Breaking the Events

I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) During the 2 days of the tournament, I met several Gehenna decks. And I am now convinced that something must be done. I'm not talking ban here. But a really playable card that could break an event (maybe just a Gehenna, there can be one later for Governments), and that can has an alternate use in case there is no Gehenna (or you don't want to break it). There might be a restriction of sorts. But there are a number of reasons why I really find it necessary at that point : - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But Anthelios is pure evil : * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, and maybe the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long time, and then dies and things can go much faster. So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). But maybe my prayers are already fullfilled and there is such a card in 3rd Edition ? ;-) -- Orpheus ----------------------- I'm dead serious ! Well, mostly dead...

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm with you all the way on this one. I don't mind the events so much as there is not a playable way to eliminate them. Black hand ritual is okay, but its non-gehenna use is suspect. I would consider playing with not-to-be if you could blow up an event already in play with it. Emergency preparations only has non-Gehenna synergy with fatties and sucks up you master phase. Not a fair trade to get rid of a discard phase action. I find veil of darkness to be exceptionally disruptive, along with blood weakens. Consequently, I rarely put them in my decks, even imbued. I figure that they are not worth the table hate anyway.

>Orpheus wrote: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > Congratualations :) > - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've > been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was > the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or > requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But > Anthelios is pure evil : > Yes, It is VERY strong. I see it alot, but I still don't think it's strong enough to justify a change to it. > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. Well, sometimes you loose. I don't think this specific example is very likely to happend. And if it does. Well, shit happends. > * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush > without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is > blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, > I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once > a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion > comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... > A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. > A rushing combat deck not playing multiple rushes or stealth for their rushes won't win any games. I can agree that this would be bothersome when playing rush but not in anyway broken. > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > I can agree that it's very tiresome with players playing event decks without any plan on actually ousting. But we've seen it several times before without any events involved. Like blocking decks that don't have any forward pressure, combat decks that only can fight and not inflict any pool damage. I don't think bad deckbuilding is an argument for something being to strong. > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, > Err, if they can't remember the effect of a card in play they really deserve the caution. Just like fame, anarch revolt, leandro etc. > and maybe > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. > I think it's a perfectly viable strategy to create a deck that thrives in randomness. It's also a very strong one since most other decks don't. The decks you're talking about, or well, atleast the first one just seems like a bad deck. > So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I > find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an > alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual > isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). > You forget mr Jan. His adv version is actually quite good. But face it. We have 4 cards that kill different events. I don't think not playing them is an excuse. If you really can't handle events, then just play them. The only fact that make them less strong than a sudden is the fact that you don't face events often enough. Best wishes Alex Ek Prince of Gothenburg

Orpheus wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I can't say that I have had an experience like that with other events than Anthelios in tournaments, but then again I don't play a lot of them. The Red Star, however, have had me raving for months after its release. The Fear of Mekhet is one thing. Same problem with with Golconda, the non-unique haven, Sudden Reversals, DIs ... grr .. the list goes on and it quite frankly feels like that other game. Imo Anthelios is just too easy. Too hard to stop or remove. I agree with you there. Nowadays i try to defend myself against Partheons with my own copies or some anti location tech. Anson can be killed although he might be slippery. HOWEVER, Maris is a bitch and if anyone deserves chained Fear of Mekhet she certainly does. And somehow you managed to win no? congrats :) Frede

> >Orpheus wrote: > > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > > > Congratualations :) Thanks. > > - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've > > been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was > > the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or > > requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But > > Anthelios is pure evil : > > > Yes, It is VERY strong. I see it alot, but I still don't think it's > strong enough to justify a change to it. Strong doesn't bother me. Too strong might. But all other cards can be countered in a viable way (if nothing alse, Sudden or Direct), even if it doesn't make them less powerful or "broken". Anthelios doesn't have a viable hoser yet. > > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. > > Well, sometimes you loose. I don't think this specific example is very > likely to happend. And if it does. Well, shit happends. Twice. In a 50+ Championship. How many didn't I meet ? The decktypes are strong, posted all over forums, and copied by lots of players. Shit falls like rain. > > * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush > > without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is > > blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, > > I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once > > a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion > > comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... > > A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. > > > > A rushing combat deck not playing multiple rushes or stealth for their > rushes won't win any games. I can agree that this would be bothersome > when playing rush but not in anyway broken. The guy in question is one of the best players I know with a fight deck. He rushed up to three times per turn, at no stealth except for Haven Unco because he plays Brujahs / !Brujahs. Should he stop playing that clan, when he succeeds in winning tables on a regular basis, or should he include 12 Not To Be in his well-tuned deck ? Should he forego the For which is the 4rth discipline in his deck, put lots of Mariano Pomposo and Wha Chun-Yen and include X Black Hand rituals just in the eventuality that someone who knows how to use Anthelios to its most powerful effect uses a 0-pool cost Master to hose him ? Or do you have any more reasonnable suggestion I can propose to him ? > > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > > > I can agree that it's very tiresome with players playing event decks > without any plan on actually ousting. But we've seen it several times > before without any events involved. Like blocking decks that don't have > any forward pressure, combat decks that only can fight and not inflict > any pool damage. I don't think bad deckbuilding is an argument for > something being to strong. Of course you are right on that precise point, and "random players" is a bummer. The difference is that we're talking about the actions - or inactions - of players having consequences on the game. This rarely happened to me in tournament, because when you can play and talk you can show these players the consequences of their acts more often than not, if they have a brain - or another player, a better talker than you, proves soemthing else, but then he just outplayed you. And if a player is brainless, the rest of the table can agree to counter him, eventually to the point of ousting him. This is quite different from non-removable cards in play having uncontrolled consequences. > > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, > > > > Err, if they can't remember the effect of a card in play they really > deserve the caution. Just like fame, anarch revolt, leandro etc. Then I don't deserve my title. I made mistakes too (made lots of them without the events anyway lol), and I think that a game is hard enough without having to remember the cumulative effects of Veil of Darkness, Blood Weakens, Slow Withering and New Inquisition, among others, eventually while remembering or seeing all the powers and convictions on each hunter. If it's easy for you, it isn't for me. And it's downright hard for relatively new players. > > and maybe > > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. > > > I think it's a perfectly viable strategy to create a deck that thrives > in randomness. It's also a very strong one since most other decks > don't. The decks you're talking about, or well, atleast the first one > just seems like a bad deck. You're absolutely right, it was bad. It was made by the 2004 french champion and he won a tournament with it, but it was pure shit (not kidding here). I really can't draw a conclusion from that... Except that mass Gehenna is disruptive, and that thriving on randomness sometimes is just... random !! > > So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I > > find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an > > alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual > > isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). > > > > You forget mr Jan. His adv version is actually quite good. I included him in the best deck I ever made (meaning the one that gave me the more tournament victories), and he went out because his base version was just much better, and the merging wasn't worth the place in the crypt. But I agree that he can be nice in some specific decks. Quite marginal though. Also, must all crypts be goddamn Ventrue ? Oh no, I forgot, you can also play AAA... > But face it. > We have 4 cards that kill different events. I don't think not playing > them is an excuse. Kiss my Râ. What, you don't play Fortitude ? No excuse. Go to torpor, it's a Rötschreck. You don't play Psyche, don't complain. No BH ritual ? Suck my Gehenna. Ishtarri Black Hands just became the best combo ever !! Wait.. there aren't any, are there ? ;-) > If you really can't handle events, then just play > them. If you have a good deck that doesn't have 2 Master Phases and Anthelios, just throw it away and take an AAA. Or put all the useful cards in the trashbin and put dozens of "magic bullets" in your deck. Sure. Don't want to be mean, mate, but : _worst_argument_ever_ !! > The only fact that make them less strong than a sudden is the > fact that you don't face events often enough. In 7 games over 2 days, I met events, let me see... - decks with only Anthelios = 4 or 5 - decks with Unmasking / FBI = 1 - decks with mass events = 2 So that's an average of one per table !! Of course I could have played a totally different deck, or taken many useful cards from my deck, just to hose events. But I didn't, right ? And I'm not even complaining that it made me loose, because in the end I won. I'm just saying they are disruptive. And nothing you said here made me change my point of view yet. -- Orpheus ------------------------- "You'll regret being so damn abusive when the electric UFO gods transphase in from dimension ten to appoint me manager of the universe". The Drummer, in Planetary.

> I can't say that I have had an experience like that with other events > than Anthelios in tournaments, but then again I don't play a lot of them. > > The Red Star, however, have had me raving for months after its release. > > The Fear of Mekhet is one thing. Same problem with with Golconda, the > non-unique haven, Sudden Reversals, DIs ... grr .. the list goes on and > it quite frankly feels like that other game. Absolutely, I didn't put all the things I saw but you're right. In the right decks Erciyes is nearly as powerful, but a) you depend on what your prey plays b) it can be suddened and c) it's stealable. So it IS powerful but nowhere near Anthelios. > Imo Anthelios is just too easy. Too hard to stop or remove. I agree with > you there. Nowadays i try to defend myself against Partheons with my own > copies or some anti location tech. Anson can be killed although he might > be slippery. He can, can't he ? > HOWEVER, Maris is a bitch and if anyone deserves chained Fear of Mekhet > she certainly does. loooooooooooooooooooooooool. You're right about that, she's one of the most abused vamps in the game, along with Arika, Anson and all the A gang (not talking Aabt here...). What can I tell you, I have no excuse, I wanted to win ! ;-) > And somehow you managed to win no? congrats :) Thanks mate. CR and decklists soon, and already on some french forums for those who can understand this strange tongue. ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > > During the 2 days of the tournament, I met several Gehenna decks. And I am > now convinced that something must be done. I'm not talking ban here. But a > really playable card that could break an event (maybe just a Gehenna, there > can be one later for Governments), and that can has an alternate use in case > there is no Gehenna (or you don't want to break it). > Let me see ... You won the French Championship, Gehenna Events are too strong, from the rest of your post I conclude you did not use Gehenna Events yourself ... so how are Gehenna Events too strong, they didn't make the people playing them win??? > There might be a restriction of sorts. But there are a number of reasons why > I really find it necessary at that point : > > - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've > been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was > the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or > requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But > Anthelios is pure evil : > This isn't pure recursion, its more like substitution. You have to already have a Master Card in hand to switch out for one in the discard pile. It is powerful because my second Master Phase action can be any Master Card in my hand or any Master Card in my discard pile. Recursion has always been strong, its just hard to do. > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. If you can manage to call a vote and Voter Cap (or some other way to regain massive amounts of blood each turn) you can keep the Fear of Mekhet at bay for some time. > * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush > without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is > blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, > I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once > a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion > comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... As long as the person playing the combo has a Master Card in hand each turn to swap out for Jake and can give up 2 Master Phase actions a turn. If you only have 1 vampire in play, 1 Secure Haven stops any number of rushes. Rampage destroys both Secure Haven and The Parthenon, that will mess up either set-up. If Anson is fueling the 2nd Master Phase action, then you'll need 2 rushes and you better make sure Anson goes down. > A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. > Actually it is a 4 card combo -> Anthelios, Anson or The Parthenon or Rumors of Gehenna, Jake Washington, and a Master Card in hand to swap out for Jake. > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, and maybe > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. > I tried playing Gehenna Events here and there before Imbued. After Imbued several players in my playgroup now also play with Events. We are getting quiet quick at playing the game with more then 3 Gehenna Events in play because we are starting to memorize exactly how they work. > So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I > find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an > alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual > isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). > > But maybe my prayers are already fullfilled and there is such a card in 3rd > Edition ? ;-) > Later, ~Rehlow

Orpheus wrote: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > again, congratulations :-) > > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. Yippee!! You lean someone in France was playing FoM, and it wasn't me? Yippeee!! I am not alone! > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > tournament ! Orpheus, have you been sleeping all these years? Ever since they came out, I'd say there's at least 1 or 2 events on the almost every table I've ever seen since then. Usually the Unmasking, Anthelios, Veil of Darkness, .. And in 90 % of the cases, played in weenie /ally decks I agree that it's a pitty there is no easy way to remove them, while they are available to almost everyone. But I personally think the problem is not in the existence /non-removability of events as such, but rather very specific events, and specific effects they have. I mean, "recalled to the founder is pure hell", only it never hits the table. Whereas evereyone playing shambling hordes ord war ghouls, will like, automatically include an unmasking, and ultiply their chances at winning by a big lot. So yeah, I agree some cards are troublesome, but maybe not to such an extent that they warrant specific countermeasures.. > > But maybe my prayers are already fullfilled and there is such a card in 3rd > Edition ? ;-) > Well well, your prayers? Never would have picked you for a religious man!> -- /jo

"Wolflord" <jo.her...@sca.com> wrote in news:1152639092.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com: > > Orpheus wrote: >> >> But maybe my prayers are already fullfilled and there is such a card >> in 3rd Edition ? ;-) >> > > > Well well, your prayers? > Never would have picked you for a religious man!> -- ...he didn't tell you _What_ he was praying to, did he? <shivers> DaveZ Atom Weaver

> Let me see ... You won the French Championship, Gehenna Events are too > strong, from the rest of your post I conclude you did not use Gehenna > Events yourself ... so how are Gehenna Events too strong, they didn't > make the people playing them win??? looooooooooooool. Hum, can I say something like "I'm so good I don't need a good deck" ? No, seriously, I never said they were too strong, just that they were disruptive. But yes, Anthelios is very strong, and if you go that way : the first days, 3 of the 5 decks in the Last Chance Qualifier play Anthelios. Only one deck plays Anthelios in the finals of the FC, but then the decks simply aren't the "masters" type. The best uses I've seen of Anthelios are in TGB, Palla Grande and Fattie vote decks. Yes, it is very strong, but these archetypes were less played on sunday than on saturday, and people were more cautious of such decks having seen what they did (I, for instance, could predict which deck possibly played Anthelios / Parthenon / Fear of Mekhet, and had my...fears confirmed soon enough). Good enough answer ? > > There might be a restriction of sorts. But there are a number of reasons why > > I really find it necessary at that point : > > > > - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've > > been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was > > the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or > > requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But > > Anthelios is pure evil : > > > > This isn't pure recursion, its more like substitution. You have to > already have a Master Card in hand to switch out for one in the discard > pile. It is powerful because my second Master Phase action can be any > Master Card in my hand or any Master Card in my discard pile. Recursion > has always been strong, its just hard to do. Agreed. Some decks used to play Carlotta just for that reason. But really, in some decks, Anthelios isn't hard to use at all. Anson, Parthenon, Rumors of Gehenna, Huitzi... Not hard at all really. > > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. > > If you can manage to call a vote and Voter Cap (or some other way to > regain massive amounts of blood each turn) you can keep the Fear of > Mekhet at bay for some time. lol. Sure. You mean I shouldn't try to play vote without Presence ? Shit, for once I win with something a tad original... But seriously, when you play enough Masters, Direct is a good option on a Voter Cap, you know... That or Scalpel Tongue + votes, or Confusion of the Eye, or... Oh, and did I mention your Direct will be recursive and the Voter Cap won't ? > > * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush > > without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is > > blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, > > I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once > > a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion > > comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... > > As long as the person playing the combo has a Master Card in hand each > turn to swap out for Jake and can give up 2 Master Phase actions a > turn. If you only have 1 vampire in play, 1 Secure Haven stops any > number of rushes. If you have only 1 vampire in play, you're not even in what we call here "Spencer Mode". ;-) One vamp doesn't cut it most of the time. > Rampage destroys both Secure Haven and The Parthenon, [pot] (D) Burn any location. If you control the location, this is a +1 stealth action. Too bad we're not talking about Black Annis... > that will mess up either set-up. If Anson is fueling the 2nd Master > Phase action, then you'll need 2 rushes and you better make sure Anson > goes down. Thank you for the lesson. You are quite right on paper. And also maybe neglecting a few (recurring) Master cards like Golconda for example... > > A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. > > > > Actually it is a 4 card combo -> Anthelios, Anson or The Parthenon or > Rumors of Gehenna, Jake Washington, and a Master Card in hand to swap > out for Jake. Granted. But we're talking about decks that play easily lots of Masters, and have been thoroughly winning tournaments for years and years ; they just became a whole lot better with the addition of these 2 cards (Jake also had a side effect I hope was unintended : make the War Ghoul the best cost/efficiency/recruit/condition ratio ally in the game, ever, as if it wasn't too good already). > > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, and maybe > > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. > > > > I tried playing Gehenna Events here and there before Imbued. After > Imbued several players in my playgroup now also play with Events. We > are getting quiet quick at playing the game with more then 3 Gehenna > Events in play because we are starting to memorize exactly how they > work. Good. So you mean each player should play lots of tables with them "just in case" ? What about the new players who have already much trouble not making mistakes, should the judge give them game losses on a regular basis, or be more lenient with them them with the oldbies, on what grounds, in which proportions ? -- Orpheus ----------------------- My story doesn't happen in the sound of the notes but in the silence between them. That is where the magic happens. Echo

> > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. > > Yippee!! You lean someone in France was playing FoM, and it wasn't me? > Yippeee!! I am not alone! lol. Actually it sees some play. > > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > > tournament ! > > Orpheus, have you been sleeping all these years? I WISH !!! I'm sooooo tired mate ! lol. > Ever since they came > out, I'd say there's at least 1 or 2 events on the almost every table > I've ever seen since then. > Usually the Unmasking, Anthelios, Agreed. > Veil of Darkness, .. Only saw it in mass gehenna decks. > And in 90 % of the cases, played in weenie /ally decks If you talk about the later, sure. We know which decks play Anthelios. Allies play Unmasking + FBI. Some intercept decks play Marisa Fletcher. Some fighters (including Shamblings and Tupdogs) might play Dragonbound. Some indies might play Rise of the Nephtali, and Fueled seems to be made for Enkidu. See, learned my lesson. ;-) > I agree that it's a pitty there is no easy way to remove them, while > they are available to almost everyone. It is the only point I want to make with this post. > But I personally think the problem is not in the existence > /non-removability of events as such, but rather very specific events, > and specific effects they have. I hear you. > I mean, "recalled to the founder is pure hell", only it never hits the > table. You never play Necro, do you ? B) > Whereas evereyone playing shambling hordes ord war ghouls, will like, > automatically include an unmasking, and ultiply their chances at > winning by a big lot. Of course. As will Imbued. > So yeah, I agree some cards are troublesome, but maybe not to such an > extent that they warrant specific countermeasures.. I never proposed such a thing. But I'd say the complaints about events, emanating from various people, tned to be divided in two categories : broken = Anthelios, disruptive = Veil of Darkness and a whole bunch of others. > > But maybe my prayers are already fullfilled and there is such a card in 3rd > > Edition ? ;-) > > Well well, your prayers? > Never would have picked you for a religious man!> -- > > /jo MUHAHAHAHAHA !! Atom Weaver got that part right. B] BTW, anyone got another virgin to sacrifice ? It becomes a hard thing to find here, especially in the cities where Reyda roams... -- Orpheus ------------------- "- You got married ? - Yes. - Why ? - Why do people get married ? - Passive aggressive neurosis." Matt Murdock and Natasha Romanovna

Orpheus wrote: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) Congrats. Hope the deck decisions didn't take too much time away watching the footy :) (as we discussed on JOL) I've been thinking of a non-wallpaper card to put in a deck which enables you to get rid of Events as well. We have Cards to get rid of Locations (Arson...), Weapons (Peace Treaty, Illegal Search...) and Minions (Kindred Seg, PTO...) but nothing that really target a non-minion, non-location, non-weapon permanent. I thought that another political card would be good. Something along the lines of Destroy Permanent Political Action This card is worth one vote. Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action Choose any non-minion, non-location, non-weapon permanent in play. Successful referendum burns that permanent. If the permanent is an Event, all Imbued get a sub referendum, and have 1 vote in that. Treat this in the same way a a Prisci sub-referendum, with the same outcome. This, therefore has other uses (burn non-location masters, laptop computers, etc) but doesn't completely hose an Imbued decks opportunity to protect events they want to play (although it may be hard for them, they have some votes to help stop it). In a political deck, this card could be very useful, but in a non-political deck, it does give the option of attempting to get rid of the events by pulling a deal or two. And you could always pitch it in another referendum if you want. Just an Idea Andy VEKN Setite Ruler of Cambridge

[ quoted text not captured ] ....and it allows Arika to get rid of being Famous. ....and it gets rid of Dragonbound ....and it gets rid of Path of Lilith Seems to hose combat ousting mechanisms way, way too much. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> Orpheus wrote: > > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > > Congrats. Hope the deck decisions didn't take too much time away > watching the footy :) (as we discussed on JOL) Did we ? Well, I don't like soccer so it didn't matter ! And deck decisions were very, very hard, I'm of the undecided type ! ;-) I owe to a friend, who sent me the statistics of our local league, and I saw that only 2 of the decks I played this year weren't pure shite ! looool. > I've been thinking of a non-wallpaper card to put in a deck which > enables you to get rid of Events as well. Good ! > We have Cards to get rid of Locations (Arson...), Weapons (Peace > Treaty, Illegal Search...) and Minions (Kindred Seg, PTO...) but > nothing that really target a non-minion, non-location, non-weapon > permanent. > > I thought that another political card would be good. Something along > the lines of > > Destroy Permanent > Political Action > This card is worth one vote. > Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action > Choose any non-minion, non-location, non-weapon permanent in play. A little complicated in wording. I'm not sure the fact that it can target permanent Masters is a good thing - there is, after all, Sudden Reversal. > Successful referendum burns that permanent. If the permanent is an > Event, all Imbued get a sub referendum, and have 1 vote in that. Maybe "all mortal allies" ? > Treat > this in the same way a a Prisci sub-referendum, with the same outcome. 3 votes ? > This, therefore has other uses (burn non-location masters, laptop > computers, etc) but doesn't completely hose an Imbued decks opportunity > to protect events they want to play (although it may be hard for them, > they have some votes to help stop it). Yes they do ! > In a political deck, this card could be very useful, but in a > non-political deck, it does give the option of attempting to get rid of > the events by pulling a deal or two. And you could always pitch it in > another referendum if you want. > > Just an Idea Not a bad one in my book, Andy. Of course, there would have to be another type of hoser for non-voters. I hate it when some unbalanced cards "force you" to play such or such (Camarilla because of PTO, Fortitude for Kiss or Rā, etc). Thanks for the constructive input, [ quoted text not captured ]

> Orpheus wrote: > > Strong doesn't bother me. Too strong might. But all other cards can be > countered in a viable way (if nothing alse, Sudden or Direct), even if it > doesn't make them less powerful or "broken". Anthelios doesn't have a viable > hoser yet. > What I don't get here is why cards like emergency preparations and not to be don't count as viable hosers. They are imo. > > Twice. In a 50+ Championship. How many didn't I meet ? The decktypes are > strong, posted all over forums, and copied by lots of players. Shit falls > like rain. > That's just plain bad luck mate :) But yes, they are very strong. But as you said, strong isn't enough for a change being neccessary. > > The guy in question is one of the best players I know with a fight deck. He > rushed up to three times per turn, at no stealth except for Haven Unco > because he plays Brujahs / !Brujahs. Should he stop playing that clan, when > he succeeds in winning tables on a regular basis, or should he include 12 > Not To Be in his well-tuned deck ? Should he forego the For which is the > 4rth discipline in his deck, put lots of Mariano Pomposo and Wha Chun-Yen > and include X Black Hand rituals just in the eventuality that someone who > knows how to use Anthelios to its most powerful effect uses a 0-pool cost > Master to hose him ? Or do you have any more reasonnable suggestion I can > propose to him ? > If he rushes 2-3 times in a round then jake won't really be a problem, will he? Yes, he will hose one rush, but the rest will end up were they're targeted at. It seems to me that he don't have to change his deck at all. > > Of course you are right on that precise point, and "random players" is a > bummer. The difference is that we're talking about the actions - or > inactions - of players having consequences on the game. This rarely happened > to me in tournament, because when you can play and talk you can show these > players the consequences of their acts more often than not, if they have a > brain - or another player, a better talker than you, proves soemthing else, > but then he just outplayed you. And if a player is brainless, the rest of > the table can agree to counter him, eventually to the point of ousting him. > > This is quite different from non-removable cards in play having uncontrolled > consequences. > Yes, I can agree that a player playing events without the skillz to master it will be destructive for the game. But the thing is that there always will be someone benefitting from his events. Thus hopefully learning him that lesson. And as soon as he gets ousted, the events will go away, never to be seen again. > > Then I don't deserve my title. I made mistakes too (made lots of them > without the events anyway lol), and I think that a game is hard enough > without having to remember the cumulative effects of Veil of Darkness, Blood > Weakens, Slow Withering and New Inquisition, among others, eventually while > remembering or seeing all the powers and convictions on each hunter. If it's > easy for you, it isn't for me. And it's downright hard for relatively new > players. > Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I'm not perfect either. But I don't think it's a good argument to use. Since the fact is that everyone should know the rules good enough not to make these mistakes. > > You're absolutely right, it was bad. It was made by the 2004 french champion > and he won a tournament with it, but it was pure shit (not kidding here). I > really can't draw a conclusion from that... Except that mass Gehenna is > disruptive, and that thriving on randomness sometimes is just... random !! > Yes I agree. It might be random. But it might also be perfectly controlled. Most decks can be disruptive and random depending on the player playing it. But I think that it is quite possible to do a deck that thrives on the "randomness" generated by the events. > > I included him in the best deck I ever made (meaning the one that gave me > the more tournament victories), and he went out because his base version was > just much better, and the merging wasn't worth the place in the crypt. But I > agree that he can be nice in some specific decks. Quite marginal though. > > Also, must all crypts be goddamn Ventrue ? Oh no, I forgot, you can also > play AAA... > Yes, you can always play that.... > Kiss my Râ. What, you don't play Fortitude ? No excuse. Go to torpor, it's a > Rötschreck. You don't play Psyche, don't complain. No BH ritual ? Suck my > Gehenna. Ishtarri Black Hands just became the best combo ever !! Wait.. > there aren't any, are there ? ;-) > Yes, I think this grasps my point perfectly. You won't be able to handle everything. And when you face that thing you can't handle. Then you can't do much about it. But in a normal tourney this will happend 1/3 rounds. Thus leaving you the oppertunity to get 2 gw and get to the finals. > > If you really can't handle events, then just play > > them. > > If you have a good deck that doesn't have 2 Master Phases and Anthelios, > just throw it away and take an AAA. Or put all the useful cards in the > trashbin and put dozens of "magic bullets" in your deck. Sure. Don't want to > be mean, mate, but : _worst_argument_ever_ !! > It's not an argument really, more of a fact. It's the only thing you can do if you really can't handle something. Like imbued stacking suddens and their own copy of smiling jack just to get rid of him. > > In 7 games over 2 days, I met events, let me see... > > - decks with only Anthelios = 4 or 5 > - decks with Unmasking / FBI = 1 > - decks with mass events = 2 > > So that's an average of one per table !! > Seems to me that not to be would be a quite good master for your deck :) > Of course I could have played a totally different deck, or taken many useful > cards from my deck, just to hose events. > > But I didn't, right ? And I'm not even complaining that it made me loose, > because in the end I won. > > I'm just saying they are disruptive. And nothing you said here made me > change my point of view yet. > Discussions are not about changing someones point of view, it's about informing them about different views. I'm not trying to convince you about anything, I'm just trying to say that I don't fully agree with you. Best wishes Alex Ek Prince of Gothenburg, Sweden

> > Destroy Permanent > > Political Action > > This card is worth one vote. > > Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action > > Choose any non-minion, non-location, non-weapon permanent in play. > > Successful referendum burns that permanent. If the permanent is an > > Event, all Imbued get a sub referendum, and have 1 vote in that. Treat > > this in the same way a a Prisci sub-referendum, with the same outcome. > > > > This, therefore has other uses (burn non-location masters, laptop > > computers, etc) but doesn't completely hose an Imbued decks opportunity > > to protect events they want to play (although it may be hard for them, > > they have some votes to help stop it). > > > > In a political deck, this card could be very useful, but in a > > non-political deck, it does give the option of attempting to get rid of > > the events by pulling a deal or two. And you could always pitch it in > > another referendum if you want. > > ....and it allows Arika to get rid of being Famous. She already does that with Golconda. But yes. I don't think it should be able to burn Masters. > ....and it gets rid of Dragonbound That's sort of the point : getting rid of an event. Could be that one or another. Are you proposing a solution which could designate some Gehenna rather than others ? > ....and it gets rid of Path of Lilith Anyone can get rid of it with a cardless D action, which might be why it's so seldom seen on the tables. So it really wouldn't be very interesting. But destroying a Blood Doll might... > Seems to hose combat ousting mechanisms way, way too much. Just the possibility of destroying Dragonbound ? Certainly no more than recurring Jack. [ quoted text not captured ]

> What I don't get here is why cards like emergency preparations and not to be don't count as viable hosers. They are imo. Ok. Both take precious Master slots. Emergency Prep requires 2 Gehennas, and is otherwise useful for untapping above 7 guys. It also takes a MPA. If anything, it can be played in decks using Anthelios + let's say Blood Trade and it will make those decks even better, and safe from Unmasking, Dragonbound... Now, you won't include 2 Gehennas and a number of Masters "just for fun" in any type of deck. As for Not To Be, you must have it in hand to counter the Gehenna. Players usually play an average of, let's say 14-20 masters, and both your prey and pred and maybe a bothersome "ally" will play Masters that you don't want them to. And already it's sometimes hard to see your hand reduced by Masters OOT. Events can be very bothersome as most of them affect the whole table, but outside of mass-events decks very few will be played. Let's say if you're unlucky your table will include 4-6 of the most useful ones, and there probably only willd be 1-2 (Anthelios or Unmasking + FBI - non Gehenna - are the most frequent in my experience). So you will use slots in your deck and your hand for something you might have no use for at all ! Which is why some of us believe that new cards with alternative uses are needed. > Twice. In a 50+ Championship. How many didn't I meet ? The decktypes are > strong, posted all over forums, and copied by lots of players. Shit falls > like rain. > That's just plain bad luck mate :) lol > But yes, they are very strong. But as you said, strong isn't enough for > a change being neccessary. Sure. But strong and not counterable in any satisfying way requires changes IMHO. (snip the part about the rusher ; I'm not him ; but I can assure you that he was hosed by that combo, + of course the other ways to survive rushes : Jake was just too much on top of the rest). > Of course you are right on that precise point, and "random players" is a > bummer. The difference is that we're talking about the actions - or > inactions - of players having consequences on the game. This rarely happened > to me in tournament, because when you can play and talk you can show these > players the consequences of their acts more often than not, if they have a > brain - or another player, a better talker than you, proves soemthing else, > but then he just outplayed you. And if a player is brainless, the rest of > the table can agree to counter him, eventually to the point of ousting him. > > This is quite different from non-removable cards in play having uncontrolled > consequences. > > Yes, I can agree that a player playing events without the skillz to master it will be destructive for the game. But the thing is that there always will be someone benefitting from his events. Thus hopefully learning him that lesson. And ruining games in the meantime. > And as soon as he gets ousted, the events will go away, never to be seen again. Which makes players want to oust their pred or even crosstable ally. Neat. > Then I don't deserve my title. I made mistakes too (made lots of them > without the events anyway lol), and I think that a game is hard enough > without having to remember the cumulative effects of Veil of Darkness, Blood > Weakens, Slow Withering and New Inquisition, among others, eventually while > remembering or seeing all the powers and convictions on each hunter. If it's > easy for you, it isn't for me. And it's downright hard for relatively new > players. > > Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I'm not perfect either. But I don't think it's a good argument to use. Since the fact is that everyone should know the rules good enough not to make these mistakes. Know the rules and not make any mistake when cards push you towards them are two whole different issues in my book. > You're absolutely right, it was bad. It was made by the 2004 french champion > and he won a tournament with it, but it was pure shit (not kidding here). I > really can't draw a conclusion from that... Except that mass Gehenna is > disruptive, and that thriving on randomness sometimes is just... random !! > > Yes I agree. It might be random. But it might also be perfectly controlled. How do you control a Veil of Darkness ? > Most decks can be disruptive and random depending on the player playing it. But I think that it is quite possible to do a deck that thrives on the "randomness" generated by the events. Yes, this is called an Imbued deck. See the numerous flame posts about Imbued using Mass Gehennas. > I included him in the best deck I ever made (meaning the one that gave me > the more tournament victories), and he went out because his base version was > just much better, and the merging wasn't worth the place in the crypt. But I > agree that he can be nice in some specific decks. Quite marginal though. > > Also, must all crypts be goddamn Ventrue ? Oh no, I forgot, you can also > play AAA... > > Yes, you can always play that.... Like everyone else ? No thanks. > Kiss my Râ. What, you don't play Fortitude ? No excuse. Go to torpor, it's a > Rötschreck. You don't play Psyche, don't complain. No BH ritual ? Suck my > Gehenna. Ishtarri Black Hands just became the best combo ever !! Wait.. > there aren't any, are there ? ;-) > > Yes, I think this grasps my point perfectly. You won't be able to handle everything. And when you face that thing you can't handle. Then you can't do much about it. But in a normal tourney this will happend 1/3 rounds. Thus leaving you the oppertunity to get 2 gw and get to the finals. There are now a number of Gehennas or events that are often played, and being able to play a good counter-card without filling your deck with otherwise useless junk should be an option. > > If you really can't handle events, then just play > > them. > > If you have a good deck that doesn't have 2 Master Phases and Anthelios, > just throw it away and take an AAA. Or put all the useful cards in the > trashbin and put dozens of "magic bullets" in your deck. Sure. Don't want to > be mean, mate, but : _worst_argument_ever_ !! > > It's not an argument really, more of a fact. It's the only thing you can do if you really can't handle something. Like imbued stacking suddens and their own copy of smiling jack just to get rid of him. You mean "I don't want Anthelios in play so I play it" ? Doesn't work lol. And your example isn't great either, as if a "normal" Smiling deck really wants to play his card he'll just burn yours, and probably has the fighting means to do it. Suddens are the usual way of countering Masters. I'm just looking for an equivalent way to counter Events. > In 7 games over 2 days, I met events, let me see... > > - decks with only Anthelios = 4 or 5 > - decks with Unmasking / FBI = 1 > - decks with mass events = 2 > > So that's an average of one per table !! > > Seems to me that not to be would be a quite good master for your deck :) lol. Certainly not. But for the tables I have been on maybe. Except that I would have to play enough to "not be", for example, that bothering Unmasking in the first turns. And my deck would suck eggs. > Of course I could have played a totally different deck, or taken many useful > cards from my deck, just to hose events. > > But I didn't, right ? And I'm not even complaining that it made me loose, > because in the end I won. > > I'm just saying they are disruptive. And nothing you said here made me > change my point of view yet. > > Discussions are not about changing someones point of view, it's about informing them about different views. I'm not trying to convince you about anything, I'm just trying to say that I don't fully agree with you. Understood and accepted. ;) I hope this discussion also makes my point clearer to you. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus skrev: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) Congrats! > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, and maybe > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. Well, I guess this is the way WW (LSJ) wants us to play the game nowadays, with lots of effects affecting the whole table, everybodies decks distrupted, nobody having fun, games always going to time limit and so on. God knows why though.

> Orpheus skrev: > > > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) > > Congrats! Thanks mate. > > - Other events are played massively, and more so since Imbued. I met 2 in > > the prelims on the day of the FC, as opposed to : never before in a big > > tournament ! The bad consequences were : games going closer to Time Limit, > > players getting warning upon warning because of Veil of Darkness, and maybe > > the worst consequence : randomness all over the place !! In my second game > > the deck (no imbued) is just plain disruptive and doesn't win ; in the third > > game the deck (imbued) is bothering everyone, locking the game for a long > > time, and then dies and things can go much faster. > > Well, I guess this is the way WW (LSJ) wants us to play the game > nowadays, with lots of effects affecting the whole table, everybodies > decks distrupted, nobody having fun, games always going to time limit > and so on. God knows why though. lol. Hopefully not !! When VTES becomes totally random, I'll play dice instead. Much cheaper. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > > > Destroy Permanent > > > Political Action > > > This card is worth one vote. > > > Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action > > > Choose any non-minion, non-location, non-weapon permanent in play. > > > Successful referendum burns that permanent. If the permanent is an > > > Event, all Imbued get a sub referendum, and have 1 vote in that. Treat > > > this in the same way a a Prisci sub-referendum, with the same outcome. > > > > > > This, therefore has other uses (burn non-location masters, laptop > > > computers, etc) but doesn't completely hose an Imbued decks opportunity > > > to protect events they want to play (although it may be hard for them, > > > they have some votes to help stop it). > > > > > > In a political deck, this card could be very useful, but in a > > > non-political deck, it does give the option of attempting to get rid of > > > the events by pulling a deal or two. And you could always pitch it in > > > another referendum if you want. > > > > ....and it allows Arika to get rid of being Famous. > > She already does that with Golconda. But yes. I don't think it should be > able to burn Masters. agree, we already have Cleansing Ritual. > > ....and it gets rid of Dragonbound > > That's sort of the point : getting rid of an event. Could be that one or > another. Are you proposing a solution which could designate some Gehenna > rather than others ? Well, yeah, that is the problem is that some Gehenna events are okay, and some just monkey-fuck up the whole game. > > ....and it gets rid of Path of Lilith > > Anyone can get rid of it with a cardless D action, which might be why it's > so seldom seen on the tables. So it really wouldn't be very interesting. Buth can be done cross-table without the ability to block, dirty PTO style. > But destroying a Blood Doll might... Possible with Malkavia Dementia/Mind Rape/Cleansing Ritual. > > Seems to hose combat ousting mechanisms way, way too much. > > Just the possibility of destroying Dragonbound ? Comments Welcome, [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus schrieb: > So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I > find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an > alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual > isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). Black Hand Ritual is a good card in MY book. The effect it very strong because it breaks an important card for somebody and that card can never be played again in the game. The problem is, that it is just not usable by a lot of vampires and therefore not usable by a lot of decktypes. There should just be more anti-Event cards on about the power level of BH Ritual, but for other clans/sects/traits. In fact this card is getting me a little bit over the loss of my beloved Succubus Club. "I don´t break your Anthelios and you get 2VP and I get 3. OK?" muhahahahaha But apart from that I agree with your post. Congratulations on the win, by the way. Could you write a report of the final (for me)? I am just interested how you avoided getting dealbreaked by the Kindred Spirit .. ;-) -- johannes walch

"_angst_" <blood...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1152645605....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > What I don't get here is why cards like emergency preparations and not > to be don't count as viable hosers. They are imo. Because they're not really usable. Just because a card counters another card doesn't make it usable. You have take into account what actual _good_ it does to consider whether a card is viable. If there's a broken strategy based on some card, does it do me any good to use a countering card? It may or may not depending on a lot of things. If I have to be holding my countering card in my hand at the exact moment my opponent is playing his key, broken card, that's bad because I may not draw it. Or I may draw it in my opening hand and wait 2/3rds of the game before my opponent draws his key, broken card and tries to play it - meaning I've stop his card but had the disadvantage of a 6-card hand size for 2/3rds of the game. Or, of course, I may draw it at some early on and no one in the game ever even uses the card it counters. And what happens to my opponent if I guess right and if I get lucky enough to be holding my counter as he plays his card? It depends on what makes his strategy so powerful. If he's basing his whole advantage around the play of this one card and countering it stops him in his tracks and makes him utterly lose, then it may be worthwhile. That means I have "punished" my opponent for making a bad metagame choice and rewards me for outguessing him and packing a card that has an opportunity cost risk to use. On the other hand, if countering it just backs him down a bit, why am I bothering? That's no punishment and therefore that's no reward. In a circumstance like that, fuck it, I'll just play the broken strategy *myself* to counter my opponent's broken strategy. Never mind some half-assed way of sort of countering it. Face facts, dude: Not To Be and Emergency Preparations are terrible cards. They're not worth sitting around with in your hand in case someone tries to play an event because you won't use them enough of the time and because using them doesn't "punish" your opponent in most cases. Although events are frequently worthwhile to use, very few of them are the sufficiently key to their deck's whole strategy such that it will damaged enough to make the opportunity cost payoff worthwhile when you can use them. Have you noticed nobody ever uses these cards? Why did you think that was? Fred

> Orpheus schrieb: > > So, as I'm no big fan of banning (except, you know, that one card...), I > > find it really necessary to propose soon enough a card that can give an > > alternative to players once a Gehenna in in play, and a valid one (BH Ritual > > isn't a good one in my book, nor is Not To Be). > > Black Hand Ritual is a good card in MY book. > The effect it very strong because it breaks an important card for > somebody and that card can never be played again in the game. Agreed. What I mean is that, aside from what you say below, the other effect isn't mildly interesting and just has cycling functions. The interest of Reunion Kamut is that BH vamps can "Govern" on older vamps, that nice ! If BHR wasn't on older vamps, it would actually be a very nice and usable card even if you're not afraid of events : BH would be better, the card would be useful, yes ? > The problem is, that it is just not usable by a lot of vampires and > therefore not usable by a lot of decktypes. There should just be more > anti-Event cards on about the power level of BH Ritual, but for other > clans/sects/traits. Agreed. > In fact this card is getting me a little bit over the loss of my beloved > Succubus Club. "I don´t break your Anthelios and you get 2VP and I get > 3. OK?" muhahahahaha lol. > But apart from that I agree with your post. Ok. > Congratulations on the win, by the way. Could you write a report of the > final (for me)? I am just interested how you avoided getting dealbreaked > by the Kindred Spirit .. ;-) I did on a french (SIF) forum. Je crois que tu parles français ? ;-) But ok, I'll write it for here if you want. As a matter of facts... I DON'T avoid the break, just manage to survive it lol !! ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Fred Scott wrote: > Have you noticed nobody ever uses these cards? Why did > you think that was? The winner of the german qualifier had three (!) EP in his deck. Frank

Slytherin wrote: > Destroy Permanent > Political Action What about that card: Detroy goofy card ideas Political action This card is worth one vote. Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action If this vote is succesful every card designer (including official WW designers) is forbidden to design cards that have no connection to the WOD, have no background idea, are absolutely meaningless and therefore disturb imaginative game. Included are cards with silly names. Frank

Orpheus, are you sure you have analysed the problem correctly? All things you are listing include Master cards. Master cards are the strongest cards in the game. That is why decks who have two Masterphases (Anson, Huitzli ...) and use many master cards are so strong. (The german qualifier winning deck was AAA with 30+ master cards). Anthelios is a big boost for those decks. There is already one card that can stop all of your examples: Sudden reversal. Anthelios+Jake Washington => one SR will stop it. In theory a prey and a predator with Sudden reversals can stop a two master phases/Anthelios deck. They can recycle one SR every turn, he can recycle one master card every turn and play but it will be suddened. In reality, if you dont have your own second master phases (or play Truejah) you cannot counter a master card deck. That IMO is the problem you are describing. Frank

> Orpheus, are you sure you have analysed the problem correctly? I am never sure of those things, my godlike qualities are a little down lately. ;-) That's what discussions here are for, ain't they ? > All things you are listing include Master cards. Master cards are the > strongest cards in the game. That is why decks who have two > Masterphases (Anson, Huitzli ...) and use many master cards are so > strong. (The german qualifier winning deck was AAA with 30+ master > cards). Anthelios is a big boost for those decks. Yes. > There is already one card that can stop all of your examples: Sudden > reversal. Anthelios+Jake Washington => one SR will stop it. Yes. But decks including all these Masters will get more masters than you'll get suddens. And Anthelios makes it so that even if you sudden a good card it will come back. Anson isn't suddenable. This is why Anthelios is so strong in such decks. > In theory a prey and a predator with Sudden reversals can stop a two > master phases/Anthelios deck. They can recycle one SR every turn, he > can recycle one master card every turn and play but it will be > suddened. On the battlefield, it doesn't work. Decks who play many Masters might also include Anson, and or / Rumors of Gehenna. Also, if you waste all your Masters getting your Sudden back, you'll never play your own Masters, or Sudden the other bothersome masters. Your adversary might lose, but you won't win. And let's not forget that Anthelios requires that you have a Master in hand. These decks might play 30 Masters, you might have only 15. You lose. And do you have your Sudden in the first hand ? Because they will have their worst cards, including Parthenon, very fast !! > In reality, if you dont have your own second master phases (or play > Truejah) you cannot counter a master card deck. That IMO is the problem > you are describing. It is a part of it, yes. But as mentionned you also need lots of Masters yourself. So, should all the decks play lots of Masters and Parthenon ? Do we need another reason to throw combat decks in the trashbin ? [ quoted text not captured ]

> Orpheus wrote: > > Ok. Both take precious Master slots. Emergency Prep requires 2 Gehennas, and > is otherwise useful for untapping above 7 guys. It also takes a MPA. If > anything, it can be played in decks using Anthelios + let's say Blood Trade > and it will make those decks even better, and safe from Unmasking, > Dragonbound... Now, you won't include 2 Gehennas and a number of Masters > "just for fun" in any type of deck. EP only requires two gehenna events for the untap effect. Not for the burn event effect. And I agree with you. The master slot effect is harsh, that's why you sometimes leave di and sudden out of your deck too. I actually like EP, but I rarely play it. It's got diversity and I like that. > As for Not To Be, you must have it in hand to counter the Gehenna. Players > usually play an average of, let's say 14-20 masters, and both your prey and > pred and maybe a bothersome "ally" will play Masters that you don't want > them to. And already it's sometimes hard to see your hand reduced by Masters > OOT. Events can be very bothersome as most of them affect the whole table, > but outside of mass-events decks very few will be played. Let's say if > you're unlucky your table will include 4-6 of the most useful ones, and > there probably only willd be 1-2 (Anthelios or Unmasking + FBI - non > Gehenna - are the most frequent in my experience). So you will use slots in > your deck and your hand for something you might have no use for at all ! > Which is why some of us believe that new cards with alternative uses are > needed. > I don't oppose a new hoser. Maybe an event that contests another event when it is put into play :) you have to be careful though, a hoser that is to good will render events useless. And even though many people want just that, I'm not one of them. I love the events and think they bring an intresting aspect of to the game. > > Sure. But strong and not counterable in any satisfying way requires changes > IMHO. > I don't agree with you on the satisfying part, but you already know that ;) > > And ruining games in the meantime. > Well, yeah, but you will always have your games ruined by bad play. i don't think the events make it much worse. > > And as soon as he gets ousted, the events will go away, never to be > seen again. > > Which makes players want to oust their pred or even crosstable ally. Neat. > Hehe, they already have that urge :) When in doubt, backoust! > > How do you control a Veil of Darkness ? > You won't be able to control everything around it. But you can always start by not playing disciplinbes yourself :) > > Yes, this is called an Imbued deck. See the numerous flame posts about > Imbued using Mass Gehennas. > True, but I'm not the one ranting about it. I like the imbued and their way of play. even if it sometimes is utterly annoying. > > There are now a number of Gehennas or events that are often played, and > being able to play a good counter-card without filling your deck with > otherwise useless junk should be an option. > So what kind oif counter would you like? > You mean "I don't want Anthelios in play so I play it" ? Doesn't work lol. > And your example isn't great either, as if a "normal" Smiling deck really > wants to play his card he'll just burn yours, and probably has the fighting > means to do it. Suddens are the usual way of countering Masters. I'm just > looking for an equivalent way to counter Events. > smiling decks are usually low on stealth. but anyways, it was a bad exapmle. But my point is: If you really really can't handle something then you have to rely on luck not to face it or stack your deck with hosers against that specific thing. > Understood and accepted. ;) I hope this discussion also makes my point > clearer to you. yes, I think I get your point. I'm just alittle bit against adding more and more hosers to the game. Cause that will essentially have the same effect that the events have. You know that one thing that annoys the hell out of everyone. They prevent you from playing your deck the way you want to play it :) [ quoted text not captured ]

> Fred Scott wrote: > > Have you noticed nobody ever uses these cards? Why did > you think that was? > I've seen EP in use, I've also used it myself. It's an ok card, not great but it's diversity makes it ok imo. And since most deck can handle events they won't have the need to add it. I've only been hosed by events once, but I can't agree that they are strong enough to deserve yet another hoser. Yes, they are strong. Yes, they are somewhat annoying. Still, most times you see events hit the table you will be able to handle it in one way or another. If you can't do it with your deck you can always convince someone else to help you. And people ganging up on something you want out of the game is a very strong hoser. And since the events generate general table hate this won't be that hard to accomplish. Regards [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus wrote: > I just came back from the French Championship, which incidentally I won. :-) Congrats! > During the 2 days of the tournament, I met several Gehenna decks. And I am > now convinced that something must be done. I'm not talking ban here. But a > really playable card that could break an event (maybe just a Gehenna, there > can be one later for Governments), and that can has an alternate use in case > there is no Gehenna (or you don't want to break it). > > There might be a restriction of sorts. But there are a number of reasons why > I really find it necessary at that point : > > - Anthelios + Parthenon / Anson / both is of course the main reason. I've > been toying with recursivity for a while now, using Carlotta when she was > the best way to do it, and I know how nice it can be when it taps a vamp, or > requires that you're Anarch, or makes you use a few cards each time. But > Anthelios is pure evil : > > * Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet, and you can never pull out another Justicar. > In the finals I escapte that fate because my pred discarded a Fear before I > had finised to influence my Justicar (Maris) ; in the prelims I didn't. > * As pointed out by a friend, Jake Washington + Anthelios blocks one rush > without stealth per turn. Add Unmasking or Maris and even stealth is > blocked. At no cost at all, and even if using 2 MPA per turn is bothersome, > I'm sure any good AAA will rather do that than get rushed by Theo Bell once > a turn. Of course, when a Have Uncovered or a Bum's Rush for another minion > comes, there is still Obedience, Majesty... > A two-cards combo that "kills" a valid strategy can't be good for the game. > I really don't think that Anthelios needs any "fixing". Yes, its effect is strong, but remember that it works for all players, and I'm sure that ANY deck will find some opportunities to use it. This really levels its power. Likewise, Dragonbound works for any combat-heavy deck, but not all decks torporize vampires, while nearly all decks have master cards. Anthelios + Anson/Parthenon: The combo exists for several years. I think that Anson and Parthenon aren't very good without Anthelios. Yes, you may have a lot of master cards, but you will often have no masters, or have masters you don't want to play, and price of having extra MPAs isn't cheap. Anthelios + Fear of Mekhet: I'd say that the problem is in the Fear, not in the Anthelios. Fear of Mekhet should probably be removed from the game after use. Anthelios + Jake Washington: If you are REALLY going to spend 2 MPAs and one master card to block one rush per turn, then the rush deck should be proud, since he actually stopped your strategy. Anyway, a good rush deck will perform more than one Rush action per turn. Yours, Ector

> > Orpheus wrote: > > > > Ok. Both take precious Master slots. Emergency Prep requires 2 Gehennas, and > > is otherwise useful for untapping above 7 guys. It also takes a MPA. If > > anything, it can be played in decks using Anthelios + let's say Blood Trade > > and it will make those decks even better, and safe from Unmasking, > > Dragonbound... Now, you won't include 2 Gehennas and a number of Masters > > "just for fun" in any type of deck. > > EP only requires two gehenna events for the untap effect. Not for the > burn event effect. And I agree with you. The master slot effect is > harsh, that's why you sometimes leave di and sudden out of your deck > too. I actually like EP, but I rarely play it. It's got diversity and I > like that. I do like it too, you know !! Just, the synergie between "needs 2 Gehenna" and "counters a Gehenna" isn't tops, and adding the "above 8" requirement makes it downright hard to include in a deck not built around "I want to use that card". > > Which is why some of us believe that new cards with alternative uses are > > needed. > > > I don't oppose a new hoser. Maybe an event that contests another event > when it is put into play :) Very good idea. Except that of course if you win the contest the event is burned, otherwise it's useless after 1 turn !! > you have to be careful though, a hoser that > is to good will render events useless. And even though many people want > just that, I'm not one of them. I love the events and think they bring > an intresting aspect of to the game. So do I. > > Sure. But strong and not counterable in any satisfying way requires changes > > IMHO. > > > I don't agree with you on the satisfying part, but you already know > that ;) Yes, we've established that. > > And ruining games in the meantime. > > > > Well, yeah, but you will always have your games ruined by bad play. i > don't think the events make it much worse. OMMV. I do. > > > And as soon as he gets ousted, the events will go away, never to be > > seen again. > > > > Which makes players want to oust their pred or even crosstable ally. Neat. > > > Hehe, they already have that urge :) When in doubt, backoust! lol. Back, cross, whatever. Sheer randomness isn't too far, though, and that's dangerous. > > How do you control a Veil of Darkness ? > > > You won't be able to control everything around it. But you can always > start by not playing disciplinbes yourself :) Yuck ! Weenie computer hack anyone ? > > Yes, this is called an Imbued deck. See the numerous flame posts about > > Imbued using Mass Gehennas. > > > True, but I'm not the one ranting about it. I like the imbued and their > way of play. even if it sometimes is utterly annoying. I'd be curious to know what you find annoying, and if it's the same kind of things generating those "rants". > > There are now a number of Gehennas or events that are often played, and > > being able to play a good counter-card without filling your deck with > > otherwise useless junk should be an option. > > So what kind oif counter would you like? I like the counters with the sect symbols and that green synthetic grass underneath. Oh, that's not what we're talking about ? ;-) I'd like cards that you can reasonnably include in various decks and that are useful if there are no events on the table, or can serve as Event breakers if needed. > > You mean "I don't want Anthelios in play so I play it" ? Doesn't work lol. > > And your example isn't great either, as if a "normal" Smiling deck really > > wants to play his card he'll just burn yours, and probably has the fighting > > means to do it. Suddens are the usual way of countering Masters. I'm just > > looking for an equivalent way to counter Events. > > > smiling decks are usually low on stealth. but anyways, it was a bad > exapmle. But my point is: If you really really can't handle something > then you have to rely on luck not to face it or stack your deck with > hosers against that specific thing. Sure. But there are too many things that can kill a deck now. That's why people include Suddens and / or Directs depending on their type of game : because the other players will play lots of Masters and Minion cards, and those will always be at least marginally useful. This is why I strongly believe one or more reasonnable but polyvalent Event hoser would be good for the game. > > Understood and accepted. ;) I hope this discussion also makes my point > > clearer to you. > > yes, I think I get your point. I'm just alittle bit against adding more > and more hosers to the game. Cause that will essentially have the same > effect that the events have. You know that one thing that annoys the > hell out of everyone. They prevent you from playing your deck the way > you want to play it :) Then the designers have to be careful, intuitive and clever. I'm sure with the various inputs players provide here and elsewhere : they can do it ! :-) Cheers, [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] The trouble is, if just a few of them are either "too powerful" (aka broken) or too disruptive, and no satisfying way to remove them exists, the complainers will just require for those precise events to be either errated or banned. More and better hosers is the way to go if you want to avoid that. [ quoted text not captured ]

Johannes Walch wrote: > The problem is, that it is just not usable by a lot of vampires and > therefore not usable by a lot of decktypes. There should just be more > anti-Event cards on about the power level of BH Ritual, but for other > clans/sects/traits. So you support the creation of a disciplineless bounce card? Just curious..... -- David Cherryholmes

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1152698403.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I like it! Does it also prohibit adding new card types to the game? I think that's a big part of the problem with Events - they should have just been master cards. They would have fit much better into the existing framework of VTES that way. How about this, too: Rumors of Gehenna Revealed To Be Greatly Exaggerated Master. 2 pool. Put this card in play. Burn all Events. No Events may be put in play while this card remains in play. This card may be burned as a (D) action that costs 1 blood. Josh one vote in favor

> >> Destroy Permanent > >> Political Action > > > > What about that card: > > > > Detroy goofy card ideas > > Political action > > This card is worth one vote. > > Called by any vampire as a +1 Stealth Action > > If this vote is succesful every card designer (including official WW > > designers) is forbidden to design cards that have no connection to the > > WOD, have no background idea, are absolutely meaningless and therefore > > disturb imaginative game. Included are cards with silly names. > > I like it! Does it also prohibit adding new card types to the game? I > think that's a big part of the problem with Events - they should have just > been master cards. They would have fit much better into the existing > framework of VTES that way. I disagree strongly here. We had reached a point already where most of the new Masters wouldn't be played because there were better oldies to play, and few decks can include many masters. The Events being played in the discard phase, it allowed the creation of cards like Unmasking or Dragonbound without transforming all decks in Master decks, and that was a very good idea, if we don't look at all the individual cards (or the "requires X Gehenna" limitations, which as you noticed don't apply to Government cards, at least for now). > How about this, too: > > Rumors of Gehenna Revealed To Be Greatly Exaggerated > Master. > 2 pool. > Put this card in play. Burn all Events. No Events may be put in play while > this card remains in play. This card may be burned as a (D) action that > costs 1 blood. > > Josh > > one vote in favor Nice idea, but if you're serious about it I find it too much of a hoser (if you're kidding forget that last sentence). ;-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Joshua Duffin wrote: > How about this, too: > > Rumors of Gehenna Revealed To Be Greatly Exaggerated > Master. > 2 pool. > Put this card in play. Burn all Events. No Events may be put in play while > this card remains in play. This card may be burned as a (D) action that > costs 1 blood. I like the idea of Camarilla vampires ignoring that their end has come. But I would prefer a weaker version. Rumors of Gehenna Revealed To Be Greatly Exaggerated Unique Master. 2 pool. Put this card in play. The effects of all Gehenna events in play are ignored. (Dont redraw your reduced hand size.) This card may be burned as a (D) action that costs 1 blood. Frank

Orpheus wrote: > > In reality, if you dont have your own second master phases (or play > > Truejah) you cannot counter a master card deck. That IMO is the problem > > you are describing. > > It is a part of it, yes. But as mentionned you also need lots of Masters > yourself. So, should all the decks play lots of Masters and Parthenon ? If i see it right, we agree in that point. Tata! So IMO master card decks are the problem not Gehenna cards. And we dont need a better defence against events, but a better defence against master cards. (What about a retainer that can be burned to cancel a master card?) Frank

> Orpheus wrote: > > > In reality, if you dont have your own second master phases (or play > > > Truejah) you cannot counter a master card deck. That IMO is the problem > > > you are describing. > > > > It is a part of it, yes. But as mentionned you also need lots of Masters > > yourself. So, should all the decks play lots of Masters and Parthenon ? > > If i see it right, we agree in that point. Tata! lol > So IMO master card > decks are the problem not Gehenna cards. And we dont need a better > defence against events, but a better defence against master cards. We can have both, I wouldn't mind... > (What about a retainer that can be burned to cancel a master card?) Or an Event ? [ quoted text not captured ]

<x5m...@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1152697735....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting. Do you know whether they were instrumental in his success or not? Fred (imagined he would never see Centralized Background Check ever played in a tournament game, either)

x5m...@gmx.de skrev: > If i see it right, we agree in that point. Tata! So IMO master card > decks are the problem not Gehenna cards. And we dont need a better > defence against events, but a better defence against master cards. > (What about a retainer that can be burned to cancel a master card?) > What about Bleeding the Vine? Sten During -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Sten During wrote: > What about Bleeding the Vine? I think BtV is a good card, but i am the only one in my playgroup. But first BtV is a master card, so the problem, that master cards interact with the minion phase, but can only be stopped by master cards isnt solved. And seconf BtV is only playable in bloat decks. So a minion cards against masters is still needed IMO. Frank

bluedevil wrote: > > So you support the creation of a disciplineless bounce card? Just > curious..... Not sure if this was a rhetorical question, and I'm not the person you asked anyway, but I think a disciplineless bounce card is well overdue. Of course it should be hamstrung wrt existing discipline-based bounce - something like 2 blood plus tap AND do not replace until untap (maybe reduce the bleed to 1 if bounced as well) could work. Bleed bounce, like the ability to Wake with Evening's Freshness, is a fundamental defensive tool. It should not be restricted to two disciplines - doing so has created a massive underclass of clans without one of the magic "bounce disciplines". IMHO anyway. Appolonius.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:44:29 +1000, Appolonius <appol...@jyhad.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Make it too weak in comparison to existing bounce and people* will just play with existing bounce. * Some will play with inferior cards out of choice. Happens all of the time right now that people choose to play decks that don't run bounce, for whatever reasons. But, to achieve balance or, at least, a meaningful shift in the game, need to look at balancing the game at the higher/highest levels.

cur...@aol.commetal wrote: > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 03:44:29 +1000, Appolonius <appol...@jyhad.com> > wrote: > >>bluedevil wrote: >>> >>> So you support the creation of a disciplineless bounce card? Just >>> curious..... >> >>Not sure if this was a rhetorical question, and I'm not the person you >>asked anyway, but I think a disciplineless bounce card is well overdue. >>Of course it should be hamstrung wrt existing discipline-based bounce - >>something like 2 blood plus tap AND do not replace until untap (maybe >>reduce the bleed to 1 if bounced as well) could work. >> >>Bleed bounce, like the ability to Wake with Evening's Freshness, is a >>fundamental defensive tool. It should not be restricted to two >>disciplines - doing so has created a massive underclass of clans without >>one of the magic "bounce disciplines". IMHO anyway. > > Make it too weak in comparison to existing bounce and people* will > just play with existing bounce. > > * Some will play with inferior cards out of choice. Happens all of > the time right now that people choose to play decks that don't run > bounce, for whatever reasons. But, to achieve balance or, at least, a > meaningful shift in the game, need to look at balancing the game at > the higher/highest levels. Well, yes. But it shouldn't be quite as good as disciplined bounce either. Compare, maybe, to Govern the Unaligned (or Scouting Mission?) vs Computer Hacking. Or Legwork vs Enhanced Senses. Or Wake vs Predator's Communion. So yeah, I would think maybe 2 blood for bounce and it taps you could be reasonable for a disciplineless card. It probably wouldn't have to *also* be do not replace till untap. Or if it were "do not replace till untap" it could probably cost just 1 blood. Or it could have a capacity restriction on it (in fact, very possibly it should, since in my view weenies hardly deserve to have disciplineless bounce added to *their* arsenal) in place of, say, the 'do not replace', or maybe even in place of the tapping (perhaps at a second level of high-capacityness). I think any resistance to this idea (assuming there is resistance) would have to be based on the assumption that bounce is *such* a strong effect that it shouldn't be available so easily & cheaply. But that would hardly explain why it *is* available easily and cheaply to Dominate and Auspex... Josh egalitadisciplinarian

In message <12biac2...@corp.supernews.com>, Appolonius <appol...@jyhad.com> writes: >Not sure if this was a rhetorical question, and I'm not the person you >asked anyway, but I think a disciplineless bounce card is well overdue. >Of course it should be hamstrung wrt existing discipline-based bounce - >something like 2 blood plus tap AND do not replace until untap (maybe >reduce the bleed to 1 if bounced as well) could work. > >Bleed bounce, like the ability to Wake with Evening's Freshness, is a >fundamental defensive tool. It should not be restricted to two >disciplines - doing so has created a massive underclass of clans >without one of the magic "bounce disciplines". IMHO anyway. To be honest, I'd rather see something other than bleed bounce. I'm not 100% sure what it would be, but something that provides usable or useful bleed defence but without duplicating existing bleed defences. This would do a few things: a) provide interesting new tech to try out (so people buy whatever expansion it's in, or Lasombra cracks open a few more starters to sell off the singles, or whatever) b) allow for an upgraded version of whatever the new idea is to go to other requirements (Anarch, Laibon, non-Camarilla, titles, disciplines etc.) so that other disciplines get an upgrade, but it's been tried out in a weaker disciplineless way first c) provide some competition for players' thoughts and considerations. Here's a random suggestion. It's eleven thirty at night, so the finer points would need work, but it's just a different idea. (Standard disclaimers: all my own work, White Wolf welcome to steal etc.) Propaganda Coup Reaction 2 blood Requires a ready vampire Do not replace until your next discard phase Play this card when a younger vampire, or any non-vampire, is attempting to bleed you. If this bleed is successful, and resolves for more than one pool, tap a minion controlled by the Methuselah who bled you. If the bleed resolves for more than three pool, you may tap an additional minion controlled by that Methuselah. Would that provide an interesting bleed defence option? Maybe, maybe. It could also provide an annoyance to weenie Computer Hackers. As I say, I'm not too interested right now in how to best cost or balance the card. There are all sorts of interesting things you could do to make it more powerful or less powerful - once per turn, master out of turn, a trifle-like master out of turn limitation (so you can play a master card, but not a trifle, say), give it a pool cost, make it tap other minions of yours as well, limit the number that can be played per game, a Sibyl's Tongue style cost, make it require a vampire older than a certain age, make it not affect allies, make it more powerful, make it less costly, make it let you tap X-1 minions where X is the amount the bleed resolved for, whatever. And, of course, those sorts of tweaks could be the sort of thing to play around with in a more powerful version for a sect or discipline or other requirement. Would a mechanic of this sort provide an interesting, useful and used alternative to bleed bounce? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

James Coupe wrote: > Propaganda Coup > Reaction > 2 blood > Requires a ready vampire > Do not replace until your next discard phase > Play this card when a younger vampire, or any non-vampire, is attempting > to bleed you. If this bleed is successful, and resolves for more than > one pool, tap a minion controlled by the Methuselah who bled you. If > the bleed resolves for more than three pool, you may tap an additional > minion controlled by that Methuselah. [snip] > Would a mechanic of this sort provide an interesting, useful and used > alternative to bleed bounce? I think the major problem with this is: I am still bled. If they just do a bunch of interesting actions, then as their last action bleed you for 6 or 8 or something, it's not going to be much consolation that they just tapped a tapped minion. I guess it's good against deck types that do many multiple bleeds in a turn (which bounce isn't so strong against as you'd need lots of bounce cards), and not so good against decks that just lob one or two large bleeds in there a turn, which bouce is already good at covering. So I'd say it wouldn't really be the 'use instead of bounce' option for those clans not using bounce, but rather a whole new option, for everyone, including those who already have bounce (as written, it's playable when you're being bled for 6. then you bounce the bleed with the same vamp who played this card, your prey takes the pool loss, AND you tap your predator's vamps...but that's obviously just a little loophole from James being up late writing dodgy card texts. "or any non-vampire" could also be written as "ally", for instance. :). I like the idea of non-bounce bleed defence for those clans without access to bounce. But i think i would prefer to see it save me some pool, too, being the whole point of *defence*. -- salem http://users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/vtes/ (replace 'hotmail' with 'yahoo' to email)

James Coupe wrote: > To be honest, I'd rather see something other than bleed bounce. I'm not > 100% sure what it would be, but something that provides usable or useful > bleed defence but without duplicating existing bleed defences. I gotta say, I'm kinda with James on this. I know everyone is all hot on there being some sort of disciplinless bleed bounce card, but I think, really, it probably isn't that good of an idea for the game. If a discplineless bleed bounce card exists, unless it is so much worse than Deflection so as to be virtually unplayable, it will be in *every* deck in existance. So every single game of VTES will become little more than "let's see if we can run everyone out of bounce before time runs out". Currently, while only two displines have bounce, you at least *know* those two disciplines have bounce, and can plan accordingly. With disciplinless bounce, the only plan you can make is "Well, if I bleed, I'm going to get bounced around the table 4 times". Which I don't think makes the game necessarily better. Just much more random. I'd be certainly in favor of more disciplinless bleed defense. And maybe even more actually effective disciplinless bleed defense (or at least, more actually effective non dominate/auspex bleed defense)--ways to cancel bleeds or ways to punish folks who bleed you or some other such whamdiggery. But I honestly don't think that a disciplinless bleed bounce card is the way to go. 'Cause it will go a long way to de-engineering deck building theory. As every single deck in the game will have the option of saying "Oh, my bleed defense is simply this 8 card disciplinless bounce module...". Every single deck. And VTES becomes little more than pinball. -Peter

Appolonius wrote: > Not sure if this was a rhetorical question, and I'm not the person you > asked anyway, but I think a disciplineless bounce card is well overdue. It was rhetorical. I'm not trying to commit one way or the other on the creation of disciplineless bounce (it's complicated, as others have pointed out). What I do find interesting is that it is a completely blithe assumption that a blessed little subset of the game gets a defense that is *SO* important that practically no deck can be tournament viable without it, yet there is a call for more easily available event defense. Maybe one of the toys you get for being Black Hand *is* decent event defense. If events bother you that much, then play Black Hand, just like the (admittedly shitty) answer is, if you are so worried about being bled then play AUS or dom/DOM. Also, I doubt that enough people have actually tried Emergency Preperation to really say if it's good or not. I know from playtesting, among other experiences, that the V:TES world is full of armchair savants. Actually putting cards in decks and giving it a go can sometimes be a humbling and instructive experience.

[ quoted text not captured ] Auspex? It requires superior, costs a blood, and taps the reacting vampire. I wouldn't say that's easy or cheap. What's easy is the number of 3-5 capacity vampires with superior Auspex who can be mixed into various crypts. I won't argue with you on Dominate, though. So many decks run on the power of inferior Dominate... > Josh > > egalitadisciplinarian -- Dorrinal Blackmantle Chantry Elder of Salt Lake City We got both bounce disciplines :P

In message <44b9a95e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >James Coupe wrote: > <snip - tap minions if you get bled for lots> > >> Would a mechanic of this sort provide an interesting, useful and used >> alternative to bleed bounce? > >I think the major problem with this is: I am still bled. Yeah. See, what I'm trying to do is think of something that would still be attractive whilst being different. I did start thinking about adding some sort of bleed reduction to it, too, but thought that that would get into the realms of overkill - largely because it would significantly weaken Telepathic Counter and friends. So then I started thinking could I add a clause that said something like "If this bleed would have resolved for more than 1 pool, discounting any reductions you have applied to the bleed" so that 3 bleed, 2 reduction from Telepathic Counter -> 1, and still treat it as though it were for 3. But that seemed: a) needlessly complex b) not really a disciplineless defence anymore. >If they just do a bunch of interesting actions, then as their last >action bleed you for 6 or 8 or something, it's not going to be much >consolation that they just tapped a tapped minion. See, I'm not entirely convinced that that would necessarily be a bad thing. If I shove in X Propaganda Coups (in whatever form it ended up as!) and Y Archon Investigations, I get: a) reasonable defence against solid but steady bleed b) defence against massive bleed, by burning them. Also, I don't know how Channel 10 has affected people's groups. Has it really proved the end of stealth bleed, as certain parties predicted? That is, would you be trying to get your stealth bleed done on the first action, and doing other stuff later? (Which the suggested text for Propaganda Coup would nerf - it triggers on bleeds, but taps minions. It could, of course, with different text trigger on bleeds and prevent bleeds from those minions instead.) I'm also not interested in something that would be great against everything - that would be silly. Deflection sucks when it gets down to two players, for example. The question is would the downsides of an alternative approach (whether in the style of Propaganda Coup or not) be too big that the approach wouldn't be worthwhile in the end, I guess. >So I'd say it wouldn't really be the 'use instead of bounce' option for >those clans not using bounce, but rather a whole new option, for >everyone, including those who already have bounce (as written, it's >playable when you're being bled for 6. then you bounce the bleed with >the same vamp who played this card, your prey takes the pool loss, AND >you tap your predator's vamps...but that's obviously just a little >loophole from James being up late writing dodgy card texts. Yeah, I realised when I woke up this morning that it really should have said "If that bleed resolves against you for..." What I was trying to get was something that would be a whole new option for everyone - but one that wouldn't stack with bounce. So you could play it instead of bounce, or alongside bounce - but then you'd get the same sorts of issues as, say, playing intercept as a vote defence, whilst also playing Delaying Tactics. Both would have their uses, but you'd also have the potential to have two conflicting defences to hand at the same time, rather than the two intercept cards you really want, or whatever. (It's not a perfect parallel, by any means, but you see what I'm getting at.) The bounce clans would still have bounce, of course. But a completely different defence would also be possible, without necessarily screwing over the S&B decks. Cos, like[0], I still want S&B to be a tip-top deck style, with people playing it and winning with it. > "or any non-vampire" could also be written as "ally", for instance. >:). Non-vampire was chosen specifically for the possibility that Werewolves or Demons or whatever are invented in the future that are their own minion type. Given the hassle there is by some things saying "vampire" when, if they'd been written these days, they might say "minion" or "vampire or Imbued" or whatever, I was being overly picky. Funny the things you pick on when you're tired at nearly midnight, while overlooking whole other things. >I like the idea of non-bounce bleed defence for those clans without >access to bounce. But i think i would prefer to see it save me some >pool, too, being the whole point of *defence*. Well, the idea is that it would save you pool. Sort of. If I get bled by 2 vampires for 3, and I play bounce on one of them, I get bled for three. Then my prey gets bled for three. If I get bled by a vampire for 3 and I play Propagana Coup on it, I get bled for 3. Then the other vampire can't bleed me for three. Now, of course, seeing a Propaganda Coup and thinking "Oh crap, I'm already playing Govern the Unaligned so to hell with it", they might throw Command of the Beast and Conditioning on it. (And then I might Archon Investigate them.) But how people react to what you play is part of the game - the basic mechanic is still that you'd get half and half. That's basically what I'm aiming for. Something people could use, something that people would react to in good and bad ways, but that wouldn't kill S&B in the process, or be ridiculously out-classed by bounce. I'm not saying Propaganda Coup is it, but I think it's a reasonable place to start thinking from. [0] Uh-oh, I'm channeling Peter. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > I did start thinking about adding some sort of bleed reduction to it, > too, but thought that that would get into the realms of overkill - > largely because it would significantly weaken Telepathic Counter and > friends. See, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Telepathic Counter is already fairly weak, simply because it is in the same discipline as Telepathic Misdirection. I mean, yeah, there are some fringe decks where Telepathic Counter is preferable ('cause you don't want to tap and spend the blood), but that Telepathic Counter doesn't just save you from the bleed, it also makes your prey take it instead, makes Telepathic Counter, generally speaking, a neglected step child. I mean, like, in an absolute sense, Telepathic Counter is a perfectly reasonable card. But because it is in the context of Telepathic Misdirection (and My Enemy's Enemy, which is a lot better than most folks give it credit for), it seems woefully undereffectve. I suspect that if Auspex didn't have bleed bounce (i.e. in the universe of "we went back in time and fixed the game from square one"), Telepathic Counter would see play all the time. I think flexible bleed reduction is a very underexplored venue for bleed defense in other disciplines. Or no disciplines. Look at Confusion of the Eye, a fairly unassuming card that is very good defensively--you can play it to reduce a bleed or to effectively cancel a likely brutal vote. A good, flexible card. I mean, like, not huge in terms of bleed defense, but still a good starting point. And Friend of Mine (the anarch "pay a blood to reduce a bleed by 2 with for" card?) also, in theory, is a pretty good bleed defense card with flexibility (although it comes strapped with needing to be an anarch to use it). Also a good starting point. If there were more non cards that let you reduce bleeds while also doing something else, like an auspex "+1 intercept/reduce a bleed by 2" card (which I think Nergal got one of), or an animalism "untap if you block/reduce a bleed by 2" card. Or an Obfuscate "+1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2" card. Yeah, slightly out of character for these disciplines, but I think worth introducing into the game to reduce the dependance on Bounce for bleed defense and give the non bounce enabled disciplines more bleed defense options without resorting to a disciplinless bounce card. > Also, I don't know how Channel 10 has affected people's groups. Has it > really proved the end of stealth bleed, as certain parties predicted? As an aside, as it really isn't the point of your comment, not even remotely. Mostly, Channel X gets used in decks that don't have much other intercept (i.e. non intercept wall decks, although those sometimes use it too) to get a bump up on the arms race. Mostly, I have seen it tend to replace Rumor Mill or London Evening Star in decks that are just using intercept locations as opportunistic defense. > [0] Uh-oh, I'm channeling Peter. Bwa! My influence is undue! -Peter

In message <1153084897.2...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, pd...@lightlink.com writes: >See, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Telepathic Counter >is already fairly weak, simply because it is in the same discipline as >Telepathic Misdirection. I mean, yeah, there are some fringe decks >where Telepathic Counter is preferable ('cause you don't want to tap >and spend the blood), but that Telepathic Counter doesn't just save you >from the bleed, it also makes your prey take it instead, makes >Telepathic Counter, generally speaking, a neglected step child. It's less that... Telepathic Counter is, as you say, somewhat inferior to Misdirection, so typically gets overlooked. I don't want to outclass bleed reduction generally, and I felt that trying to wedge it into a disciplineless card would do that. Putting it into other disciplines (or triggering off other traits, sects, titles, whatever) would be quite different, and might help to liven it up a bit. But, you still end up in the situation where, say, you're choosing between including bounce and including reduction. And if TM outclasses TC already, are we going to say that grafting in Dominate outclasses whatever Obfuscate bleed defence we have? It might just still, because of Dominate being so powerful. :-( But it might not, if you can focus on efficient, available disciplines and not have to go to mid caps with Dominate and Quietus, I guess. I'd still be wary, though. Bounce is good, and bounce is already picked over bleed reduction. But then I have the problem that even if I'm not outright outclassing bleed reduction, because I'm working in a very different area, I'm still providing other options that aren't bleed reduction and that, by virtue of being crafted to be a sensible alternative to bounce, are probably outclassing it anyway. Gah. Not fun. But still, I don't like wallpapering cards. So I felt working in a different area was sensible. >If there were more non cards that let you >reduce bleeds while also doing something else, like an auspex "+1 >intercept/reduce a bleed by 2" card (which I think Nergal got one of), >or an animalism "untap if you block/reduce a bleed by 2" card. Or an >Obfuscate "+1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2" card. Yeah, slightly out of >character for these disciplines, Well, you can do it in different ways. 1) Dual-discipline cards. Say, Obf/Pot or Ani/For or whatever. This might get even more out of character storyline wise, though it might give you some more ideas to play with. But it might help you avoid colouring Obfuscate entirely, since Obf/Pot is clearly a nod towards the Nosferatu (but not exclusively), as Ani/For would be towards Gangrel (but not exclusively). Obf/Cel, Swift Secrecy (a picture of a vampire quickly hiding the books inside the washing machine when the police come knocking), obf/cel: Maneuver, OBF/CEL: Reduce a bleed against you by 2. Useful for Assamites and !Gangrel (City), maybe, and seems less out of character than just Obfuscate doing batshit things. (It being after midnight, please allow for the fact that my creativity in naming is fucked.) 2) Don't do it as a reaction. Shrouded Assets. +1 stealth action. Obf: Put this card in play. (A Methuselah can only have one Shrouded Assets in play at a time.) If you are being bled by a minion without Auspex or Vision, you may tap this card to reduce the bleed by 1. Some burn clause. OBF: As above, but you may also tap this card if the minion has inferior Auspex. That's less out of theme for Obfuscate. (I was, as you can probably tell, thinking of The Sleep Unseen.) [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <44b9a95e$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem > <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >>James Coupe wrote: >> > <snip - tap minions if you get bled for lots> >> >>> Would a mechanic of this sort provide an interesting, useful and used >>> alternative to bleed bounce? >> >>I think the major problem with this is: I am still bled. > > Yeah. See, what I'm trying to do is think of something that would still > be attractive whilst being different. Yeah, I'm all for that. I just don't want to lose any pool in the mean time. i mean _any_ pool. Maybe it's just some primal instinct telling me losing pool is bad, I dunno, but i suspect it's been the cause of most oustings (Brinksmanship aside). > I did start thinking about adding some sort of bleed reduction to it, > too, but thought that that would get into the realms of overkill - > largely because it would significantly weaken Telepathic Counter and > friends. That is a good point. I'm really not sure what avenue would be available to make a card good enough to play, that stops you losing pool, that doesn't nerf other cards. I'd definitely like something for large untitled vampires. when people look at bit vamps, they often think "well, they have this and that, but they're an X cap, and don't even have a title!". So I'd be happy to see a card that is only usable when a younger vampire or ally (which covers imbued, as they are allies once in play, and I assume werewolves or demons from the crypt would also still be allies if they got created) is acting, and requires an untitled or independent vampire to play. Say: Inconnu Connections Reaction Requires an untitled or Independent vampire. Only usable when you are being bled by an ally or younger vampire. Tap this reacting vampire to reduce the bleed by X/2 (round down), where X is the capacity of this reacting vampire. If the acting minion is a vampire, he or she burns 1 blood for every negative point that the bleed resolves for. Probably a bit over the top, but maybe not. All sorts of weird counter-limiters in it. Maybe it's too weak? I dunno. The "tap to" means no using it with wake, but you can use it with Rat's and Black Sunrise, etc, which is a nice gift for clans with those discs. (There are plenty of cool big untitled Nos, etc, that I would like to see played more.) > So then I started thinking could I add a clause that said something like > "If this bleed would have resolved for more than 1 pool, discounting any > reductions you have applied to the bleed" so that 3 bleed, 2 reduction > from Telepathic Counter -> 1, and still treat it as though it were for > 3. But that seemed: > > a) needlessly complex > b) not really a disciplineless defence anymore. It could be written like Protected Resources? You only burn a maximum of 1 pool for this bleed, regardless of the bleed amount. Or however it's written. > >>If they just do a bunch of interesting actions, then as their last >>action bleed you for 6 or 8 or something, it's not going to be much >>consolation that they just tapped a tapped minion. > > See, I'm not entirely convinced that that would necessarily be a bad > thing. If I shove in X Propaganda Coups (in whatever form it ended up > as!) and Y Archon Investigations, I get: > > a) reasonable defence against solid but steady bleed > b) defence against massive bleed, by burning them. True. But with the solid and steady, you're still going to die. You can't even play your minion-card defence unless they're already draining your pool. Maybe i'm looking at it from too much of a 'complete coverage' defence point (I lose no pool, ever), and should try and just let my head accept that sometimes you'll get bled. But I just don't like being bled. :) > Also, I don't know how Channel 10 has affected people's groups. Has it > really proved the end of stealth bleed, as certain parties predicted? > That is, would you be trying to get your stealth bleed done on the first > action, and doing other stuff later? (Which the suggested text for > Propaganda Coup would nerf - it triggers on bleeds, but taps minions. > It could, of course, with different text trigger on bleeds and prevent > bleeds from those minions instead.) Channel 10? I think i have seen it thrown into disciplineless intercept decks that were already using KRCG, WMRH, London Evening, Sport Bikes etc. It's just one other card, which could have easily been some other location in their deck build. No effect on the playing or prevalence of S&B, that I have seen (not that I have been playing much in the last 4 months, but Channel 10 has been out for much longer than that, and _should_ have had an impact by then if it was going to). >>I like the idea of non-bounce bleed defence for those clans without >>access to bounce. But i think i would prefer to see it save me some >>pool, too, being the whole point of *defence*. > > Well, the idea is that it would save you pool. Sort of. > > If I get bled by 2 vampires for 3, and I play bounce on one of them, I > get bled for three. Then my prey gets bled for three. And if I have two deflections? > If I get bled by a vampire for 3 and I play Propagana Coup on it, I get > bled for 3. Then the other vampire can't bleed me for three. Now, of > course, seeing a Propaganda Coup and thinking "Oh crap, I'm already > playing Govern the Unaligned so to hell with it", they might throw > Command of the Beast and Conditioning on it. (And then I might Archon > Investigate them.) But how people react to what you play is part of the > game - the basic mechanic is still that you'd get half and half. Yeah, but I still lost three pool, even if i was holding two Propoaganda Coupes (see what I did there?) AND an Archon Investigation. > That's basically what I'm aiming for. Something people could use, > something that people would react to in good and bad ways, but that > wouldn't kill S&B in the process, or be ridiculously out-classed by > bounce. I'm not saying Propaganda Coup is it, but I think it's a > reasonable place to start thinking from. Well, it is a good thought. It's probably a good card, too, just not the way I'd prefer my play style to work. But that doesn't mean others wouldn't use it or like it. The main thing is, you're thinking outside the box. And no-one has flamed anyone else yet. Hmmm....if we did jump back to bleed reduction again, maybe something like: "There's so many of the blighters I can see 'em coming a mile away." Reaction. Only usable when a younger vampire or ally is bleeding you. Reduce the bleed by X+1, where X is the number of ready untapped minions controlled by the bleeder's Methuselah. [ quoted text not captured ]

> > Channel 10? I think i have seen it thrown into disciplineless intercept > decks that were already using KRCG, WMRH, London Evening, Sport Bikes > etc. It's just one other card, which could have easily been some other > location in their deck build. No effect on the playing or prevalence of > S&B, that I have seen (not that I have been playing much in the last 4 > months, but Channel 10 has been out for much longer than that, and > _should_ have had an impact by then if it was going to). I use it in a disciplineless intercept deck and i've found it to be very effective. Works great with KRCG, winthrop, raven spies and phased motion detector. [Aside] Don't you answer emails anymore? Chris.

[ quoted text not captured ] But has your metagame changed to accommodate it? Or is it just another card that helps that strategy, but doesn't require anyone to really change the way they build decks just to cope with it? > [Aside] Don't you answer emails anymore? sure i do. Sometimes. Umm...lemme go look. [ quoted text not captured ]

Salem wrote: > chr...@comcen.com.au wrote: > >> > >> Channel 10? I think i have seen it thrown into disciplineless intercept > >> decks that were already using KRCG, WMRH, London Evening, Sport Bikes > >> etc. It's just one other card, which could have easily been some other > >> location in their deck build. No effect on the playing or prevalence of > >> S&B, that I have seen (not that I have been playing much in the last 4 > >> months, but Channel 10 has been out for much longer than that, and > >> _should_ have had an impact by then if it was going to). > > > > I use it in a disciplineless intercept deck and i've found it to be > > very effective. Works great with KRCG, winthrop, raven spies and phased > > motion detector. > > But has your metagame changed to accommodate it? Or is it just another > card that helps that strategy, but doesn't require anyone to really > change the way they build decks just to cope with it? No the metagame hasn't changed. It is just another card i suppose but i do prefer it over London Evening Newspaper and WMRH. Chris.

x5m...@gmx.de skrev: > solved. And seconf BtV is only playable in bloat decks. So a minion > cards against masters is still needed IMO. > > Frank > Rewind Time. Sure, Trujah only, but if you play them you should include some copies. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Orpheus wrote: > > I do like it too, you know !! Just, the synergie between "needs 2 Gehenna" > and "counters a Gehenna" isn't tops, and adding the "above 8" requirement > makes it downright hard to include in a deck not built around "I want to use > that card". > Yeah, I can agree with you. But still, you don't want to see disciplineless weenie lunatics with events multiacting :) > > Very good idea. Except that of course if you win the contest the event is > burned, otherwise it's useless after 1 turn !! > LOL! Err, ok, you give up the contest. Err, well, now I have to selfoust. I was thinking more in contests but does not copy. Meaning that you will have an event that does absolutly nothing when the contest is over :) > > Yuck ! Weenie computer hack anyone ? > Heh! I don't think weenie computer will be the worst one using it. Legacy of pander is far worse in my book. But still, you can include it in a deck where you play few masters. Some 90 card decks only play 10 masters and they will benefit from the veil imo. > > I'd be curious to know what you find annoying, and if it's the same kind of > things generating those "rants". > The most annoying thing with the imbued is their ability to stall. Players not organizing their conviction cards in a special ash heap and so on. I do think events are annoying when they lock me down. I can get furious when someone pto's me. But I accept it as a part of the game, and I don't really think it destroys the game as a whole, it sometimes destroys the game for a deck I play that can't handle what I face. But I think getting all my vampires torporized is just as annoying as getting them mind raped. I'm just not that emotional about these things and to quote Damnans: "Swedes aren't very emotional when playing vtes". > > I like the counters with the sect symbols and that green synthetic grass > underneath. Oh, that's not what we're talking about ? ;-) > Hah! You really should have a discussion with the incredibly drunk mrs Düring about how nice those counters are ;) > I'd like cards that you can reasonnably include in various decks and that > are useful if there are no events on the table, or can serve as Event > breakers if needed. > Give me an example, I know you want to :) > > Then the designers have to be careful, intuitive and clever. I'm sure with > the various inputs players provide here and elsewhere : they can do it ! :-) > They've managed to do so this far imo :) Best wishes Alex Ek Prince of Gothenburg, Sweden

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > If a discplineless bleed bounce card exists, unless it is so much worse > than Deflection so as to be virtually unplayable, it will be in *every* > deck in existance. So every single game of VTES will become little more > than "let's see if we can run everyone out of bounce before time runs > out". Currently, while only two displines have bounce, you at least > *know* those two disciplines have bounce, and can plan accordingly. > With disciplinless bounce, the only plan you can make is "Well, if I > bleed, I'm going to get bounced around the table 4 times". Which I > don't think makes the game necessarily better. Just much more random. No. There is a wide margin between unplayable and in every deck -- a simple cost of two blood and a tap, as per the original suggestion, is one example -- it won't go in every deck (weenie, Baali, etc.). A pool cost would be another example. And even if it has gone into every deck at a particular table, bleeding wouldn't be a matter of "I'm going to get bounced around the table four times" -- the cost of bounce being non-trivial, there would be a clear resource management angle involved.

LSJ wrote: > No. There is a wide margin between unplayable and in every deck -- a > simple cost of two blood and a tap, as per the original suggestion, is > one example -- it won't go in every deck (weenie, Baali, etc.). A pool > cost would be another example. Sure. But at a certain point, a card like this becomes so much worse than Deflection as to be, as I mentioned, virtually unplayable. If such a disciplinless bounce card cost 2 blood or a Pool, it seems likely that such a card would not actually be particularly playable (or only playable in a small number of decks which isn't what I think the people who want disciplinless bleed bounce are looking for), and wouldn't be any more effective, in terms of overall bleed defense, than simply tacking Dominate onto any deck, which already exists as an option. For one, I would much rather see more diverse bleed defense that isn't simply worse than just adding Dominate. > And even if it has gone into every deck at a particular table, bleeding > wouldn't be a matter of "I'm going to get bounced around the table four > times" -- the cost of bounce being non-trivial, there would be a clear > resource management angle involved. When someone bleeds *now* into a table of lots of Dominate, you get bounced around 4 (4 being an arbitrary number that represents "more than once") times. If a disciplinless bleed bounce card had a cost similar to Deflection (such that it would see play), then it would be generally not much different, and you wouldn't be able to see it coming. If it had a significantly higher cost then Deflection, it wouldn't see much play, so there wouldn't be as much arbitrary bouncing around the table, no. But that would be because the card wouldn't be used much. Like, if a disciplinless bleed bounce card became available, assuming it had an appropriate cost, I don't think it would ruin the game or anything. But for my money, I'd much rather see more varied bleed defense that wasn't just almost the same as, but strictly inferior to, Deflection. -Peter

bluedevil wrote: > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > The problem is, that it is just not usable by a lot of vampires and > > therefore not usable by a lot of decktypes. There should just be more > > anti-Event cards on about the power level of BH Ritual, but for other > > clans/sects/traits. > > So you support the creation of a disciplineless bounce card? Just > curious..... I just got word of a shiny new disciplineless bounce card that they are coming out with! <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> <Spoiler Space> Major Boon Type(s): Master Out-of-Turn. Play this card when another Methuselah is successfully bled. Not usable if you control the acting minion. Modifiers to the bleed amount may be played after you play this card. You burn pool for the bleed instead of the target Methuselah (must be at least 1 pool) and give this card to the target Methuselah. You may burn this card to have that Methuselah burn pool instead of you when you are successfully bled. Requires no discipline, and it doesn't have a cost (other than taking a bleed). Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

James Coupe wrote: > I'd still be wary, though. Bounce is good, and bounce is already picked > over bleed reduction. Sure. 'Cause when you have the option of worthwhile reduction (Telepathic Counter) you also have the option of bounce (Telepathic Misdirection). And bounce is simply just better. So I think it would be perfectly reasonable to accept that putting both bounce and reduction in the same discipline was a bad idea, forget it was ever a design concept, and move reduction into other disciplines. Yeah, it makes Telepathic Counter outclassed. But it already is outclassed, and I'm ok with wallpapering it even more in the name of fixing larger flaws in the game. But then, as you point out below in your post, non Auspex reduction doesn't have to be reactive--I really liked the idea of the Obfuscate card you suggest (take an action to put card in play, tap card to reduce a bleed by some amount). I'd be very happy with non reaction bleed defense cards (as long as they were actually effective). That being said, I'd also be very happy with effective reaction bleed reduction for other disciplines than Auspex. > But still, I don't like wallpapering cards. So I felt working in a > different area was sensible. It is sensible. But really, I think that the problem of "it is silly that only Auspex and Dominate have any significant bleed defense" is a much larger one than "It is sad that Telepathic Counter is underutilized, and making similar, non Auspex based cards would make Telepathic Counter even *more* underutilized", to the point that I'd be totally fine with TC getting completelty wallpapered in the name of more general bleed defense. -Peter

> It is sensible. But really, I think that the problem of "it is silly > that only Auspex and Dominate have any significant bleed defense" is a > much larger one than "It is sad that Telepathic Counter is > underutilized, and making similar, non Auspex based cards would make > Telepathic Counter even *more* underutilized", to the point that I'd be > totally fine with TC getting completelty wallpapered in the name of > more general bleed defense. What's wrong with Major Boon? [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Sure. But at a certain point, a card like this becomes so much worse > than Deflection as to be, as I mentioned, virtually unplayable. If such > a disciplinless bounce card cost 2 blood or a Pool, it seems likely > that such a card would not actually be particularly playable (or only > playable in a small number of decks which isn't what I think the people > who want disciplinless bleed bounce are looking for) So I pay a pool in order to: A) not take a pool (obviously this just gets better if the bleed is 2+) B) make my prey take a pool (or tap, expend resources et al.) Why would I not take this deal all day long? Just in terms of bleed defence it sound far better than bolting on dominate.

[ quoted text not captured ] You already can. See: Major Boon [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > What's wrong with Major Boon? Nothing is wrong with Major Boon. But it is a farily limited defense (really, most of the time, what is a MPA used on a Major Boon going to accomplish that the same MPA used on a Minion Tap isn't?), and the existance of Major Boon does not keep people from clamoring for a disciplineless bleed bounce card (which is the context that this whole discussion is in). The game, still, probably does need more varied, flexible bleed defense cards. Even 12 years down the road, sitting in front of a Malk '94 deck is likely to just get you ousted quickly unless you are packing bounce, as even with all the increased understanding of the game and new cards and new strategies, most decks simply can't withstand being bled for 5 per action starting on T2. The end result is that decks tend to either have bounce, and are competetive, or don't have bounce, and are much less competetive. Yeah, I realize that this is a gross oversimplification, but in reality, I don't think it is that far from true. So people, still, want a disciplinless bounce card. Which would certainly help. But would also go a long way to making the game a lot more homoginized and less varried. I, for one, would like to see more viable bleed defense that is disciplineless, or comes in other disciplines that lack such bleed defense. But find the idea of disciplinless bounce to be unappealing. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] How do you get your prey to take a pool (Scenario B above) with Major Boon unless you're running bounce yourself? Beg the table to bounce into your prey so that you can Boon it? Merlin

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > No. There is a wide margin between unplayable and in every deck -- a > > simple cost of two blood and a tap, as per the original suggestion, is > > one example -- it won't go in every deck (weenie, Baali, etc.). A pool > > cost would be another example. > > Sure. But at a certain point, a card like this becomes so much worse > than Deflection as to be, as I mentioned, virtually unplayable. If such > a disciplinless bounce card cost 2 blood or a Pool, it seems likely > that such a card would not actually be particularly playable (or only > playable in a small number of decks which isn't what I think the people > who want disciplinless bleed bounce are looking for), and wouldn't be > any more effective, in terms of overall bleed defense, than simply > tacking Dominate onto any deck, which already exists as an option. For > one, I would much rather see more diverse bleed defense that isn't > simply worse than just adding Dominate. It seems you have your "virtually unplayabe" line too close to your "in every deck" line. Either that, or you mean something like "only in decks that didn't use another option" when you say "unplayable", which is true of every card. > > And even if it has gone into every deck at a particular table, bleeding > > wouldn't be a matter of "I'm going to get bounced around the table four > > times" -- the cost of bounce being non-trivial, there would be a clear > > resource management angle involved. > > When someone bleeds *now* into a table of lots of Dominate, you get > bounced around 4 (4 being an arbitrary number that represents "more > than once") times. If a disciplinless bleed bounce card had a cost > similar to Deflection (such that it would see play), then it would be > generally not much different, and you wouldn't be able to see it > coming. If it had a significantly higher cost then Deflection, it > wouldn't see much play, so there wouldn't be as much arbitrary bouncing > around the table, no. But that would be because the card wouldn't be > used much. If it had a "reasonable" cost so as to allow it to see play but still remain a strategic decision (a class you seem to be labelling "unplayable"), then i would be a matter of resource management. > Like, if a disciplinless bleed bounce card became available, assuming > it had an appropriate cost, I don't think it would ruin the game or > anything. But for my money, I'd much rather see more varied bleed > defense that wasn't just almost the same as, but strictly inferior to, > Deflection. Variations on bleed defense already in place: cancel, intercept, reduction, bounce, shift payor, damage bleeder, remove/burn bleeder. What new variation are you imagining that isn't already present?

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > So people, still, want a disciplinless bounce card. Which would > certainly help. But would also go a long way to making the game a lot > more homoginized and less varried. I, for one, would like to see more > viable bleed defense that is disciplineless, or comes in other > disciplines that lack such bleed defense. But find the idea of > disciplinless bounce to be unappealing. I think the way to address the "bounce problem" is to print more things that monkey with other people's attempt to bounce. If bounce became less good (assuming you don't break the game some other way by doing that), then the issue of lots of clans not having bounce is mitigated, without needing to errata or ban existing cards. Judging from a few cards we've seen recently, this at least seems to be on the design team's radar.

> How do you get your prey to take a pool (Scenario B above) with Major > Boon unless you're running bounce yourself? Beg the table to bounce > into your prey so that you can Boon it? How about play Major Boon when your prey bleeds your grand prey, then oust your prey? Now the Major Boon hits your prey, voila! All it requires is for you to oust your prey. If you can't oust your prey, then you really do have bigger problems. [ quoted text not captured ]

bluedevil wrote: > I think the way to address the "bounce problem" is to print more things > that monkey with other people's attempt to bounce. If bounce became > less good (assuming you don't break the game some other way by doing > that), then the issue of lots of clans not having bounce is mitigated, > without needing to errata or ban existing cards. Judging from a few > cards we've seen recently, this at least seems to be on the design > team's radar. I like this option. There have been others who state that not including bounce, so dom or aus, (may) reduce the effectiveness of a deck. If that is the case does that mean all non-dominate decks (as Telepathic misdirection some consider wallpaper anyway) are sub-optimal deck builds? Perfect clarity has been around for a while yet I very rarely see it in play. Is it the 2 blood cost or is the opertunity cost considered too high as opposed to bounce? Maybe if a cheaper version made its way into the game or a more expensive, but undicsiplined format say: Enough of your Shenanigans Type: Unique Master Cost: 2 pool Put this card into play. While this card is in play your prey cannot play reactions that require dominate. During your discard phase burn 1 pool or remove Enough of your Shenanigans from the game. Or maybe Focussed Will Type: Action Cost: 2 blood +1 stealth action. put this card on the acting vampire. While this vampire is acting, reaction cards requiring dominate cannot be played. During your influence phase, burn focussed will or this vampire burns one blood. Thoughts anyone?

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Sure. But at a certain point, a card like this becomes so much worse > than Deflection as to be, as I mentioned, virtually unplayable. If such > a disciplinless bounce card cost 2 blood or a Pool, it seems likely > that such a card would not actually be particularly playable (or only > playable in a small number of decks which isn't what I think the people > who want disciplinless bleed bounce are looking for), Well, paying 2 blood is better than being bled for 3. I'd play it in any deck that could easily get rid of the cards, such as a celerity combat deck. >and wouldn't be > any more effective, in terms of overall bleed defense, than simply > tacking Dominate onto any deck, which already exists as an option. Well, that requires either dedicating crypt slots or Master cards, potentially saddling you not only with cards you don't want to use, but actually can't use. As for Telepathic Counter, I don't think it's wallpaper. It doesn't tap you, doesn't cost blood, and is often just as effective as Telepathic Misdirection in terms of protecting your pool. In decks of mine that use Auspex, I have frequently added more TCs as time went by. Kevin Walsh

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > What's wrong with Major Boon? > > Nothing is wrong with Major Boon. But it is a farily limited defense > (really, most of the time, what is a MPA used on a Major Boon going to > accomplish that the same MPA used on a Minion Tap isn't?), and the > existance of Major Boon does not keep people from clamoring for a > disciplineless bleed bounce card (which is the context that this whole > discussion is in). What can Major Boon do that Minion Tap cannot: 1) It is playable when you control no minions 2) It is a persistant deterant to getting bled for lots because your predator might be afraid to drop a bleed for 6 at 3 stealth if he knows for a fact that you aren't going to take it. 3) It is playable when your minions have no blood 4) It is playable in multiples to target multiple methuselahs. The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. Major Boon requires no disciplines. It fits the criteria that you are asking for. It already exists. > The game, still, probably does need more varied, flexible bleed defense > cards. Even 12 years down the road, sitting in front of a Malk '94 deck > is likely to just get you ousted quickly unless you are packing bounce, > as even with all the increased understanding of the game and new cards > and new strategies, most decks simply can't withstand being bled for 5 > per action starting on T2. The end result is that decks tend to either > have bounce, and are competetive, or don't have bounce, and are much > less competetive. Yeah, I realize that this is a gross > oversimplification, but in reality, I don't think it is that far from > true. Malk '94 can still be defeated by not blocking at letting them jam up on stealth. Or you can proactively rush their minions into torpor (you probably hadn't thought of that one :P ) . > So people, still, want a disciplinless bounce card. Which would > certainly help. But would also go a long way to making the game a lot > more homoginized and less varried. I, for one, would like to see more > viable bleed defense that is disciplineless, or comes in other > disciplines that lack such bleed defense. I think anti-bounce is a good alternative too, like Terra Incognita. >But find the idea of > disciplinless bounce to be unappealing. I don't understand this fragment. [ quoted text not captured ]

sutekh_23 wrote: > I like this option. There have been others who state that not including > bounce, so dom or aus, (may) reduce the effectiveness of a deck. If > that is the case does that mean all non-dominate decks (as Telepathic > misdirection some consider wallpaper anyway) They are crackheads. TM is every bit as good, in its own way, as Deflection. > Perfect clarity has been around for a while yet I very rarely > see it in play. Is it the 2 blood cost or is the opertunity cost > considered too high as opposed to bounce? No, it's the "nobody owns any" factor, compounded slightly by this crazy notion that Tremere are somehow not competitive.

XZealot wrote: > Malk '94 can still be defeated by not blocking at letting them jam up > on stealth. This shouldn't work against good players. If I were playing Malk94, I'd have serious flush tech, starting with 4 Dreams and a few LearJets. Even minus anti-jamming tech, "jam them" has always been of only dubious worth. I mean, nobody thinks it's *good* defense, just that it might be your only hope, and even that is debatable.

bluedevil wrote: > sutekh_23 wrote: > > > I like this option. There have been others who state that not including > > bounce, so dom or aus, (may) reduce the effectiveness of a deck. If > > that is the case does that mean all non-dominate decks (as Telepathic > > misdirection some consider wallpaper anyway) > > They are crackheads. TM is every bit as good, in its own way, as > Deflection. > See, I agree with you here. I see it enough to consider it as a totally viable "bounce or intercept" strategy. > > Perfect clarity has been around for a while yet I very rarely > > see it in play. Is it the 2 blood cost or is the opertunity cost > > considered too high as opposed to bounce? > > No, it's the "nobody owns any" factor, compounded slightly by this > crazy notion that Tremere are somehow not competitive. Haha, I have 7+ of the things, and I haven't been collecting that long. So, my question to you Bluedevil is, is it enough of a deterant/fix or is more still needed? Imbued have a "fix" by canceling a card as it is played, some few of us have access to DI and a Laibon vamp (ghanru?) that can cancel a card as it it played, but is it enough considering the cost of PC/DI/wholesale sect/clan choice, is it worth it as it stands?

[ quoted text not captured ] Dreams of the Sphinx didn't exist in 1994. :P And I can say that any deck could contest those Dreams or block the learjets. Jam them has worked for me numerous times, and with a few blood Dolls, I endured being bled for 14 then just paced with my bloat until they were ousted. Did I win? No. Did the Malk '94 win? No. It is a defense which in and of itself is a deterant against the mindless Malk'94. All Malks must DIE! [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > > The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce > means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. > Major Boon requires no disciplines. It fits the criteria that you are > asking for. It already exists. OK, so my predator influences out Didi Meyers on turn 2. Next turn, as her first action, she bleeds me for 6 at +2 stealth. Thank God I've got a Major Boon in my hand! Appolonius.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, XZealot wrote: > > bluedevil wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >> >>> Malk '94 can still be defeated by not blocking at letting them jam up >>> on stealth. >> >> This shouldn't work against good players. If I were playing Malk94, >> I'd have serious flush tech, starting with 4 Dreams and a few LearJets. >> Even minus anti-jamming tech, "jam them" has always been of only >> dubious worth. I mean, nobody thinks it's *good* defense, just that it >> might be your only hope, and even that is debatable. > > Dreams of the Sphinx didn't exist in 1994. :P > > And I can say that any deck could contest those Dreams or block the > learjets. Ha. I'm going to jam you on stealth by not blocking you and I'll block you getting a Learjet. You are DOOMED! Matt Morgan

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > So people, still, want a disciplinless bounce card. Which would > certainly help. But would also go a long way to making the game a lot > more homoginized and less varried. I, for one, would like to see more > viable bleed defense that is disciplineless, or comes in other > disciplines that lack such bleed defense. But find the idea of > disciplinless bounce to be unappealing. I too am all for a non-homogenous game. The problem is that the ability to turn a stealthed bleed of 4-6 from your problem into your offence with one card (as dom/AUS bounce does) is so monstrously good that it's going to be difficult to come up with "varied" bleed defences that even come close. In fact IMHO dom/AUS bleed bounce as currently written is _too_ good. If we could jump into our magical "go back to 1994 and fix the game from square 1" time machine and reword the offending cards to "choose another methuselah other than your prey", the game might be all the better for it. But back to this reality... bluedevil wrote: > I think the way to address the "bounce problem" is to print more things > that monkey with other people's attempt to bounce. I'd like to see that too. Appolonius.

sutekh_23 wrote: > There have been others who state that not including > bounce, so dom or aus, (may) reduce the effectiveness of a deck. If > that is the case does that mean all non-dominate decks (as Telepathic > misdirection some consider wallpaper anyway) are sub-optimal deck > builds? In essence, yes, this is true. I mean, like, yeah, there are lots and lots of ways to make decks that work and oust people and can win games. But when it comes down to it, most of the time, you really can take pretty much any deck and say "is this really going to be more effective, in terms of winning games and ousting people, than some deck that has dominate in it?". And the answer usually is no. Again, gross oversimplification of a very complex issue. But also again, probably not that far from true. -Peter

bluedevil wrote: > I think the way to address the "bounce problem" is to print more things > that monkey with other people's attempt to bounce. If bounce became > less good (assuming you don't break the game some other way by doing > that), then the issue of lots of clans not having bounce is mitigated, > without needing to errata or ban existing cards. Judging from a few > cards we've seen recently, this at least seems to be on the design > team's radar. Sure, but that doesn't address the issue of "clans without bounce have an uphill battle", which generally is still true. Yeah, you could spend a lot of effort making bounce less effective, which would make other bleed defenses more effective, but all that really does is take the issue of "Hey. Look. I'm sitting in front of Malk '94" I am going to be ousted very soon." and make it worse. Yes, that bounce is *so* good makes other non bounce bleed defense less worthwhile. But it also makes playing S+B a risky thing to do. Malking bounce less good without making other bleed defenses actually better would have a deleterious effect on the game as a whole, I'd think. -Peter

sutekh_23 wrote: > I like this option. There have been others who state that not including > bounce, so dom or aus, (may) reduce the effectiveness of a deck. If > that is the case does that mean all non-dominate decks (as Telepathic > misdirection some consider wallpaper anyway) Just to clarify my previous post--I in no way think Telepathic Misdirection is wallpaper (are you sure you didn't read people talking about Telepathic *Counter* in a negative sense and mistake it for Telepathic Misdirection?). Telepathic Misdirection is as good a bleed defense as Deflection is (primarily 'cause it is really easy to get AUS in a crypt). In some ways better, as it cycles as Intercept when no one is blleding you. This being said, I don't think it lessens my previous post's point about Dominate. -Peter

sutekh_23 wrote: > Haha, I have 7+ of the things, and I haven't been collecting that long. > So, my question to you Bluedevil is, is it enough of a deterant/fix or > is more still needed? Imbued have a "fix" by canceling a card as it is > played, some few of us have access to DI and a Laibon vamp (ghanru?) > that can cancel a card as it it played, but is it enough considering > the cost of PC/DI/wholesale sect/clan choice, is it worth it as it > stands? No, I think there's still more to be done. DI is a bad answer. It's just a bad card all around IMO, and anything that encourages/requires its use is a step in the wrong direction. Things like the new temporis card that gets the job done at mere inferior potence.... that's a step in the right direction.

XZealot wrote: > What can Major Boon do that Minion Tap cannot: (snipped all very good reasons that Major Boon is good) Yes. Major Boon is good. Yet it doesn't keep S+B/weenie bleed/power bleed from winning more often than not. Which is *still* the case. Major Boon has been around since day 1. People have been using Major Boon since day 1. And still, The People seem interested in disciplinless bleed bounce. Which might be the result of everyone being on crack. But I suspect not. > Malk '94 can still be defeated by not blocking at letting them jam up > on stealth. Or you can proactively rush their minions into torpor > (you probably hadn't thought of that one :P ) . Yes, yes. S+B can be beat. I know. However, how many times have you played in a tournament where most of the people are good players, there are lots of well designed, competetive decks in circulation, lots of analysis of play styles and metagaming, and in the end, the answer turns out to be "the guy playing the S+B deck won."? 'Cause even with advanced play theory and intelligent deck design, and Major Boon, the S+B deck is *still* the most effective (in a general sense--yes, sure, sometimes the S+B deck sits next to a Rush deck and doesn't take a single action all game) strategy in the game. As it is the most direct. > I don't understand this fragment. But (I) find the idea of (a) disciplinless bounce (card) unappealing (as something to introduce into the game). -Peter

Appolonius wrote: > I too am all for a non-homogenous game. The problem is that the ability > to turn a stealthed bleed of 4-6 from your problem into your offence > with one card (as dom/AUS bounce does) is so monstrously good that it's > going to be difficult to come up with "varied" bleed defences that even > come close. I agree with this to some extent. But again, what I'd like to see is viable, flexible bleed defense for disciplines *other* than Aus/Dom. Which really, they don't currently--yeah, non Auspex decks can have intercept (but intercept leads to "all defense, not much offense" and has problems in and of itself). And fighty decks can have pre-emptive killing. But in the end, decks that have no access to bounce are fighting up hill. But I think that could be fixed by virtue of, ya know, flexible bleed defense. Like, say, an Obfuscate card that was +1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2. That would be a fantastic card that cycles easy and would see play all the time, giving Obfuscate clans a fighting chance without bounce. Make something similar for Fortitide and/or Celerity. Maybe such a card is too good even (especially when you think about it in the context of a Malkavian deck), but it is a place to start from. > In fact IMHO dom/AUS bleed bounce as currently written is _too_ good. If > we could jump into our magical "go back to 1994 and fix the game from > square 1" time machine and reword the offending cards to "choose another > methuselah other than your prey", the game might be all the better for > it. But back to this reality... Oh, I agree with that too. Although I don't think removing your prey from the equation is a good way to go--that just means that random people cross table get ousted a lot more. -Peter

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Yes, that bounce is *so* good makes other non bounce bleed defense less > worthwhile. But it also makes playing S+B a risky thing to do. Malking > bounce less good without making other bleed defenses actually better > would have a deleterious effect on the game as a whole, I'd think. I know we've discussed this before, and your answer is "but it screws Harrod!", but this is why I think opening up AI to be playable when anybody is being bled for 4+ is good. Everybody would chuck one or two in their decks and if somebody actually sits down at the table and starts hucking bleeds for 6 on turn 3, then they are taking a very real, very *blind* risk of getting burned, because they are clearly a sweeping threat. It's not perfect, but it is the closest thing I have come up with to getting in the way back machine and implimenting Duffin's "make it hard to bleed for more than 3" which in an ideal world would be our solution.

bluedevil wrote: > A) not take a pool (obviously this just gets better if the bleed is 2+) > B) make my prey take a pool (or tap, expend resources et al.) > > Why would I not take this deal all day long? Just in terms of bleed > defence it sound far better than bolting on dominate. To refocus my argument, paying 2 blood and tapping is probably ineffective enough that you are likely just going to bolt on dominate. Or play dom/AUS. If such a card cost 1 pool, yeah, that would probably be good to the point of it showing up in every deck (even ones *with* dom/AUS), so it is unlikely to occur as a card. But maybe if it was 1 blood, 1 pool, tap a dude, it would be in the middle somewhere. -Peter

LSJ wrote: > What new variation are you imagining that isn't already present? Giving disciplines that don't have bounce flexible bleed reduction cards, for instance (like the aformetioned Obfuscate +1 stealth/reduce a bleed by 2 example, which is possibly too good or just a bad idea, but it is an example of the kind of thing I'd be interested in seeing). Or something like what James had as an example (when you get bled, tap vampires of your predator as a reaction). Specific, flexible bleed defense. That gives decks without bounce more bleed defense options. Which is why people would like to see disciplinless bleed bounce. But personally, I'd like to see other options instead. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, since we are in the land of "My Forcefield changes to stop whatever your arguement is" I Direct Intervention your Learjet. Ha! You can't do anything about DI. I win! [ quoted text not captured ]

bluedevil wrote: > I know we've discussed this before, and your answer is "but it screws > Harrod!", but this is why I think opening up AI to be playable when > anybody is being bled for 4+ is good. Everybody would chuck one or two > in their decks and if somebody actually sits down at the table and > starts hucking bleeds for 6 on turn 3, then they are taking a very > real, very *blind* risk of getting burned, because they are clearly a > sweeping threat. It's not perfect, but it is the closest thing I have > come up with to getting in the way back machine and implimenting > Duffin's "make it hard to bleed for more than 3" which in an ideal > world would be our solution. Maybe. Like, again, I don't think making bounce harder to play is necessarily a *bad* thing (although as I mentioned elsewhere, it might be), but more importantly, making bounce harder to play doesn't actually help the problem that people are discussing fixing here--i.e. more viable bleed defense for non bounce enabled decks. Yeah, making bounce harder might see more Telepathic Counters in play, and fewer people relying solely on Deflection as bleed defense, but for the decks that weren't using bounce in the first place, they find themselves still just as screwed when they sit down as the prey of Malk94. So sure, maybe making bounce harder to do is an appropriate measure for some issues of the game. But it isn't addressing the same thing that, say, making disciplinless bounce is adressing. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Wow, nice strawman arguement! If you have a Major Boon in your hand and by turn 3 you haven't seen another bleed on the table that would allow you to put the Major Boon in play by the time it comes around to your turn then yes, you get to eat a bleed for 6. The same thing happens if you put 90 Deflections but haven't influenced out a vampire by turn three either. This is a strawman arguement and is invalid. The funny thing is that if someone chump bleeds for 1 when you don't have a minion in play, then you can put the Major Boon in play WITHOUT A MINION and save yourself from being bled for 6. Wow! Look it's not only disciplineless bounce. It is minionless as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > What can Major Boon do that Minion Tap cannot: > > (snipped all very good reasons that Major Boon is good) > > Yes. Major Boon is good. Yet it doesn't keep S+B/weenie bleed/power > bleed from winning more often than not. Which is *still* the case. > Major Boon has been around since day 1. People have been using Major > Boon since day 1. And still, The People seem interested in > disciplinless bleed bounce. Which might be the result of everyone being > on crack. But I suspect not. Mainly, it doesn't get played because people don't play it. People play Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, and Dreams of the Sphinx. They also play Dominate so they don't need Major Boon, Well Comrade, since you are the voice of The People obviously none of my arguements can stand up against it. Major Boon sees play, and Major Boon wins tournaments. I have seen it with my own two eyes. > > Malk '94 can still be defeated by not blocking at letting them jam up > > on stealth. Or you can proactively rush their minions into torpor > > (you probably hadn't thought of that one :P ) . > > Yes, yes. S+B can be beat. I know. However, how many times have you > played in a tournament where most of the people are good players, there > are lots of well designed, competetive decks in circulation, lots of > analysis of play styles and metagaming, and in the end, the answer > turns out to be "the guy playing the S+B deck won."? 'Cause even with > advanced play theory and intelligent deck design, and Major Boon, the > S+B deck is *still* the most effective (in a general sense--yes, sure, > sometimes the S+B deck sits next to a Rush deck and doesn't take a > single action all game) strategy in the game. As it is the most direct. I find that S&B is sloppy and inelegant weapon. Against veteran players, it is just as disruptive as the guy shelling out Anarch Revolts (pre-errata) onto the table. You can get a big payload into the pipe, but because of bounce it could hit the wrong target. So yes bounce is a good defense against Stealth Bleed. > > I don't understand this fragment. > > But (I) find the idea of (a) disciplinless bounce (card) unappealing > (as something to introduce into the game). I am not going to make your arguement for you. Disciplineless bounce already exists. It is Major Boon. For Better or Worse, it is already here. [ quoted text not captured ]

XZealot wrote: > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > XZealot wrote: > > > What can Major Boon do that Minion Tap cannot: > > > > (snipped all very good reasons that Major Boon is good) > > > > Yes. Major Boon is good. Yet it doesn't keep S+B/weenie bleed/power > > bleed from winning more often than not. Which is *still* the case. > > Major Boon has been around since day 1. People have been using Major > > Boon since day 1. And still, The People seem interested in > > disciplinless bleed bounce. Which might be the result of everyone being > > on crack. But I suspect not. > > Mainly, it doesn't get played because people don't play it. People > play Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, and Dreams of the Sphinx. They also > play Dominate so they don't need Major Boon, Well Comrade, since you > are the voice of The People obviously none of my arguements can stand > up against it. Major Boon sees play, and Major Boon wins tournaments. > I have seen it with my own two eyes. > Were the TWDs playing Major Boon using bounce themselves? That seems to be the most efficient use of the card to me (i've seen a Major Boon/Parity Shift deck that was pretty good as well). [ quoted text not captured ] Obviously XZealot is willing to ride the "Disciplineless bounce already exists, it's Major Boon!" horse around until it dies. So further requests and arguements should include the phrase "minion card" to keep things from becoming further conflated. Thank you, Merlin

XZealot wrote: > Appolonius wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >>> The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce >>> means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. [snip] >> OK, so my predator influences out Didi Meyers on turn 2. Next turn, as >> her first action, she bleeds me for 6 at +2 stealth. Thank God I've got >> a Major Boon in my hand! > > Wow, nice strawman arguement! Erm, so your position is that Major Boon is bleed bounce, but pointing out it can't actually be used to bounce a bleed is a strawman argument? > If you have a Major Boon in your hand and by turn 3 you haven't seen > another bleed on the table that would allow you to put the Major Boon > in play by the time it comes around to your turn then yes, you get to > eat a bleed for 6. 'Nuff said really. Major Boon <> bleed bounce. Appolonius.

[ quoted text not captured ] Is disciplineless bounce really what needs to be added? I wonder if this wouldn't be solved more readily by limiting the offender, weenie bleed. Say, a rules variant with a maximum bleed related to capacity. Say, ignore bleed quantity in excess of X/2, rounded up, from a minion of capacity X. DZ AW

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > So sure, maybe making bounce harder to do is an appropriate measure for > some issues of the game. But it isn't addressing the same thing that, > say, making disciplinless bounce is adressing. What does tweaking AI have to do with making bounce harder? I mean, yeah, we're talking about hosing bounce over in some other part of the thread, but it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Here, I'm talking about something else.

Appolonius wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Appolonius wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce > >>> means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. > [snip] > >> OK, so my predator influences out Didi Meyers on turn 2. Next turn, as > >> her first action, she bleeds me for 6 at +2 stealth. Thank God I've got > >> a Major Boon in my hand! > > > > Wow, nice strawman arguement! > > Erm, so your position is that Major Boon is bleed bounce, but pointing > out it can't actually be used to bounce a bleed is a strawman argument? Meh. If you don't have a minion with dom or AUS out when Didi Bleeds you for six, you eat the same bleed of six. Just because the card has requirements and costs doesn't make it not-a-bounce. > > If you have a Major Boon in your hand and by turn 3 you haven't seen > > another bleed on the table that would allow you to put the Major Boon > > in play by the time it comes around to your turn then yes, you get to > > eat a bleed for 6. > > 'Nuff said really. Major Boon <> bleed bounce. If a card read: "Only usable if a minion controlled by another methuselah is bleeding you. Give a number of pool to a methuselah equal to an amount that they were successfully bled for since your last turn. The acting minion is now bleeding that methuselah." Would this be bleed bounce? Why or why not? Witness1 -ItE

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1153162943....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] I can't - but my ally JUST COINCIDENTALLY holding a Sudden Reversal can!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! ;-) Fred "Er, what about the organist?" "She's neutral." -- Evil Roy Slade, 1972

bluedevil wrote: > What does tweaking AI have to do with making bounce harder? I mean, > yeah, we're talking about hosing bounce over in some other part of the > thread, but it doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Here, I'm > talking about something else. Now you have just lost me. Like, I'm not even sure what we are talking about anymore. We were talking about making disciplinless bounce as a way to bolster non bounce enabled strategies in the bleed defense department. You mentioned hosing bounce, as a way to make the non bounce bleed defenses, which seems like a very reasonable idea, but doesn't really address the lack of bleed defense of non bounce enabled strategies. At some point you mentioned tweaking AI, which I thought was just an abstract example of something (how changing something small has a greater effect on the whole), and then you lost me. -Peter

Atom Weaver wrote: > Is disciplineless bounce really what needs to be added? For my money, no. But then, I have been saying that a lot for the last couple days in this discussion, and I think you are losing a bit of context by entering in the middle :-) -Peter

Appolonius wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > Appolonius wrote: > >> XZealot wrote: > >>> The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce > >>> means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. > [snip] > >> OK, so my predator influences out Didi Meyers on turn 2. Next turn, as > >> her first action, she bleeds me for 6 at +2 stealth. Thank God I've got > >> a Major Boon in my hand! > > > > Wow, nice strawman arguement! > > Erm, so your position is that Major Boon is bleed bounce, but pointing > out it can't actually be used to bounce a bleed is a strawman argument? I would define Bleed Bounce as "Any effect which can cause another methuselah lose pool instead of you when a bleed directed at you is unblocked". Unless you have a different definition of bleed bounce then Major Boon is very much bleed bounce. Your strawman arguement specifically ignores the requirements to play the card. Your arguement is false on its premise. By your example, Deflection is not bleed bounce if you don't control a minion with dominate. > > If you have a Major Boon in your hand and by turn 3 you haven't seen > > another bleed on the table that would allow you to put the Major Boon > > in play by the time it comes around to your turn then yes, you get to > > eat a bleed for 6. > > 'Nuff said really. Major Boon <> bleed bounce. Maybe in your little myopic corner of the universe. It's bounce whether you accept it or not. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

> Obviously XZealot is willing to ride the "Disciplineless bounce already > exists, it's Major Boon!" horse around until it dies. So further > requests and arguements should include the phrase "minion card" to keep > things from becoming further conflated. Thank you, I would like a minion-card based pony. Thank you, Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

> Erm, so your position is that Major Boon is bleed bounce, but pointing > out it can't actually be used to bounce a bleed is a strawman argument? No, you're welcome to do that. However, by the same token, here's a proof that Deflection is not bleed bounce: Turn 2, your predator bleeds you for 6 with Didi Myers. You have a deflection in your hand, but you do not have a vampire with dominate in your ready region. You take a bleed for 6. Therefore, deflection is not bleed bounce. QED. > 'Nuff said really. Major Boon <> bleed bounce. 'Nuff said really. Deflection <> bleed bounce. Ankur wants a discipline-based bounce card, since we don't have one yet

bluedevil wrote: > > I know we've discussed this before, and your answer is "but it screws > Harrod!", but this is why I think opening up AI to be playable when > anybody is being bled for 4+ is good. I guess it's not surprising that AI should come up in the context of a disciplineless bleed defence discussion. Interesting that you advocate making it stronger. It's a card I've had mixed feelings about - it must have seemed like a great idea back in '95 when Malk S&B was sweeping through whole tables of tables, rush was hard due to IG being rare, and people still wanted decks without dom or AUS (joke... sorta). But as written I'm not sure its net effect on the game has been positive. At the risk of belabouring the obvious, consider the following. AI says to the metagame "bleed for more than 3 and risk instant burning." OK, says the X&B deck, I'll bleed for 3 max. X&B deck then notes that this is easily done with low midcaps and/or weenies, and that a bleed for 3 from a fattie is a wasted action in comparison. Also, if you happen to stray above 3, you're much better off getting a low cap burned that a fattie. So AI by its very existence constitutes yet another reason to play weenies rather than fatties, as if there needed to be more. The possible archetype "one fattie bleeds for zillions", already up against it from bleed bounce, is hosed by AI to the point where it is pretty much not seen (yes, I know about RTI but that's banned now). But is there any a priori reason why this archetype should be less viable than more vamps bleeding for less? Anyway, rather than giving AI a boost, if it were to be changed I'd be in favour of weakening it in favour of large cap vamps. Something like "Only playable when a vampire with capacity less than 9 is attempting to bleed you for more than 3." Or even "Only playable when a vampire is attempting to bleed you for more than X, where X is half that vampire's capacity (rounded up)." In fact the latter implementation gives a metagame push in the direction of: Atom Weaver wrote: > > Is disciplineless bounce really what needs to be added? I wonder if > this wouldn't be solved more readily by limiting the offender, weenie > bleed. Say, a rules variant with a maximum bleed related to capacity. > Say, ignore bleed quantity in excess of X/2, rounded up, from a minion > of capacity X. Which might be an interesting experiment also. Appolonius.

Merlin wrote: > XZealot wrote: > > pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > > > XZealot wrote: > > > > What can Major Boon do that Minion Tap cannot: > > > > > > (snipped all very good reasons that Major Boon is good) > > > > > > Yes. Major Boon is good. Yet it doesn't keep S+B/weenie bleed/power > > > bleed from winning more often than not. Which is *still* the case. > > > Major Boon has been around since day 1. People have been using Major > > > Boon since day 1. And still, The People seem interested in > > > disciplinless bleed bounce. Which might be the result of everyone being > > > on crack. But I suspect not. > > > > Mainly, it doesn't get played because people don't play it. People > > play Minion Taps, Blood Dolls, and Dreams of the Sphinx. They also > > play Dominate so they don't need Major Boon, Well Comrade, since you > > are the voice of The People obviously none of my arguements can stand > > up against it. Major Boon sees play, and Major Boon wins tournaments. > > I have seen it with my own two eyes. > > > > Were the TWDs playing Major Boon using bounce themselves? That seems to > be the most efficient use of the card to me (i've seen a Major > Boon/Parity Shift deck that was pretty good as well). The one that I witnessed win the NAC in 2002 did not use bounce other than Major Boon. Jared had the whole table locked up with 2-3 Major Boons in play. His predator was playing powerbleed Tremere and was afraid of bleeding for alot. > Obviously XZealot is willing to ride the "Disciplineless bounce already > exists, it's Major Boon!" horse around until it dies. So further > requests and arguements should include the phrase "minion card" to keep > things from becoming further conflated. Thank you, BINGO! We have a winner! [ quoted text not captured ]

Appolonius wrote: > At the risk of belabouring the obvious, consider the following. AI says > to the metagame "bleed for more than 3 and risk instant burning." OK, > says the X&B deck, I'll bleed for 3 max. X&B deck then notes that this > is easily done with low midcaps and/or weenies, and that a bleed for 3 > from a fattie is a wasted action in comparison. Also, if you happen to > stray above 3, you're much better off getting a low cap burned that a > fattie. So AI by its very existence constitutes yet another reason to > play weenies rather than fatties, as if there needed to be more. The > possible archetype "one fattie bleeds for zillions", already up against > it from bleed bounce, is hosed by AI to the point where it is pretty > much not seen (yes, I know about RTI but that's banned now). But is > there any a priori reason why this archetype should be less viable than > more vamps bleeding for less? All pretty fair points. My thoughts are this: weenies are already the most butt-ugly feature of the game and there is a list of reasons a mile long why the "win! Win! WIN!" crowd will keep playing them, regardless of what is or isn't done to AI. As far as encouraging this same group of players to bleed for more than 3 anyway, I can think of two things. First, try suggesting that losing one nerd is no big deal to one of these guys in a normal game. Uh-uh. They are each and every one of them the critical difference between winning and losing (on turn 10.7, in the library, with the lead pipe). Second, aside from dom and presence, what weenie deck could bleed for more than 3 per action? Maybe Palle Grande, but I think usually not (the bulk of the swarm will be disciplineless !Tor). And you pretty much answered your own point WRT "one fattie bleeding for zillions".... that's a nutpunch deck. One Deflection per turn castrates them. Harm to this mythical beast shouldn't be much of a consideration one way or the other. But no, there's no a priori reason why this archetype should be more harmed. All things being equal, it should be helped. But if there's no real harm to them (they are about as harmed as they can get as it stands), yet it makes bleeding for more than 3 a dependably risky proposition, then I'd say you've moved the metagame in the direction it needs to go. > Anyway, rather than giving AI a boost, if it were to be changed I'd be > in favour of weakening it in favour of large cap vamps. Something like > "Only playable when a vampire with capacity less than 9 is attempting to > bleed you for more than 3." Or even "Only playable when a vampire is > attempting to bleed you for more than X, where X is half that vampire's > capacity (rounded up)." In fact the latter implementation gives a > metagame push in the direction of: I like cards to be short and to the point, not loaded with caveats. On those grounds alone I tend to eschew any solutions which seem clunky.

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Now you have just lost me. Like, I'm not even sure what we are talking > about anymore. Oh man. Like *that's* never happened before! ;) > We were talking about making disciplinless bounce as a way to bolster > non bounce enabled strategies in the bleed defense department. You > mentioned hosing bounce, as a way to make the non bounce bleed > defenses, which seems like a very reasonable idea, but doesn't really > address the lack of bleed defense of non bounce enabled strategies. At > some point you mentioned tweaking AI, which I thought was just an > abstract example of something (how changing something small has a > greater effect on the whole), and then you lost me. I guess I expected the "threadedness" of Usenet to count for more. I was thinking of them as seperate distinct points. Like, "you could make a disciplineless bounce card BUT/AND/OR you could *also* try fiddling with AI." My opinions about the AI thing are totally seperate from disciplineless bounce (which, if I hadn't made it explicit before, I'm against.... maybe..... I think).

bluedevil wrote: > Oh man. Like *that's* never happened before! ;) Heh. Yeah, I figured I skip directly to that step, rather than try to figure it out myself :-) > I guess I expected the "threadedness" of Usenet to count for more. Sadly, I'm still on google-groups, so the whole "thread" aspect is highly suspect. > Like, "you could > make a disciplineless bounce card BUT/AND/OR you could *also* try > fiddling with AI." My opinions about the AI thing are totally seperate > from disciplineless bounce (which, if I hadn't made it explicit before, > I'm against.... maybe..... I think). Fair enough. I can't really argue with that. I mean, like, I'd still claim that AI is essentially a broken card (in the "cost/effect" sense), and making it more usable would make it more broken. That being said, I still use AI all the time, and like seeing other people use AI all the time, and maybe making it useable on anyone would get even more in circulation and make people bleed for a maximum of 3 more than currently. So yeah, ok. -Peter

Appolonius wrote: > Cut some stuff I have no comment on. > Anyway, rather than giving AI a boost, if it were to be changed I'd be > in favour of weakening it in favour of large cap vamps. Something like > "Only playable when a vampire with capacity less than 9 is attempting to > bleed you for more than 3." Or even "Only playable when a vampire is > attempting to bleed you for more than X, where X is half that vampire's > capacity (rounded up)." In fact the latter implementation gives a > metagame push in the direction of: > How about changing it so instead of: Archon Investigation Type: Master Cost: 3 pool Master: out-of-turn. Only usable when a minion is attempting to bleed you for more than 3. The action is not successful. Burn the acting minion. It reads: Archon Investigation Type: Master Cost: 3 pool Master: out-of-turn Only usable when a minion is attempting to bleed you for more than double than the acting minions inherent bleed. The action is not succesful, Burn the acting minion. How does that sound? So if weenie A want to bleed for 2, he's safe, anymore and they can pop. IC members can bleed safely for 6 before getting popped Comments? Sutekh_23

sutekh_23 wrote: > How does that sound? So if weenie A want to bleed for 2, he's safe, > anymore and they can pop. IC members can bleed safely for 6 before > getting popped > > Comments? Heart's in the right place, but it fails my "clunky test".

[ quoted text not captured ] Any suggestions to clean it up? its 3 in the morning here so it may come out fuzzier than it sounds to me :) Paging Mr Coupe, you have a call on line 2.

"Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1153081672....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I think any resistance to this idea (assuming there is resistance) would >> have to be based on the assumption that bounce is *such* a strong effect >> that it shouldn't be available so easily & cheaply. But that would >> hardly explain why it *is* available easily and cheaply to Dominate and >> Auspex... > > Auspex? It requires superior, costs a blood, and taps the reacting > vampire. I wouldn't say that's easy or cheap. What's easy is the > number of 3-5 capacity vampires with superior Auspex who can be mixed > into various crypts. Well, granted, it requires the higher level of the discipline and always taps you, so compared to Dominate it's not *as* easy or cheap. But 1 blood is a pretty low cost for bounce (and you can do it for 0 with My Enemy's Enemy, though that card has its own problems in that it doesn't let you choose your target), especially compared to all the other disciplines that can't do it at all. And, as you say, the easiness/cheapness for Auspex is predicated largely on the fact that so many vampires have [AUS], even at relatively low capacity. In ARDB I see 195 vampires with [AUS], 147 in groups 2-3. :-) > I won't argue with you on Dominate, though. So many decks run on the > power of inferior Dominate... Also true. Probably because, unlike Auspex, you only need inferior to bounce, plus, unlike Auspex, you can get +2 bleed for 1 blood and 1 card with [dom]. Josh has no bounce discipline

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1153179873.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Appolonius wrote: >> XZealot wrote: >> > Appolonius wrote: >> >> XZealot wrote: >> >>> The fact that people are clamoring for disciplineless bleed bounce >> >>> means those people are wearing blinders. Major Boon is bleed bounce. >> [snip] >> >> OK, so my predator influences out Didi Meyers on turn 2. Next turn, as >> >> her first action, she bleeds me for 6 at +2 stealth. Thank God I've >> >> got >> >> a Major Boon in my hand! >> > >> > Wow, nice strawman arguement! >> >> Erm, so your position is that Major Boon is bleed bounce, but pointing >> out it can't actually be used to bounce a bleed is a strawman argument? > > I would define Bleed Bounce as "Any effect which can cause another > methuselah lose pool instead of you when a bleed directed at you is > unblocked". Unless you have a different definition of bleed bounce > then Major Boon is very much bleed bounce. OK. It does make someone else lose the pool for you. But it doesn't make your *prey* lose the pool for you, unless you are also playing with "real" bleed-bounce yourself. That's half the strength of bleed bounce: (1) you don't take the bleed yourself; (2) your prey does. Given that it gives up half the strength of "real" bleed bounce, maybe you can see why people don't consider Major Boon to be a serious bleed-bounce card? Yeah, it's better than nothing... it's like half-bleed-bounce. But it's not all that close to real bleed bounce. You can't do it more than once a turn, you can't get your prey to lose the pool (at least, not just by using Major Boon), and you have to put it in play ahead of time, so they know it's there before deciding whether to pump their bleed. That's why the existence of Major Boon doesn't make the VTES universe look very much like the VTES universe might look if a disciplineless Deflection-like card existed. Josh has trouble with definitions

<pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:1153060219.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > James Coupe wrote: >> To be honest, I'd rather see something other than bleed bounce. I'm not >> 100% sure what it would be, but something that provides usable or useful >> bleed defence but without duplicating existing bleed defences. > > I gotta say, I'm kinda with James on this. I know everyone is all hot > on there being some sort of disciplinless bleed bounce card, but I > think, really, it probably isn't that good of an idea for the game. So apparently I was a little off in thinking that the opposition to disciplineless bounce would hinge on it being too strong an effect. It's because you think it would be too boring, instead? > If a discplineless bleed bounce card exists, unless it is so much worse > than Deflection so as to be virtually unplayable, it will be in *every* > deck in existance. So every single game of VTES will become little more > than "let's see if we can run everyone out of bounce before time runs > out". Currently, while only two displines have bounce, you at least > *know* those two disciplines have bounce, and can plan accordingly. > With disciplinless bounce, the only plan you can make is "Well, if I > bleed, I'm going to get bounced around the table 4 times". Which I > don't think makes the game necessarily better. Just much more random. Huh. I don't know about that. Dominate decks all have bounce (right?) but that doesn't mean that they always have it at the right time. In any deck, you're always going to have to pick some balance between having your defensive reaction cards like bounce and your offensive action/modifier/combat cards (whatever they might be). Your argument here seems to be almost equivalent to the idea that, since bleed bounce is so good (which it is), you should expect to see, in every tournament game of VTES ever played, every Methuselah playing with 15 or 20 Deflections in their deck, so that every bleed gets bounced around the table 4 times before landing somewhere randomly. I think that is actually to some extent true - bounce (and especially Dominate) really is that good in the real VTES environment - yet people don't all make their decks that way and tournament games don't all go that way, for a plethora of other reasons. (e.g. people get tired of just playing Dominate decks, people get tired of playing decks that all have 20 reactions in them, etc etc etc.) I think that would be just as much the case if disciplineless bounce existed: sure, it would mean that bounce would show up in more decks than it does now, because you could play it even if you were tired of playing decks with Dominate. But I don't think that would actually be a bad thing. The game has plenty of strategic and tactical variety without declaring that "effect type X" is played-out and should never be given to any of the 26 disciplines that don't have it (or printed with no discipline requirement), because there's too much of it being played already, even though only 2 disciplines have cards that produce effect X. I mean, if you wanted to jump in the way-back machine and ban bounce and make it impossible to bleed for more than 3, or something, I would be all like "I not only took that train years ago, I'm also the conductor!" But in the land of "VTES as it already exists", I don't think disciplineless bounce would actually screw things up. Maybe it would de-screw them a little (for all the currently-more-hapless-than-they-need-to-be vampires who don't have bounce disciplines, and stuff). > I'd be certainly in favor of more disciplinless bleed defense. And > maybe even more actually effective disciplinless bleed defense (or at > least, more actually effective non dominate/auspex bleed defense)--ways > to cancel bleeds or ways to punish folks who bleed you or some other > such whamdiggery. But I honestly don't think that a disciplinless bleed > bounce card is the way to go. 'Cause it will go a long way to > de-engineering deck building theory. As every single deck in the game > will have the option of saying "Oh, my bleed defense is simply this 8 > card disciplinless bounce module...". Every single deck. And VTES > becomes little more than pinball. Sure. I like the idea of non-bounce bleed defense (that is actually tournament-caliber in strength!) for disciplines other than Dominate and Auspex too. I think such cards could coexist with disciplineless (or non-Dom/Aus-disciplined) bounce though; it doesn't have to be one or the other. They would *have* to coexist with (and compete for deck-space with) the existing Dominate and Auspex bounce cards, so for them to be tournament-caliber in the first place, they would necessarily also be able to hold their own against disciplineless bounce. Josh time for a spot of the old ultra-violence?

XZealot wrote: > bluedevil wrote: > > Johannes Walch wrote: > > > > > The problem is, that it is just not usable by a lot of vampires and > > > therefore not usable by a lot of decktypes. There should just be more > > > anti-Event cards on about the power level of BH Ritual, but for other > > > clans/sects/traits. > > > > So you support the creation of a disciplineless bounce card? Just > > curious..... > > I just got word of a shiny new disciplineless bounce card that they are > coming out with! > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > <Spoiler Space> > > Major Boon > > Type(s): Master > > Out-of-Turn. > > Play this card when another Methuselah is successfully bled. Not usable > if you control the acting minion. Modifiers to the bleed amount may be > played after you play this card. You burn pool for the bleed instead of > the target Methuselah (must be at least 1 pool) and give this card to > the target Methuselah. You may burn this card to have that Methuselah > burn pool instead of you when you are successfully bled. > > > Requires no discipline, and it doesn't have a cost (other than taking a > bleed). I've read this thread and now my head hurts. Curses! Major boon is okay as bleed defense, but not nearly as powerful as the bounce cards. The only thing I will say for certain is that I think the anarchs should get a bounce card, whose requirement is anarch above capacity 4. I think this would be a good way to introduce a new way to bounce into the game using a mechanic that already exists. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <44badca2$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, Salem <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> writes: >And no-one has flamed anyone else yet. Jackass. (I may have misinterpreted you.) -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

> OK. It does make someone else lose the pool for you. But it doesn't make > your *prey* lose the pool for you, unless you are also playing with "real" > bleed-bounce yourself. That's half the strength of bleed bounce: (1) you > don't take the bleed yourself; (2) your prey does. Given that it gives up > half the strength of "real" bleed bounce, maybe you can see why people don't > consider Major Boon to be a serious bleed-bounce card? Yeah, it's better > than nothing... it's like half-bleed-bounce. But it's not all that close to > real bleed bounce. You can't do it more than once a turn, you can't get > your prey to lose the pool (at least, not just by using Major Boon), and you > have to put it in play ahead of time, so they know it's there before > deciding whether to pump their bleed. I watched Jared Strat win the 2002 NAC by making his prey take pool damage from Major Boon. How did he do it? He played it on his grand prey and his predator. He then ousted his prey so now his new prey was the target of the Major Boon. It is a very nasty card. It is just not for the lazy minded. > That's why the existence of Major Boon doesn't make the VTES universe look > very much like the VTES universe might look if a disciplineless > Deflection-like card existed. Deflection is the best bounce card, and should remain so. I don't want to see any bounce card that is BETTER than deflection. Everything else should pale in comparison. Major Boon doesn't get played because most players use the same master cards in every deck. It is the master module 4 Blood Dolls- Check 2 Dreams of the Sphinx- Check 2 Minion Tap- Check 2 Direct Intervention- Check 1 Giants Blood- Check 2 Sudden Reversal- Check 1 Rack- Check 1 Stealth Location (Backways, Creepshow, Opium Den) Check 1 Barrens- check 2-4 Random Masters to show that I am a non-conformist and not a cookie-cutter player. For God's Sake people! Take the blinders off. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] How about a bounce card only usable by Anarch Barons? Maybe it would be worth it to become one then. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1153147469....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: >Variations on bleed defense already in place: cancel, intercept, >reduction, bounce, shift payor, damage bleeder, remove/burn bleeder. > >What new variation are you imagining that isn't already present? See, just listing the types of thing that are currently available doesn't accurately represent what other variations would do, because it glosses over the real world. Consider, for a moment, the Dominate bounce deck. Obviously, it does things other than Dominate bounce, but for the purposes of this discussion, its bleed defence is Dominate bounce. Say, it's a Ventrue deck, or Group 1/2 Malkavians, or something. In clan, nicely available Dominate. Now, it can play Dominate bounce as a reaction, and can then go on to play a Blood Doll or Minion Tap next turn just fine. It can throw in a few Archon Investigations if it wants to, but it already has a good solid bleed defence from Dominate. Now, let's consider my, say, Nosferatu Antitribu deck. Given that they're a clan with a heck of a lot of Animalism, Obfuscate and Potence, it would seem reasonable that the various designers over the years imagine it's reasonable to put together a !Nosferatu deck concentrating on those three disciplines. Those disciplines don't provide bleed bounce. So let's look for other sources of bleed bounce. They have very little Dominate: Julio Martinez (9); Cailean (10); Tarbaby Jack (8). If we decide to go to AUS for Telepathic Misdirection, we're similarly unhappy: Ingram Frizer (6). One of the benefits of Dominate bounce, for our Dominate bounce deck, is that many clans have it as an in-clan discipline, and it's widely available at inferior. So right off the bat, we're able to do things with our choice of weenies or big vamps, a wide spread or a . The !Nosferatu... not so much. Mid caps or higher, and we have to stack our deck a bit. We could have been stacking our Dominate deck too, but we didn't necessarily have to. So, we can't get a lot of bounce easily whilst playing this focused ANI/OBF/POT clan, and we can't get it quickly. So the Dominate deck could well be thinking "Hey, I can defend better against fast weenies - enough to fend them off in the first couple of turns" whereas the ANI/OBF/POT deck is thinking other things. Do we decide to go for burn/remove or damage? Okay. So our main options are Archon Investigation and Retribution. Okay. So the Dominate deck had the choice of going for Dominate bounce, or these cards, or a bit of both. I have fewer choices. But yeah, you know, that might be just fine. Two problems. Both of these cards are less playable than Dominate bounce. Now, Dominate bounce just loves getting a bleed for 8 at +2 stealth and throwing it at its prey, but it can handle the Govern the Unaligned bleed for 3, or the weenie for 1, or anywhere in between. Neither Retribution or Archon Investigation can be played on the bleeds for one, and Archon Investigation can be played on bleeds for 4 or more. Bummer. AI is, of course, very good. But Retribution really isn't - once per game, for a start. And you know the annoying thing about AI? It's competing for precious master card slots and master phase actions. And the problem with that is that several of the real staples of the game are found there - AI is one of them, of course, but also cards like Minion Tap, Blood Doll, card cycling masters, and so on. Cards that every deck is thinking about including, or some subset thereof. (They may decide against it, but...) So, I don't get the nice Dominate bounce, and if I take this route, I'm competing with my own pool gain, and not able to play it in as wide a range of situations, or as often - if I want. My hand is forced towards a less applicable alternative. Shift payor... without bounce, it's hard to Major Boon effectively. That is, I could get it and save it cross-table, but I can't send it at the Methuselah I most want to - my prey - unless someone has already bled him specifically. (Perhaps because he was looking like a real threat, say.) Again, we're competing with other master cards for space. Note that all of these options can be taken by the Dominate bounce deck - they get the choice, so the strong players can choose one or the other. Bleed reduction. Well, Confusion of the Eye is potentially useful, but it's strictly inferior to Telepathic Counter. As Peter has already pointed out, Telepathic Counter is largely regarded as inferior to Telepathic Misdirection. It's not outright, and there are cases for including a bit of both (a lot of aus, say) but tournaments tend to bear out bounce being much more popular, reliable and powerful than reduction. And if Confusion of the Eye as bleed defence is worse than TC, we're not doing that well. Still, it's playable - though when I find myself against a mid-cap solid bleed and I'm playing mid-cap !Nosferatu, it's a toss-up as to who is more or less mid-cap than the other. So usable, but pretty strictly not as good. Intercept, I'm playing the !Nos. Not a lot in Obf or Pot, so I'm with Animalism. Now, I have wakes and some transient intercept. Unhelpfully, the most versatile intercept reaction is in ANI (Cats' Guidance), which doesn't come cheaply, or Falcon's Eye (which costs a blood). Smallest ANI is on 5. Instinctive Reaction is good, but doesn't help in the same way when, say, a bleed gets bounced to me - not a killer blow, but not great. Speak with Spirits is good for bleed actions, though it lacks versatility which is annoying - but then, Deflection isn't exactly versatile (but makes up for it with power). Or I can go the route of permanent retainers (perhaps Raven Spy and co), which takes time to set up. I can also try out equipment if I want, or Mr Winthrop, or Guardian Angel, or whatever. The Dominate bounce deck can just play a single card. I either have to potentially play multiple cards (to get enough intercept), or take actions to defend against it (which potentially leaves me tapped, so I need to untap). Again, the Dominate bounce deck can choose these defences - if it wants! It can choose to also have Sport Bikes or Mr Winthrop, like I did. But right off the bat, it can bounce bleeds. It doesn't have to put the time in, if it doesn't want to. Cancellation, I don't really have. So then, I can compete with my pool gain staples (master cards), or I can have a slow set-up time (permanents being brought out, leaving me tapped) leaving me vulnerable to fast bleeders, a reaction which isn't as good as those available to others, or I can play several cards to defend against a bleed (Wake + maybe multiple intercept) instead of Wake plus bounce. So, what new variation are people imagining that isn't already present? Perhaps one that's as potentially useful as the most powerful, most widely used, most easily used bleed defence in the game. For quite a few clans, those options aren't there, hamper their other options, or just outright aren't very good. Versus a fast, stealthy bleeder (though not necessarily huge bleeds); a weenie rampage; a Fortitude bleed deck that's willing to throw caution to the wind with Day Operation here and there; a Seduction type deck willing to take out the vampire with a couple of intercept retainers, or the one with ANI, or the untapped one; which defensive options do you believe offer the same utility as Deflection such that a deck wouldn't think "Oh, I say" if a new, useful, balanced but potentially powerful option came along? It, whatever it is, might well not be attractive to a Dominate user - but to a clan where the current defences are unwieldly, ineffective, or unattractive, that's a whole different story. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1153147588....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> writes: >I think the way to address the "bounce problem" is to print more things >that monkey with other people's attempt to bounce. If bounce became >less good (assuming you don't break the game some other way by doing >that), then the issue of lots of clans not having bounce is mitigated, >without needing to errata or ban existing cards. Yes and no. This mitigates the issue of the clans with bounce doing very well, but it doesn't mitigate the other half of Peter's thought - that most decks without bounce sitting in front of Malk 94 roll over fairly quickly. So now you just have a whole raft of extra ways for Malk 94 to monkey with the decks that can survive it, whilst not actually adding much for the decks that couldn't do well against it already. It's not really that some decks have bounce and they shouldn't; it's that a number of other decks don't have a comparable defence and, well, they probably should. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1153241638....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] It does feel "clunky". There isn't really a distinction, once the bleed is underway, between the base bleed of a minion and the current bleed total on any existing card. I don't think it's a bad idea, but it feels a bit weird. More problematically: any big vampire with Dominate and no bleed modifier - say, Lucita, a perfectly playable vampire - gets burned for playing Govern the Unaligned at inferior. So would Anson. That's a bigger problem for me than anything clunkiness. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <4i4rccF...@individual.net>, Joshua Duffin <joshduffin.RE MO...@SPAM.gmail.com> writes: >So apparently I was a little off in thinking that the opposition to >disciplineless bounce would hinge on it being too strong an effect. It's >because you think it would be too boring, instead? I wouldn't be opposed to discipline bounce because it's boring. Though shiny new tech is always shiny, of course. However, if it turned up in every single deck, *that* would be boring. I'd like to see more useful options that have strategic ups and downs. And I do vaguely agree with Peter that the attraction of disciplineless bounce would be such that it would grab the attention way more than several well-crafted but not bounce cards might. That said, if disciplineless bounce was balanced and well-costed, but not an automatic choice because of some clever downside or quirk, that would probably be just fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1153151066.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: >> How do you get your prey to take a pool (Scenario B above) with Major >> Boon unless you're running bounce yourself? Beg the table to bounce >> into your prey so that you can Boon it? > >How about play Major Boon when your prey bleeds your grand prey, then >oust your prey? Now the Major Boon hits your prey, voila! > >All it requires is for you to oust your prey. If you can't oust your >prey, then you really do have bigger problems. Sure, I can (try to) oust my prey. Unfortunately, because I'm supposed to wait until he's dead before I use the Major Boon to defend myself, the power bleed deck behind me has already ousted me. Were I playing real bleed bounce, I could not only be defending myself earlier (not waiting until my prey is dead before I can use a card set up several turns before) but also be getting closer to ousting my prey. Double bonus. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1153151066.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >> How do you get your prey to take a pool (Scenario B above) with Major > >> Boon unless you're running bounce yourself? Beg the table to bounce > >> into your prey so that you can Boon it? > > > >How about play Major Boon when your prey bleeds your grand prey, then > >oust your prey? Now the Major Boon hits your prey, voila! > > > >All it requires is for you to oust your prey. If you can't oust your > >prey, then you really do have bigger problems. > > Sure, I can (try to) oust my prey. There is no try. There is only do or do not. > Unfortunately, because I'm supposed to wait until he's dead before I use > the Major Boon to defend myself, the power bleed deck behind me has > already ousted me. Were I playing real bleed bounce, I could not only > be defending myself earlier (not waiting until my prey is dead before I > can use a card set up several turns before) but also be getting closer > to ousting my prey. Why would you supposubly wait until he's dead? Obviously if someone chucks a power bleed at you and you can't block it then you can burn the boon. It's sitting on the table. The player who you played the boon on is going to be begging and pleading for your predator not to drop the bomb until the boon is gone. Most players will use whatever options are at hand to save themselves, yourself included. You can even play Major Boon on your predator when he gets bled. It's amazing how bleedzookas won't lay the hammer down when they know that they are going to be the ones taking the damage. Deflection bounce gets a double bonus for your prey taking the bleed that you would have. Major Boon gets a double bonus for making the guy that is bleeding you take the bleed, which Deflection can't do. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1153151066.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, > XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >> How do you get your prey to take a pool (Scenario B above) with Major > >> Boon unless you're running bounce yourself? Beg the table to bounce > >> into your prey so that you can Boon it? > > > >How about play Major Boon when your prey bleeds your grand prey, then > >oust your prey? Now the Major Boon hits your prey, voila! > > > >All it requires is for you to oust your prey. If you can't oust your > >prey, then you really do have bigger problems. > > Sure, I can (try to) oust my prey. There is no try. There is only do or do not. > Unfortunately, because I'm supposed to wait until he's dead before I use > the Major Boon to defend myself, the power bleed deck behind me has > already ousted me. Were I playing real bleed bounce, I could not only > be defending myself earlier (not waiting until my prey is dead before I > can use a card set up several turns before) but also be getting closer > to ousting my prey. Why would you supposubly wait until he's dead? Obviously if someone [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1153147469....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, LSJ > <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes: > >Variations on bleed defense already in place: cancel, intercept, > >reduction, bounce, shift payor, damage bleeder, remove/burn bleeder. > > > >What new variation are you imagining that isn't already present? > > See, just listing the types of thing that are currently available > doesn't accurately represent what other variations would do, because it > glosses over the real world. I was responding to "I'd much rather see more varied bleed defense that wasn't just almost the same as, but strictly inferior to, Deflection. " As stated, I was wondering what variation he was looking for. He answered already.

[ quoted text not captured ] Yeah something like that. I'm not that picky. Just something more to put anarchs in the same neighborhood as, say, Ventrue. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1153262469.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >> OK. It does make someone else lose the pool for you. But it doesn't >> make >> your *prey* lose the pool for you, unless you are also playing with >> "real" >> bleed-bounce yourself. That's half the strength of bleed bounce: (1) you >> don't take the bleed yourself; (2) your prey does. Given that it gives >> up >> half the strength of "real" bleed bounce, maybe you can see why people >> don't >> consider Major Boon to be a serious bleed-bounce card? Yeah, it's better >> than nothing... it's like half-bleed-bounce. But it's not all that close >> to >> real bleed bounce. You can't do it more than once a turn, you can't get >> your prey to lose the pool (at least, not just by using Major Boon), and >> you >> have to put it in play ahead of time, so they know it's there before >> deciding whether to pump their bleed. > > I watched Jared Strat win the 2002 NAC by making his prey take pool > damage from Major Boon. How did he do it? He played it on his grand > prey and his predator. He then ousted his prey so now his new prey was > the target of the Major Boon. It is a very nasty card. It is just not > for the lazy minded. I agree that it's a pretty good card. I don't think it does enough of what people want their bleed defense to do, but it does *something*, yeah. But that Jared Strait deck? Major Boon (4x) was not the best card in it. Parity Shift probably was (3x). Or maybe Second Tradition (10x). I think the fact that he felt the need to include 10 Second Traditions in the same deck as 4 Major Boons says something about how much you can count on Major Boon for your bleed defense. For what it's worth, he also had two Kindred Restructures, which was another cute way to end up with a Major Boon on your (new) prey without playing bounce. So yeah, it's possible to do cool things with Major Boon. I just don't think it really measures up all that well against real bleed bounce. It's hardly an easy solution, even for hardworking-minded folks, for decks that don't have Dominate or Auspex. > Deflection is the best bounce card, and should remain so. I don't want > to see any bounce card that is BETTER than deflection. Everything else > should pale in comparison. I would disagree on 'pale in comparison' but agree on 'no bounce card should be better than Deflection'. I don't think other bounce cards ought to be *worse* than Deflection - I'm not willing, as a matter of principle, to allow Dominate to have dibs on the best bounce just because it had it first... > Major Boon doesn't get played because most players use the same master > cards in every deck. It is the master module > > 4 Blood Dolls- Check > 2 Dreams of the Sphinx- Check > 2 Minion Tap- Check > 2 Direct Intervention- Check > 1 Giants Blood- Check > 2 Sudden Reversal- Check > 1 Rack- Check > 1 Stealth Location (Backways, Creepshow, Opium Den) Check > 1 Barrens- check > 2-4 Random Masters to show that I am a non-conformist and not a > cookie-cutter player. > > For God's Sake people! Take the blinders off. Norm, I do give you a lot of credit for thinking outside the box, but there's a reason that those are the master cards that show up in every deck, and it's only partly that people have blinders on (ie are used to using them). It's also because those master cards are so much better than most of the other few hundred master cards in print. Better to a similar degree as Deflection is better than most of the other bleed "defense" cards that exist. :-) Yes, I think you're right that there is underrated potential among the other master cards, the ones that aren't popular staples. But it's not an accident that the cards you list above are the ones that frequently win the competition for scarce master-card slots in competitive decks. For amusement value, incidentally, here's Jared Strait's list of masters from the deck you're talking about: 3 Blood Doll 2 Dreams of the Sphinx 2 Direct Intervention 1 Information Highway 1 The Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper 1 The Labyrinth 1 Creepshow Casino 2 Potence 4 Major Boon He missed a few of your staple masters and had a couple other staples in their place, but one could easily argue that the Major Boons in this deck fit precisely into your "2-4 random masters to show that I am a non-conformist" spot. ;-) Josh anathema of the other swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] You are right about Major Boon being his sole bleed defence. He certainly had other defenses in the deck (and rightfully so). But as I remember that game, the 2-3 boons,that he did put in play, made his Tremere Power-Bleed predator hesitant to bleed with the Govern/Conditionings that ended up in his hand. > For what it's worth, he also had two Kindred > Restructures, which was another cute way to end up with a Major Boon on your > (new) prey without playing bounce. So yeah, it's possible to do cool things > with Major Boon. I just don't think it really measures up all that well > against real bleed bounce. It's hardly an easy solution, even for > hardworking-minded folks, for decks that don't have Dominate or Auspex. It's most hampered by the 1 OOT Master per turn more than anything else. People want to be able to throw down 4 Deflections in a row. ...and it is "real" bleed bounce. > > Deflection is the best bounce card, and should remain so. I don't want > > to see any bounce card that is BETTER than deflection. Everything else > > should pale in comparison. > > I would disagree on 'pale in comparison' but agree on 'no bounce card should > be better than Deflection'. I don't think other bounce cards ought to be > *worse* than Deflection - I'm not willing, as a matter of principle, to > allow Dominate to have dibs on the best bounce just because it had it > first... Your statement is self-contradictory. You don't want "Dominate to have dibs on the best bounce in the game" and "No bounce card should be better than deflection". One of these two must be false for the other to be true. Even if you had another bounce card that had exactly the same "goodness value" as Deflection, then Deflection and this other card would be the best bounce cards in the game. I think I understand what you are trying to say. You don't want wallpaper, but you don't want the next Messiah of bounce cards being printed that wallpapers Deflection. It is a difficult path to thread. > > Major Boon doesn't get played because most players use the same master > > cards in every deck. It is the master module > > > > 4 Blood Dolls- Check > > 2 Dreams of the Sphinx- Check > > 2 Minion Tap- Check > > 2 Direct Intervention- Check > > 1 Giants Blood- Check > > 2 Sudden Reversal- Check > > 1 Rack- Check > > 1 Stealth Location (Backways, Creepshow, Opium Den) Check > > 1 Barrens- check > > 2-4 Random Masters to show that I am a non-conformist and not a > > cookie-cutter player. > > > > For God's Sake people! Take the blinders off. > > Norm, I do give you a lot of credit for thinking outside the box, but > there's a reason that those are the master cards that show up in every deck, > and it's only partly that people have blinders on (ie are used to using > them). When I first read this statement, I read "Norm, I do give you a lot of credit for being a nutcase outside the box." I had to read it again. :) >It's also because those master cards are so much better than most of > the other few hundred master cards in print. Better to a similar degree as > Deflection is better than most of the other bleed "defense" cards that > exist. :-) Yes, I think you're right that there is underrated potential > among the other master cards, the ones that aren't popular staples. But > it's not an accident that the cards you list above are the ones that > frequently win the competition for scarce master-card slots in competitive > decks. The cards have strong stand-alone effects. Unlike minion cards, which players expect to combo, master cards are often straight forward plays and very rarely have an interactive component. They go into play, and they remain in play for whatever use you use them for. I'm not debating whether this is good or bad; I'm saying that is how ithey are played. > For amusement value, incidentally, here's Jared Strait's list of masters > from the deck you're talking about: > > 3 Blood Doll > 2 Dreams of the Sphinx > 2 Direct Intervention > 1 Information Highway > 1 The Rumor Mill, Tabloid Newspaper > 1 The Labyrinth > 1 Creepshow Casino > 2 Potence > 4 Major Boon > > He missed a few of your staple masters and had a couple other staples in > their place, but one could easily argue that the Major Boons in this deck > fit precisely into your "2-4 random masters to show that I am a > non-conformist" spot. ;-) Pretty damn funny isn't it. > Josh > > anathema of the other swamp I want my trophy. [ quoted text not captured ]

[ quoted text not captured ] I drove by there. Man, is that a nice neighborhood. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1153310260.4...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, XZealot <xze...@cox.net> writes: > >James Coupe wrote: >> Sure, I can (try to) oust my prey. >> Unfortunately, because I'm supposed to wait until he's dead before I use >> the Major Boon to defend myself, the power bleed deck behind me has >> already ousted me. Were I playing real bleed bounce, I could not only >> be defending myself earlier (not waiting until my prey is dead before I >> can use a card set up several turns before) but also be getting closer >> to ousting my prey. > >Why would you supposubly wait until he's dead? Because, you know, I've been doing whatever my thing is to my prey. But he's been doing his thing to his prey too, when he can. And, you know, it's quite possible that he's trying to oust his prey just as much as I'm trying to oust mine. I don't want him to actually get the oust, making his pool much better off, because I've just brought him in range of a casual include of Foreshadowing Destruction or From A Sinking Ship! I don't want to hand my prey an easier route to ousting his prey, or let other people oust people cross-table. I don't want my grand-predator to have an easier time ousting my predator, because then he'll be in a strong state when he comes to me. >Major Boon gets a double bonus for making the guy that is bleeding you >take the bleed, which Deflection can't do. I don't want him ousted, though. That's why bad combat players die in a heap - they kill their predator, and then find their grand-predator piles into them. This isn't something I want to happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

> >Why would you supposubly wait until he's dead? > > Because, you know, I've been doing whatever my thing is to my prey. But > he's been doing his thing to his prey too, when he can. So you are basically saying that you can't oust your prey. If you can't oust your prey then burning the Major Boon is not an issue either way. You can't win without ousting your prey. > And, you know, it's quite possible that he's trying to oust his prey > just as much as I'm trying to oust mine. I don't want him to actually > get the oust, making his pool much better off, because I've just brought > him in range of a casual include of Foreshadowing Destruction or From A > Sinking Ship! I don't want to hand my prey an easier route to ousting > his prey, or let other people oust people cross-table. I don't want my > grand-predator to have an easier time ousting my predator, because then > he'll be in a strong state when he comes to me. Okay, Are you saying that you would never cash in a Major Boon on your grandprey until you have ousted your prey? I'll trade a bleed of 5 for a bleed of 1 any day of the week. Is it the best strategy in the entire world to oust your grandprey? No. Is it better than being ousted? Yes. You must decide when to use Major Boon. It is not an automatic "I deflect to my prey" card. You can still win after your prey ousts your grandprey. You can't win if you are ousted. As for playing it on your predator, Unless your predator is a fool, He will realize that if you have a Major Boon on him and he bleeds you for lots that you can and will make him take the bleed. Maybe you play with idiots. I don't know. I do know that you can play From a Sinking Ship crosstable. I do know that you have a choice. > >Major Boon gets a double bonus for making the guy that is bleeding you > >take the bleed, which Deflection can't do. > > I don't want him ousted, though. That's why bad combat players die in a > heap - they kill their predator, and then find their grand-predator > piles into them. You are wrong. You do want your predator ousted. You just want to wait for your predator to be your prey when he is ousted. You must oust your prey to get this to happen. [ quoted text not captured ]

"XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message news:1153323678.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Joshua Duffin wrote: >> I agree that it's a pretty good card. I don't think it does enough of >> what >> people want their bleed defense to do, but it does *something*, yeah. >> But >> that Jared Strait deck? Major Boon (4x) was not the best card in it. >> Parity Shift probably was (3x). Or maybe Second Tradition (10x). I >> think >> the fact that he felt the need to include 10 Second Traditions in the >> same >> deck as 4 Major Boons says something about how much you can count on >> Major >> Boon for your bleed defense. > > You are right about Major Boon being his sole bleed defence. He > certainly had other defenses in the deck (and rightfully so). But as I > remember that game, the 2-3 boons,that he did put in play, made his > Tremere Power-Bleed predator hesitant to bleed with the > Govern/Conditionings that ended up in his hand. Heh, I was actually trying to say that Major Boon was *not* his sole bleed defense, because he also had 10 Second Traditions. Those are also pretty good as bleed defense. >> For what it's worth, he also had two Kindred >> Restructures, which was another cute way to end up with a Major Boon on >> your >> (new) prey without playing bounce. So yeah, it's possible to do cool >> things >> with Major Boon. I just don't think it really measures up all that well >> against real bleed bounce. It's hardly an easy solution, even for >> hardworking-minded folks, for decks that don't have Dominate or Auspex. > > It's most hampered by the 1 OOT Master per turn more than anything > else. People want to be able to throw down 4 Deflections in a row. Right. Exactly. Because that's how much defense they need against strong bleed. > ...and it is "real" bleed bounce. It's not to me, because it isn't as flexible or instantaneous as "real" bleed bounce. It does some of what you want it to, but not all. The restrictions on it keep it from being the kind of bleed bounce that "really" defends you from bleeds consistently and thoroughly. >> I would disagree on 'pale in comparison' but agree on 'no bounce card >> should >> be better than Deflection'. I don't think other bounce cards ought to be >> *worse* than Deflection - I'm not willing, as a matter of principle, to >> allow Dominate to have dibs on the best bounce just because it had it >> first... > > Your statement is self-contradictory. You don't want "Dominate to have > dibs on the best bounce in the game" and "No bounce card should be > better than deflection". One of these two must be false for the other > to be true. Even if you had another bounce card that had exactly the > same "goodness value" as Deflection, then Deflection and this other > card would be the best bounce cards in the game. > > I think I understand what you are trying to say. You don't want > wallpaper, but you don't want the next Messiah of bounce cards being > printed that wallpapers Deflection. > > It is a difficult path to thread. Well, that is what I'm trying to say, but it's not contradictory. It is clearly possible for other bounce cards to be *just as good* as Deflection, which is both "not better than Deflection" and "doesn't let Dominate have dibs on the best bounce in the game". Because other disciplines could also have the best bounce in the game. As you say, it's hard to do. And yeah, I probably wouldn't even want to see cards just as good as Deflection made for other disciplines by just using the same text. Like, a Deflection-clone for Presence? Yeah, we really want to see even *more* weenie decks that can easily use bounce. I'd be perfectly happy to see other disciplines get bounce cards that aren't *quite* as good as Deflection, like, Deflection with a capacity minimum, or whatnot. Deflection is *so* good that even cards that aren't *quite* as good could still be really strong. >> Norm, I do give you a lot of credit for thinking outside the box, but >> there's a reason that those are the master cards that show up in every >> deck, >> and it's only partly that people have blinders on (ie are used to using >> them). > > When I first read this statement, I read "Norm, I do give you a lot of > credit for being a nutcase outside the box." I had to read it again. > :) heh! Dude, for what it's worth, you have actually gotten me to try putting Major Boon into some decks that don't have access to bleed bounce, to see for myself whether it gets me anywhere. I'm not dismissing your arguments out of hand. I'll just be pretty surprised if it turns out to be the magic bullet that makes my non-Dominate decks suddenly competitive. :-) > The cards have strong stand-alone effects. Unlike minion cards, which > players expect to combo, master cards are often straight forward plays > and very rarely have an interactive component. They go into play, and > they remain in play for whatever use you use them for. I'm not > debating whether this is good or bad; I'm saying that is how ithey are > played. Very true! >> Josh >> >> anathema of the other swamp > > I want my trophy. You get your trophy more often than about anyone else I've seen. Remind me not to play inherently Red List vampires when you're around. :-) Josh probably shouldn't play inherently red list vampires at all

Joshua Duffin wrote: > "XZealot" <xze...@cox.net> wrote in message > news:1153323678.8...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > Joshua Duffin wrote: > > >> I agree that it's a pretty good card. I don't think it does enough of > >> what > >> people want their bleed defense to do, but it does *something*, yeah. > >> But > >> that Jared Strait deck? Major Boon (4x) was not the best card in it. > >> Parity Shift probably was (3x). Or maybe Second Tradition (10x). I > >> think > >> the fact that he felt the need to include 10 Second Traditions in the > >> same > >> deck as 4 Major Boons says something about how much you can count on > >> Major > >> Boon for your bleed defense. > > > > You are right about Major Boon being his sole bleed defence. He > > certainly had other defenses in the deck (and rightfully so). But as I > > remember that game, the 2-3 boons,that he did put in play, made his > > Tremere Power-Bleed predator hesitant to bleed with the > > Govern/Conditionings that ended up in his hand. > > Heh, I was actually trying to say that Major Boon was *not* his sole bleed > defense, because he also had 10 Second Traditions. Those are also pretty > good as bleed defense. Yep, that's what you said. I think I was trying to agree with you, but came across awkwardly. > >> For what it's worth, he also had two Kindred > >> Restructures, which was another cute way to end up with a Major Boon on > >> your > >> (new) prey without playing bounce. So yeah, it's possible to do cool > >> things > >> with Major Boon. I just don't think it really measures up all that well > >> against real bleed bounce. It's hardly an easy solution, even for > >> hardworking-minded folks, for decks that don't have Dominate or Auspex. > > > > It's most hampered by the 1 OOT Master per turn more than anything > > else. People want to be able to throw down 4 Deflections in a row. > > Right. Exactly. Because that's how much defense they need against strong > bleed. Yes, and Major Boon as a master card has its own restriction built in. > > ...and it is "real" bleed bounce. > > It's not to me, because it isn't as flexible or instantaneous as "real" > bleed bounce. It does some of what you want it to, but not all. The > restrictions on it keep it from being the kind of bleed bounce that "really" > defends you from bleeds consistently and thoroughly. It is in effect bounce that you have access to, but doesn't take up a card slot in your hand. So it is like bounce and +1 hand size all in one. It isn't the suprise effect that a deflection is. Repeatability aside, which I know is a big strength of Deflection, Major Boon trades away its suprise factor for +1 hand size. Seems pretty good to me. [ quoted text not captured ] If you think that bounce is essitial to a successful defense, then in decks that don't have AUS or dom you should put in Major Boons. You are still going to need your blood recursion, like Blood Dolls. So what gets cut? Let's go back to our Masters Module 4 Blood Dolls- Check 2 Dreams of the Sphinx- Check 2 Minion Tap- Check 2 Direct Intervention- Check 1 Giants Blood- Check 2 Sudden Reversal- Check 1 Rack- Check 1 Stealth Location (Backways, Creepshow, Opium Den) Check 1 Barrens- check 2-4 Random Masters to show that I am a non-conformist and not a cookie-cutter player. Now we want to have 7-8 bounce cards in the deck. So we would have to get rid of 7-8 Master cards. Lets Take out the Sudden Reversals and the Direct Interventions. That is 4 cards. Let's take out the Giants Blood and the Rack as they can be replaced with blood gaining actions. So that is 6 cards. Lets cut out the Barrens and a Random Master. That is 8 cards. So your Master Module could look something like this. 4 Blood Dolls- Check 2 Dreams of the Sphinx- Check 2 Minion Tap- Check 1 Stealth Location (Backways, Creepshow, Opium Den) Check 8 Major Boons 1-3 Random Masters to show that I am a non-conformist and not a cookie-cutter player. > > The cards have strong stand-alone effects. Unlike minion cards, which > > players expect to combo, master cards are often straight forward plays > > and very rarely have an interactive component. They go into play, and > > they remain in play for whatever use you use them for. I'm not > > debating whether this is good or bad; I'm saying that is how ithey are > > played. > > Very true! > > >> Josh > >> > >> anathema of the other swamp > > > > I want my trophy. > > You get your trophy more often than about anyone else I've seen. Yeah Baby! Talk dirty to me. > Remind me not to play inherently Red List vampires when you're around. :-) Hopefully you'll forget this by the next time I see you. > Josh > > probably shouldn't play inherently red list vampires at all Stop that crazy talk. You should play the soft squishies like Jayne Jonestown or Ossian. [ quoted text not captured ]

Orpheus, to avoid anthelios/jake washington in a combat deck, you just have to play jake washington!! Contesting is the best answer. Not to be is a good card, in fact. You just have to test it. If ww make a card that destroy an event already in play, it will break the strategy to play event cards, because if an event is destroyed, it can't be played another time!! I think, it will kill a lot of decks. If an AAA deck can't play Anthelios, i think it will never be able to win a tournament again. The errata on anarch revolt have already decreased the power of this deck.

zkopiosy wrote: > If an AAA deck can't play Anthelios, i think it will never be able to > win a tournament again. > The errata on anarch revolt have already decreased the power of this > deck. AAA is one of the oldest archetypes around, and has nothing to do with Anarch Revolt, and was considered tier 1 long before Anthelios was ever thought of. You're thinking maybe of *Anson* decks. AAA calls unblockable votes and push/caps them, and also plays a lot of block and obedience, generally speaking. And anyway, there are some of us who thought Anthelios should never have been printed and said so during playtest, loudly. If you assume that events on the whole are a problem (personally, I don't, but I can see where people are coming from), then I don't think invoking one particular event that propped up an already tier 1 deck (straight anson/AR decks were also taking plenty of tournies before Anthelios) is a good way to make your case.

[ quoted text not captured ] You've already made the assumption that the Boon is on the table. That requires someone other than you to have already taken a small bleed to make it worth playing. In an environment where heavy bleed is prevalent, that is not so likely. Besides, Major Boon requires a MASTER PHASE ACTION. That cost is easily worth 1 pool. See Ascendance. > You can even play Major Boon on your predator when he gets bled. It's > amazing how bleedzookas won't lay the hammer down when they know that > they are going to be the ones taking the damage. Bleedzookas play Dominate. Ergo, Bleedzookas play bounce. They might never take a bleed of any size on the chin for you to Boon against. So why did you play that card again? > Deflection bounce gets a double bonus for your prey taking the bleed > that you would have. > > Major Boon gets a double bonus for making the guy that is bleeding you > take the bleed, which Deflection can't do. Didn't you just say that ousting your prey is good? Big bonus for Deflection Didn't you just say that ousting your predaor is bad? Big penalty for Major Boon. Deflections are always in hand and usable when you need them. Major Boons require something else to happen prior. They are completely and utterly unreliable, and therefore nothing close to a substitute for true bounce. I know Major Boon, and Major Boon, you are no Deflection. Jeff

> > Why would you supposubly wait until he's dead? Obviously if someone > > chucks a power bleed at you and you can't block it then you can burn > > the boon. It's sitting on the table. The player who you played the > > boon on is going to be begging and pleading for your predator not to > > drop the bomb until the boon is gone. Most players will use whatever > > options are at hand to save themselves, yourself included. > > You've already made the assumption that the Boon is on the table. That > requires someone other than you to have already taken a small bleed to > make it worth playing. In an environment where heavy bleed is > prevalent, that is not so likely. Besides, Major Boon requires a MASTER > PHASE ACTION. That cost is easily worth 1 pool. See Ascendance. The opportunity cost of a player being bled is incredibly small. If you have 4 other players on the table and each player controls 3 minions. Then you have 12 possible opportunities for someone to successfully bleed another player. > > You can even play Major Boon on your predator when he gets bled. It's > > amazing how bleedzookas won't lay the hammer down when they know that > > they are going to be the ones taking the damage. > > Bleedzookas play Dominate. Ergo, Bleedzookas play bounce. They might > never take a bleed of any size on the chin for you to Boon against. So > why did you play that card again? You don't want to boon large bleeds taken by other players. You want to boon small bleeds taken by other players, then make them take the large bleeds that you would otherwise be forced to take. Often a Dominate player won't bounce a bleed for 1, prefering to save his bounce for potentially larger bleeds coming down the pipe. There is where the opportunity to play Major Boon lies against the Dominate player. > > Deflection bounce gets a double bonus for your prey taking the bleed > > that you would have. > > > > Major Boon gets a double bonus for making the guy that is bleeding you > > take the bleed, which Deflection can't do. > > Didn't you just say that ousting your prey is good? Big bonus for > Deflection > Didn't you just say that ousting your predaor is bad? Big penalty for > Major Boon. I never said ousting your predator is bad. I said that you want to wait until your predator becomes your prey. I would always choose to oust my predator than be ousted myself. Would you choose differently? > Deflections are always in hand and usable when you need them. False, Deflections are not always in hand and usable. They require you to draw them from a deck of cards. They require you to have an untapped minion with dominate. > Major Boons require something else to happen prior. They are completely > and utterly unreliable, and therefore nothing close to a substitute for > true bounce. Bleeds happen, often. Major Boons have such an infinetisimally small opportunity cost, it is hardly a opportunity cost at all. > I know Major Boon, and Major Boon, you are no Deflection. I never said they were the same. Read the statement: Major Boon is disciplineless bounce. It exists and has for a long time. Major Boon is a master card with no requirements and Deflection is a minion card requiring dominate. Obviously. they are different. Their function is the same "They can make another player lose pool instead of you when a bleed against you goes unblocked." [ quoted text not captured ]