up before you can say "specific card hosers suck". >> People might switch to alternative solutions, but that will not >> eliminate Vessel to allow Doll to sneak back in, because to many >> players >> there aren't many real alternatives. > > The game theory is this: > > 1) If enough people are playing Vessel to counter Blood Dolls (which > is what you're saying), eventually people will give up on Blood Dolls > entirely. > 2) Vessel isn't generally a very good card if no one is playing Blood > Dolls. > 3) Because of #2 above, people will begin looking to non-Blood Doll, > non-Vessel sources of poolgain. > 4) If enough people use NBDNV sources of poolgain, people will stop > playing Vessel (again, because of #2 above). > 5) At this point, Blood Doll can come back into usage, and the cycle > can repeat. I understand this reasoning but I disagree with it (actually, I was more or less addressing this in the quoted paragraph... ;) ). First I beleive Vessel isn't such a terrible card. So even if the game had no Blood Doll at all, people would play it for very much the same reason as they play Blood Doll - long-term blood/pool management option. The alternatives often listed are mostly instant effects; I believe Doll was favoured for the long term flexibility, not the instant pool gain. Second, seeing how the metagame is very hard to predict on a specific card level, people will always expect to be able to leverage Vessel, because some people will always play Dolls. Not owning any Vessels, assuming Vessel is no longer prevalent, or simple force of habit will likewise motivate to do so. > I'm not saying whether or not that's currently happening or will > happen, but that's the theory that Chris is using. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:37:50 -0700, Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > On the other hand, if one assumes that Vessels are just too good > to ever get converted back to Blood Dolls and that pool gain is > just too important not to pack pretty much the same supply of Vessels > as one used to pack Blood Dolls, then I think it would be fair to > suggest that Blood Doll was a better card than it needed to be > anyway. i think that in many decks Blood Doll isn't serving as Pool gain. It serves as blood management. It creates a cushion of pool against early attacks. My experience is more along the lines of: You influence out a 7-cap. Put Blood Doll on her. Move off 3 blood in 3 turns - meanwhile, your guy pays for cards, gets into combat, etc. losing 2 blood. Now your guy has 2 blood, so you push back blood for the next 2 turns to keep him going (which he more or less spends on cards, to heal damage, etc.). Net result - you played Blood Doll to move back 1 blood from your guy, but in the meantime you were credited as much as 3 pool in the process. So why not play Ascendance instead, that doesn't cost your vampire 1 blood to gain you 1 pool? The flexibility and the cushion more than makes up for that blood loss. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so - in this application Blood Doll favors toolboxes and slower decks against more focused decks and faster decks. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >> On the other hand, if one assumes that Vessels are just too good >> to ever get converted back to Blood Dolls and that pool gain is >> just too important not to pack pretty much the same supply of >> Vessels as one used to pack Blood Dolls, then I think it would >> be fair to suggest that Blood Doll was a better card than it needed >> to be anyway. > > i think that in many decks Blood Doll isn't serving as Pool gain. It > serves as blood management. It creates a cushion of pool against > early attacks. My experience is more along the lines of: > > You influence out a 7-cap. Put Blood Doll on her. Move off 3 blood in > 3 turns - meanwhile, your guy pays for cards, gets into combat, etc. > losing 2 blood. Now your guy has 2 blood, so you push back blood for > the next 2 turns to keep him going (which he more or less spends on > cards, to heal damage, etc.). Net result - you played Blood Doll to > move back 1 blood from your guy, but in the meantime you were > credited as much as 3 pool in the process. So why not play > Ascendance instead, that doesn't cost your vampire 1 blood to gain > you 1 pool? The flexibility and the cushion more than makes up for > that blood loss. With respect to your experience, in my experience with every group I have ever played with for 10+ years, pushing onto a vampire with a Blood Doll is ***extremely rare***. I think this is a very weak point in your argument. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 4, 5:26 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > With respect to your experience, in my experience with every group I have > ever played with for 10+ years, pushing onto a vampire with a Blood Doll > is ***extremely rare***. Really? Like, I certainly don't think that Blood Doll is wallpaper by any stretch of the imagination, but you'd call the number of times folks push blood onto minions with Blood Doll *extremely* rare (with extra ***)? I see it all the time. I do it all the time. I see someone play a Blood Doll on a vamp with 0 blood and push one on to them immediately, like, virtually every game. Unless I'm misunderstanding you somehow. -Peter

On Nov 4, 5:26 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I see it all the time. ymmv -dc

In article <opuj37h6...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > First I beleive Vessel isn't such a terrible card. It's not. In a vacuum, if it were the only card like it was from day one, it would be as prevalent as Blood Doll. Even at 1 pool, it is good in an absolute sense. But relative to Blood Doll, Vessel is mostly just worse. Except that it kills Blood Dolls. But if it isn't killing Blood Dolls, 'cause no one is playing Blood Dolls, it is worse than Blood Doll. Which is why it ebbs and flows--people play Blood Doll 'cause, generally speaking, Blood Doll is better (as it is free and pays off immediately). Until a lot of Vessels show up, at which point Blood Dolls start phasing out. Until there are no more Blood Dolls. At which point Vessel seems less good (even as a trifle). So Vessels start coming out. And so Blood Dolls start going back in. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 4, 6:26 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > With respect to your experience, in my experience with every group I have > ever played with for 10+ years, pushing onto a vampire with a Blood Doll > is ***extremely rare***. > > I think this is a very weak point in your argument. Perhaps I should not cut in, but I must say I find that strange and quite contrary to my experience. Generally speaking, one prefers to be pulling blood off than pushing blood on, but I would certainly not say, in my experience, that pushing blood onto a blood doll is extremely rare with triple emphasis. I see it all the time. I do it all the time. I recall doing it just recently at the First Chance qualifier in Montreal, with a blood doll I had just played. This stands out in my mind not because it was rare, but because it was primarily responsible for getting me 2.5 vps and a game win, instead of getting ousted. But then again, I have been known to play with Gird Minions

[ quoted text not captured ] IME, I'd say that it is 40 : 1 regarding BloodDollingOff : BloodDollingOn, if that helps you (all in this thread) understand my triple-emphasis. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote in message news:geqpem$ei8$1...@aioe.org... > IME, I'd say that it is 40 : 1 regarding BloodDollingOff : BloodDollingOn, > if that helps you (all in this thread) understand my triple-emphasis. Wow! My observed ratio would be high - but not nearly that high. Like Peter, I frequently see Methuselahs play the Blood Doll on the empty vampire and push blood to allow it act on a particular turn. It's a nice surprise to opponents who were hoping that vampire would be hunting that turn. I'd say pulls to pushes would be under 10:1, maybe even under 8:1. Fred

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote in message news:opuj3759...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] That's all reasonable enough. I'm not sure what your point is, though. What you call blood management, as opposed to pool gain, still favors Blood Doll over Vessel in terms of how well it does its job. For one thing, pool gain is part of blood management. And Vessel won't allow an immediate, surprise push the way Blood Doll does - definitely a blood management disadvantage. And, on top of everything else, Vessel costs a pool - a disadvantage for all game purposes except Parity Shift and faster self-ousting. Fred

On Nov 4, 5:53 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Me, too. But your intuitive does not agree with mine. I still think > > that if it works your way it'll be a little bent whereas the other way > > seems reasonable. > > By "a little bent", do you mean "too powerful"? Nope, just a little bent towards the meth who played it. Yes, very similar to Giant's Blood, which is also a little bent, but DI2 has an effect that can be even more so. Stopping your predator's ousting multiple KRC's/Kindred Spirits/Govern's, et al, and protecting yourself from the first DI type card played on you can be huge. >if you play the first DI2, you get > to shut people out (unless someone is willing to suck it up and take > the hit to reset the system). But if you play it first, you are likely > not holding on to it for an optimal play, as you have it in hand and > want to play it before you get shut out (like Giant's Blood--often, > Giant's Blood gets played early on just to avoid getting shut out). I still can see waiting for optimal play unless you really want it out of your hand. If that's true then somebody else will likely burn it for the same reason. But you can also just use it on your predator just before your lunging turn for a little extra protection. > This all strikes me as totally reasonable--the first person to play it > gets to shut everyone else out (kind of). Just like Giant's Blood. > Which works fine. There would still be reasons for multiple DI cards in a deck (no matter which way it works), unlike Giant's Blood where if you play it unoptimally it's done. DI2 would not be. It can be just a little stronger than DI already was which seems more counter-intuitive considering the controversial effect of the original card.

Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: >> IME, I'd say that it is 40 : 1 regarding BloodDollingOff : >> BloodDollingOn, if that helps you (all in this thread) understand my >> triple-emphasis. > > Wow! My observed ratio would be high - but not nearly that high. > Like Peter, I frequently see Methuselahs play the Blood Doll on the > empty vampire and push blood to allow it act on a particular turn. > It's a nice surprise to opponents who were hoping that vampire would > be hunting that turn. > > I'd say pulls to pushes would be under 10:1, maybe even under 8:1. Keep track of it, I dare you. It'll be way way higher than 8:1 omfg! :) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 4, 7:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > > I'd say pulls to pushes would be under 10:1, maybe even under 8:1. > > Keep track of it, I dare you. It'll be way way higher than 8:1 omfg! :) It may be higher than 8:1 but do not forget how often players use a BD from one vamp to put onto another BD vamp. Essentially pulling one back and putting one on. The last game I played I pulled off 9 to 11 times but put on 3 to 4 times. I won the table with managing the blood on a low vamp. That was at least an 11:3 (which is, of course, under 8:1).

[ quoted text not captured ] Thank you Robert for taking the time to argument your point, with which I happen to totally agree. ;) --------------- Orpheus

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Nov 4, 4:05 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> Thrall of Arika wrote: >>> Because Protean combat ends is much more effective than this >>> Obfuscate one, perhaps? >> >> Not compared to the changes in crypt necessary. If I can play >> 7-8-Caps rather than 10-Caps I'm more than ready to pay 1 blood each >> S:CE, and choose guys with sup Obf (they'll probably have it anyway, >> while when you must add Pre or Pro they don't always). > > That's certainly a fair point. If you're just grafting on Protean/ > Presence strictly for combat ends, then yes, that's a concept that is > likely not to be as effective now. But you weren't making a deck to > use Protean, you were making a malkavian deck that could S:CE. How you > got it didn't matter (considering you have been trying both). Now you > can instead focus on using Malkavians you want, rather than being > forced to use the ones who happen to have Protean/Presence out-of- > clan. I still fail so see how this is bad. In my opinion, it's bad because the vamps that were already good with their in-clan disciplines are just getting better, while we will see less and less of the others. I guess the only reason to play titled Malk / Pro now is the (hard to pull) combo 1st Trad / Madness Network / Homunculus. Not likely to happen very often. > Now, the combination of > everything for one clan, as you discuss below, I can see as more of a > concern. Ok, let's see. >>> Protean offers more varied stealth to add to your >>> stealth pool. >>> If you have sufficient blood gain, you can go ahead and >>> make your bleeds unblockable ... add in surprise aggravated damage >>> ... >> >> Annecdotical compared to what Obf can do by itself. Not to mention >> that most Malks (for instance) will have inferior Pro, which isn't >> that good for stealth. > > I'm not saying that people graft on Protean to do all these things, > just that the options are there. If you are using Protean, you can > make use of the entire discipline, not just use it for Earth Meld. > Heck, you can add in Homunculi so that your bleeders can untap to > Misdirect .. that would certainly be a strong effect for the deck. Lol, I see we sortta think alike. Yes, Homunculus is good, but I wouldn't include it just for a waking sort of effect in a redirecting deck. For blockers maybe. No, really, I could get some Malks with lots of Pro for the surprise fighting, but I really don't believe (with the size of the crypt and all) that it could be anything more than fun to play (which is already something, of course, but we're sort of talking optimisation here). >>> The addition of No Trace has no real effect on making your Malkavian >>> Protean deck. People design such decks for the challenge of it, not >>> that Malkavians desperately need to have combat ends to survive. >> >> Sorry to say that this statement is wrong. "People" make decks to >> win, at least good players do and even more so in tournament. Of >> course some of us want to have fun too, but if the "challenge" just >> consists in making a deck the hard way when it can work much better >> without complicating things, very few players will choose to go that >> way, for understandable reasons. >> >> And I've seen titled Malks decks where Pro was added solely "to >> survive" rush decks (those without IG obviously, but it's quite >> efficient against rushing allies). > > Well, we just have different views. If you are just concerned with > winning, and S:CE was viewed as your best defense, then you should be > making a Setite deck, not a Malkavian one. Two very big differences : - with Dem you can bleed wherever you want, and therefore make alliances, while the setites are more often than not considered the danger on the table (especially when they bleed a lot). - Setites can't redirect without grafting Dom (or having a big guy to deflect disciplineless) and that's lethal in most tournaments. > Your choice, however, was > to go a more difficult, challenging route by using a rare out-of-clan > discipline to augment your deck with S:CE. > >>> Why? Because of the versatility of Dem, or in some other decks because of the wonderful titled Malks / !Malks available (a whole other story than titled setites, eh ?) ! > Fortitude offers you all you want and more. Much better and >>> varied damage prevention, >> >> You don't need it, you steal blood. One prevent card (two with >> Glancing Blow) is enough to make the difference. >> >>> Freak Drives, >> >> You don't need it, you have Rutor's Hand. > > If you can get the action off ... and can afford the 4 blood/going to > torpor. It works just fine. A good Tremere will want you to block more often than not, and once you get one more action per turn you can still use it to hunt if need be (if you're blocked you hunt on the blocked lol). > It's just that in my mind if you're going to go through the > trouble of grafting on a discipline, you should be making use of that > discipline. Agreed of course. If you DO have For use Freak Drives !! But there must be a good reason to grat it in the first place. > Heck, Theft is near good enough as a prevent until you hit > someone with some combat. Glancing Blow is only good for defense > against Aggro Poke, with a high cost (not replacing until your untap). Sure ! Which is why grafting For could be useful, and why the new card will be useful too and replace the painful grafting of For. >> Anyway, my point exactly : those options are now not interesting >> enough anymore to go into the trouble of an alternative crypt. All >> because of one small card. And there are several like that in the >> set. > > How is it interesting that if I want to have a Thaumaturgy deck that > can prevent, I basically have 8 Tremere/!Tremere to choose from before > using discipline skills (skipping Kyoko since she has no Thaum to > speak of)? Of which I can't even use all of them due to grouping. I > could go out of clan, certainly, and stock up on 9+ caps, but even > then it leaves me with a very small selection. Uh, not sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying it wasn't interesting to play the For Trems ? While in the previous point you underlined all the things that For can do for you... Well, in a combat environment it could make a difference. You could also use some Diversions in Anarch Tha decks to have either prevent or steal blood (chich is still mildly interesting although non-optimal). The crypt could be good enough : Antonio D'Erlette, Eugenio Estevez, Ladislas Toth and Polly Kay Fisher are pretty good, and depending if you want THA or Dom you could graft Jefferson Foster or Frere Marc. That also gives you some titles, not bad. But now I really don't see the interest, except in you go a whole other way. > It just seems we have different views on what is 'interesting'. I can > certainly see the appeal of a deck-building challenge, I do it far too > often myself. Most of the time I try to make something good but original, or original but that works. ;) > But I find it just as interesting to have an option to > use vampires I wouldn't have considered before because I now don't > have to look for obscure out-of-clan disciplines, and then build decks > around those particular vampires because of the need of the grafted on > discipline. Sure, but what I'm trying to say here is : the vampires with the in-clan disciplines have already been considered !! Take a look and you'll see that more often than not they're the ones being played already : the best ones with the in-clan disciplines. I could adhere to your point if we got good cards making clans like !Gangrels more efficient, say some good Cel / Obf cards, that would also help Assamites and some overlooked vamps, then I'd say : "ok, that's good, let's get those vamps out from the dust !". But if we're talking about Trems, Malks or whatever, we already know which ones are good, I don't really care for them getting better and better while the rest won't see the light of... night anymore ! >>> etc. Just because there is a prevent now for Thaumaturgy doesn't >>> mean you have to rush out and only use it. Again, it's the >>> challenge of making the deck work in the first place, which this >>> card has no bearing on. >> >> No. The challenge is making the best possible deck in a given >> concept. If your concept is Dawn Op / Weather Control, you need For. >> If it is anything else, you just don't need For anymore and it would >> be silly to go for a considerably bigger crypt just to add >> difficulty (or maybe you're so much better than the rest of your >> playgroup and you want added handicap ? Maybe you can play Laibon >> with a hand tied behind your back ?). > > Well, the specific combo mentioned here requires Fortitude for the > actual combo, not to prevent. And Rego Motus won't help this deck > concept at all, at least in regards to preventing the aggravated > damage from Weather Control. And since you're using Fortitude as a > main concept for the deck, the Fortitude prevents will serve you much > better for any potential hit back than Rego Motus will. Totally. Read above : "You need For". It's one of the rare (non-optimal) concepts where you still need to graft it, and that was exactly my point. > But I can see what you're saying. As with most any expansion, decks > ideas and concepts will change. Some become more effective, others > less so. It's inevitable. Lazvernius used to be a popular rusher > around here way back when, but fell to the wayside, especially with > Enkidu's arrival. Still, it doesn't mean you can't make an effective > Laz rush deck, just that there are other, potentially more potent (pun > intended) versions out there. Ignazio is a better rusher. ;) But Lazve still is an effective blocker. I have to underline that here you're just talking about the fads in vamps, changing because of the new vamps themselves. As long as there isn't too steep a power curve, it isn't bad in itself. It is a whole different subject from new cards making whole strategies obsolete without adding new possibilities (just strenghtening already good combos). >>> In the end, >>> what other decks can do isn't at all a concern. Unless you're >>> holding some theme night where you know what kind of deck you're >>> facing, what does it matter if someone brings their Setite >>> stealth/bleed with Presence combat ends, or their new Nosferatu >>> stealth/bleed with Obfuscate combat ends? >> >> Nosferatu stealth / bleed ? That must be good ! Let me pick Setites >> please... ;) > > That's my point. People laugh at the concept of Nosferatu stealth > bleed, because currently, though they certainly have the stealth, they > have little bleed punch, unlike other Obfuscate clans. Yes, they can > tool up with equipment/retainers, but then so can the other clans, who > still have their discipline punch cards. Sure, +1 bleed is pretty much > a dime a dozen nowadays, but it at least provides some bleed potential > for a few clans that are noticeably lacking in it. Not likely to make a big difference. Maybe the versatility bleed / rush ? For midcaps... Not sure. Anyway, as I said, this card bothers me more technically than strategically, and much less so than others, so... >> As for S:CE for Nosferatu, it's more of a problem with the current >> Tier1 deck in that clan : Nosfe Princes. But they already have a >> S:CE now, so... Sure, in the swiss version of the deck the goal was >> to go fast, so there is no combat at all in it, but in an >> environment with, say, lots of Shamblings (happens a lot here) a few >> S:CEs might just save the day. Too late to beat that particular >> horse now anyway, but the example is still valid. > > Yes, so if the 'fast' Nos Princes deck starts packing No Trace to > defend itself, it starts losing speed as card slots are taken up with > defense, rather than offense. Yes. But in some environments that's actually very much worth it. > And now Nos Princes have an option to > play defensively in combat, rather than hoping their offensive combat > scares people off. And if the Ventrue get more Potence they'll have more options. But then we'll see less and less difference between clans, and the whole clan / disciplines concept will be moot. Which whould be a shame because it's one of the pillars of the game. >>>> Less skill, more randomness. >> >>> Don't agree with this logic. Going into a tournament, you have no >>> idea what you're going to face in your opponents. More varied >>> available deck types doesn't make it any more random in what you'll >>> face as it did before. >> >> That is where you don't understand my point. I'm not talking more >> varied archetypes, which is good !!! I'm talking inpredictability of >> disciplines because of their flattening, which in my opinion is bad. >> Very different things. Do you see the difference ? > > I can see the difference, I just don't agree that it's bad. To me, > predictability is bad. I shouldn't be able to guess what your deck can > do upon seeing one vampire, or one discard. I should be forced to be > on my toes. If I see Nossies, I shouldn't be thinking "great, don't > have to worry about dealing with bleeds". Well, it's part of the skill nonetheless. Being able to see the other disciplines, wonder why this vampire came out rather than than one, why he choses to go Anarch, etc. If you don't need out-of-clans to do special things, the game becomes more random, and there is no way that can be good. [ quoted text not captured ] I really don't see how the new cards do that. My new ideas with them include mostly Toreador and anti, Tremere and anti, and Ventrue, clans which already win. >> DI is and has always been a no-brainer, it _abstains_ people from >> adapting, because it does everything by itself. But it can thwart a >> good plan, still all by itself, and now it isn't even possible to >> plan it better by keeping another copy of the card in hand. It is a >> silver bullet. That cannot be good. > > I can see what you're saying, but I can't really feel sorry for > Malkavian bleed decks that are forced to maybe wait an extra turn to > oust. I really can't. If your deck is a one-trick pony, that's the > price you pay if something gums up the works. Then how sorry do you feel for the rushers trying to survive the bad evil bleeder ? ;) >>> Certainly there are some good cards, >>> that will likely become staples in a number of decks. But I haven't >>> really seen anything that is going to overshadow any of the tried >>> and true decks out there. I think it's more the case where there >>> will be _more_ tried and true concepts added to the mix, which to >>> me is a good thing. >> >> Then you didn't read any of what I said, because I listed a few >> concepts which are dead now. > > The concept isn't dead, just the particular method. You still have > your Malkavian stealth/bleed with combat ends deck. It's just using > Obfuscate now, instead of Protean/Presence. Now, if your goal was to > make a Protean Malkavian deck, that's something different. But all the vamps that you'd use only in that type of deck, for that purpose, won't see any use anymore (and why use Pre now ? Vote pushing ? Already there with Aus, and not much needed with the low-cost titled Malks). >>> As for the Carna scenario, the new Auspex card doesn't give anything >>> to Carna she didn't already have access to, and better (Enhanced >>> Senses already gave her +2 intercept, without any limitation). >> >> It's cumulative. It gives +2 int to weenie Aus with inferior >> discipline. It does change things. >> >>> Yes, >>> the superior gives a wake, but then she can't use another for the +2 >>> intercept. >> >> Poor girl !! Where will she find that cept now ?! Oh, but wait... >> >>> And the Tremere ally, while a neat concept, doesn't truly >>> add much more to the mix. It's just another way to get intercept >>> that could have come from intercept locations, Bowl and retainers, >>> or transient Auspex cards. >> >> What you're saying is : Bowl doesn't make a big enough diffence ; >> the Aus card neither ; and the ally neither. Let's admit you're >> right. Now let's put all of those together, plus Carna and co, and >> we have ? A stealther's worst nightmare !! > > Certainly, Carna was already a stealther's worst nightmare. The > addition of another +2 intercept (conditional on it being directed) I > don't think changes things. She could already pack on Mr. Wintrop, > Sports Bike, Bowl, Corpse Minion, Enhanced Senses, Spirits Touch, > Precognition, Burnt Offerings, Eagle's Sight, Melange, My Enemy's > Enemy, Telepathic Misdirection, Sins of the Cauchemar, plus a slew of > intercept locations, Biothaum Experimenting and gaining Raptors or > Raven Spies. All of which help against Vote decks, blocking equips/ > recruits, etc. Sure, Eye of Argus could be thrown in to the mix, but > do you really think it's changing the fact that Carna can be an > impassable intercept wall? More does more. A wall that required, Say, 4 stealth to pass on every action will now require 5 or 6. Looks to me like in the recent expansions one favours int, then the next stealth, then int, and so on. > The most likely use of the card is the superior, which gives you a > Wake without the drawback. But then, it should be more potent, as it > requires AUS, rather than being disciplineless. It'll also help out > clans who have aus out-of-clan, in better defending themselves. It's a good card, no doubt ! But it's a rise in the power curve (from what we've seen of this set, currently in favour of intercept). >>> No >>> Trace will help Obfuscate decks be more defensive, but it's not >>> going to do anything that's not already available, just open up the >>> options for it. >> >> Ease them up a lot ! Believe me, I've juggled with Pre in a Dem >> deck, it's easier said than done !! > > To play Devil's Advocate here .. why bother? You have perfectly good > stealth/bleed with S:CE with Setites. See above. >>> Now if I want to play stealth/bleed with a S:CE angle, I don't >>> have to turn to the Setites, or graft on Presence or Protean. >> >> You can just play the more versatile bleed discipline, the one that >> can let you threaten who you want on the table, and all that in a >> deflecting clan. How is that good ? Do you imply that this just >> killed Setite S'n'B too ? ;) > > No, by the simple fact that No Trace isn't as good as Presence or > Protean combat ends. Sure, your Malkavian gets out of combat, and > that's about it. Setites and bleeding Gangrel have the option to go do > something else, or defend the homefront more easily by virtue of being > untapped (or for Setites, to gain more bleed, or do damage to the > opposing minion). Fair point. So "Setites not dead". ;) And Gangrels... "not deader than before". lol. But the grafting of Pre in Malks is, for all the reasons above. >>> With the >>> animalism bleed card, Nossies can now actually compete a bit more on >>> the bleed part as with Setites, >> >> Far from it > > I did said "a bit", not that they would be on the same level. Sure. But I'd say this isn't a bleed card at all, as they already had access to as much bleed with Computer Hacking (efficient with weenie Obf, or possibly Nossies). This is a polyvalent card, useful in an ANI rush deck for the occasional bleed boost. So what I really mean by "far from it" is that it doesn't get the nossies any closer to competing with the bleeders, really. But it might just make their Ani (wall with rush or plain rush) midcap decks a little more viable. >>> Assamites and Gangrel. >> >> I don't see the link with those 2 ?? > > Assamites now make strong stealth/bleeders ... Strong maybe not, but viable. Ok. > gangrel have strong > stealth/combat ends. Yes, but they do lack the offense to go with it. > Nossies have ... well, stealth out the wazoo, and > not much else (in regards to bleeding and combat defense). Ok. > They have > great offense combat-wise, but if the deck isn't fighty, their only > option was to hope they could out-maneuver their opponent, and that > they didn't then have ranged combat. Sure. So ? With that part you snipped it's really hard to get your point... >> Wow, that was long (as was your previous answer). Hope it helps you >> understand My PoV at least. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Orpheus > > I do, I do agree that you make some valid points, and have some valid > concerns. Without seeing the whole set of cards, it's hard to say. Yes, it is. > While some cards do add new abilities to disciplines, it's hard to > tell if such cards will really have that huge an impact. While I can > certainly see No Trace adding to Malkavian decks, evidence has shown > that Malkavian decks have done just fine without such combat defense. Sure. It does, though, depend very much on the environment. To give you a personnal example : in november, 2006 I made second in the ECQ (the biggest tournie of the year in Europe) with a Dem deck ; then I sort of dropped from the game (no time) ; in september 2007 I still tried the french LCQ, with the same sort of deck, and made... 1 VP !! Why ? Well, the local and current metagame had shifted to casual bruise, meaning not much dedicated combat with Psyche or IG, but lots of Ani fight, rushing allies etc. And I just had my ass handed to me on a plate !! If I had access to a S:CE card at the time (and if I had the means to anticipate it, which in that precise example wasn't the case) it would have possibly made a huge difference ! > The same for Rego Motus for Tremere, though again (despite personal > experience), they have stood up relatively well without prevent. Will > these cards make these decks stronger? More than likely. But it's not > as if these are totally foreign concepts, it'll just now be easier to > build such deck concepts, especially for those with smaller card > pools. Yes. Easier. No-brainer. Concepts with out-of-clan = dead. Me no like. > Will it be game breaking? I highly doubt it. Agreed. It's just discipline-and-crypt-flattening. > Even the cards I thought > were "holy cow, what were they thinking", on reflection, simply strong > cards, and not the end of the game a we know it. If anything for me anounces such a Gehenna, it's not just one card, but the general trend I can foresee from a whole lot of cards. Of course maybe it's just the Malkavian prophet in me. ;) ---------- Orpheus

On Tue, 4 Nov 2008, Robert Scythe wrote: > Nope, just a little bent towards the meth who played it. Yes, very > similar to Giant's Blood, which is also a little bent, but DI2 has an > effect that can be even more so. Stopping your predator's ousting > multiple KRC's/Kindred Spirits/Govern's, et al, and protecting > yourself from the first DI type card played on you can be huge. Except Dark Influences doesn't protect one from the first cancel card played. It protects everyone else. The text is: "The next card played that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead." If you play Dark Influences, then you become the only target for everybody else's cancel cards (unless they don't mind wasting them to burn your Dark Influences). That seems like a significant balancing factor to me. Matt Morgan

[ quoted text not captured ] No, as has been said already I think that's just the wrong interpretation, it just means that it cancels a card that cancels another card not played by the methuselah who plays the caeller, yes ? Confused ? Normal. But I'm pretty sure that it's all that means. Of course we'll have to wait for LSJ's confirmation until the card is officially out. ------- Orpheus

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Orpheus wrote: > No, as has been said already I think that's just the wrong interpretation, > it just means that it cancels a card that cancels another card not played by > the methuselah who plays the caeller, yes ? Confused ? Normal. But I'm > pretty sure that it's all that means. Of course we'll have to wait for LSJ's > confirmation until the card is officially out. Maybe you're right. I guess I assumed that if that were the intent, the language would be "that would cancel a Methuselah's minion card" instead of "another Methuselah's minion card." Are there any common ways to cancel one's own minion card? I was thinking Telepathic Vote Counting, but that only cancels the referendum. Tangle Atropos' Hand cancels the action, but not the card. Maybe playing Drawing Out the Beast followed by an Abombwe reflex? Hopefully LSJ will let us know one way or the other so the complaining can continue. Matt Morgan

On 4 Nov, 23:26, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > With respect to your experience, in my experience with every group I have > ever played with for 10+ years, pushing onto a vampire with a Blood Doll > is ***extremely rare***. ***Extremely***? Happens all the time here. Saves vamps from having to hunt (and get blocked). Enables those last chance-bleed-assaults.

On Nov 5, 9:33 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Except Dark Influences doesn't protect one from the first cancel card > played. It protects everyone else. Hmm. It is like you are walking into the middle of a conversation that has been going on for a week that you haven't been paying attention to :-) The whole debate here is whether or not DI2 works the way you think it does or not. It can be read they way you seem to read it. It can also just as easily be read as simply canceling the first "card that cancells a minion card played by another methuselah" played (i.e. any DI or whatever at all). It can easily be read (and understood) either way (as indicated by this here discussion). I suspect that when the card is actually released, the ambiguity will be cleared up quickly. But it hasn't yet. -Peter

"Matthew T. Morgan" <far...@io.com> wrote in message news:2008110509...@eris.io.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Heh! All of these things have been questioned in other parts of this thread. It's funny to watch this thread continually chase its tail around. Maybe we're not getting an answer because the vacuum of information feeds the debate - which is serving as such a nice diversion while they're readying the hitherto missing KoT preview. Fred

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Frederick Scott wrote: > Heh! All of these things have been questioned in other parts of this thread. > It's funny to watch this thread continually chase its tail around. Maybe if your threads weren't so damn long that people who have stuff to do can't read the whole thing, this wouldn't be a problem!

On Nov 5, 11:35 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Maybe if your threads weren't so damn long that people who have stuff to > do can't read the whole thing, this wouldn't be a problem! I blame myself. -Peter

On Nov 4, 11:37 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Frederick Scott <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > I'd say pulls to pushes would be under 10:1, maybe even under 8:1. > > Keep track of it, I dare you. It'll be way way higher than 8:1 omfg! :) I doubt anyone will bother keeping track. But to me, Fred's guess of about 8:1 sounds about right. Might be lower; might be a bit higher. "Way way higher" must be an abnormality of your playgroup.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:26:52 -0500, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuj37h6...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: > >> First I beleive Vessel isn't such a terrible card. > > It's not. In a vacuum, if it were the only card like it was from day > one, it would be as prevalent as Blood Doll. Even at 1 pool, it is good > in an absolute sense. But relative to Blood Doll, Vessel is mostly just > worse. Except that it kills Blood Dolls. But if it isn't killing Blood > Dolls, 'cause no one is playing Blood Dolls, it is worse than Blood Doll. One point - I beleive Vessel isn't distinguished by the "kills Blood Dolls" trait as much as it is distinguished by the "cannot be killed by playing a blood management card" trait. -- Regards, Daneel

On Nov 5, 5:25 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: > Thrall of Arika wrote: > > That's certainly a fair point. If you're just grafting on Protean/ > > Presence strictly for combat ends, then yes, that's a concept that is > > likely not to be as effective now. But you weren't making a deck to > > use Protean, you were making a malkavian deck that could S:CE. How you > > got it didn't matter (considering you have been trying both). Now you > > can instead focus on using Malkavians you want, rather than being > > forced to use the ones who happen to have Protean/Presence out-of- > > clan. I still fail so see how this is bad. > > In my opinion, it's bad because the vamps that were already good with their > in-clan disciplines are just getting better, while we will see less and less > of the others. Even with these new cards, there's nothing to stop you from making your Protean Malkavian deck. It could still be a strong concept. Sure, we could see a lot more of the same .. in which case, nothing's really changed then. I don't think we'll see less and less of other vampires though. People will still makes decks for the challenge of it, to try something different and new. > I guess the only reason to play titled Malk / Pro now is the (hard to pull) > combo 1st Trad / Madness Network / Homunculus. Not likely to happen very > often. Does that actually work? Wouldn't skipping a turn from First Tradition mean no minion phase for which to use Madness Network? > > I'm not saying that people graft on Protean to do all these things, > > just that the options are there. If you are using Protean, you can > > make use of the entire discipline, not just use it for Earth Meld. > > Heck, you can add in Homunculi so that your bleeders can untap to > > Misdirect .. that would certainly be a strong effect for the deck. > > Lol, I see we sortta think alike. Yes, Homunculus is good, but I wouldn't > include it just for a waking sort of effect in a redirecting deck. For > blockers maybe. No, really, I could get some Malks with lots of Pro for the > surprise fighting, but I really don't believe (with the size of the crypt > and all) that it could be anything more than fun to play (which is already > something, of course, but we're sort of talking optimisation here). Well, I've never tried grafting Protean onto Malkavians, so haven't really sat down to see what can be done with it. Just seems like it wouldn't be such a bad thing, if you're using Protean, to throw a couple of Homunculi in. Less need of wakes in your deck to let you use your Misdirections/Counters (and the new Dementation reduce bleed card). > Because of the versatility of Dem, or in some other decks because of the > wonderful titled Malks / !Malks available (a whole other story than titled > setites, eh ?) ! Maybe, though Presence tends to help out with lack of titles. :) > > How is it interesting that if I want to have a Thaumaturgy deck that > > can prevent, I basically have 8 Tremere/!Tremere to choose from before > > using discipline skills (skipping Kyoko since she has no Thaum to > > speak of)? Of which I can't even use all of them due to grouping. I > > could go out of clan, certainly, and stock up on 9+ caps, but even > > then it leaves me with a very small selection. > > Uh, not sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying it wasn't > interesting to play the For Trems ? While in the previous point you > underlined all the things that For can do for you... The two points weren't strictly connected. Perhaps I read wrong, but you were saying that there's an interesting factor in trying to put together a deck outside the main scope of the clan (Malkavians with Protean, Tremere that can prevent). It is interesting to do, but there is very little variety in such decks, due to the extreme low number of vampires to base such concepts on. Your Tremere/Fortitude deck crypt will likely look like my Tremere/Fortitude crypt (of the same groupings), that is what I don't find interesting, because the concept is so strictly bound. Of course, when you do go through the trouble of grafting on Fortitude, then I certainly feel you should take advantage of it, with the good stuff like Freak Drives. > Well, in a combat environment it could make a difference. You could also use > some Diversions in Anarch Tha decks to have either prevent or steal blood > (chich is still mildly interesting although non-optimal). The crypt could be > good enough : Antonio D'Erlette, Eugenio Estevez, Ladislas Toth and Polly > Kay Fisher are pretty good, and depending if you want THA or Dom you could > graft Jefferson Foster or Frere Marc. That also gives you some titles, not > bad. But now I really don't see the interest, except in you go a whole other > way. Right, and if I was making the deck for group 3-4, those would like be main vampires in the deck. As it would be for many others making the deck. That's where interesting drops away, at least for me. And if I wanted to try a different spin on the concept, I'd probably still end up with much the same crypt. > > It just seems we have different views on what is 'interesting'. I can > > certainly see the appeal of a deck-building challenge, I do it far too > > often myself. > > Most of the time I try to make something good but original, or original but > that works. ;) I'm working on the "that works" part for a lot of my decks :) > I could adhere to your point if we got good cards making clans like > !Gangrels more efficient, say some good Cel / Obf cards, that would also > help Assamites and some overlooked vamps, then I'd say : "ok, that's good, > let's get those vamps out from the dust !". But if we're talking about > Trems, Malks or whatever, we already know which ones are good, I don't > really care for them getting better and better while the rest won't see the > light of... night anymore ! Well, the discussion has just focused on those two. We haven't seen the entire set, and don't know what else is has been developed. We could go on about how a Ventrue wall deck may see some play (at least around here, I haven't seen anyone make such a deck, even myself). But there are 5 Ventrue with aus/AUS that I have seen, plus a unique master giving one +1 intercept. > I have to underline that here you're just talking about the fads in vamps, > changing because of the new vamps themselves. As long as there isn't too > steep a power curve, it isn't bad in itself. It is a whole different subject > from new cards making whole strategies obsolete without adding new > possibilities (just strenghtening already good combos). Perhaps I'm missing the boat here. One of the main strategies we've been discussing was Malkavians with Protean. The point of getting Protean was to be able to Earth Meld. So the strategy was to have a Malkavian bleed deck that could end combat. I don't see how having No Trace makes the strategy obsolete. It may make the particular method obsolete, but the strategy is still there. And even so, inferior Earth Meld is still better than superior No Trace. > > And now Nos Princes have an option to > > play defensively in combat, rather than hoping their offensive combat > > scares people off. > > And if the Ventrue get more Potence they'll have more options. But then > we'll see less and less difference between clans, and the whole clan / > disciplines concept will be moot. Which whould be a shame because it's one > of the pillars of the game. I can see the concern. And Ventrue are certainly more fighty this time around. But I don't think that voting Ventrue are going to disappear, nor power-bleed Ventrue. And fighty Ventrue isn't such an odd concept even now .. I've made more than one Lucinde Trophy deck. Now I have more options to go with if I want to continue trying that strategy. Plus you seem to be a proponent of outside-the-box ways of doing things. Doesn't a Ventrue Smash kind of deck speak to your inner creative deck child? > > I can see the difference, I just don't agree that it's bad. To me, > > predictability is bad. I shouldn't be able to guess what your deck can > > do upon seeing one vampire, or one discard. I should be forced to be > > on my toes. If I see Nossies, I shouldn't be thinking "great, don't > > have to worry about dealing with bleeds". > > Well, it's part of the skill nonetheless. Being able to see the other > disciplines, wonder why this vampire came out rather than than one, why he > choses to go Anarch, etc. If you don't need out-of-clans to do special > things, the game becomes more random, and there is no way that can be good. Fair enough, I can see this being part of being skilled at the game. But I don't think it's as bad as you say. Like your response to my asking if you knew what an Assamite deck might do, you find out fairly quickly then general idea of the deck you're facing (unless it's not working as planned, in which case you usually don't need to worry). But I think there are few decks that you can so assuredly predict in any case. If Enkidu pops up, you can expect to be fighting, sure, but the combat options are so varied that you still won't fully know what to do. He could be hitting fast with blurs, going more a potence route, using aggravated damage, be a mad rusher, or sit back to block with animal retainers, and so on and so forth. > > Yes, there are a lot of good choices. And I do agree with you that > > people will still use these good vampires with the new cards. I do > > think though, that we'll be using more of our vampires overall, > > though, since they can now more easily fit in with some deck ideas. > > I really don't see how the new cards do that. My new ideas with them include > mostly Toreador and anti, Tremere and anti, and Ventrue, clans which already > win. So you don't see Perfect Paragon being a good card to help put together a Brujah vote deck? Brujah have relatively few titles, so having an additional vote source is great, plus having some conditional -intercept to help get those votes off. Of course, Ventrue and Toreador, already stronger voters, could certainly use the card, but it's not such a boon for them. They have a lot of vote tools already, so while having access to another card, though certainly helpful, I don't think will make them that much more effective than they already are. > >> DI is and has always been a no-brainer, it _abstains_ people from > >> adapting, because it does everything by itself. But it can thwart a > >> good plan, still all by itself, and now it isn't even possible to > >> plan it better by keeping another copy of the card in hand. It is a > >> silver bullet. That cannot be good. > > > I can see what you're saying, but I can't really feel sorry for > > Malkavian bleed decks that are forced to maybe wait an extra turn to > > oust. I really can't. If your deck is a one-trick pony, that's the > > price you pay if something gums up the works. > > Then how sorry do you feel for the rushers trying to survive the bad evil > bleeder ? ;) To be honest, I feel for the rusher .. I've been that rusher far too many times. So DI2 makes me happier, as it can stem the onslaught for a turn, and maybe give rushers a bit more of a chance. > But all the vamps that you'd use only in that type of deck, for that > purpose, won't see any use anymore (and why use Pre now ? Vote pushing ? > Already there with Aus, and not much needed with the low-cost titled Malks). You mentioned attempting Malkavians with Presence, I assumed to make use of Majesty et al. What vote pushing is there in Auspex? > More does more. A wall that required, Say, 4 stealth to pass on every action > will now require 5 or 6. Looks to me like in the recent expansions one > favours int, then the next stealth, then int, and so on. So the stealther needs something to maybe survive, since stealth isn't as reliable and they'll be blocked more ... oh look, combat ends for Obfuscate! :D I really, really doubt that wall decks are going to add Eye of Argus on top of what they use to react with already. I can see them _replacing_ some cards with Eyes. But it is conditional. Sure, I get +1 more intercept (overall, provided Eyes replaced something like Precognition) on those bleeds and rushes, but now I have -1 intercept (overall) on those votes, hunts, equips/recruits, rescues ... Seems like a balance to me. > > The most likely use of the card is the superior, which gives you a > > Wake without the drawback. But then, it should be more potent, as it > > requires AUS, rather than being disciplineless. It'll also help out > > clans who have aus out-of-clan, in better defending themselves. > > It's a good card, no doubt ! But it's a rise in the power curve (from what > we've seen of this set, currently in favour of intercept). Not a bad thing in my books. The last few tournaments and drafts, stealth bleed has been the winner, because stealth is much more prevalent than intercept. > Sure. But I'd say this isn't a bleed card at all, as they already had access > to as much bleed with Computer Hacking (efficient with weenie Obf, or > possibly Nossies). This is a polyvalent card, useful in an ANI rush deck for > the occasional bleed boost. So what I really mean by "far from it" is that > it doesn't get the nossies any closer to competing with the bleeders, > really. But it might just make their Ani (wall with rush or plain rush) > midcap decks a little more viable. A good point. But I don't see a problem with this. One of the big 'complaints' I hear about combat decks is that they're great as smashing minions, but weak on actually ousting. Giving such decks a bit more versatility to get some ousting power is a boon, I think. > >>> Assamites and Gangrel. > > >> I don't see the link with those 2 ?? > > > Assamites now make strong stealth/bleeders ... > > Strong maybe not, but viable. Ok. Consistent bleeds of 3 at stealth isn't strong? Nevermind having Khabar: Glory out and getting 4 additional pool when you oust. I nearly killed my prey with a Loss deck, and only lost because I had a Loss deck bleeding me. > > While some cards do add new abilities to disciplines, it's hard to > > tell if such cards will really have that huge an impact. While I can > > certainly see No Trace adding to Malkavian decks, evidence has shown > > that Malkavian decks have done just fine without such combat defense. > > Sure. It does, though, depend very much on the environment. To give you a > personnal example : in november, 2006 I made second in the ECQ (the biggest > tournie of the year in Europe) with a Dem deck ; then I sort of dropped from > the game (no time) ; in september 2007 I still tried the french LCQ, with > the same sort of deck, and made... 1 VP !! Why ? Well, the local and current > metagame had shifted to casual bruise, meaning not much dedicated combat > with Psyche or IG, but lots of Ani fight, rushing allies etc. And I just had > my ass handed to me on a plate !! If I had access to a S:CE card at the time > (and if I had the means to anticipate it, which in that precise example > wasn't the case) it would have possibly made a huge difference ! A fair point .. but then how would your performance the first time around have gone, where those combat ends would have just been clogging your hand? You had options for combat defense as it was, and chose to forego them (of course, they're not as effective as combat ends). I do get your point, and I think you have a point in that Malkavian decks will likely have some more survivability with No Trace. Will it be such that they'll be winning a lot more? Simply can't tell right now. > > The same for Rego Motus for Tremere, though again (despite personal > > experience), they have stood up relatively well without prevent. Will > > these cards make these decks stronger? More than likely. But it's not > > as if these are totally foreign concepts, it'll just now be easier to > > build such deck concepts, especially for those with smaller card > > pools. > > Yes. Easier. No-brainer. Concepts with out-of-clan = dead. Me no like. Well, I don't think a lot of out-of-clan concepts are dead. Perhaps not used as much, as there are easier and broader options now for some strategies. But I think people will still try things, or make use of new vampires (if there are any) with older strategies. Plus, I think some of these cards open up _new_ strategies. Ventrue now have some fighting and blocking potential. Tremere don't have to rely so much on Theft to keep themselves alive in heavier combats, which opens up different thaumaturgy combat strategies. Brujah can look at trying to get into the voting arena. And so on and so forth. It seems that you're more against the potential loss of deck building challenges, of putting together a deck with limited resources and trying to make it work. Since when these strategies are brought in- clan/discipline, you are raising flags over the flattening of things. > > Even the cards I thought > > were "holy cow, what were they thinking", on reflection, simply strong > > cards, and not the end of the game a we know it. > > If anything for me anounces such a Gehenna, it's not just one card, but the > general trend I can foresee from a whole lot of cards. > > Of course maybe it's just the Malkavian prophet in me. ;) Well, as we both agreed upon, only time will tell, once we see the entire set, and start playing with the cards and seeing just how effective the new cards are. While I can agree that we'll see out-of-clan strategies becoming less common, I see those strategies becoming 'in-clan', and thus appearing in greater variety. Some strategies will become weaker, while other concepts will have some more support. Chris, Thrall of Arika

On Nov 5, 6:33 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Except Dark Influences doesn't protect one from the first cancel card > played. It protects everyone else. The text is: "The next card played > that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is > canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead." If you play Dark > Influences, then you become the only target for everybody else's cancel > cards (unless they don't mind wasting them to burn your Dark Influences). > > That seems like a significant balancing factor to me. Yeah, I see that you haven't noticed that I have been interpreting the card that way as well. I have been arguing that played with the other interpretation seems a bit bent, whereas the only arguments I get about this interpretation is that it is too difficult and complicated and therefore not as intuitive.

"Robert Scythe" <rob...@exploretalent.com> wrote in message news:4048e9df-d318-43da...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Um, you should add, "...and doesn't strike us as being all that bent." Fred

On Nov 5, 7:22 am, "Matthew T. Morgan" <farq...@io.com> wrote: > Maybe you're right. I guess I assumed that if that were the intent, the > language would be "that would cancel a Methuselah's minion card" instead > of "another Methuselah's minion card." Are there any common ways to > cancel one's own minion card? I was thinking Telepathic Vote Counting, > but that only cancels the referendum. Tangle Atropos' Hand cancels the > action, but not the card. > > Maybe playing Drawing Out the Beast followed by an Abombwe reflex? Nope, DotB is played on another vamp not your own. So far there seems to be no way to cancel your own minion card as it is played, and is doubtful that it will ever be since it would allow for silly cycling which would be bad for the game (and LSJ seems to be against anyway). I suppose, however, you may be able to cancel your own Master Card with an abombwe reflex, like Battle Frenzy and the such. Not sure about that though. Oh, hell, if that works you might be able to cancel Enrage and Bloodlust that way as well, which are minion cards (leaving the interpretation of DI2 just as open as it is now).

On Nov 5, 5:14 pm, "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: > > Yeah, I see that you haven't noticed that I have been interpreting the > > card that way as well. I have been arguing that played with the other > > interpretation seems a bit bent, whereas the only arguments I get > > about this interpretation is that it is too difficult and complicated > > and therefore not as intuitive. > > Um, you should add, "...and doesn't strike us as being all that bent." No, you should've.

In article <opuj5ze9...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > One point - I beleive Vessel isn't distinguished by the "kills Blood Dolls" > trait as much as it is distinguished by the "cannot be killed by playing > a blood management card" trait. Six of one, half a dozen of the other--Vessel is good only in relation to Blood Doll. If Blood Doll is not in the picture, Vessel becomes less good. And you suddenly start wishing you were using Blood Doll instead. At which point Vessel becomes good again. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 4, 3:26 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuj37h6hro6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: > > > First I beleive Vessel isn't such a terrible card. > > It's not. In a vacuum, if it were the only card like it was from day > one, it would be as prevalent as Blood Doll. Even at 1 pool, it is good > in an absolute sense. But relative to Blood Doll, Vessel is mostly just > worse. Except that it kills Blood Dolls. But if it isn't killing Blood > Dolls, 'cause no one is playing Blood Dolls, it is worse than Blood Doll. > > Which is why it ebbs and flows--people play Blood Doll 'cause, generally > speaking, Blood Doll is better (as it is free and pays off immediately). > Until a lot of Vessels show up, at which point Blood Dolls start phasing > out. Until there are no more Blood Dolls. At which point Vessel seems > less good (even as a trifle). So Vessels start coming out. And so Blood > Dolls start going back in. You give the very reason, though, that Vessels won't come out. In the absence of BD, the card "would be as prevalent as Blood Doll." Vessel has one close substitute - BD. It has plenty of substitutes that aren't so close - Minion Tap, Villein, Tribute, Ascendance, Grooming the Protege, etc. Remove BD from the game, and Vessel just moves in, taking over the role almost entirely because nothing else does the job anywhere near as good - can claim that Vessel's cost is prohibitive to certain decks, except that's easily remedied by playing Villein with Vessel, which may mean not as many Vessels as BDs in games but still means a constant presence of them. So, why expect BD to make a comeback? I'm willing to believe there are places where Vessel never establishes itself as the dominate BD play, though I'm sure that the lack of ownership of sufficient quantities of Vessel has had something to do with Vessel not moving in as quickly as it should have in many places, to where BD will remain a viable option in those places. But, once Vessel establishes itself, I don't see where people will suddenly decide to stop playing it because there aren't BDs around any longer to nuke. Rather, I'd expect some tweaking on other cards - adding other pool gain on top of the Vessels - and/or more attempts to take advantage of what Vessel does better - trifleness, untap combos. For amusement, one suggestion I've heard is that Blood Doll should have the ability to blow up Vessel - leveling the playing field and creating all sorts of havoc.

On Nov 6, 2:00 am, sule...@aol.com wrote: > So, why expect BD to make a comeback? > I guess I don't see why it needs to make a comeback. I swapped the Blood Dolls out of as many decks as I could for Vessels, and then I ended up putting Blood Dolls back in a lot of them. Blood Doll is a much better card in a DoC Baron Vote deck, IMO, because the key thing in that deck is that you want quick pool gain to avoid being ousted before you can start gaining 10 pool from your Con Boons. Salubri Antitribu probably can't afford either card, and would be better off with Villeins. Kevin Walsh

On Nov 5, 9:00 pm, sule...@aol.com wrote: > I'm willing to believe there are places where Vessel never > establishes itself as the dominate BD play, though I'm sure > that the lack of ownership of sufficient quantities of Vessel > has had something to do with Vessel not moving in as > quickly as it should have in many places, to where BD will > remain a viable option in those places. But, once Vessel > establishes itself, I don't see where people will suddenly > decide to stop playing it because there aren't BDs around > any longer to nuke. Well ... in an area where Vessel was *completely* dominant, Blood Doll would, for obvious reasons, be a less than ideal choice. In such cases, people would not "suddenly" start playing Blood Doll. More likely, they would play other things, like Minion Tap. Vessel would simply become gradually more uncommon, as one of its main advantages disappeared. At some point, people would begin to feel that it was viable to play Blood Doll again. But even in a worst-case scenario, Blood Doll is a versatile Minion- Tap-for-One that that you have the option of using as a Gird-Minions- for-One. That's not such a terrible effect, and the hope that you may use it twice, three times, or more, before it blows up, makes it even better. > Rather, I'd expect some tweaking on other cards - adding > other pool gain on top of the Vessels - and/or more > attempts to take advantage of what Vessel does better - > trifleness, untap combos. Like Vessel + Jake Washington? Yes, you'd expect to see such things depending on the specifics of deck-design and strategy.

[ quoted text not captured ] Number fo times i have seen someone saved by vessel when their pred has bled them to 1, expecting to see them die from Anarch revolt/fame/ whatever (when vessel first saw play) are numerous. So it has its strengths. HG and Vessel combo very well, especially with 1 caps, as they can farm for you and still have blood......

On Nov 6, 7:11 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > But even in a worst-case scenario, Blood Doll is a versatile Minion- > Tap-for-One that that you have the option of using as a Gird-Minions- > for-One. That's not such a terrible effect, and the hope that you may > use it twice, three times, or more, before it blows up, makes it even > better. > Exactly. Blood Doll lets you use it *immediately*. That's good. Of course, it's not necessarily worth the MPA and card if you only use it for one. But it still works like a combination Ascendance that costs a blood with an alternate textline of Life in the City that costs a pool. Neither use by itself would be strong, but you pay for versatility, and if it were a Trifle that worked that way, just one, I suspect it would be considered an okay card that's maybe slightly below the power curve. But how often does your Blood Doll get blown up *immediately* by a Vessel. Say that your predator and prey each have 8 Vessels in their decks (seems like a lot - I would much prefer something 4 Vessels, and if I need more pool gain masters, 4 of Blood Doll or a Minion Tap-like card). There is something like a 10% chance that one of them has a Vessel in hand at any time (I didn't do the actual math, because it's complicated and the exact number is not important. Let's say that it's certainly between 5 and 20%). So your Blood Dolls are *not* getting blown up immediately. Most of the time (at least 80%), your Blood Dolls should make it to turn 2, and 3 turns is not at all a stretch. Plus, if you actually need the Blood Doll to stay alive, only your predator is really a risk to pop it. The problem with Blood Doll before that it was good pool gain that could be used over-and-over again, could never be removed, and could double as push blood whenever you felt like it. It was obviously too versatile when it was printed for the fact that it would never be burned, which is why you used to see it in like 50-80% of decks. Even as it is, you are likely to get about 3 turns of usage out of a Blood Doll, in my experience. The density of Vessels will move the average up or down, but never below 1. So, how many turns do you need to get out of a Blood Doll for it to be good? Obviously, 1 turn is a little weak. 2 turns is useful, but I tend to believe it doesn't pass the "Ascendance test" (i.e. is this non-trifle master card better than Ascendance? If not, play Ascendance instead). After 3 turns, you have gotten as much blood back from the vampire as Grooming the Protege without needing a younger uncontrolled vampire, or you have pushed up 3 blood to keep your vamp from hunting (more expensive than a hunting ground, but you got to use it the first turn), or you pulled back only when you needed to and pushed only when you needed to, etc... All in all, after 3 turns, I think you got your money's worth. This may be where I differ from the people that want BD to last forever-and-ever-amen. Do you think 3 turns of Blood Doll isn't worth a master phase action? > > Rather, I'd expect some tweaking on other cards - adding > > other pool gain on top of the Vessels - and/or more > > attempts to take advantage of what Vessel does better - > > trifleness, untap combos. > > Like Vessel + Jake Washington? Yes, you'd expect to see such things > depending on the specifics of deck-design and strategy. Vessel is good in those decks specifically designed to do stuff in the untap. Danielle Diron particularly likes Vessel. But in the absence of Blood Dolls, Vessel just isn't good. Paying a pool and not getting to use it until next turn essentially costs 2 pool more than Blood Doll. Sure, it's a Trifle, so I would also use it in decks that don't have the master card space for Blood Dolls due to needing that space to "make the deck go". But even with Vessel in existence, there are still a lot of decks that I'd rather play Blood Dolls in. If you can pop a Blood Doll controlled by your prey, then Vessel is very strong. If you can't, I just don't see how it's worth the pool, when there are other pool gain options out there. Of course, I tend to not think more than 5 turns into the future - assuming that any card that takes 5 turns to pay off isn't worth it because my game could be over. Thus why I don't see 3 turns of Blood Doll being a problem (I could be dead in 5 turns anyway), or why I see Vessel as not very good (after 5 turns of Vessel you have -4 blood and +3 pool, after only 3 turns of Blood Doll you have -3 blood and +3 pool). That certainly isn't universally true, and it's one of the reasons that I thought Spell of Life was terrible when I first saw it. "It takes 5 turns, and I could be dead by then with nothing to show for it. Even if I get 1 every turn and none of them are blocked, I only get 1 turn to use the Mummies..." I think I was definitely wrong on that. I have a Spell of Life deck that, while the jury's still out on whether it's any good or not, is definitely fun to play and with a non-terrible draw can wreak some havoc. But yeah, maybe it's the 5 turn thing that makes my perspective a little different on this. How long is the average game? Something like 10-14 turns per player. If I get Vessel in my opening draw and get a vampire out at the end of turn 2 (not guaranteed), then I would play it on turn 3 and start using it on turn 4 to get 6-10 turns use out of it. That's certainly worth it, and the difference between Vessel and Blood Doll in that long of a time frame is much smaller. Vessel is still *worse* than a Blood Doll, assuming each is played in a vacuum. But even getting it that early, the number is still not a *lot* more than 5 turns (going by my earlier definition that 5 turns of Vessel starts the turn you play it, it's technically 7-11 turns of it). And you can't guarantee getting it in your opening hand, even with 8 of them in the deck. In general, for cards with payoff-over- time, I prefer to think of the game in 5 turn chunks (if I play this card, where will I be 4 turns later?), because you never know if you'll get more time than that. My contention is that, in that time frame, Vessel is not particularly great unless it can blow up a Blood Doll controlled by your prey, and conversely, Blood Doll is still good even *if* it gets blown up by a Vessel.

On Nov 6, 9:29 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Number fo times i have seen someone saved by vessel when their pred > has bled them to 1, expecting to see them die from Anarch revolt/fame/ > whatever (when vessel first saw play) are numerous. So it has its > strengths. Basing your anecdotal evidence on other players' poor play is even worse than basing your anecdotal evidence on good play. What you're citing here isn't a strength of the card, it's a weakness of people playing against it. John Eno

On Nov 6, 9:29 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure this is a great example. There will also be many cases when the person who is about to die from an Anarch Revolt, and is "saved" by the Vessel, actually has 2 less pool than he would have had if he had played the Blood Doll, instead of the Vessel. In such cases, the ability to recoup a pool in the Untap, instead of the Master phase, merely reduces the 2 pool disadvantage to 1 less pool disadvantage. I recently came to the conclusion that Anarch Revolts and Vessels are not really a good mix -- the reason being that Anarch Revolts speed up games, and Vessels, due to their cost, need time to reap the advantage, compared to Blood Doll, of their greater durability. > So it has its > strengths. HG and Vessel combo very well, especially with 1 caps, as > they can farm for you and still have blood...... HG & Vessel = 3 pool investment. With lotsa luck, you can do the following: Turn 1: Bring out a 1 cap Caitiff and a 2 cap Nossie Turn 2: Play Vessel & Slum HG. = -3 pool Turn 3: -2 pool Turn 4: - 1 pool Turn 5: Break even Turn 6: 1 pool profit. I'm not sure I'm that impressed. I might prefer the following: Turn 1: Bring out 3 cap Nossie Turn 2: Play Blood Doll; suck one: (+1 pool) Turn 3: Play Slum HG; suck one: (break even) Turn 4: Suck one: (1 pool profit) Whereupon someone blows up my blood doll; and the HG restores my 3 cap to full by turn 6.

On Nov 6, 12:25 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm not sure I'm that impressed. I might prefer the following: > > Turn 1: Bring out 3 cap Nossie > Turn 2: Play Blood Doll; suck one: (+1 pool) > Turn 3: Play Slum HG; suck one: (break even) > Turn 4: Suck one: (1 pool profit) > > Whereupon someone blows up my blood doll; and the HG restores my 3 cap > to full by turn 6. Even better: Turn 1: Bring out 3-cap Nossie Turn 2: Play Ascendance (+1 pool) Turn 3: Play Ascendance (+2 pool) Whereupon someone plays Vessel and you laugh at them, and your vampire never lost any blood. ;) John Eno

Thrall of Arika wrote: > On Nov 5, 5:25 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >> Thrall of Arika wrote: >>> That's certainly a fair point. If you're just grafting on Protean/ >>> Presence strictly for combat ends, then yes, that's a concept that >>> is likely not to be as effective now. But you weren't making a deck >>> to use Protean, you were making a malkavian deck that could S:CE. >>> How you got it didn't matter (considering you have been trying >>> both). Now you can instead focus on using Malkavians you want, >>> rather than being forced to use the ones who happen to have >>> Protean/Presence out-of- clan. I still fail so see how this is bad. >> >> In my opinion, it's bad because the vamps that were already good >> with their in-clan disciplines are just getting better, while we >> will see less and less of the others. > > Even with these new cards, there's nothing to stop you from making > your Protean Malkavian deck. It could still be a strong concept. Sure, > we could see a lot more of the same .. in which case, nothing's really > changed then. I don't think we'll see less and less of other vampires > though. People will still makes decks for the challenge of it, to try > something different and new. I think I have laid out all my arguments here, and you read them, and we disagree. So I guess time will tell. >> I guess the only reason to play titled Malk / Pro now is the (hard >> to pull) combo 1st Trad / Madness Network / Homunculus. Not likely >> to happen very often. > > Does that actually work? Wouldn't skipping a turn from First Tradition > mean no minion phase for which to use Madness Network? No minion phase, sure !! Which is why it's good to be untapped thanks to the Homunculus, because then you can act between turns... >>> I'm not saying that people graft on Protean to do all these things, >>> just that the options are there. If you are using Protean, you can >>> make use of the entire discipline, not just use it for Earth Meld. >>> Heck, you can add in Homunculi so that your bleeders can untap to >>> Misdirect .. that would certainly be a strong effect for the deck. >> >> Lol, I see we sortta think alike. Yes, Homunculus is good, but I >> wouldn't include it just for a waking sort of effect in a >> redirecting deck. For blockers maybe. No, really, I could get some >> Malks with lots of Pro for the surprise fighting, but I really don't >> believe (with the size of the crypt and all) that it could be >> anything more than fun to play (which is already something, of >> course, but we're sort of talking optimisation here). > > Well, I've never tried grafting Protean onto Malkavians, so haven't > really sat down to see what can be done with it. Just seems like it > wouldn't be such a bad thing, if you're using Protean, to throw a > couple of Homunculi in. Less need of wakes in your deck to let you use > your Misdirections/Counters (and the new Dementation reduce bleed > card). Not sure about it. >> Because of the versatility of Dem, or in some other decks because of >> the wonderful titled Malks / !Malks available (a whole other story >> than titled setites, eh ?) ! > > Maybe, though Presence tends to help out with lack of titles. :) Malks don't lack titles ! And TVC does the stuff nicely in most cases (cancelling 2-4 votes is as good as gaining 2-4 and you don't need the extra discipline). >>> How is it interesting that if I want to have a Thaumaturgy deck that >>> can prevent, I basically have 8 Tremere/!Tremere to choose from >>> before using discipline skills (skipping Kyoko since she has no >>> Thaum to speak of)? Of which I can't even use all of them due to >>> grouping. I could go out of clan, certainly, and stock up on 9+ >>> caps, but even then it leaves me with a very small selection. >> >> Uh, not sure I understand what you're saying here. You're saying it >> wasn't interesting to play the For Trems ? While in the previous >> point you underlined all the things that For can do for you... > > The two points weren't strictly connected. Perhaps I read wrong, but > you were saying that there's an interesting factor in trying to put > together a deck outside the main scope of the clan (Malkavians with > Protean, Tremere that can prevent). Something like that, yes. > It is interesting to do, but there > is very little variety in such decks, due to the extreme low number of > vampires to base such concepts on. Agreed. > Your Tremere/Fortitude deck crypt > will likely look like my Tremere/Fortitude crypt (of the same > groupings), that is what I don't find interesting, because the concept > is so strictly bound. I understand. But it is already more varied than the "usual" in-clan crypt. For instance, my favourite clan (Giovanni in case you don't know me) has a very good crypt in G2-G3, and most of the times you don't see the "less-than perfect" vamps of the Family. Try grafting another discipline and you'll see the forgotten cousins. ;) >> Well, in a combat environment it could make a difference. You could >> also use some Diversions in Anarch Tha decks to have either prevent >> or steal blood (chich is still mildly interesting although >> non-optimal). The crypt could be good enough : Antonio D'Erlette, >> Eugenio Estevez, Ladislas Toth and Polly Kay Fisher are pretty good, >> and depending if you want THA or Dom you could graft Jefferson >> Foster or Frere Marc. That also gives you some titles, not bad. But >> now I really don't see the interest, except in you go a whole other >> way. > > Right, and if I was making the deck for group 3-4, those would like be > main vampires in the deck. As it would be for many others making the > deck. That's where interesting drops away, at least for me. And if I > wanted to try a different spin on the concept, I'd probably still end > up with much the same crypt. Sure. But it is still different from the main Tremere Crypt, where you'll always be using the best vamps anyway. So it's one more option in each group. A gain, not a loss ! A gain now lost... > >>> It just seems we have different views on what is 'interesting'. I >>> can certainly see the appeal of a deck-building challenge, I do it >>> far too often myself. >> >> Most of the time I try to make something good but original, or >> original but that works. ;) > > I'm working on the "that works" part for a lot of my decks :) lol. Who doesn't ? I mean, except for... >> I could adhere to your point if we got good cards making clans like >> !Gangrels more efficient, say some good Cel / Obf cards, that would >> also help Assamites and some overlooked vamps, then I'd say : "ok, >> that's good, let's get those vamps out from the dust !". But if >> we're talking about Trems, Malks or whatever, we already know which >> ones are good, I don't really care for them getting better and >> better while the rest won't see the light of... night anymore ! > > Well, the discussion has just focused on those two. We haven't seen > the entire set, and don't know what else is has been developed. We've had access to a lots of spoilers now ! Maybe all... > We > could go on about how a Ventrue wall deck may see some play (at least > around here, I haven't seen anyone make such a deck, even myself). But > there are 5 Ventrue with aus/AUS that I have seen, plus a unique > master giving one +1 intercept. Yeah, not too likely, !Ventrue do the stuff much better. >> I have to underline that here you're just talking about the fads in >> vamps, changing because of the new vamps themselves. As long as >> there isn't too steep a power curve, it isn't bad in itself. It is a >> whole different subject from new cards making whole strategies >> obsolete without adding new possibilities (just strenghtening >> already good combos). > > Perhaps I'm missing the boat here. One of the main strategies we've > been discussing was Malkavians with Protean. The point of getting > Protean was to be able to Earth Meld. So the strategy was to have a > Malkavian bleed deck that could end combat. I don't see how having No > Trace makes the strategy obsolete. It may make the particular method > obsolete, but the strategy is still there. And even so, inferior Earth > Meld is still better than superior No Trace. If the word "strategies" bother you, choose another one. I was talking of deckbuilding strategies here. The fact remains. No one will graft on a hard-to-get 4rth discipline just for the sake of it if the in-clan do it all already, even if slightly less well. Like, would anyone graft Protean on Ventrue just because Earth Meld costs one less than Majesty ? Don't think so. >>> And now Nos Princes have an option to >>> play defensively in combat, rather than hoping their offensive >>> combat scares people off. >> >> And if the Ventrue get more Potence they'll have more options. But >> then we'll see less and less difference between clans, and the whole >> clan / disciplines concept will be moot. Which whould be a shame >> because it's one of the pillars of the game. > > I can see the concern. And Ventrue are certainly more fighty this time > around. But I don't think that voting Ventrue are going to disappear, > nor power-bleed Ventrue. Certainly not. > And fighty Ventrue isn't such an odd concept > even now .. I've made more than one Lucinde Trophy deck. Now I have > more options to go with if I want to continue trying that strategy. > > Plus you seem to be a proponent of outside-the-box ways of doing > things. Doesn't a Ventrue Smash kind of deck speak to your inner > creative deck child? Lol. Sure it does, in a very marginal way. But the day when Ventrue, Brujah, Toreador and whoever else can all do the same things is the day when this game won't appeal to me anymore. >>> I can see the difference, I just don't agree that it's bad. To me, >>> predictability is bad. I shouldn't be able to guess what your deck >>> can do upon seeing one vampire, or one discard. I should be forced >>> to be on my toes. If I see Nossies, I shouldn't be thinking "great, >>> don't have to worry about dealing with bleeds". >> >> Well, it's part of the skill nonetheless. Being able to see the other >> disciplines, wonder why this vampire came out rather than than one, >> why he choses to go Anarch, etc. If you don't need out-of-clans to >> do special things, the game becomes more random, and there is no way >> that can be good. > > Fair enough, I can see this being part of being skilled at the game. Ok, thanks. > But I don't think it's as bad as you say. Like your response to my > asking if you knew what an Assamite deck might do, you find out fairly > quickly then general idea of the deck you're facing (unless it's not > working as planned, in which case you usually don't need to worry). > But I think there are few decks that you can so assuredly predict in > any case. If Enkidu pops up, you can expect to be fighting, sure, but > the combat options are so varied that you still won't fully know what > to do. He could be hitting fast with blurs, going more a potence > route, using aggravated damage, be a mad rusher, or sit back to block > with animal retainers, and so on and so forth. Of course, the methods can vary. But the general trend is here. When you see a Ravnos pop up, say Gabrin, you know that most of the time he'll try to outstealth you, but you also know that he may use his Animal friends to fight you. Good. You know that Anson can equip with a gun and shoot in Cel. Ok. Those are marginal options but they do happen. But now, if you were afraid to block Catherine Dubois despite her inferior For (no Kiss of Ra, no Dawn Op where you can't change your mind about blocking) because Pre or DOM suddenly had the power to harm your Brujah, I'd say the game has gone waaaaaaay too far. Wouldn't you ? >>> Yes, there are a lot of good choices. And I do agree with you that >>> people will still use these good vampires with the new cards. I do >>> think though, that we'll be using more of our vampires overall, >>> though, since they can now more easily fit in with some deck ideas. >> >> I really don't see how the new cards do that. My new ideas with them >> include mostly Toreador and anti, Tremere and anti, and Ventrue, >> clans which already win. > > So you don't see Perfect Paragon being a good card to help put > together a Brujah vote deck? Brujah have relatively few titles, so > having an additional vote source is great, plus having some > conditional -intercept to help get those votes off. Of course, a Pre card can be used with Brujahs ! I don't see how it allows for the use of unused vampires, though. Brujahs didn't "need" such a card because they can bruise'n'vote. But of course it adds to their candy. PP is a good card. But it fits in two of the categories that bother me in KoT : - the flattening of the disciplines (-Intercept in Pre) - the raise in the power curve (first card to give 3 votes in inferior for that cost). But it might help see some "real" Brujahs come to light because the so popular Europrinces don't have Pre. That could be a good side-effect, but the card won't do the trick alone, no matter how strong it is. > Of course, Ventrue > and Toreador, already stronger voters, could certainly use the card, > but it's not such a boon for them. They have a lot of vote tools > already, so while having access to another card, though certainly > helpful, I don't think will make them that much more effective than > they already are. Ventrue need the minus cept much more than Brujahs do !! So do the Toreadors, who now have much candy to play with (Crocodile's Tongue, the new Cel "continue as if unblocked card, combined with PP, AMbulance, some Aching Beauties... one word in french : GRAS !!). >>>> DI is and has always been a no-brainer, it _abstains_ people from >>>> adapting, because it does everything by itself. But it can thwart a >>>> good plan, still all by itself, and now it isn't even possible to >>>> plan it better by keeping another copy of the card in hand. It is a >>>> silver bullet. That cannot be good. >> >>> I can see what you're saying, but I can't really feel sorry for >>> Malkavian bleed decks that are forced to maybe wait an extra turn to >>> oust. I really can't. If your deck is a one-trick pony, that's the >>> price you pay if something gums up the works. >> >> Then how sorry do you feel for the rushers trying to survive the bad >> evil bleeder ? ;) > > To be honest, I feel for the rusher .. I've been that rusher far too > many times. So DI2 makes me happier, as it can stem the onslaught for > a turn, and maybe give rushers a bit more of a chance. As I said, DI2 can also destroy your only chance to survive before the swarm comes in (DI the Bum's Rush, or if you showed multiple sources of rush possibly the IG, or the Psyche...). >> But all the vamps that you'd use only in that type of deck, for that >> purpose, won't see any use anymore (and why use Pre now ? Vote >> pushing ? Already there with Aus, and not much needed with the >> low-cost titled Malks). > > You mentioned attempting Malkavians with Presence, I assumed to make > use of Majesty et al. What vote pushing is there in Auspex? Vote negating with Telepathic Vote Counting. It can counter effectively the votes of a Prince, Justicar or even Inner Circle (or equivalents), and most of the times if you have titled vamps it will suffice (cancelling 2-4 votes is as good as gaining 2-4). >> More does more. A wall that required, Say, 4 stealth to pass on >> every action will now require 5 or 6. Looks to me like in the recent >> expansions one favours int, then the next stealth, then int, and so >> on. > > So the stealther needs something to maybe survive, since stealth isn't > as reliable and they'll be blocked more ... oh look, combat ends for > Obfuscate! :D lol. As you mentionned already the Setites have them, but still they'll have trouble with Carna. Oh, and I must say in all fairness that creating problem B does not problem A solve. It's not an argument, it's a misdirection. Pay one pool. > I really, really doubt that wall decks are going to add Eye of Argus > on top of what they use to react with already. I can see them > _replacing_ some cards with Eyes. But it is conditional. Sure, I get > +1 more intercept (overall, provided Eyes replaced something like > Precognition) on those bleeds and rushes, but now I have -1 intercept > (overall) on those votes, hunts, equips/recruits, rescues ... Seems > like a balance to me. I can perfectly see an AUS deck replacing some or of all of its Forced or whatever with EoA. And it's a better deck already !! >>> The most likely use of the card is the superior, which gives you a >>> Wake without the drawback. But then, it should be more potent, as it >>> requires AUS, rather than being disciplineless. It'll also help out >>> clans who have aus out-of-clan, in better defending themselves. >> >> It's a good card, no doubt ! But it's a rise in the power curve >> (from what we've seen of this set, currently in favour of intercept). > > Not a bad thing in my books. The last few tournaments and drafts, > stealth bleed has been the winner, because stealth is much more > prevalent than intercept. We haven't seen the same here. And you know what is the worst interceptor I've seen in the finals of recent tournaments ? Weenie Ani !! And even a dedicated stealther will have trouble passing them as soon as the Heidelberg Castle (nice place) hits the table. >> Sure. But I'd say this isn't a bleed card at all, as they already >> had access to as much bleed with Computer Hacking (efficient with >> weenie Obf, or possibly Nossies). This is a polyvalent card, useful >> in an ANI rush deck for the occasional bleed boost. So what I really >> mean by "far from it" is that it doesn't get the nossies any closer >> to competing with the bleeders, really. But it might just make their >> Ani (wall with rush or plain rush) midcap decks a little more viable. > > A good point. But I don't see a problem with this. One of the big > 'complaints' I hear about combat decks is that they're great as > smashing minions, but weak on actually ousting. Giving such decks a > bit more versatility to get some ousting power is a boon, I think. I agree. Can help the Gangrels too, even makes me want to make such a deck if I do stay in the game (external factors will be decisive for me). I did say and repeat that this card gives me less trouble than many others. Still, I don't like the +1 bleed in Ani, but even that isn't really new if we look at the (quite old) Tier of Souls or Army of Rats. So I guess this one doesn't even stray far from the original flock. >>>>> Assamites and Gangrel. >> >>>> I don't see the link with those 2 ?? >> >>> Assamites now make strong stealth/bleeders ... >> >> Strong maybe not, but viable. Ok. > > Consistent bleeds of 3 at stealth isn't strong? Not really, compared to some other disciplines, if we take into account the blood cost and the QUI requirement. But it isn't negligeable either. > Nevermind having > Khabar: Glory out and getting 4 additional pool when you oust. I > nearly killed my prey with a Loss deck, and only lost because I had a > Loss deck bleeding me. lol. Ok, but any of your 2 Loss decks would have lost to a FoS, Malk, Lasombra or Giovanni with the same strategy. Luckily so, because the day when Qui bleeds as well as Pre or Dom will announce Gehenna (already drawing nearer every night)... >>> While some cards do add new abilities to disciplines, it's hard to >>> tell if such cards will really have that huge an impact. While I can >>> certainly see No Trace adding to Malkavian decks, evidence has shown >>> that Malkavian decks have done just fine without such combat >>> defense. >> >> Sure. It does, though, depend very much on the environment. To give >> you a personnal example : in november, 2006 I made second in the ECQ >> (the biggest tournie of the year in Europe) with a Dem deck ; then I >> sort of dropped from the game (no time) ; in september 2007 I still >> tried the french LCQ, with the same sort of deck, and made... 1 VP >> !! Why ? Well, the local and current metagame had shifted to casual >> bruise, meaning not much dedicated combat with Psyche or IG, but >> lots of Ani fight, rushing allies etc. And I just had my ass handed >> to me on a plate !! If I had access to a S:CE card at the time (and >> if I had the means to anticipate it, which in that precise example >> wasn't the case) it would have possibly made a huge difference ! > > A fair point .. but then how would your performance the first time > around have gone, where those combat ends would have just been > clogging your hand? If I had deemed that the metagame needed them, I would have used them. And I'll have to add that in the finals they could have helped me win instead of going for second because I was caught between Shamblings and War Ghouls !! Needless to say, such a deck always includes options for additionnal discarding, and I had Dreams in there. Barrens can be good too. > You had options for combat defense as it was, and > chose to forego them (of course, they're not as effective as combat > ends). You are right, they aren't. > I do get your point, and I think you have a point in that > Malkavian decks will likely have some more survivability with No > Trace. Will it be such that they'll be winning a lot more? Simply > can't tell right now. I'll be glad to talk with you about it when the dust clears, if I'm still there. ;) >>> The same for Rego Motus for Tremere, though again (despite personal >>> experience), they have stood up relatively well without prevent. >>> Will these cards make these decks stronger? More than likely. But >>> it's not as if these are totally foreign concepts, it'll just now >>> be easier to build such deck concepts, especially for those with >>> smaller card pools. >> >> Yes. Easier. No-brainer. Concepts with out-of-clan = dead. Me no >> like. > > Well, I don't think a lot of out-of-clan concepts are dead. Perhaps > not used as much, as there are easier and broader options now for some > strategies. But I think people will still try things, or make use of > new vampires (if there are any) with older strategies. I hope so. Not convinced on some of the examples I made. > Plus, I think some of these cards open up _new_ strategies. Ventrue > now have some fighting and blocking potential. Tremere don't have to > rely so much on Theft to keep themselves alive in heavier combats, > which opens up different thaumaturgy combat strategies. Brujah can > look at trying to get into the voting arena. And so on and so forth. Just slight variations on existing strategies with already used vampires, most of the times (except perhaps your point with Brujahs and PP). > It seems that you're more against the potential loss of deck building > challenges, of putting together a deck with limited resources and > trying to make it work. Yes, this does bother me. > Since when these strategies are brought in- > clan/discipline, you are raising flags over the flattening of things. This isn't the only reason, as I already developped, but it is a part of it. >>> Even the cards I thought >>> were "holy cow, what were they thinking", on reflection, simply >>> strong cards, and not the end of the game a we know it. >> >> If anything for me anounces such a Gehenna, it's not just one card, >> but the general trend I can foresee from a whole lot of cards. >> >> Of course maybe it's just the Malkavian prophet in me. ;) > > Well, as we both agreed upon, only time will tell, once we see the > entire set, and start playing with the cards and seeing just how > effective the new cards are. > > While I can agree that we'll see out-of-clan strategies becoming less > common, I see those strategies becoming 'in-clan', and thus appearing > in greater variety. Some strategies will become weaker, while other > concepts will have some more support. > > Chris, Thrall of Arika Well, I think we've gone as deep as we could here. I'm glad to see that, although basically disagreeing, we succeeded in showing some of our points to each other, and having a civilised yet constructive discussion. Sometimes I'm despairing on such possibilities in forums... Here's to hoping the game I love will long keep what's made it my favourite one for so long. Seeya, Orpheus -- "Cynicism isn't maturity. Callousness isn't strength. Pretending you don't care so you don't have to try isn't "winning" What you do with your life matters." Luther Manning.

[ quoted text not captured ] You are not doing this alternative full justice. Ascendance can be played on Turn 1.

Orpheus wrote: > Thrall of Arika wrote: >> On Nov 5, 5:25 am, "Orpheus" <orpheus...@NOSPAMfree.fr> wrote: >>> I guess the only reason to play titled Malk / Pro now is the (hard >>> to pull) combo 1st Trad / Madness Network / Homunculus. Not likely >>> to happen very often. >> Does that actually work? Wouldn't skipping a turn from First Tradition >> mean no minion phase for which to use Madness Network? > > No minion phase, sure !! Which is why it's good to be untapped thanks to the > Homunculus, because then you can act between turns... Madness Network allows Malks to act in other Methuselah's minion phases. Nothing allows a minion to act between turns.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ok. The combo still works however because most of the time some players will want to have a minion phase. If not, too bad for them, you play Parity Shifts and are more than willing to pay the 2 pool. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Nov 6, 10:12 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > You are not doing this alternative full justice. Ascendance can be > played on Turn 1.- Hide quoted text - See! It's even better! :) John Eno

>> Nope, just a little bent towards the meth who played it. Yes, very >> similar to Giant's Blood, which is also a little bent, but DI2 has an >> effect that can be even more so. Stopping your predator's ousting >> multiple KRC's/Kindred Spirits/Govern's, et al, and protecting >> yourself from the first DI type card played on you can be huge. > > Except Dark Influences doesn't protect one from the first cancel card > played. It protects everyone else. The text is: "The next card played > that would cancel another Methuselah's minion card as it is played is > canceled (no cost) and this card is burned instead." If you play Dark > Influences, then you become the only target for everybody else's cancel > cards (unless they don't mind wasting them to burn your Dark Influences). > > That seems like a significant balancing factor to me. The signigicant balacing factor seems to *me* that it costs twice as much as pool as DI does. Two pool is enough to make people discard hunting grounds, intercept locations or equipment when they're low-ish on pool. If it would *also* make you the "DI-target", so to speak, I can't really imagine anyone playing it. Ever. The "can't play again this turn" clause, while handy, isn't really *that* strong to warrant the extra disadvantage on top of the double cost. Why wouldn't you just play a DI and then not having to deal with getting rid of the card first before you can play another?

In article <4915e7ce$0$9261$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, "Izaak" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote: > Why wouldn't you just play a DI and then not having > to deal with getting rid of the card first before you can play another? 'Cause playing DI2 prevents other people (to some yet to be determined extent) from playing DI as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> schreef in bericht news:pdb6-B94E09.1...@nntp.aioe.org... > In article <4915e7ce$0$9261$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, > "Izaak" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote: >> Why wouldn't you just play a DI and then not having >> to deal with getting rid of the card first before you can play another? > > 'Cause playing DI2 prevents other people (to some yet to be determined > extent) from playing DI as well. Well, sure it does. But if it just disallows them to play them against anyone that's not you, then you just paid two pool to protect other players from being DI'd. That doesn't make much sense to me and judging from this thread, neither to you :-)

In article <491637ab$0$9247$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, "Izaak" <ma...@nospam.com> wrote: > Well, sure it does. Which is why the 2 pool cost makes sense. > But if it just disallows them to play them against > anyone that's not you, Which remains to be seen. Waiting for an answer on that one :-) > then you just paid two pool to protect other players > from being DI'd. That doesn't make much sense to me and judging from this > thread, neither to you :-) 2 pool to shut down other people's DIs (regardless of whether or not you can be effected) instead of 1 pool to not strikes me as perfectly reasonable. It makes other people's DIs dead cards (more or less). And other people DIing stuff other people do tends to benefit those other people. So you are paying the extra pool to get to be the only person (in theory) to benefit from the powerful DI effect. Or something. [ quoted text not captured ]

librarian wrote: > Peter D Bakija wrote: >> In article <Vk_Ok.7775$gD3....@newsfe01.iad>, >> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote: >>> It SHOULD be easy to resolve... >>> >>> ...unless, of course, your resolution authority is of a mind that >>> the answer is far too obvious to merit intervention. :-) >> >> Sigh. Yeah. That happens a lot, doesn't it. I can hope, however. >> > > LSJ usually doesn't answer rules questions for cards that aren't > officially released yet. And the man does have only so much time in a > day... or he's just watching it all and pissing himself laughing and doesn't want to spoil the amusement for himself... that's what I'D be doing, anyway. ;) -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email) "In *my* Assamite deck, this would pwn you in teh FAEC, so shut up." "Thats only cos u've never sene mi Gionavvi PUNCHnMUCNH u asshat." - James Coupe