More stupid rules Questions

Well, I don't know if maybe just this one pocket of people got confused, or if everyone is confused (not likely), but here goes. If vampire A is bleeding at +1 Stealth (due to Kine Domination for example) can vampire B (controlled by the victim methusulah) play a deflection without generating +1 intercept? We've always played that in order to react to a vampire's actions either by blocking or playing a different reaction card, you had to catch them doing it. The logic being that stealth represents your hiding what you're doing from sight, if they can't see you, how can they react at all to what you're doing. Second question, if you have a directed bleed card, can you nominate someone besides your prey as the target? We've always played that the built in bleed has to go to your prey, but a directed bleed can go to any methusulah. Otherwise, what is the card difference between a directed attack (say Ambush, which doesn't specify that it has to be your prey, just that it can't be your own minion) and a Computer Hacking, which doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey either? Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish about it. My apologies to Norman if I was rude or seemed that way, but I tend to be that way at times. Sorry for that, but those changes make significant changes in the ways that our deck design and concepts work. Thanks in advance. Lee doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey either? Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish. I must apologize if I seemed rude to Norman, but the changes that he was suggesting represent massive shifts in the logic and form of all of our decks. Sorry Norman, next time we'll try to be better, and to have some more people naturally. Thanx in Advance, Lee

In article <39dbe8ac....@news.ionet.net>, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: > Well, I don't know if maybe just this one pocket of people got > confused, or if everyone is confused (not likely), but here goes. > I'll give it a shot. > If vampire A is bleeding at +1 Stealth (due to Kine Domination for > example) can vampire B (controlled by the victim methusulah) play a > deflection without generating +1 intercept? We've always played that > in order to react to a vampire's actions either by blocking or playing > a different reaction card, you had to catch them doing it. The logic > being that stealth represents your hiding what you're doing from > sight, if they can't see you, how can they react at all to what you're > doing. > No. You don't have to generate intercept to deflect/telepathic (couter or misdirection). You are the methusula (sp) you know all and see all... not to mention that this would make malk s+b just evil. > Second question, if you have a directed bleed card, can you nominate > someone besides your prey as the target? We've always played that the > built in bleed has to go to your prey, but a directed bleed can go to > any methusulah. Otherwise, what is the card difference between a > directed attack (say Ambush, which doesn't specify that it has to be > your prey, just that it can't be your own minion) and a Computer > Hacking, which doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey > either? > No. Bleed actions by definition are directed at your prey unless specifically stated in card text (night moves and cat burglary). The difference is that, well they were printed that way to remind us all that this was still a bleed, so only the person it was directed at gets to block (IMHO). There is lively debate on the 'goodness' of this in game play, but this is the way the rules team handles it. > Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as > our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, > so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish about > it. Not a problem, house rules can of course overturn anything you want to, but the above rulings are the way these currently stand. And they aren't stupid questions, they are the ones that you needed to know, and the D action thing is always being debated. look for it on the newsgroup if you want to (search deja.com) > Thanx in Advance, > Lee null persp, hope the answers help you folks enjoy the game more Cameron Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <39dbe8ac....@news.ionet.net>, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: > If vampire A is bleeding at +1 Stealth (due to Kine Domination for > example) can vampire B (controlled by the victim methusulah) play a > deflection without generating +1 intercept? Yes. This is the best time to play a deflection, when your prey is less likely to be able to block it. > We've always played that in order to react to a vampire's actions > either by blocking or playing a different reaction card, you had > to catch them doing it. The logic being that stealth represents > your hiding what you're doing from sight, if they can't see you, > how can they react at all to what you're doing. It's not that I can't see you, its that I can't stop you. I may have already given you misinformation that ends up being the deflection / redirection / telepathic misdirection / telepathic counter. Stealth isn't about not being seen, its about not being blocked. > Second question, if you have a directed bleed card, can you nominate > someone besides your prey as the target? Not unless the card mentions another player. Bleeds are only directed at your prey unless the card says specifically that you can bleed someone else. See Cat Burglary, Night Moves, Kindred Spirits. If any (D) bleed could target anyone, then these cards would not need to exist. They do exist however and are part of the argument that you may only bleed your prey unless the card text says otherwise. > We've always played that the built in bleed has to go to your prey, > but a directed bleed can go to any methusulah. Otherwise, what is > the card difference between a directed attack (say Ambush, which > doesn't specify that it has to be your prey, just that it can't be > your own minion) and a Computer Hacking, which doesn't say that it > has to be directed at your prey either? Ambush says "Enter combat with a tapped minion." Any minion who is tapped (and not yours) can be targetted. The (D) symbol only redundantly indicates who can block (only the controller of the target, or the methuselah tragetted). The symbol does *not* address who the action can be directed at - the rest of the text on the card should make that clear. All bleeds default to your prey, by the definition of "bleed". See the online rulebook [6.1.1] here: http://www.white-wolf.com/VTES/rulebook.html "6.1.1. Bleed Bleeding is one of the most fundamental actions of the game. It is the basic means of removing your prey's pool. By default, your minion's bleed actions can be directed only at your prey. Some cards or effects may allow or force you to bleed a Methuselah other than your prey. You can never bleed yourself, however." This has not always been the case (if you ever called WOTC's helpline, or emailed the newsgroup 2 or more years ago, they would have told you otherwise), but has been the case since July 7th, 1998 when the current Rules Team became official. http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra/RTR7-7.htm Carpe Noctem. Lasombra http://members.tripod.com/~Lasombra [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Lee Fent wrote: > If vampire A is bleeding at +1 Stealth (due to Kine Domination for > example) can vampire B (controlled by the victim methusulah) play a > deflection without generating +1 intercept? Yes. Intercept is only for blocking. You don't need intercept to vote or play reaction cards in political actions either. If you needed intercept to play reaction cards, then you would never be able to play the intercept cards in the first place. > We've always played that > in order to react to a vampire's actions either by blocking or playing > a different reaction card, you had to catch them doing it. The logic > being that stealth represents your hiding what you're doing from > sight, if they can't see you, how can they react at all to what you're > doing. OK, but the rule being justified here is not an official rule. You can just as easily use your imagination to justify the official rules. > Second question, if you have a directed bleed card, can you nominate > someone besides your prey as the target? All bleeds are directed. The "directed" status of any action has nothing to do with who may be targetted. It has to do with who can block. If an action is directed, then only the targetted Methuselah can block. If an action is non-directed, then only your predator and prey may block. To determine who a bleed can be directed at, check the rulebook, or card text, as appropriate. Most cards which are designated with the (D) symbol (which just means "directed action", not "directed action which can target anyone") will tell you who may be targetted. The exception are the bleed cards. These do not tell you who may be targetted, because the rulebook already tells you that bleeds are targetted at your prey. The (D) symbol on bleed cards is simply reminder text, indicating that, like all bleeds, this one is directed. This means that no-one may attempt to block the action except the target. Political actions, by contrast, are not directed actions (and so do not have the (D) symbol). Thus only predator and prey may block such actions. You may not block them from across the table, even if you feel the vote is victimizing you. The only times bleeds can be directed at other than your prey is when card text tells you this happens. Thus, deflection cards can send your bleed to another Methuselah. Also, Cat Burglary, Night MOves, and Kindred Spirits have card text that explicitly allow you to bleed other Methuselahs. > We've always played that the > built in bleed has to go to your prey, but a directed bleed can go to > any methusulah. The distinction you are making is false. All bleeds are Directed Actions. They are "directed" at your prey. That means only the target (your prey) can block. > Otherwise, what is the card difference between a > directed attack (say Ambush, which doesn't specify that it has to be > your prey, just that it can't be your own minion) and a Computer > Hacking, which doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey > either? There is no difference, as far as the significance of the (D) symbol goes. In both cases, it means that only the targetted Methuselah may attempt to block the action. In the case of Computer Hacking, the targetted Methuselah is your prey (as per the rulebook on bleeds). In the case of Ambush, the targetted Methuselah is whoever controls the tapped minion you are trying to enter combat with. > Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as > our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, > so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish about > it. Actually, the confusion regarding the (D) symbol was long ago created and spread by the original rules team. According to every rulebook ever printed, the (D) symbol simply means "Directed Action" (which was fully defined), but this did not stop the original rules team from ruling that (D) meant "Directed Action that can target any Methuselah". This confusing and pointless rule clearly ran counter to the design intent, and was eventually eliminated by the current rules team. Now (D) means just "Directed Action" again, which is as it should be. -- John Whelan

Well, having read the replies, I have the following things to say. Since they are not aimed at anyone in specific, I didn't reply to anyone except my own post. I think our problem is with the first part being an interpretation, simply because it does NOT say that you can react without generating the intercept first. In fairness it also does not say that you cannnot react without the intercept. If you're only interested in the "Official Ruling" stop reading here, I'll accept that any time I leave this town I'll have to play by those rules, since they are "Official". From here on out, I'm going to lay out my argument why it shouldn't be that way. Logically, not rules wise, since the rule book states that "Conceptually, stealth represents the measures that the acting minion is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the attention of those who would oppose him." And that blocking is nothing more than a reaction to an action that, if successful will end with combat instead of a more elegant solution (deflection or reduction). I find it illogical to assume that you can react to something that you cannot perceive. If you don't know that I'm going to steal your money or wreck your business, or whatever the bleed actually is representing, then how can you respond to it? And that line about the methus being all seeing is fine, but he's still giving directions to someone who can't see what's going on (the minion attempting to react). The interaction of voting is that you can't stop the vote from being floored, but you can still respond by snarling and everything else to the voting, not the calling of the vote. Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. Sure, it's nice to play by the rules, but we play the game because of the flavor. The official rules seem to be reducing the game to a series of moves that are more mechanical than before. Fine, I won't play any more with anyone outside who isn't willing to accept our house rules. I really don't give a rats hindquarters about tournaments, I have too many trophies from other games to care any more, and I don't have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. It just seems to me that with the official rules you really don't have to worry about stealth bleed until you're down to two players, since you can deflect it any time you want prior to that, you can rack up victory points while your preditor puts out your prey for you. Gee, what a great deal. I guess we play a harsher version here, since you can't deflect it if you don't have the intercept to match. Since most bleeds start at no stealth, you still have a chance to deflect, but the bleeds that you're expending resources on (cards and blood) are more effective than the built-in versions. Not because we can reduce it to a series of actions that preordain a specific outcome. If I wanted to do that I'd go back to playing Magic and winning every game. Before you say anything take a moment to imagine a game where you have to generate the intercept to stop a bleed, and you have to decide if you want to deflect it before they play their bleed modifiers, which is the way we play. The choices are harder, you have to know what you're doing rather than waiting until after they play their modifiers to play your reaction cards, and thus knowing before hand if it's better to take the one bleed (you hope), waste the deflection on what might be a insignificant bleed, or to honest to gosh block, and risk being unable to stop them as the acting minion proves too wily for the blocking minion. Now if you want to flame me about this, fine, do it to me directly at mailto://lf...@ionet.net (lf...@ionet.net for those without html readers) rather than clog the ng with your bile. If someone ones to discuss why these are not valid interpretations, fine, step up and have a whack at it. Thanks, Lee lf...@ionet.net In article <39dbe8ac....@news.ionet.net>, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: [ quoted text not captured ]

lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. [...] > have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. It just seems > to me that with the official rules you really don't have to worry about > stealth bleed until you're down to two players, since you can deflect > it any time you want prior to that, you can rack up victory points Well, any time you have a deflection in your hand and a ready untapped minion with dom and a blood, sure. > while your preditor puts out your prey for you. Gee, what a great > deal. I guess we play a harsher version here, since you can't deflect > it if you don't have the intercept to match. Since most bleeds start > at no stealth, you still have a chance to deflect, but the bleeds that So in your house rule, you can play deflection before the acting minion gets a chance to increase his stealth? Just curious. > you're expending resources on (cards and blood) are more effective than > the built-in versions. Not because we can reduce it to a series of > actions that preordain a specific outcome. If I wanted to do that I'd > go back to playing Magic and winning every game. Before you say > anything take a moment to imagine a game where you have to generate the > intercept to stop a bleed, and you have to decide if you want to > deflect it before they play their bleed modifiers, which is the way we > play. The choices are harder, you have to know what you're doing The choices are harder for the defender, easier for the attacker. This seems to be more geared towards a "winning every game" S&B deck rather than less. > rather than waiting until after they play their modifiers to play your > reaction cards, and thus knowing before hand if it's better to take the > one bleed (you hope), waste the deflection on what might be a > insignificant bleed, or to honest to gosh block, and risk being unable > to stop them as the acting minion proves too wily for the blocking > minion. > > Now if you want to flame me about this, fine, do it to me directly at > mailto://lf...@ionet.net (lf...@ionet.net for those without html readers) BTW: mailto: doesn't use slashes, and so the html readers wouldn't help in that situation, anyhow. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

In article <8ri2sm$410$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] i could take out Insurance, for example [Telepathic counter] or i could fortuitously have sold my interests in the Rub-u-like Massage parlour to my Dear Brother Preycula Prince of Pants JUST before Ozmo came calling [Deflection, redirection, telepathic misdirection]. More suggested role- playing links below. > > The interaction of voting is that you can't stop the vote from being > floored, but you can still respond by snarling and everything else to > the voting, not the calling of the vote. If you accept that, why can't you accept that i or my minions can go along to the Harpies or Inconnu or whoever and bitch a blue streak about your Monstrous breaches of the masquerade, leading to them cancelling or compensating me for whatever nefarious actions you're performing upon my August Person? There's no conceptual difference between, on the one hand, Archon Investigation where i'm bribing the archons to burn your sorry megableeding arse, and, on the other, Telepathic counter/misdirection, deflection or redirection where my auspicious or dominant minions are either using their uncanny powers of foresight to make your actions fail, or forcing weaker spirits to lead you to the wrong bank-account - AI is most powerful because it is "done" by a very powerful vampire [you], but the others are done by beings who are still quite powerful. > > Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. Nor do we. So long as you are having fun, you are doing it right. > Sure, it's nice to play by the rules, but we play the game because of > the flavor. Good reason, but one of the reasons why VTES is such a strong game is that there are LOTS of good reasons for playing the game. The official rules seem to be reducing the game to a > series of moves that are more mechanical than before. i don't see this at all. Your way is also a series of moves and therefore just as mechanical, whatever that means. Fine, I won't > play any more with anyone outside who isn't willing to accept our house > rules. Hmmmm, petulant bear with sore head ;-). i think that's an unfortunate stance and i hope you will reconsider it. ALL of us used to play with wacky, not to say wrong, house rules because VTES is a difficult game to learn and we didn't even know we were playing it wrong. We still had a lot of fun but we had a lot MORE fun when we had it explained to use how the game ACTUALLY works and started to play that way instead. I really don't give a rats hindquarters about tournaments, Of course there's absolutely NO reason why you should play in tournaments if you don't think you'll enjoy it. A lot of my friends don't, but most do, and many who think they won't like it are pleasantly surprised when they eventually try it out. I > have too many trophies from other games to care any more, Which other games do/did you play, just out of interest? and I don't > have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. VTES is still probably the cheapest game there is that's actually worth playing, as well as [in our collective opinion] the best game of all time. A lot of us will give you commons free, and you can build a totally kick-ass deck from commons only. It just seems > to me that with the official rules you really don't have to worry about > stealth bleed until you're down to two players, since you can deflect > it any time you want prior to that, you can rack up victory points > while your preditor puts out your prey for you. Hmmmm. You're describing the Malkavian stealth-bleed/deflect wet-dream which stays as a messy nocturnal fantasy in any decent playgroup because of rush-combat and politics. Gee, what a great > deal. I guess we play a harsher version here, since you can't deflect > it if you don't have the intercept to match. Since most bleeds start > at no stealth, you still have a chance to deflect, but the bleeds that > you're expending resources on (cards and blood) are more effective than > the built-in versions. Not because we can reduce it to a series of > actions that preordain a specific outcome. i don't understand this sentence at all. If I wanted to do that I'd > go back to playing Magic and winning every game. Golly, ANOTHER Pro-Tour Magic player in the house! There are one or two good magic players here already. Not me, though. Vampy theme decks only! Before you say > anything take a moment to imagine a game where you have to generate the > intercept to stop a bleed, and you have to decide if you want to > deflect it before they play their bleed modifiers, which is the way we > play. The choices are harder, you have to know what you're doing > rather than waiting until after they play their modifiers to play your > reaction cards, and thus knowing before hand if it's better to take the > one bleed (you hope), waste the deflection on what might be a > insignificant bleed, or to honest to gosh block, and risk being unable > to stop them as the acting minion proves too wily for the blocking > minion. i certainly see that the way you play must be different, and in particular that Deflection and the like must be next-to-useless in your environment. You're correct to suspect that the way we play CAN make these cards appallingly powerful. But your view that the way we play VTES makes it a mechanical cake-walk is VERY far from correct. > > Now if you want to flame me about this, fine, do it to me directly at > mailto://lf...@ionet.net (lf...@ionet.net for those without html > readers) rather than clog the ng with your bile. If someone ones to > discuss why these are not valid interpretations, fine, step up and have > a whack at it. > > Thanks, > Lee > lf...@ionet.net > Apart from the specific points i've made above, and in no spirit of flaminess or dyspepsia whatsoever, i think your interpretations are not valid because you aren't thinking sufficiently laterally about what Methuselahs' resources are, and how they go about protecting them. i personally like it that you are trying to think what real-world actions the cards you play represent, because i quite often play or deck-build with those kinds of thoughts in mind. In fact, however, most people on this group couldn't give a rat's hindquarters about the story-telling aspects of the game/its links to VtM ANYWAY: they quite like vampires and the World of Darkness, sure, but they see VTES as a much more abstract and higher-level representation of the WoD than VtM could ever be. [ quoted text not captured ]

Okay, the three comments, in order (sorry, it's a real hassle to do inline comments from here) 1) Well, any time you have a deflection in your hand and a ready untapped minion with dom and a blood, sure. We play that way. As long as the bleeding minion isn't at stealth you can do that. If the acting minion is ALREADY at stealth (from the action or whatnot), then you have to intercept up to that that level, then you can deflect. 2) So in your house rule, you can play deflection before the acting minion gets a chance to increase his stealth? Just curious. Yup, sure can, then it's someone elses fault. You can't just add stealth for no reason, only if someone tries to block you. However, if your action is at a default stealth level. 3) The choices are harder for the defender, easier for the attacker. This seems to be more geared towards a "winning every game" S&B deck rather than less. Well, since the mechanic of the game is to bleed your opponent out, that is the deck that routinely performs best in a neutral environment and it is the most direct method to a victory. Rush counters Bleed bleed counters this the other counters that, weenie beats this. It's fun if you chant it. You build a deck to win or to have fun. If you want to win, you either stop stealthbleed or you play stealthbleed, just like you have to accept that combat is part of the game, and voting too. If you build a deck that ignores any of these, you run the risk of having to roll over to another deck archtype. There are a dozen ways to do any of the major types, they are all as valid. Thanx, Lee In article <39DC9486...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. > [...] > > have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. It just seems > > to me that with the official rules you really don't have to worry about > > stealth bleed until you're down to two players, since you can deflect > > it any time you want prior to that, you can rack up victory points > > Well, any time you have a deflection in your hand and a ready untapped > minion with dom and a blood, sure. > > > while your preditor puts out your prey for you. Gee, what a great > > deal. I guess we play a harsher version here, since you can't deflect > > it if you don't have the intercept to match. Since most bleeds start > > at no stealth, you still have a chance to deflect, but the bleeds that > > So in your house rule, you can play deflection before the acting minion > gets a chance to increase his stealth? Just curious. > > > you're expending resources on (cards and blood) are more effective than > > the built-in versions. Not because we can reduce it to a series of > > actions that preordain a specific outcome. If I wanted to do that I'd > > go back to playing Magic and winning every game. Before you say > > anything take a moment to imagine a game where you have to generate the > > intercept to stop a bleed, and you have to decide if you want to > > deflect it before they play their bleed modifiers, which is the way we > > play. The choices are harder, you have to know what you're doing > > The choices are harder for the defender, easier for the attacker. > This seems to be more geared towards a "winning every game" S&B deck > rather than less. > > > rather than waiting until after they play their modifiers to play your > > reaction cards, and thus knowing before hand if it's better to take the > > one bleed (you hope), waste the deflection on what might be a > > insignificant bleed, or to honest to gosh block, and risk being unable > > to stop them as the acting minion proves too wily for the blocking > > minion. > > > > Now if you want to flame me about this, fine, do it to me directly at > > mailto://lf...@ionet.net (lf...@ionet.net for those without html readers) > > BTW: > mailto: doesn't use slashes, and so the html readers wouldn't help in > that situation, anyhow. > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ri2sm$410$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: i could take out Insurance, for example [Telepathic counter] or i could fortuitously have sold my interests in the Rub-u-like Massage parlour to my Dear Brother Preycula Prince of Pants JUST before Ozmo came calling [Deflection, redirection, telepathic misdirection]. More suggested role- playing links below. Well, I can see that, except that you're not acting. That's the trick, those things are actions. If you want to do the role-playing vs card thing, fine. But I'll accept that you can come up with anything to match. I still don't think you can do it without having forknowledge. I don't buy into the Methus see it coming bit, but whatever. It's basically a pointless argument. I think that most likely if I tried to introduce the new rules here, I would kill the game for this town. As much as I may disagree with the rules, I still like the game, so I'm not going to try to inform anyone how the rules are supposed to be. It's a waste of my time and the store owners money if he tries it. If you accept that, why can't you accept that i or my minions can go along to the Harpies or Inconnu or whoever and bitch a blue streak about your Monstrous breaches of the masquerade, leading to them cancelling or compensating me for whatever nefarious actions you're performing upon my August Person? Because you don't have an action to do that. If there was a vote card call bitch a blue streak, then you'd be welcome to play it. Something along the lines of "If the referendum is successful, regain all pool lost by you due to bleed actions since your last turn" Fine, great, put on a big hat and have a happy day with it. There's no conceptual difference between, on the one hand, Archon Investigation where i'm bribing the archons to burn your sorry megableeding arse, and, on the other, Telepathic counter/misdirection, deflection or redirection where my auspicious or dominant minions are either using their uncanny powers of foresight to make your actions fail, or forcing weaker spirits to lead you to the wrong bank-account - AI is most powerful because it is "done" by a very powerful vampire [you], but the others are done by beings who are still quite powerful. See, we have a conceptual difference in that I guess we (at least I) don't see it as the methus part. These are minions who have come together. The AI is in response to what would have to be a pretty heinous violation of the masquerade, not due to bribery on the methus's part. Nor do we. So long as you are having fun, you are doing it right. Good reason, but one of the reasons why VTES is such a strong game is that there are LOTS of good reasons for playing the game. i don't see this at all. Your way is also a series of moves and therefore just as mechanical, whatever that means. Our way tends to result in more calculated guesses, something like reading your opponent at poker. I'm having trouble seeing that this is still there when all I have to do is deflect it at any time. Hmmmm, petulant bear with sore head ;-). i think that's an unfortunate stance and i hope you will reconsider it. ALL of us used to play with wacky, not to say wrong, house rules because VTES is a difficult game to learn and we didn't even know we were playing it wrong. We still had a lot of fun but we had a lot MORE fun when we had it explained to use how the game ACTUALLY works and started to play that way instead. That's the problem. Trying to force these rules on the players will result in no one having fun. Which I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't pay someone to insure I don't have fun. I can go to work and do that. Of course there's absolutely NO reason why you should play in tournaments if you don't think you'll enjoy it. A lot of my friends don't, but most do, and many who think they won't like it are pleasantly surprised when they eventually try it out. Which other games do/did you play, just out of interest? Magic: the idiocy. Several other role-playing games. VTES is still probably the cheapest game there is that's actually worth playing, as well as [in our collective opinion] the best game of all time. A lot of us will give you commons free, and you can build a totally kick-ass deck from commons only. Thanks for the offer, we have cards out the wazoo, but since no one here builds decks with out a theme behind them, we don't make competition grade decks. That's one of the reasons that I gave up Magic, I couldn't play for fun, I had to play to win. Hmmmm. You're describing the Malkavian stealth-bleed/deflect wet-dream which stays as a messy nocturnal fantasy in any decent playgroup because of rush-combat and politics. Eh? i don't understand this sentence at all. I guess that makes us even since I didn't understand the one before this. Golly, ANOTHER Pro-Tour Magic player in the house! There are one or two good magic players here already. Not me, though. Vampy theme decks only! Hell no. No money to go to non-local tournaments. Sorry, just a poor guy putting his wife through college. i certainly see that the way you play must be different, and in particular that Deflection and the like must be next-to-useless in your environment. You're correct to suspect that the way we play CAN make these cards appallingly powerful. But your view that the way we play VTES makes it a mechanical cake-walk is VERY far from correct. No, but you've got to deflect right off the bat, and hope that your opponent doesn't bleed you for more with a second vampire. It just changes when you have to choose. Apart from the specific points i've made above, and in no spirit of flaminess or dyspepsia whatsoever, i think your interpretations are not valid because you aren't thinking sufficiently laterally about what Methuselahs' resources are, and how they go about protecting them. i personally like it that you are trying to think what real-world actions the cards you play represent, because i quite often play or deck-build with those kinds of thoughts in mind. In fact, however, most people on this group couldn't give a rat's hindquarters about the story-telling aspects of the game/its links to VtM ANYWAY: they quite like vampires and the World of Darkness, sure, but they see VTES as a much more abstract and higher-level representation of the WoD than VtM could ever be. I can see what you're saying, but since as a group we never viewed things that way, our way of play makes sense. That's life. [ quoted text not captured ]

WHERE do we get these people from? On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:23:28 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >I think our problem is with the first part being an interpretation, It is not an interpretation. It is the way the rules were written, and the game was designed, from the ground up, word 'go', or whatever mangled malaise of mayhem you care to splash across our screens. Stealth and intercept only affect blocking. 'nuff said. The rules don't SAY that, when drawing a card, I can't draw from the middle of my library. Is this legal? No. Is it, by the same "logic" you're using here, merely an interpretation? Yes. >"Conceptually, stealth represents the measures that the acting minion >is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the >attention of those who would oppose him." > >And that blocking is nothing more than a reaction to an action that, if >successful will end with combat instead of a more elegant solution >(deflection or reduction). I find it illogical to assume that you can >react to something that you cannot perceive. If you don't know that >I'm going to steal your money or wreck your business, or whatever the >bleed actually is representing, then how can you respond to it? And >that line about the methus being all seeing is fine, but he's still >giving directions to someone who can't see what's going on (the minion >attempting to react). Minions do NOT need to know what is happening to have a significant effect on it. Look at the average corporation! =) Have you never heard of the concept of "I will lead you to a man who will lead you to a man who will..."? If you are betrayed, nobody in the chain knows anything more than his current "link" - but if anyone in the chain fails, the whole thing goes to pot. This is one means to represent a minion affecting something without having to know what is happening. From a gameplay issue, how does anyone you play with EVER stop the Nosferatu from doing everything they like? Why would anyone play any clan other than the Nossies or Malkavians? How do you stop OBF/DOM bleed, since now you can't even Deflect that +3 stealth bleed? Intercept is NOT at a premium in this game - it is much easier to gain sufficient stealth to get by. I can't believe that you've actually played this game at ALL with these rules and not discovered that it's totally, violently broken in favor of certain clans. If you HAVE discovered that it's broken, then you're certainly using social pressure to keep people from playing heavy-stealth decks. I mean, come on, do you REALLY think they'd have printed Forgotten Labyrinth if stealth blocked reactions as well? SHEESH. >Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. >Sure, it's nice to play by the rules, but we play the game because of >the flavor. The official rules seem to be reducing the game to a >series of moves that are more mechanical than before. Fine, I won't You don't appear to have actually played with the official rules. You should try it sometime. How often have you PLAYED this game? >play any more with anyone outside who isn't willing to accept our house >rules. I really don't give a rats hindquarters about tournaments, I >have too many trophies from other games to care any more, and I don't >have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. It just seems you don't have $15 for a box of Jyhad? You can make a competitive deck out of one box. >to me that with the official rules you really don't have to worry about >stealth bleed until you're down to two players, since you can deflect >it any time you want prior to that, you can rack up victory points >while your preditor puts out your prey for you. Gee, what a great >deal. I guess we play a harsher version here, since you can't deflect Well, first, you have to have the Deflections in hand. Second, you have to have an untapped vampire to do the Deflecting. Third, when the vote deck sits down behind you, all your Deflections are useless and you die miserably. Stealth bleed is still an extremely strong strategy in V:TES under the official rules... it just requires some competence to play, instead of your version, where I just need to be able to generate +3 stealth consistently for my Govern + Conditionings. >it if you don't have the intercept to match. Since most bleeds start >at no stealth, you still have a chance to deflect, but the bleeds that No you don't. Lost in Crowds + Cloak the Gathering = 3 stealth. If you have to generate 3 intercept for every bleed and *then* deflect it as well, your deck doesn't have room in it to do anything else other than defend. >you're expending resources on (cards and blood) are more effective than >the built-in versions. Not because we can reduce it to a series of >actions that preordain a specific outcome. If I wanted to do that I'd The official rules do not even remotely do this. Far from it, in fact. >go back to playing Magic and winning every game. Before you say >anything take a moment to imagine a game where you have to generate the >intercept to stop a bleed, and you have to decide if you want to >deflect it before they play their bleed modifiers, which is the way we >play. The choices are harder, you have to know what you're doing Yeah, those are hard choices - either you're screwed, or you're screwed. Stealth decks beat intercept decks. It's a fact. Stealth bleed will win every single game under your system, if constructed and played properly. Decks don't have the resources available to generate intercept, deflect, AND do something to their own prey. >rather than waiting until after they play their modifiers to play your >reaction cards, and thus knowing before hand if it's better to take the >one bleed (you hope), waste the deflection on what might be a >insignificant bleed, or to honest to gosh block, and risk being unable >to stop them as the acting minion proves too wily for the blocking >minion. OK, look at this example, played under the official rules. A comes to bleed B with his first of 3 minions, using Govern the Unaligned. (bleed of 3). B attempts to block. A plays "Lost in Crowds" to add 2 stealth. B says "OK, I fail miserably." A now must ask himself "Is my prey going to Deflect this?" prior to playing his Conditioning. He looks, and sees that the vampire B tried to block with has superior Dominate and 3 blood on it - enough to pay for a Deflection and stay untapped. Does B's attempt to block signal that he has no Deflections, or was he trying to trick A into adding stealth? If A guesses wrong, he will be helping his prey out by bleeding his grandprey for 6 at 2 stealth. No easy task for A. A doesn't play his Conditioning and says "No modifiers, only 3." (a wise choice, since he can just play the Conditioning on the NEXT bleed, and draw out 2 of B's Deflections at minimal risk). B now must ask himself "Should I Deflect this?" Sure, it's a bleed for 3, and that could hurt, but I only have one Deflection in hand, and what happens if the next one is for 6? Does he have that many bleed cards? Shit. Maybe he just doesn't have any modifiers, and he'll have to bleed for 1 with his next two minions, so I'll end up Deflecting a bleed for 1. Damn." As you can see, there is no "gimme" for either player under the official rules. If B has 3 Deflections in hand, of course, the choice is much easier, but he was either very lucky, or a fool, since anyone playing with THAT many Deflections to guarantee 3 in hand at all times will be piteously helpless before a vote deck. If A gets greedy and starts modifying every bleed, he certainly WILL oust his grandprey - but if he sees potential Deflections, he can change his strategy some to bleed for smaller amounts to force the Deflections out of his prey's hand. -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

You know what Derek, I'm starting to have a suspiscion that you have the social graces of a wet sock. We have played the game since it game out, we read the rules, and this is the way we interpretted them. If you don't like it why don't you go find someone else to annoy. The game works totally well with the way we play, which would be why we didn't think anything was broken about. Why don't you try it before decrying that we all must be idiots. For what it's worth, I have to scrape to buy cards, namely because unlike you (I'm assuming here, but it's probaly a safe bet) I am putting my wife through VetMed, so until you know what it's like to be in my shoes why don't you back off of me, eh? Or are you just a little too stupid to understand that? A little too narrow minded to be able to look at it from another view point? We are not ignorant people. We are educated intelligent people who read the rules one way and played with them that way. Why don't you go take a leap off a tall peer. For what it's worth, we found ways to stop Nos/Malk from being too powerful, so no, it's never wrecked the game any longer than any other new deck concept has, a couple of games and the metagame shifts to compensate for it. Exactly what lead you to think that people would keep playing the same game over and over again without trying something new to stop the power deck? We're not insane, although appearently we are a little more capable in dealing with things than you seem to act. We didn't go running off and crying about Nos and Malk, we dealt with it. Are you done now or would you like to play some more? Thanks, Lee In article <88aptssmurpe5jc41...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > We play that way. As long as the bleeding minion isn't at stealth you > can do that. If the acting minion is ALREADY at stealth (from the > action or whatnot), then you have to intercept up to that that level, > then you can deflect. This seems to go against your earlier justification of your house rule: > Logically, not rules wise, since the rule book states that > > "Conceptually, stealth represents the measures that the acting minion > is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the > attention of those who would oppose him." > > And that blocking is nothing more than a reaction to an action that, if > successful will end with combat instead of a more elegant solution > (deflection or reduction). I find it illogical to assume that you can > react to something that you cannot perceive. If you don't know that > I'm going to steal your money or wreck your business, or whatever the > bleed actually is representing, then how can you respond to it? You say you should have to catch him before you deflect him, but with the latter, you don't allow him to evade. If you have to catch to deflect, then logically it follows that if you can deflect, you must've caught him. Which means that you should be able to block if you are able to deflect. Which, as I understand it, is not the way your house rule works - you can deflect even though if you tried to block, you would fail (because the block attempt would allow the actor to evade with stealth. Intercepting an action (to block or, in your case, to deflect) is not something you do just by playing intercept - it is a contest between how much intercept you can generate and how much stealth the acting minion can generate. As intercepting to block is not successful until the acting minion "yields" (and chooses to add no more stealth), so should your rule of intercepting to deflect. Incidentally, what is the nature/source of your house rule's distinction between say, inferior and superior Telepathic Misdirection. One you can play even when the minion doesn't "perceive" the action, the other you cannot (by your house rule). [ quoted text not captured ]

Our house rules work like this. Minion A comes to bleed at no stealth. Minion B can choose to react or not. If they Deflect then Minion A is bleeding someone else, who then has a chance to react or not. Since no one has tried to block Minion A, he is still at no stealth. If instead of deflecting or countering Minion B chooses to Block, then minion A can attempt to evade by increasing stealth. Minion B and Minion A then trade back and forth until either Minion A has no more stealth, or Minion B has no more intercept. If Minion A used Kine Dominnace (Directed Bleed at +1 Bleed +1 Stealth) then Minion B would have to generate an intercept before he could deflect or attempt to block. After generating the inital +1 intercept, things pretty much follow as above. In order to be valid to block/deflect/react, you must match Minion A's stealth. I think I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this. Basically you have to be able to intercept someone (generate at least enough intercept to see the action) before you can choose how you want to respond. How you respond is up to your choice and the cards. Another thing we do is that you don't add Action Modifiers until the window for reaction is past. Meaning that you've past by their deflecting/countering/blocking period when you play Threats or anything else (except superiour Bonding and other Stealth cards). Norman chose to deflect after modifiers were played, which by our table is a serious no-no. By that time in the evening it was late and we were all a little razzled, so I chose not to mention it. Several other snafu's occured that we chose not to get into since it wasn't worth it to disrupt the game further than it already had been. Anyway, hope that explain how our system works. Lee In article <39DCB99C...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > > We play that way. As long as the bleeding minion isn't at stealth you > > can do that. If the acting minion is ALREADY at stealth (from the > > action or whatnot), then you have to intercept up to that that level, > > then you can deflect. > > This seems to go against your earlier justification of your house rule: > > > Logically, not rules wise, since the rule book states that > > > > "Conceptually, stealth represents the measures that the acting minion > > is taking to conduct his business discreetly, to avoid attracting the > > attention of those who would oppose him." > > > > And that blocking is nothing more than a reaction to an action that, if > > successful will end with combat instead of a more elegant solution > > (deflection or reduction). I find it illogical to assume that you can > > react to something that you cannot perceive. If you don't know that > > I'm going to steal your money or wreck your business, or whatever the > > bleed actually is representing, then how can you respond to it? > > You say you should have to catch him before you deflect him, but with > the latter, you don't allow him to evade. > > If you have to catch to deflect, then logically it follows that if you > can deflect, you must've caught him. Which means that you should be > able to block if you are able to deflect. Which, as I understand it, > is not the way your house rule works - you can deflect even though if > you tried to block, you would fail (because the block attempt would > allow the actor to evade with stealth. > > Intercepting an action (to block or, in your case, to deflect) is not > something you do just by playing intercept - it is a contest between > how much intercept you can generate and how much stealth the acting > minion can generate. As intercepting to block is not successful until > the acting minion "yields" (and chooses to add no more stealth), so > should your rule of intercepting to deflect. > > Incidentally, what is the nature/source of your house rule's distinction > between say, inferior and superior Telepathic Misdirection. One you can > play even when the minion doesn't "perceive" the action, the other you > cannot (by your house rule). > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ > [ quoted text not captured ]

lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > If Minion A used Kine Dominnace (Directed Bleed at +1 Bleed > +1 Stealth) then Minion B would have to generate an intercept > before he could deflect or attempt to block. After generating > the inital +1 intercept, things pretty much follow as above. Ugh. That makes stealth entirely too powerful and deflection cards completely pointless. > In order to be valid to block/deflect/react, you must match > Minion A's stealth. I think I'm not doing a very good job of > explaining this. You don't have to. I've seen it before and I didn't care for it then. The people I saw play it that way didn't have a good grasp of the rules and when reaction cards vs. blocking was properly explained to them, they preferred the correct method. Regards, Noal McDonald VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit, MI NJL Rules Team Member -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8rijep$j62$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: So in your house rule, can you deflect an unblockable bleed? Say A bleeds B. B attempts to block, A's minion plays a Day Op. Can B choose to deflect now? He's got the same amount of stealth/intercept 0- 0. Just wondering. Thanks, Joe Churchill - V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

<lf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8riakk$bbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > In article <8ri2sm$410$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: Just responding totwo point since I agree that house rules should take precedence over "official" rules if the whole playgroup wants to play that way. > Our way tends to result in more calculated guesses, something like > reading your opponent at poker. I'm having trouble seeing that this is > still there when all I have to do is deflect it at any time. [snip] I guess that most people on the newsgroup are going to say that they prefer to have one method of defense against bleeding...they don't want to have to guess about how/whether or not they're going to defend against a bleed. I think that it's unlikely that any [competitive | working] deck could pack enough deflections to deflect *every* bleed by a S&B deck...the reason they're in there is to keep the predator honest. Any given S&B deck can simply slow down to a Govern the Unaligned per vampire, no modifiers, and that's still pretty painful. Using deflections puts the burden of "guessing" on the predator. "Is he going to deflect this one and oust *his* prey, or am I going to get it through?" In short, S&B is *very* powerful, except when it runs up against combat. Deflection is one of a few possible defenses against it. Every other style of deck has multiple avenues of defense (oooh...just turned the old "avenues of attack" on it's head...I think I'm in trouble for that malapropism...), so why should S&B have *just* Rush combat and Intercept be its counters? Rush combat, while *awesome* isn't...defensive enough for some people. I guess they don't like having to wait around until their turn to do stuff. [Legbiter] >> i certainly see that the way you play must be different, and in >> particular that Deflection and the like must be next-to-useless in your >> environment. You're correct to suspect that the way we play CAN make >> these cards appallingly powerful. But your view that the way we play >> VTES makes it a mechanical cake-walk is VERY far from correct. > > No, but you've got to deflect right off the bat, and hope that your > opponent doesn't bleed you for more with a second vampire. It just > changes when you have to choose. I think that Deflection *is* a powerful card, but it's not as scary as you're seeming to think it is. I think the most that I would ever put in a deck is 8 or so, and any good S&B deck is going to come my way with a lot more bleeds than that. Yes, it is good, but it in no way completely kills any hope of playing an S&B deck. Legbiter said elsewhere (in a sentence I think was a little convoluted) that it's not deflection that kills S&B, but Rush combat keeps people from playing S&B much. That's all... Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

I don't think it's ever actually come up, but since you're not blocking, I'd say yea, you can deflect him since there isn't any stealth (unless provided elsewhere) Lee In article <8rimd7$lss$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Joe C. <tzimi...@my-deja.com> wrote: > In article <8rijep$j62$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > > So in your house rule, can you deflect an unblockable bleed? > Say A bleeds B. B attempts to block, A's minion plays a Day Op. Can B > choose to deflect now? He's got the same amount of stealth/intercept 0- > 0. > > Just wondering. > > Thanks, > Joe Churchill > > - > V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC > Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter > www.warghoul.com > [ quoted text not captured ]

Thanks for the replies. While I agree that our method makes S&B tough, the flip side is making Deflect tough. I don't think that any one card should stop a deck style. And yes, S&B can get through, but it's going to burn so much of itself up doing it that it can't get through anyone else. You play a stealth bleed deck,and I play a deck with 15 deflections in it. sure, I may take a few, but you'll easily swamp my prey and then the next prey too, since you'll go to stealth to avoid combat. I'd imagine that S&B would average 3 bleed per action, 45 pool gone, I've gained 12 and spend 15 from my vamps, and the S&B deck is probably near death due to it's own preditor. I've done nothing except sit back and deflect. I think it comes down to defense or offense being the powerhouse. Here we choose offense, elsewhere... they chose other things. Thanks, Lee In article <KW4D5.3849$wJ4.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > > <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8riakk$bbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > In article <8ri2sm$410$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Just responding totwo point since I agree that house rules should take > precedence over "official" rules if the whole playgroup wants to play that > way. > > > Our way tends to result in more calculated guesses, something like > > reading your opponent at poker. I'm having trouble seeing that this is > > still there when all I have to do is deflect it at any time. [ quoted text not captured ] > >> i certainly see that the way you play must be different, and in > >> particular that Deflection and the like must be next-to-useless in your > >> environment. You're correct to suspect that the way we play CAN make > >> these cards appallingly powerful. But your view that the way we play > >> VTES makes it a mechanical cake-walk is VERY far from correct. > > > > No, but you've got to deflect right off the bat, and hope that your > > opponent doesn't bleed you for more with a second vampire. It just > > changes when you have to choose. > > I think that Deflection *is* a powerful card, but it's not as scary as you're > seeming to think it is. I think the most that I would ever put in a deck is 8 > or so, and any good S&B deck is going to come my way with a lot more bleeds > than that. Yes, it is good, but it in no way completely kills any hope of > playing an S&B deck. Legbiter said elsewhere (in a sentence I think was a > little convoluted) that it's not deflection that kills S&B, but Rush combat > keeps people from playing S&B much. > > That's all... > > Xian > > -- > I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. > A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. > --_Shellshock_, New Order > www.waste.org/~xian > > [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8rin0c$mge$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > > So in your house rule, can you deflect an unblockable bleed? > > Say A bleeds B. B attempts to block, A's minion plays a Day Op. Can > > B choose to deflect now? He's got the same amount of > > stealth/intercept 0- 0. > I don't think it's ever actually come up, but since you're not > blocking, I'd say yea, you can deflect him since there isn't any > stealth (unless provided elsewhere) Well, that just seems odd. Let's think about that for a second. You can deflect an unblockable bleed for 10, but you can't deflect a bleed of 1 at 6 stealth. You might want to reconsider that for your house rule, in all fairness. Joe Churchill - V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:26:55 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >You know what Derek, I'm starting to have a suspiscion that you have >the social graces of a wet sock. We have played the game since it game Hardly. But when you come in and say things like: "Frankly I don't care if how we play isn't the official standpoint. Sure, it's nice to play by the rules, but we play the game because of the flavor. The official rules seem to be reducing the game to a series of moves that are more mechanical than before. Fine, I won't play any more with anyone outside who isn't willing to accept our house rules. I really don't give a rats hindquarters about tournaments, I have too many trophies from other games to care any more, and I don't have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too." ...then you had damn well better expect that someone is going to respond in kind. And posting something like THIS message isn't helping much. What, you think you're going to walk in here and openly diss everything/everyone like that and not have someone slap your face for it? WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, KID. >out, we read the rules, and this is the way we interpretted them. If >you don't like it why don't you go find someone else to annoy. The >game works totally well with the way we play, which would be why we >didn't think anything was broken about. Why don't you try it before >decrying that we all must be idiots. For what it's worth, I have to Please indicate where in my previous message I used the word "idiot". I'm sorry if you can't handle someone who doesn't bother to scrape and bow to avoid offending anyone. It's called USENET. >scrape to buy cards, namely because unlike you (I'm assuming here, but >it's probaly a safe bet) I am putting my wife through VetMed, so until >you know what it's like to be in my shoes why don't you back off of me, >eh? Or are you just a little too stupid to understand that? A little You know, it took a LOT of effort not to respond to this with a bunch of one-upping examples. Suffice it to say that I am MORE than well aware of what it is like to be in your shoes, and I will stand by my original statement of "You don't have $15 to go buy a box of Jyhad?" >too narrow minded to be able to look at it from another view point? We >are not ignorant people. We are educated intelligent people who read >the rules one way and played with them that way. Why don't you go take >a leap off a tall peer. For what it's worth, we found ways to stop >Nos/Malk from being too powerful, so no, it's never wrecked the game Really? What ways? A well-built Nosferatu Minion Tap/Spying Mission deck would REALLY put a cramp in y'all's world, especially if you added Dominate skill cards and a few Conditionings just for laughs. And I don't even think you want to see what a good Nosferatu stealth-bruise-vote deck would do. >any longer than any other new deck concept has, a couple of games and >the metagame shifts to compensate for it. Exactly what lead you to >think that people would keep playing the same game over and over again >without trying something new to stop the power deck? We're not insane, Sure, you can TRY, but what will you do against one that's built well enough and played properly? No, I just don't see it. Perhaps your group just has got bored with it (we haven't seen Malk S&B in about a year around here - not only is it no fun to play, it's hard to win with) and is having fun, which is just fine. >although appearently we are a little more capable in dealing with >things than you seem to act. We didn't go running off and crying about >Nos and Malk, we dealt with it. Are you done now or would you like to >play some more? Kid, I can handle you, your big brother, and your granny too. I don't see a DAMN THING you can do to deal with a GOOD Nossie or Malk stealth deck under those rules, unless you build a deck that is designed to do nothing else but specifically stop it. We long ago argued this out on the newsgroup, and basically agreed that when you either need to be playing THE DECK, or the ONE SPECIFIC COUNTER to THE DECK, then THE DECK is broken and something is wrong. In this case, your rules would be the culprit, and nobody in your group has gone out of their way to break them properly yet. I also notice that you didn't respond at all to my example of why Deflection doesn't even remotely work the way you think it does under the official rules. I am not surprised. [ quoted text not captured ]

Our logic was that you could see it coming. It's much easier to deflect a strike you see coming, regardless of how large it is than to deflect a strike you cannot see. You're not blocking it, but guiding it to a different target. However I'm tired of explaining it. Either you can see where we made our mistake or you cannot, I no longer care. I have the ruling, and thus have ended playing or listening to anyone about it outside of this town. Norman, when you get back and can read this, you're welcome to play anytime you're in the area, but we will probably play with our house rules. I'm just one player, if everyone else decides to change, great I will too. But I'm not going to go on some damned crusade to make them change, it's not my job. Thanks, Lee In article <8riok1$o4o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

I've had a long day, and I'm tired. Derek, to put it bluntly, shut the fuck up. I didn't call anyone names, nor did I act like anyone else was an idiot. If you have the misbegotten idea that being abrasive is somehow going to make you seem better, then please, go be abrasive elsewhere. You didn't have to say the idiot. It was implied by your arrogant tone. You acted like no one in the world except an idiot could have possibly interpreted the rules that way. What part of living paycheck to paycheck can't you comprehend? When I say I don't have 15 dollars for a game, I mean I don't have 15 dollars for a game. It's simple direct english. I don't care how broke you claim to be. I am broke enough that I cannot spare $15 for a game. Period. That's it. Regardless of how hard you find that to believe, it's the truth. Even if I could adjust our budget to come up with the money, it's irrelevant, I won't. It's just not worth it. I'm not going to explain how we deal with any deck, much less your concoctions. I don't really care what you think about it. We play, we have fun. We had a question, we asked about it. We got an answer, we have chosen to not play with it that way. End of Story. You don't have to play like we do. It's our game, you play your way up there in MI. I don't really care. Have I spoken in small enough words for you? For what it's worth, I might be younger than you, I might not, but anyone who's an adult knows better than to insult random people by calling them children. No, I don't have to get upset about it, and I really don't care if you call me Kid, but it's not going to illicit the response you're looking for. Now, the real question that is burning on my mind right now, is how stupid you'll feel when you realize this whole thing has been a trolling? Don't look now, you've been gotten. Lee In article <jknptsgdvqckvlfd7...@4ax.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:14:07 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >Thanks for the replies. While I agree that our method makes S&B tough, >the flip side is making Deflect tough. I don't think that any one card >should stop a deck style. And yes, S&B can get through, but it's going as demonstrated in my previous message's example, deflection doesn't stop s&b under the real rules - only slows it down a little. If you aren't helping it kill your own prey, you will still get dead yourself. >to burn so much of itself up doing it that it can't get through anyone >else. You play a stealth bleed deck,and I play a deck with 15 >deflections in it. sure, I may take a few, but you'll easily swamp my >prey and then the next prey too, since you'll go to stealth to avoid >combat. I'd imagine that S&B would average 3 bleed per action, 45 pool (shaking head) First, 15 deflections will pretty much guarantee that your deck dies if it sits next to combat or votes. Why would you play such a deck? In our group, we select decks FIRST, then determine random seating order. So you aren't guaranteed to be sitting in front of the S&B deck at all - in fact, you only have a 33% chance in a 4 player game, or a 25% chance in a 5 player game. Second, assuming that a s&b deck will go to stealth to avoid combat is also wrong - the first time you bounce a 0 stealth bleed, I will tell your prey "OK, look, sorry about that bounce, can't help it. If you agree to both just strike-hands for 1, I won't add stealth. And I'll quit bleeding for more than 3 so he'll run out of bounce and I won't hurt you too badly." Your prey, being wise in the way of "living longer so I can oust my OWN prey", will agree. And you will be wedged in the middle, in very bad shape. >gone, I've gained 12 and spend 15 from my vamps, and the S&B deck is This is EXTREME optimism. You will not get all 15 Deflections at the top of your deck. If you, at any time, fail to draw up a Deflection, then you will be forced to attempt to block, and I will know that you have no more Deflections because, under your rules, you can't deflect after trying to block. I will add stealth, and you will eat some HUGE bleeds for the rest of the turn - assuming a poor hand draw, you'll get hit for about 9. Now, how many vampires do you have out? If you have 15 pool worth of vamps out, then you only had 15 pool left. I have you down to 6 now, and you still don't have any Deflections in hand. If you don't find a way to draw some up, you'll be in a world of hurt. Also, you're not even assuming what happens if I come to bleed you for 1 with two Conditionings in hand. If you don't block, and deflect my bleed of 1, I just don't play the Conditioning, and I don't hurt your prey at all - who is free to ignore the bleed for 1 and not tap his guys blocking. If you DO try to block, I add stealth and Conditioning and hit you for 3 or 4. In your playgroup, I would almost never bleed for anything more than 1 initially, so as to ensure that I would never accidentally oust my grandprey and help you. >probably near death due to it's own preditor. I've done nothing except >sit back and deflect. I think it comes down to defense or offense >being the powerhouse. Here we choose offense, elsewhere... they chose >other things. Elsewhere, offense is -still- the powerhouse. defensive decks, or what we call the "2-VP" or "Ben is a hypocrite" plan, still have a very hard time. But a deck which includes defense can actually include enough to survive and still oust its own prey. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8ripjv$p7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > [snip] I think I might have been too vague here... what I meant was, you might want to reconsider allowing unblockable bleeds to be deflected as a house ruling as well. Sorry any confussion. Joe Churchill - V:EKN Prince of Columbia, SC Editor: Tzimisce Clan Newsletter www.warghoul.com [ quoted text not captured ]

lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > Well, since the mechanic of the game is to bleed your opponent out, > that is the deck that routinely performs best in a neutral environment > and it is the most direct method to a victory. Rush counters Bleed > bleed counters this the other counters that, weenie beats this. It's > fun if you chant it. You build a deck to win or to have fun. If you > want to win, you either stop stealthbleed or you play stealthbleed, > just like you have to accept that combat is part of the game, and > voting too. I think that's exactly the flaw. The game is a much better game when one doesn't have to decide *between* "building a deck to win" and "building a deck to have fun". Of course, I'd be lying if I suggested that even with the ability to deflect a bleed at stealth, the game doesn't have its overrepresented strategies and under- represented strategies. But why make it worse than it has to be? Just because you find it difficult to visualize deflecting a bleed which you couldn't block? It seems to me, there's a lot of card mechanics in the game which are intuitively difficult to visualize. Why focus on this one? Fred

lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > You know what Derek, I'm starting to have a suspiscion that you have > the social graces of a wet sock. We have played the game since it game > out, we read the rules, and this is the way we interpretted them. If > you don't like it why don't you go find someone else to annoy. The > game works totally well with the way we play, which would be why we > didn't think anything was broken about. Why don't you try it before > decrying that we all must be idiots. Derek is just expressing frustration with something I've seen a million times on gaming newsgroups: Local group X reads the rules to a game and miss something. They play with the wrong rule for a period of time, possibly years, before someone runs across another player or some other reference to the real rule. Astonded, representive Y of local group X posts on the newsgroup asking for clarification. He or she is even more astounded to find out they've been wrong about it all these years, even to the point of insisting the rules support their interpretation long after chapter and verse from the rule text have been directly quoted which inevitably lead to the contrary conclusion. Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting in a very understandable way when a new guy jumps into a community and starts disputing a fundamental point of the newsgroup's topic which is well-known to the rest of the community. Your way might make an interesting house-rules version of the game. But it is clearly not the correct way to interpret the rules. Fred

Frederick Scott wrote in message <39DD22E5...@netcom.com>... >Derek is just expressing frustration with something I've seen a million >times on gaming newsgroups: Local group X reads the rules to a game >and miss something. They play with the wrong rule for a period of time, >possibly years, before someone runs across another player or some other >reference to the real rule. Astonded, representive Y of local group X >posts on the newsgroup asking for clarification. He or she is even more >astounded to find out they've been wrong about it all these years, even >to the point of insisting the rules support their interpretation long after >chapter and verse from the rule text have been directly quoted which >inevitably lead to the contrary conclusion. Correct. I used to play with repeat actions and as many additional strikes as I wanted in one round. Of particular nastiness was my Leandro Presence/Auspex deck: Bleed. Majesty. Bleed. Majesty. Bleed. Majesty. Bleed. BounceBounceBounceBounce Eventually I stopped playing with that deck because my friends wanted to hurt me and we moved on to bigger and better things. And then my roommate (I was living in Austin at the time) found Ethan Burrow's group on the Internet, and the rest is history...history that probably won't be written in any book let alone here... > >Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may >think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting >in a very understandable way when a new guy jumps into a community >and starts disputing a fundamental point of the newsgroup's topic which >is well-known to the rest of the community. Your way might make an >interesting house-rules version of the game. But it is clearly not the >correct way to interpret the rules. > >Fred Derek's tone can be abrasive, especially if you are wearing steel wool underpants (like me) ;-p::::::::) I thought that asking a question on this newsgroup meant you wanted or needed the official response from the official rules arbiter, which happens to be LSJ. He gets paid to do this stuff, paid in what I dunno. Mike Ooi sh...@texas.net Insane Prince of Houston, TX Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team

Heck, we still played rescuing from torpor where you decided the blood costs on the vampires *after* the action until DragonCon. Boy was Greg Faulkner embarrassed :-) In article <qeaD5.3085$Bt1.1...@news4.aus1.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > > Eventually I stopped playing with that deck because my friends wanted > to hurt me and we moved on to bigger and better things. And then my > roommate (I was living in Austin at the time) found Ethan Burrow's > group on the Internet, and the rest is history...history that > probably won't be written in any book let alone here... ------------------------------- Ethan Burrow - Prince of Austin et...@ddg.com http://whitestar.ddg.com/vtes/ [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 21:04:19 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: (a bunch of mindless flamage snipped) >do. It's our game, you play your way up there in MI. I don't really I live in Atlanta, GA. <more mindless flamage snipped> >you're looking for. Now, the real question that is burning on my mind >right now, is how stupid you'll feel when you realize this whole thing >has been a trolling? Don't look now, you've been gotten. (yawn) Everyone always says that when he gets all his arguments stuffed down his throat. What, you think I've been on USENET for this long and not realized it? =) I just like to argue. =) Love and Kisses, [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 02:51:14 GMT, Ethan Burrow <saa...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Heck, we still played rescuing from torpor where you decided the blood >costs on the vampires *after* the action until DragonCon. Boy was Greg >Faulkner embarrassed :-) Ask the UK guys, especially legbiter, about 2nd Tradition sometime. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:55:27 GMT, Frederick Scott <fre...@netcom.com> wrote: >Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may >think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting Heh. Almost everyone has had their disagreements with me. Since I seem to be doing a lot of pot-stirring these days, let me hop in here and give a quickie explanation as to why I'm such a pill sometimes. If you don't give a damn why, please feel free to mash "NEXT" on your news reader now. Nobody has placed superglue on your eyeballs. =) I am under no delusions as to the tone of my messages... indeed, Ethan had a field day razzing me during his recent visit. =) I feel that if I spend too much time going back and editing out the snarl, however, i'm liable to edit out the MEANING as well... and it'd take me an hour to post a message. I don't have that kind of time, although sometimes I screw up and forget to make sure the apparent meaning is what I actually mean. Oops. I also pretty much look at it this way: I am not the official net.rep. I don't advertise myself as such, I don't claim to be in any way associated with White Wolf, and my signature reads "THUG OF ATLANTA" in big letters. Anyone believing that I speak for White Wolf or VEKN or any official V:TES organization has, clearly, lost their mind. I'm also fairly thick-skinned, especially where USENET is concerned, since 90% of everything on USENET is crap. (This does not exclude my own posts. =) As such, I am totally free to wade headlong and ham-fisted into issues that may need to be argued, and I do NOT have to pussyfoot around to avoid offending anyone. If something needs to be said, I can (and probably will) say it. LSJ has no such freedom, because of his White Wolf ties - he has to be VERY careful to separate his opinions from his Official Pronouncements. The Princes of the respective cities don't really, either, because it will reflect on VEKN. And not everyone else who is neither LSJ nor a Prince is as blunt as I am. But nobody will lose it and quit playing the game forever just because of something *I* said. Most people are perfectly capable of dismissing the antics of one person, especially when that person is KNOWN for it. And, as many people at DragonCon were surprised to find out, I don't take very much at ALL personally on USENET, so I'm perfectly glad to hang out and have a beer or five with people whose ancestry I'd roundly profaned not more than a month earlier. =) The trick is remembering that when it gets down to it... 90% of USENET really is crap. =) Wow, that was much longer than I'd wanted. Blah. If you haven't mashed "next' yet, hope you enjoyed the novel. I'm off to go kick someone in their virtual shins. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > If Minion A used Kine Dominnace (Directed Bleed at +1 Bleed +1 Stealth) > then Minion B would have to generate an intercept before he could > deflect or attempt to block. You cannot generate intercept when yo uare not attempting to block, with the exception of permanents and 2nd Tradition, by the rules. (Since yo uare not currently attempting to block, you would be generating un-needed intercept, which is not allowed.) If I am not allowed to attempt to block before I can generate intercept, pretty much every transient generator of intercept in the game becomes worthless. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > Our logic was that you could see it coming. It's much easier to > deflect a strike you see coming, regardless of how large it is than to > deflect a strike you cannot see. Consider an unmanned freight train coming at you at speed. It's coming really, really fast - a very high "stealth". Now, I can't necessarily put a decent enough wall in the way to stop it. I don't have the time to build one. So, I have a low intercept. However, I could throw the switch on the junction and send it off down a side-line to a competitor's station - even though I could never generate enough intercept to stop it myself. You are stuck in a mind-set of stealth *solely* representing the ability for other people to not know about your action in the first place, it seems. Stealth can also be interpreted as representing a certain inevitability about an action. Things can happen in relatively plain view, and I'm still unable to stop them *but* I can influence them. For instance, I cannot *stop* a vote being called (not enough intercept, but I knew it was going on) but I *can* cause enough muck-spreading and rumour-mongering to cast a vote against it. The extension of your logic is that no-one should be able to react to a vote unless they blocked it - by which point they don't need to (and can't) play Dread Gaze anyway. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > I've had a long day, and I'm tired. Derek, to put it bluntly, shut the > fuck up. I didn't call anyone names, nor did I act like anyone else > was an idiot. The "don't bother responding if you're going to preach rules to me" tone of your initial post can be considered to be intentionally inflammatory, whether that was the initial intent or not. In general, it is better not to try and dictate (because you can't) who should respond to your post, with what or how. If, in the replies, there is a follow-up you don't want to discuss, don't discuss it. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Ask the UK guys, especially legbiter, about 2nd Tradition sometime. > =) Asking Matt Green about Legbiter's 2nd tradition is likely to have you killed. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8riakk$bbu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <8ri2sm$410$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, > lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > Legbiter: > i could take out Insurance, for example [Telepathic counter] or i could > fortuitously have sold my interests in the Rub-u-like Massage parlour > to my Dear Brother Preycula Prince of Pants JUST before Ozmo came > calling [Deflection, redirection, telepathic misdirection]. More > suggested role- playing links below. > Lee: > Well, I can see that, except that you're not acting. That's the trick, > those things are actions. Every card i play corresponds to some kind of action, in the common sense of the word. Dodge is an action i use to avoid horrid stuff happening to me in combat, for example. Deflection etc are actions my minions take to reduce the effects of your actions against me. More Lee: If you want to do the role-playing vs card > thing, fine. But I'll accept that you can come up with anything to > match. I still don't think you can do it without having forknowledge. The way i see it, i use my [or my minions'] foreknowledge or hindsight to interfere with your plans without necessarily always coming face-to-face with your minions. More Lee: > I don't buy into the Methus see it coming bit, but whatever. It's > basically a pointless argument. I think that most likely if I tried to > introduce the new rules here, I would kill the game for this town. As > much as I may disagree with the rules, I still like the game, so I'm > not going to try to inform anyone how the rules are supposed to be. > It's a waste of my time and the store owners money if he tries it. Now this is a different argument, but also i think a mistaken one. We have all in the past played with screwy rules and most of us have had the humility to accept that we initially got it wrong and now we try to do it right, basically because our past experience has always been that if we try to keep to the official rules the game works better and is more logical, both in the strict game-sense and as a reflection of the World of Darkness. For example, until a couple of months ago ALL of us in the UK thought you could use second tradition to wake and deflect. You can't, and now we realise that the card actually says so, perfectly clearly - you use the card to untap and attempt to block. Alas, our text-analysis skills weren't up to decoding that card without help. > More Legbiter: > If you accept that, why can't you accept that i or my minions can go > along to the Harpies or Inconnu or whoever and bitch a blue streak > about your Monstrous breaches of the masquerade, leading to them > cancelling or compensating me for whatever nefarious actions you're > performing upon my August Person? > more Lee: > Because you don't have an action to do that. If there was a vote card > call bitch a blue streak, then you'd be welcome to play it. Something > along the lines of "If the referendum is successful, regain all pool > lost by you due to bleed actions since your last turn" Fine, great, > put on a big hat and have a happy day with it. i repeat, i do have an action to do it - playing my reaction card means that my minion does something in response to your bleed which makes it worse for you and better for me. > More Legbiter:> There's no conceptual difference between, on the one hand, Archon > Investigation where i'm bribing the archons to burn your sorry > megableeding arse, and, on the other, Telepathic counter/misdirection, > deflection or redirection where my auspicious or dominant minions are > either using their uncanny powers of foresight to make your actions > fail, or forcing weaker spirits to lead you to the wrong bank-account - > AI is most powerful because it is "done" by a very powerful vampire > [you], but the others are done by beings who are still quite powerful. > More Lee:> See, we have a conceptual difference in that I guess we (at least I) > don't see it as the methus part. These are minions who have come > together. The AI is in response to what would have to be a pretty > heinous violation of the masquerade, not due to bribery on the methus's > part. > i think that's an important clarification, though a pretty radical rewriting of the basic premise that the game is about Evil Ancients manipulating their juniors. Have you considered banning master cards? That would seem to fit your philosophy quite well. Maybe you could still allow Master card skills to be played on successful diablerists, or after vampires successfuly perform some action requiring the basic skill. <snip> > Legbiter [response to comment that offical way is more mechanical]> i don't see this at all. Your way is also a series of moves and > therefore just as mechanical, whatever that means. > Lee: > Our way tends to result in more calculated guesses, something like > reading your opponent at poker. I'm having trouble seeing that this is > still there when all I have to do is deflect it at any time. If you've not played the official way i don't think you're qualified to make this statement and i assure you that if you try to build a big-time deflect deck to play under the official rules it won't work. Derek explains why, with examples, in one of his posts in this thread. > More Legbiter [response to comment along the lines of "i don't want to/ won't play the official rules]> Hmmmm, petulant bear with sore head ;-). i think that's an unfortunate > stance and i hope you will reconsider it. ALL of us used to play with > wacky, not to say wrong, house rules because VTES is a difficult game > to learn and we didn't even know we were playing it wrong. We still had > a lot of fun but we had a lot MORE fun when we had it explained to use > how the game ACTUALLY works and started to play that way instead. > More Lee: > That's the problem. Trying to force these rules on the players will > result in no one having fun. Which I don't know about you, but I sure > as hell don't pay someone to insure I don't have fun. I can go to work > and do that. No one is trying to force anybody to do anything. You wanted the logic behind the official rules, and we've explained it. If you try playing the official rules you will still have fun, and in fact it will be more fun because you will have more people to play against and more decks to try, plus some cards that currently must be next to useless in your collection will suddenly start to make sense. > More Legbiter:> Of course there's absolutely NO reason why you should play in > tournaments if you don't think you'll enjoy it. A lot of my friends > don't, but most do, and many who think they won't like it are > pleasantly surprised when they eventually try it out. > > Which other games do/did you play, just out of interest? > More Lee: > Magic: the idiocy. Several other role-playing games. Bit harsh about Magic! i still think this is a fine card-based role- playing game. The sucky aspects of it are all to do with playing for money and wizards' IMO deliberate policy of issuing broken rares followed by screeds of errata and bans. O, and the fact that many Magic players neither wash nor have meaningful relationships with members of the individually-preferred but usually opposite gender. On the plus side, they do have very loud voices. o no wait, that's a minus too. > Legbiter:> VTES is still probably the cheapest game there is that's actually worth > playing, as well as [in our collective opinion] the best game of all > time. A lot of us will give you commons free, and you can build a > totally kick-ass deck from commons only. > Lee:> Thanks for the offer, we have cards out the wazoo, but since no one > here builds decks with out a theme behind them, we don't make > competition grade decks. That's one of the reasons that I gave up > Magic, I couldn't play for fun, I had to play to win. Yeah, we [Lady Legbiter, Anklebiter, m'self and anti-competitive friends] tend to play for fun at home. We do that by rolling randomly for a deck out of a big pool i've made of clan-based theme-decks, all roughly equally balanced and all reasonably but not very competitive. > > Hmmmm. You're describing the Malkavian stealth-bleed/deflect wet-dream > which stays as a messy nocturnal fantasy in any decent playgroup > because of rush-combat and politics. > > Eh? > i mean the deck you are scared of and think would be unbeatable under official rules actually exists and occasionally still turns up in the hands of new players. It rarely does well, because it is very feeble against votes and rush-combat. <snip> > More Legbiter [response to comment about always winning at Magic] > Golly, ANOTHER Pro-Tour Magic player in the house! There are one or two > good magic players here already. Not me, though. Vampy theme decks > only! > > Hell no. No money to go to non-local tournaments. Sorry, just a poor > guy putting his wife through college. One of the great things about VTES is that you can play by email for free on-line, thanks to the Great and Good George Fink. That was a great eye- opener for me, and i recommend it to you as a way of playing VTES outside your circle. www.deckserver.net is the addy, i think. > More Legbiter: > i certainly see that the way you play must be different, and in > particular that Deflection and the like must be next-to-useless in your > environment. You're correct to suspect that the way we play CAN make > these cards appallingly powerful. But your view that the way we play > VTES makes it a mechanical cake-walk is VERY far from correct. > More Lee:> No, but you've got to deflect right off the bat, and hope that your > opponent doesn't bleed you for more with a second vampire. It just > changes when you have to choose. Still seems to me that deflection must be useless to you, because it costs you a blood and, at inferior, a tap. Thus you'd be daft not to let most bleeds through, since the default is 1. If i was planning to deflect in your environment why would i EVER choose deflection over redirection? > More Legbiter:> Apart from the specific points i've made above, and in no spirit of > flaminess or dyspepsia whatsoever, i think your interpretations are not > valid because you aren't thinking sufficiently laterally about what > Methuselahs' resources are, and how they go about protecting them. i > personally like it that you are trying to think what real-world actions > the cards you play represent, because i quite often play or deck-build > with those kinds of thoughts in mind. In fact, however, most people on > this group couldn't give a rat's hindquarters about the story-telling > aspects of the game/its links to VtM ANYWAY: they quite like vampires > and the World of Darkness, sure, but they see VTES as a much more > abstract and higher-level representation of the WoD than VtM could ever > be. > Lee: > I can see what you're saying, but since as a group we never viewed > things that way, our way of play makes sense. That's life. Well, it's an interesting variant to concentrate on the vampires as the main actors. i still don't think your no-reactions-unless-you-can- intercept metarule follows from your premises, though, and i also think that if you're determined to maintain it you have some logical problems of your own to solve, as pointed out by Joe [unblockable bleeds] and Scott [timing of intercept and stealth decisions]. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > Derek is just expressing frustration with something I've seen a million > times on gaming newsgroups: Local group X reads the rules to a game > and miss something. They play with the wrong rule for a period of time, > possibly years, before someone runs across another player or some other > reference to the real rule. Astonded, representive Y of local group X > posts on the newsgroup asking for clarification. He or she is even more > astounded to find out they've been wrong about it all these years, even > to the point of insisting the rules support their interpretation long after > chapter and verse from the rule text have been directly quoted which > inevitably lead to the contrary conclusion. > > Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may > think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting > in a very understandable way when a new guy jumps into a community > and starts disputing a fundamental point of the newsgroup's topic which > is well-known to the rest of the community. Your way might make an > interesting house-rules version of the game. But it is clearly not the > correct way to interpret the rules. What's this, some sort of "Good-Cop, Bad Cop" routine? Are you telling the poster that he is not wanted on this NG, and that you appreciate Derek's efforts to drive him off with belittlement and condescension? Sounds like you would not act that way yourself, but you appreciate Derek acting that way for you. Derek offers no defence for his behavior except to point to his sig line, and say he takes pride in being a "thug". (If he is truly happy with that, then he has no need of any defence). There is nothing anyone else can do about such an attitude, but at least one can restrain oneself from defending or justifying it. One can avoid adding further insult by telling his targets that they have earned what he dishes out. People are far more likely to be convinced of the error of their ways if you do not attack their egos in the course of discussion. If White-Wolf is successful at recruiting players, you are going to get alot of people asking alot of questions that might seem stupid at first. It would be best, I think, if we would try not to alienate them, and drive them off of our cosy little internet club. -- John Whelan

[snip] Lee, first of all I want to say that indeed houserules are made fot fun, and as long as everyone agrees I do not see big problems, allthough I would say that the official rules are made like this for a reason. But I do have a couple of questions on the mechanics that you use. Per VTES rules you cannot use the same reaction card more than once per action. This would make Telepathic Misdirection pretty hard to play IMO. And as James Coupe wrote, what about non prey-predator related reactions like Dread Gaze and Delaying tactics. Does a player need the intercept too? What kind of play environment do you play in, combat orientated or something else. Deflection is pretty useless when you only see combat deck that bleed for 1, right? How do you deal with this? I am not about to make any judgements or whatever, but these kind of houserules can damage the continuity of the game. Say a couple of guys decide to pick up the game, and want to join you in your playgroup. They abide the 'normal' rules, and are against the houserules..what do you do? I feel that there should be some form of consensus between the two parties here. Especially due to the fact that the more players the better the games become. Or am I missing something here. But like I said, if it works for you, who am I to judge that?? And I am saying that while I am really advocating the official rules!! See we had similar problems here too. People used to play with 150+ cards with a 6CL..today we play anyway we like, or better you can decide how many cards you want and whether you employ a CL or not. (no CL arguments please!!) Though more and more are converted! Anyway have fine games! Tim Eijpe [ quoted text not captured ]

Exactly what I wanted, LSJ responded. My original statement of "if you're going to preach..." was intended to imply that I only needed an official statement. Norman told us that, but it's hard to take it as truth (not to call Norman a liar, just that we'd played that was for so very long). I mean the whole thing disrupted a game for like 30 minutes with us trying to find anything in the rule book and Norman shaking his head like something was about to pop inside. I checked the online rule book, couldn't find a specific reference, checked the rules errata, and the cardlisting, and still couldn't find anything that specifically stated that our way was incorrect. And so the post. I think the main problem that most of the posters are having is that they are trying to mix the official rules and snippets of how we play together and finding problems (which I admit do exist when you do that). However, we don't have the rulebooks (lost in the shuffle of moving too many times), and aside from an online copy, have nothing to refer against any more. So, we look at the cards and come up with a consensus when we need to. The rules that we "figured" out work just fine. We rarely have questions about how things work since we've played them in this style so long. We had things broken down into phases of an action, and had our own sequencing rules. Everything worked just fine. I read parts of the rulebook yesterday answering questions that came up, and I think I have a better understanding of the game now. I'm not certain I like it any better, and I'm not certain that it will be accepted here. I'll mention it to the guys. If they like it fine, if not, fine. Now we'll know to label it a house rule, and that's the point. Lee In article <qeaD5.3085$Bt1.1...@news4.aus1.giganews.com>, "Mike Ooi" <sh...@texas.net> wrote: > > [ quoted text not captured ]

Tim, Well, let me see if I can explain how our deviant system works, since this seems to be what most people are stumbling over. (How on earth it worked at all I mean) 1) We follow the no multiples for action mods/reactions, and no repeat actions (although this is a recent addition). 2) Telepathic Misd is harder, but only in the sense that it might require another auspex card, just like Deflection might require one. 3) Dread Gaze and such are played in the "After the action is successful" state (our sequencing differs from the normal too). The vote has been called, during the voting is when they kick in. If you Delay, the vote is returned to your hand etc etc... Generally we have a mix of decks, someone almost always brings a combat deck, and someone usually has a "theme" deck. The rest are usually "theory" decks and such. S&B is currently out of favor since there is nearly always a cbt deck at hand. Well, new players are always welcome, and until Wed night, we never had anyone play any other way, so that was the first time. Since only two other people where there, it's hard to say what the reaction will be. It happened that it was two of the major players, and both of them hold much sway in the way things are done, so maybe things will change. I come from a competitive magic back ground, I rarely go past 62 cards, and more than 4CL is a "weird-out" moment for me. I'm working at it, but it's not easy, and some people are more helpful than others. In the past we had a hard 4CL, but since we now realize that we have a limited card pool that everyone is pulling from, it's hard to go more than 4 without harming someone else's deck. Since we play for fun, it's generally not done unless you really feel that you have to have 4 or more of whatever card... Thanks for listening. Lee In article <8rkhre$4jk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ]

>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 21:04:19 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >>do. It's our game, you play your way up there in MI. I don't really > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I live in Atlanta, GA. Uh...I'm the one in Michigan and we do "play it [our] way" here. It's called the National Jyhad League. To be honest, the more I read this thread, the more I like Derek. Noal -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

Thanks thank you for the clarification, Lee. Your system would make an exellent fun rules variation to play every once in a while IMO. Actually that's how I play Dread Gaze too, I mean it is only useable when voting commenses. Anyway, goodluck with the changes coming, or not :) Enjoy!! Tim -- PROPHECY OF GEHENNA: On The First Day Of Gehenna The Shrieking Wind Shall Be Silent And When A Black Sun Hangs From A Somber Sky Caine's Sleeping Children Shall Once Again Arise [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:24:40 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >Sounds like you would not act that way yourself, but you appreciate Derek >acting that way for you. Some people need to be hit over the head with a bat in order to comprehend things. I happen to be both capable and unafraid of providing that bat, and the associated swing. I am under no delusions that somehow I am providing a public service, which "saying things that could stand to be said" definitely ain't. >that, then he has no need of any defence). There is nothing anyone else >can do about such an attitude, but at least one can restrain oneself from >defending or justifying it. One can avoid adding further insult by >telling his targets that they have earned what he dishes out. Well, most people aren't really so gosh-darn sensitive as all that. And, of course, if you noticed what I quoted, someone who wants to lead off with that sort of "pre-response" when they know they'll be told they're wrong is really asking for it. Of course, you demonstrated awhile back that you don't read very well, so you might have missed that. ;) >asking alot of questions that might seem stupid at first. It would be >best, I think, if we would try not to alienate them, and drive them off of >our cosy little internet club. your assumption that the intent is to drive them off is, sadly, not much more than a wild guess. [ quoted text not captured ]

I think the main problem here is the assumption that Derek does not have any impact on the game, simply because he is not an employee or VEKN prince. That is such a bogus cop out. You represent everything you mention, whether you like it or not. You represent Atlanta, V:TES, and George, all simply because you may be the only person from there (or playing this game) that a person has ever met. I don't think that you have act nice or watch what you say, but remember you're in the public eye on usenet. That would also be why I asked for flames to come directly at me, rather than be posted to the group, since no one really wants to read about Derek calling me stupid and me calling Derek inbred. They read this group for V:TES news and related items. That being said, I'm done with this line unless someone has something rules wise to ask me. I don't mind explaining what or how we play here, but I'm not going to spend my time listening to people tell me I'm ignorant. I would like to point out a certain resemblance between Derek and others actions and attitudes about the rules and a religious crusade, a Jyhad one might say. :) I really don't mind Derek, except for the condescending attitude. But, hey just remember there is a world full of assholes our there, you're gonna meet some. :) Beyond that, I like Derek's ignorant claims to be able to handle me, my big brother, and my grandmother. I enjoy that kind of misinformed braggadocio. Even if he could handle all of us, I would still be left wondering why he is proud to fondle an 80 year old woman? If that's what being a Thug in Atlanta is about, count me our and take me off the mailing list. Lee Who's laughing now? In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.001006...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > [ quoted text not captured ] > What's this, some sort of "Good-Cop, Bad Cop" routine? Are you telling > the poster that he is not wanted on this NG, and that you appreciate > Derek's efforts to drive him off with belittlement and condescension? > Sounds like you would not act that way yourself, but you appreciate Derek > acting that way for you. > > Derek offers no defence for his behavior except to point to his sig line, > and say he takes pride in being a "thug". (If he is truly happy with > that, then he has no need of any defence). There is nothing anyone else > can do about such an attitude, but at least one can restrain oneself from > defending or justifying it. One can avoid adding further insult by > telling his targets that they have earned what he dishes out. > > People are far more likely to be convinced of the error of their ways if > you do not attack their egos in the course of discussion. If White- Wolf > is successful at recruiting players, you are going to get alot of people > asking alot of questions that might seem stupid at first. It would be > best, I think, if we would try not to alienate them, and drive them off of > our cosy little internet club. > > -- John Whelan [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:13:54 GMT, Noal McDonald <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 21:04:19 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >>>do. It's our game, you play your way up there in MI. I don't really >> >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I live in Atlanta, GA. > >Uh...I'm the one in Michigan and we do "play it [our] way" here. >It's called the National Jyhad League. > >To be honest, the more I read this thread, the more I like Derek. Wow. I'm doing something wrong. Time to go to Thug Adjustment School or something, where they'll smack me with bats until I'm sufficiently offensive again. ;) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.001006...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Derek is just expressing frustration with something I've seen a million > > times on gaming newsgroups: Local group X reads the rules to a game > > and miss something. They play with the wrong rule for a period of time, > > possibly years, before someone runs across another player or some other > > reference to the real rule. Astonded, representive Y of local group X > > posts on the newsgroup asking for clarification. He or she is even more > > astounded to find out they've been wrong about it all these years, even > > to the point of insisting the rules support their interpretation long after > > chapter and verse from the rule text have been directly quoted which > > inevitably lead to the contrary conclusion. > > > > Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may > > think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting > > in a very understandable way when a new guy jumps into a community > > and starts disputing a fundamental point of the newsgroup's topic which > > is well-known to the rest of the community. Your way might make an > > interesting house-rules version of the game. But it is clearly not the > > correct way to interpret the rules. > > What's this, some sort of "Good-Cop, Bad Cop" routine? Are you telling > the poster that he is not wanted on this NG, and that you appreciate > Derek's efforts to drive him off with belittlement and condescension? > Sounds like you would not act that way yourself, but you appreciate Derek > acting that way for you. > > Derek offers no defence for his behavior except to point to his sig line, > and say he takes pride in being a "thug". (If he is truly happy with > that, then he has no need of any defence). There is nothing anyone else > can do about such an attitude, but at least one can restrain oneself from > defending or justifying it. One can avoid adding further insult by > telling his targets that they have earned what he dishes out. > > People are far more likely to be convinced of the error of their ways if > you do not attack their egos in the course of discussion. If White-Wolf > is successful at recruiting players, you are going to get alot of people > asking alot of questions that might seem stupid at first. It would be > best, I think, if we would try not to alienate them, and drive them off of > our cosy little internet club. > > -- John Whelan > i certainly agree that we need to respond properly to questions no matter how dumb we may think they are. i do not think Lee's questions are dumb, by the way, and not having played his group's rules i have no particular comment to make on them except that if they like the rules then fine [i'm also interested in some details of the logic behind them]. All i've been saying is that i think Lee's dislike of our rules is actually based on a misconception. i disagree with the suggestion that Fred and Derek think we are a cozy internet club. IMO what Fred is saying is that Derek's abrasive style is to be tolerated because amidst all the abuse and grandma-fondling there is sound advice backed up often enough by worked examples. You are saying that newbie questions should be tolerated. i agree with both of you, because i think tolerance is a good thing. Where i suspect i may part company with John is over the question of whether there's a Right Not To Be Offended which is [whether you're advocating it or not] IMO a deeply worrying principle, ultimately corrosive of proper dialogue, not just on the NG but in public life generally. If you look at the great periods of democracy in Periclean Athens or post-Glorious revolution England you will find the most APPALLING personal abuse flying around, because people weren't afraid to say what they thought, how they thought it. People shouldn't be made to defend their way of expressing themselves, IMO, and to the extent that they are i suggest they are being subject to a subtle, gentle but nevertheless invidious form of bullying. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:53:29 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >I think the main problem here is the assumption that Derek does not >have any impact on the game, simply because he is not an employee or >VEKN prince. That is such a bogus cop out. You represent everything >you mention, whether you like it or not. You represent Atlanta, V:TES, >and George, all simply because you may be the only person from there >(or playing this game) that a person has ever met. I don't think that THAT is an incorrect assumption. I'm sure I have an impact, otherwise people wouldn't bother to respond. However, I do not have an OFFICIAL impact. If I were a Prince or WW employee, I would have to be excruciatingly careful in what I said, and not tread on any poor little bugger's toes. Since I'm not, I really do have a lot more freedom, something which is quite necessary. Ross Perot served a purpose. God forbid he should EVER have been elected, but he DEFINITELY served a purpose. I represent Atlanta? If I were to look for an example of Atlanta players, I would not go unto the USENET and select the self-professed "Thug", unless (as previously stated) I had totally lost my mind. I represent nobody but myself, as any wise soul would immediately be able to tell. I can't possibly represent V:TES, since there's an entire newsgroup of people here representing V:TES - the snarls of one person -do- tend to get lost in the noise. And George can go @#*& himself, because he still owes me $50. >you have act nice or watch what you say, but remember you're in the >public eye on usenet. That would also be why I asked for flames to No, Lee. I'm in the USENET eye, which is significantly different from the public eye. I redirect you (at superior!) to my statement that "90% of USENET is crap." >I'm not going to spend my time listening to people tell me I'm >ignorant. I would like to point out a certain resemblance between Derek >and others actions and attitudes about the rules and a religious >crusade, a Jyhad one might say. :) (shrug) Well, we noticed you didn't really RESPOND to any of our examples, you just lost your cookies over the tone of my messages. While that may work as an excuse to ignore MY examples, others are probably a little confused since they were much less incendiary. =) (paragraph of mindless flames snipped) >Lee >Who's laughing now? well, I'm still fairly amused... especially by these little digs after the content-free paragraphs. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 14:17:08 GMT, Tim Eijpe <t_e...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Thanks thank you for the clarification, Lee. > >Your system would make an exellent fun rules variation to play every >once in a while IMO. >Actually that's how I play Dread Gaze too, I mean it is only useable >when voting commenses. ...actually, that's how the official rules are for playing Dread Gaze. It's only usable during the referendum, when there's something appropriate to gain votes -for-... =) Same with BO, Awe, Surprise Influence, etc. All this is long after blocking. But must a minion gain intercept to be able to play Dread Gaze? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <3irrtssd12ef2n9o6...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ...actually, that's how the official rules are for playing Dread Gaze. > It's only usable during the referendum, when there's something > appropriate to gain votes -for-... =) Same with BO, Awe, Surprise > Influence, etc. > > All this is long after blocking. But must a minion gain intercept to > be able to play Dread Gaze? And what would you be intercepting? You're using vampiric powers yadda yadda to influence people... you've let the action succeed, now the voting is on. In our world, it resolves as two different events, one at stealth (the calling of the vote) the other is not at stealth. Lee [ quoted text not captured ]

It's not my assumption Derek. You're the one claiming that you don't have an impact on anything related to the game since you're not an official representative of the game. I'd bother to ask what purpose you think Ross served, but I'm more than a little frightened by what I imagine your answer will be. For everyone's sanity, leave politics out of this. You do represent Atlanta. You represent it to everyone who doesn't live there, doesn't go to the gaming stores there, and only is exposed to your ranting on usenet. That's the only player many of these people will see. You could of course attempt to not post crap and thus reduce the 90% level you like to talk about, but my guess is that you won't. Derek, please, go back, reread the initial post. Don't try to put anything extra into it, just read it. Then read your reply. I think you can see why I thought (and still do think) that's you're trolling for a fight more than anyone or anything else. You claim that I've ignored things, well fine, what things have I ignored? I've also noticed that you've let certain things you brought up slide to the side. Want to call it quits? Exactly what example were you refering too? Anyone that asked in something less than a totally obnoxious tone I tried to answer. If I missed one it's because it got overlooked, not because I was unable to answer it. Again, I urge you to read the initial post, and your response. I didn't start this, you came on with the "WHERE do these people come from..." type response. Exactly how was I supposed to interpret your reply? I didn't call you a child, I didn't make big threats, I don't think I asked for you to annoy me. I asked a question, got my answer, and then got you. As far as it goes, I think I've got the shit end of the deal here. I could have had a great day if you'd have kept your mouth shut and not seen fit to post. I can add that I don't remember you ever attempting to answer the questions that were originally posted. Do you have anything useful to add, or are you going to spew some vile comments and then claim that you don't have any responsibilities because you're just a private citizen and you can't impact anyone else's life, and that your comments wouldn't stop anyone from playing a game? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8rkri7$dd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, legb...@my-deja.com wrote: [SNIP] [ quoted text not captured ] I agree with almost everything in that, and I agree that an individual has the right (but not a requirement to exercise that right) to say what they please. However, that being said, I also think that it's incredibly useless to be overly abrasive. Fine, you called me a mother wanking tosspot that eats crackers in bed. Great. Now I ignore you. It's a loss since you might have have had something really valid to say, but now, I won't hear it. You can say what you like, but you've got to accept responsibility for what you say. In the USA it's illegal to yell fire in a theater. Not because you can't say fire when and where you please, but rather because you're endangering human life when you do it under those circumstances. Rights are balanced by responsibilities. The internet and the sense of separation created by your computer allow many people to forget that. Lee [ quoted text not captured ]

Lee, I really did enjoy my visit to Stillwater and the glories of OCU. I liked playing immensely. I have several questions for you. 1) How can you play reaction cards to gain intercept when by your own in-house ruling you may not play reaction cards unless you have sufficient intercept? It seems that you would never be able to play intercept. This confused me greatly and I am sure it would confuse a new player, who didn't have alot of experience, even more so. 2) How does bleeding any methuselah create a situation where everyone is having fun? Is it fun when you get ganged up on by two players? I know this happened to me only once when I was playing with you. I believe that you were my prey and you social charmed me with Jost Werner. 3) How does instituting House Rules encourage new players to join your coterie? They buy the game. they read the rules. They build a deck which then falls on its face because of a house rule that they never heard of. Is it not enough that the new players have to learn a extremely complicated game, and then on top of that the mass of errata? Enjoyed playing. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

>> To be honest, the more I read this thread, the more I like Derek. > > Wow. I'm doing something wrong. Time to go to Thug Adjustment > School or something, where they'll smack me with bats until I'm > sufficiently offensive again. Heh. You misunderstand me. I like seeing a good flame war from time to time. James Coupe and I used to get into it quite a bit back in the day. These days, I don't have the time to get in waste deep into a good flame war. If I did, I'd be right in there, prince title or not. Regards, Noal McDonald The Jack Booted Thug of Metro Detroit, MI -- "I was probably pretty young, when I realised that I had come from what you might call a family, a clan, a race, maybe even a species, of pure sons of bitches." --Faulkner, "The Mansion" [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8rkvrh$h7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: > I agree with almost everything in that, and I agree that an individual > has the right (but not a requirement to exercise that right) to say > what they please. However, that being said, I also think that it's > incredibly useless to be overly abrasive. Fine, you called me a mother > wanking tosspot that eats crackers in bed. Great. Now I ignore you. > It's a loss since you might have have had something really valid to > say, but now, I won't hear it. You can say what you like, but you've > got to accept responsibility for what you say. In the USA it's illegal > to yell fire in a theater. Not because you can't say fire when and > where you please, but rather because you're endangering human life when > you do it under those circumstances. Rights are balanced by > responsibilities. The internet and the sense of separation created by > your computer allow many people to forget that. I grant you that rights are balanced by responsibilities. If you refuse to talk to Derek because of his manner of speech, though, you are at fault, not he. He is correct in that you have not responded to a single example he posed; a less charitable person than I might conclude that you have no responses to his examples, and that you are sidestepping the issue. People do not have a responsibility not to offend others. That is a sensibility; it makes you more enjoyable company. (Not that I don't enjoy Derek's posts.) It's easily possible to filter out the insults somebody makes towards you and address the actual information they post, and to a certain extent, this is the best possible solution. After all, Derek knows nothing about you besides what you've chosen to post. You may be part of the Rules Team. You may be LSJ's little brother. He wouldn't know. His responses have as much validity as you choose to attribute to them, so any offense you take at them is your responsibility, not his. In any case, the attitude of your first post was, and I say this without malice, straightforwardly confrontational; so whether or not you accept the above, you bear a certain measure of responsibility for this conflict. -- William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com. HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth Support peer pressure -- kick a lemming off a cliff. Go Slugs! Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/

In article <8rl03h$hiq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Lee, > I really did enjoy my visit to Stillwater and the glories of OCU. I > liked playing immensely. I have several questions for you. > > 1) How can you play reaction cards to gain intercept when by your own > in-house ruling you may not play reaction cards unless you have > sufficient intercept? It seems that you would never be able to play > intercept. This confused me greatly and I am sure it would confuse a > new player, who didn't have alot of experience, even more so. > Well, I think that we always just assumed that the only way to generate intercept was by those cards (Enhanced Senses and its ilk), so we never questioned it too hard. In retrospect I can see how this would confuse someone, but that's the way we play. I don't know of any new players that were confused by it, in several years no one managed to notice it, you read a card, if you understand it's purpose you can play with it, if not, then you question. Since it seemed to work fairly well, no one bothered questioning it. > 2) How does bleeding any methuselah create a situation where everyone is > having fun? Is it fun when you get ganged up on by two players? I know > this happened to me only once when I was playing with you. I believe > that you were my prey and you social charmed me with Jost Werner. > Yes, that is correct (your recall of the situation and details). We've never had a problem with collusion. It's a risk we all run. If you'd say, just for example, played Fame on Fredrick, then I might seek to do you harm because of that. Not to the point that I allow your prey to take you out, but rather in the form of "persuading" you to not do that anymore. Since we have a stable group equilibrium, we don't have collusion problems. Our problems usually come in the form of cross game grudges, where when you beat all of my vampires into torpor in one game, I bleed you unreasonably in the next. Since there isn't an agreement, and I'm not doing it to help your predator out, I don't think of it as collusion. It's the way it's been here for the longest time. > 3) How does instituting House Rules encourage new players to join your > coterie? They buy the game. they read the rules. They build a deck > which then falls on its face because of a house rule that they never > heard of. Is it not enough that the new players have to learn a > extremely complicated game, and then on top of that the mass of > errata? > Well, since most people here (perhaps not so in the future) have been brought into a standing game where there are multiple people who play by the rules, and since they usually learn by playing a few hands with everyone helping them, there usually isn't a big moment of shock involved. I think it is enough for new players to learn a complicated game... but then of course, my copy of the V:TES Official Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata is just over 1800 lines long. We try not to introduce all the rules at once, but to do them in slow little chunks. If there is a new player, no one pulls fancy stuff, we stick to simple decks (demo style decks I mean) and play in a friendly game. We don't attack people for no reason, we don't block hunting, or other "rude" things. We try to point out where and when something can be done so that the player is aware of the potentials. > Enjoyed playing. > > Comments Welcome, > Norman S. Brown Jr. > XZealot > Archon of the Swamp > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. > Glad you enjoyed it. Come back any time. Lee Who's laughing now? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Some people need to be hit over the head with a bat in order to > comprehend things. I happen to be both capable and unafraid of > providing that bat, and the associated swing. Personally, I have not seen your tactics serve any constructive purpose. You put peoples' egos on the line and backs against the wall, which does not aid them to think rationally or help them alter their views. Then, when they lose their cool, you use this as further ammunition for further personal attacks. I don't think you should give yourself points for courage either. There is no courage involved when newsgroup regulars gang up on new posters. > I am under no delusions that somehow I am providing a public service, > which "saying things that could stand to be said" definitely ain't. I'm glad you are under no such delusions. > Well, most people aren't really so gosh-darn sensitive as all that. Some people aren't. Some people are. I know people who do not post because they cannot deal with the stress. Certainly, he who spends alot of time on internet needs thick skins to deal with some of the people encountered. This may be an unavoidable reality, but I don't believe that being one of those people who make usenet emotionally trying is something particularly to be proud of. > And, of course, if you noticed what I quoted, someone who wants to > lead off with that sort of "pre-response" when they know they'll be > told they're wrong is really asking for it. I noticed that, but did not agree that he was "really asking for it." He complained about your becoming nasty, you become even more personal by trying to prove that he deserves the abuse. Your quotation was part of an argument intended to support this personal attack. But he did not carry the debate to a personal level, nor did he force you to do so. > your assumption that the intent is to drive them off is, sadly, not > much more than a wild guess. I make no assumptions as to intent, only as to function. Newsgroup regulars who gang up on and abuse new posters is not a new phenomenon. There is often a resident bully whose efforts are tacitly (or not-so tacitly) supported by other regulars, though such "thugs" rarely claim the title as openly and honestly as yourself. -- John Whelan

In article <8rkvrh$h7o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] > I agree with almost everything in that, and I agree that an individual > has the right (but not a requirement to exercise that right) to say > what they please. However, that being said, I also think that it's > incredibly useless to be overly abrasive. Fine, you called me a mother > wanking tosspot that eats crackers in bed. Great. Now I ignore you. > It's a loss since you might have have had something really valid to > say, but now, I won't hear it. i think that's the astute point, but there's a counter-point. i well remember watching a Ku Klux Klansman being interviewed on TV. He was a total nut but he was polite and well-mannered and cool under pressure from his interviewer. And that's how they get away with murder, quite literally. On the other hand, Cordelia got disinherited and eventually killed for being straight with her silly old dad while Regan and Goneril got away with killing HIM, effectively, just by being polite. The medium, i would suggest, is NOT the message. You can say what you like, but you've > got to accept responsibility for what you say. In the USA it's illegal > to yell fire in a theater. Not because you can't say fire when and > where you please, but rather because you're endangering human life when > you do it under those circumstances. Rights are balanced by > responsibilities. The internet and the sense of separation created by > your computer allow many people to forget that. i agree with all that, of course. But it's one thing to call out fire and start a life-threatening panic. It's another to use earthy language. This distinction is what the extreme end of the PC movement miss, it seems to me. > > Lee [ quoted text not captured ]

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8rkmmq$8sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > To be honest, the more I read this thread, the more I like Derek. That's because he's a stubborn old goat, just like you. :) Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > All this is long after blocking. But must a minion gain intercept to > be able to play Dread Gaze? The logical extension of the "You can only react when yhou know the action is going on" mechanism is that if you didn't block a vote, you didn't know it was going on. Hence, you cannot play Dread Gaze etc. on an unblocked action, since you didn't know the vote was going on, and you cannot play them on a blocked action anyway, since it was blocked. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:30:21 -0500, "Xian" <xi...@waste.org> wrote: > >"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message >news:8rkmmq$8sf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... >> To be honest, the more I read this thread, the more I like Derek. > >That's because he's a stubborn old goat, just like you. :) I resent that! I'm only 28. (baaaaa...;) Wait, better not do that. James C. is reading. After the Mike Ooi Butt Pictures incident, who knows what he might chase?) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:26:26 GMT, lf...@my-deja.com wrote: >It's not my assumption Derek. You're the one claiming that you don't >have an impact on anything related to the game since you're not an >official representative of the game. I'd bother to ask what purpose Lee, I'm going to have to sit you down and use the big bat again if you don't pay more attention. I want you to show me exactly where in either the message you just responded to, or the message I originally posted explaining myself, I claim that I don't have an impact on anything related to the game. No evasions, now, no silly little games, just do it. OK? >you think Ross served, but I'm more than a little frightened by what I >imagine your answer will be. For everyone's sanity, leave politics out He said things that people didn't want to hear, but that needed to be said anyway. He also had some terribly crackpot solutions about how to solve them, so lord, you wouldn't want to have EVER voted for him, but he waded in and took on the hard stuff that the Democrats and Republicans were too damn scared to, and as a result, the Democrats and Republicans were forced to respond and discuss those issues. See, in the USA, we live in Nerf World. Everything has soft edges so we don't get hurt. Political correctness is the all - wouldn't want to offend anyone! Nerf World is nice, but it's not reality, and the USA has too much of Nerf World as it is. >of this. You do represent Atlanta. You represent it to everyone who >doesn't live there, doesn't go to the gaming stores there, and only is >exposed to your ranting on usenet. That's the only player many of WHO CARES? Someone who assumes that the entire playgroup of a city, especially one as large as Atlanta, can be defined by one person's USENET posts... is a Damned Idiot. I do not concern myself with what Damned Idiots think of me. >these people will see. You could of course attempt to not post crap >and thus reduce the 90% level you like to talk about, but my guess is >that you won't. > >Derek, please, go back, reread the initial post. Don't try to put >anything extra into it, just read it. Then read your reply. I think >you can see why I thought (and still do think) that's you're trolling >for a fight more than anyone or anything else. Think what you want. My initial post was in my normal abrasive tone, but also contained somewhere between 7 to 10 (depends on how you count) statements, paragraphs, what-have-you, dealing with the issues surrounding your house rules. Including one extensive example as to why Deflection isn't anywhere near as good/overpowered as you think it is. Another post, off a subthread, also contained several responses. I will go locate message-IDs if you like. In fact, I will do it anyway. My initial post was: <88aptssmurpe5jc41...@4ax.com> the other post was: <7gpptsk6uq99p2f7k...@4ax.com> Now, you have responded to me with two posts... three, counting this one... that are almost completely extraneous to the original topic at hand, and consist mostly of complaints and/or cussing me out. Your original post was pretty damned confrontational, as I quoted back to you in my response. Who exactly is trolling for a fight again? >You claim that I've ignored things, well fine, what things have I >ignored? I've also noticed that you've let certain things you brought >up slide to the side. Want to call it quits? See above. Go re-read my original post, and put on your Flak Jacket while you do so you can prevent the point of aggravated damage you obviously suffered. Go re-read the other post in the side thread as well, which repeats itself a bit but also has some different things. >Exactly what example were you refering too? Anyone that asked in >something less than a totally obnoxious tone I tried to answer. If I >missed one it's because it got overlooked, not because I was unable to >answer it. So what you're saying is, "I won't answer unless you ask it nicely." The Big Blue Room is not a nice place, however. I am not a nice person. And whether I say it nicely or not does not change the validity of the points made. >think I asked for you to annoy me. I asked a question, got my answer, >and then got you. As far as it goes, I think I've got the shit end of >the deal here. I could have had a great day if you'd have kept your >mouth shut and not seen fit to post. I can add that I don't remember So let me get this straight, a person you've never met before, never spoken to before, and don't know anything about was able to ruin your day by speculating, ON USENET, about where you came from and whether or not you play this game very much? You NEED to be less sensitive, dude. >you ever attempting to answer the questions that were originally >posted. Do you have anything useful to add, or are you going to spew I did not answer the original questions because they had already been answered by three different people. Tell me what good it would have done to simply repeat what TheLasombra said? [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.00100...@red.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > > All this is long after blocking. But must a minion gain intercept to > > be able to play Dread Gaze? > > The logical extension of the "You can only react when yhou know the action > is going on" mechanism is that if you didn't block a vote, you didn't know > it was going on. Hence, you cannot play Dread Gaze etc. on an unblocked > action, since you didn't know the vote was going on, and you cannot play > them on a blocked action anyway, since it was blocked. Ah, but you do know the vote is going on, you (being the vampires) are called upon to vote. All can vote, assuming that they have the power or prestige (i.e. votes, either card gained or title based). That's how the cards work for us. > > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. > I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin > with him and the way he makes me feel?" > > [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 13:29:45 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > >On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > >> Some people need to be hit over the head with a bat in order to >> comprehend things. I happen to be both capable and unafraid of >> providing that bat, and the associated swing. > >Personally, I have not seen your tactics serve any constructive purpose. >You put peoples' egos on the line and backs against the wall, which does God forbid people should be forced to defend their positions. >not aid them to think rationally or help them alter their views. Then, >when they lose their cool, you use this as further ammunition for further >personal attacks. I don't think you should give yourself points for >courage either. There is no courage involved when newsgroup regulars gang >up on new posters. John, you seem bound and determined to paint me as this horrible, horrible person who is hellbent on torturing everyone with vicious, nasty personal attacks. You have been frothing at the mouth over me for some time now. I could waste some of my time trying to convince you that such is not my purpose, but the fire shooting from your eye sockets whenever I post tells me that it would, indeed, just be wasted time. Have fun frothing! =) >> Well, most people aren't really so gosh-darn sensitive as all that. > >Some people aren't. Some people are. I know people who do not post >because they cannot deal with the stress. Certainly, he who spends alot >of time on internet needs thick skins to deal with some of the people >encountered. This may be an unavoidable reality, but I don't believe that >being one of those people who make usenet emotionally trying is something >particularly to be proud of. Man who spend lot of time on Internet without thick skin generally need dose of reality. Real world not have "undo" feature. Man who find USENET "emotionally trying" need to get off USENET, go to park, see pretty girl or something, who knows? Whatever floats his boat. Has been problem with BBS's, USENET, Internet forever - people take computer too damn seriously. Need life outside machine. >> And, of course, if you noticed what I quoted, someone who wants to >> lead off with that sort of "pre-response" when they know they'll be >> told they're wrong is really asking for it. > >I noticed that, but did not agree that he was "really asking for it." He >complained about your becoming nasty, you become even more personal by >trying to prove that he deserves the abuse. Your quotation was part of an >argument intended to support this personal attack. But he did not carry >the debate to a personal level, nor did he force you to do so. John, his entire response to my message consisted of: - a comparison of my social graces to a wet sock (nah, that isn't on a personal level, is it?) - a repetition that "our way works!", no counterexamples given - the usual silly challenge to "you should try it and see!" - a tangent about how he cannot afford cards - a tangent about his wife and VetMed - some miscellaneous flamery - a suggestion that I go jump off some tall git in the House of Lords - a declaration that nos/malk aren't too powerful, but again, no counterexamples given - some more miscellaneous flamery. Again, I suspect that you don't actually read these threads in their entirety before posting your rhetoric. Your entire paragraph above is almost totally inaccurate. Come ON, John. Use your head. >> your assumption that the intent is to drive them off is, sadly, not >> much more than a wild guess. > >I make no assumptions as to intent, only as to function. Newsgroup >regulars who gang up on and abuse new posters is not a new phenomenon. >There is often a resident bully whose efforts are tacitly (or not-so >tacitly) supported by other regulars, though such "thugs" rarely claim the >title as openly and honestly as yourself. (rolls eyes) Go ahead, John, believe whatever you will. Just please start reading the whole thing before responding in the future? Oh, and also you might want to look at the number of new posters who don't rush about making silly claims and confrontational posts, ... who I also leave completely alone! My goodness. How could that be? [ quoted text not captured ]

Well, I found where I missed several questions of legbiters, and I appologize for missing those, it was no one's fault but my own. However, since I find Derek to be a less than fun companion, I'm outta here. Please, keep arguing amongst yourself if you so desire. If you want to post a question about how we played this or that, fine. I'll reply privately to you. I'm tired of Derek. I really don't appreciate being called kid by a 28 year old who still likes violent imagery. So, to legbiter, Tim, Norman, and all the others that were nice and gave helpful information, I thank you. To Derek and the others who chose to be the way they are, wel... you take a guess... Lee On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 02:37:06 GMT, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: >Well, I don't know if maybe just this one pocket of people got >confused, or if everyone is confused (not likely), but here goes. > >If vampire A is bleeding at +1 Stealth (due to Kine Domination for >example) can vampire B (controlled by the victim methusulah) play a >deflection without generating +1 intercept? We've always played that >in order to react to a vampire's actions either by blocking or playing >a different reaction card, you had to catch them doing it. The logic >being that stealth represents your hiding what you're doing from >sight, if they can't see you, how can they react at all to what you're >doing. > >Second question, if you have a directed bleed card, can you nominate >someone besides your prey as the target? We've always played that the >built in bleed has to go to your prey, but a directed bleed can go to >any methusulah. Otherwise, what is the card difference between a >directed attack (say Ambush, which doesn't specify that it has to be >your prey, just that it can't be your own minion) and a Computer >Hacking, which doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey >either? > >Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as >our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, >so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish about >it. My apologies to Norman if I was rude or seemed that way, but I >tend to be that way at times. Sorry for that, but those changes make >significant changes in the ways that our deck design and concepts >work. > >Thanks in advance. > >Lee >doesn't say that it has to be directed at your prey either? > >Sorry if these are stupid questions, but we've played with these as >our interpretations for many years, and Norman gave us a wake up call, >so now we're waking up, and like normal, we're a little bearish. I >must apologize if I seemed rude to Norman, but the changes that he was >suggesting represent massive shifts in the logic and form of all of >our decks. Sorry Norman, next time we'll try to be better, and to >have some more people naturally. > >Thanx in Advance, >Lee

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:34:05 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying, both then and now. Don't like it? Learn to be civil. >The Big Blue Room is not a nice place, however. I am not a nice >person. And whether I say it nicely or not does not change the Well, that's a news flash. >validity of the points made. > >>think I asked for you to annoy me. I asked a question, got my answer, >>and then got you. As far as it goes, I think I've got the shit end of >>the deal here. I could have had a great day if you'd have kept your >>mouth shut and not seen fit to post. I can add that I don't remember > >So let me get this straight, a person you've never met before, never >spoken to before, and don't know anything about was able to ruin your >day by speculating, ON USENET, about where you came from and whether >or not you play this game very much? > >You NEED to be less sensitive, dude. You need to be less of an ass, DUDE. I may be sensitive, but then again, you are too, Mr. Not-Nice. > >>you ever attempting to answer the questions that were originally >>posted. Do you have anything useful to add, or are you going to spew > >I did not answer the original questions because they had already been >answered by three different people. Tell me what good it would have >done to simply repeat what TheLasombra said? > >-- Derek > >"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, 1871 Gee, one of us is pretty confident here. Can we extrapolate further?

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > Where i suspect i may part > company with John is over the question of whether there's a Right Not To > Be Offended which is [whether you're advocating it or not] IMO a deeply > worrying principle, ultimately corrosive of proper dialogue, not just on > the NG but in public life generally. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What exactly do you believe we disagree about? I hope you are not trying to turn this into a "free-speech" issue, because it has never been one. Derek has every right to say what he chooses, and so do I. Derek has a right to abuse Newbies, and others have a right to say nothing, or join in the abuse of the Newbie, or stand up for the Newbie, or abuse Derek. Surely you are not going to defend Derek's right express his opinions on Newbies for the things they say on this NG, and oppose my right to express my opinion of Derek for the things he says to Newbies. > If you look at the great periods of > democracy in Periclean Athens or post-Glorious revolution England you > will find the most APPALLING personal abuse flying around, because people > weren't afraid to say what they thought, how they thought it. I believe strongly in freedom of speech, which I consider an absolute necessity. It does not thereby follow that "appalling personal abuse" is in and of itself a good thing, and that one must either ignore or applaud it. It does not follow that there are no moral guidelines to consider when one decides what to say or how to say it. The right to free speech does *not* imply a right to demand that others not form, and expess, unfavorable judgments of you based on what you say and how you say it We are obliged to respect the right of others to free speech. We are not obliged to respect what they say. > People shouldn't be made to defend their way of expressing themselves, > IMO, You really need to think about that one. If you do, I think you will realize that it is not defensible. Are you saying that Newbies "should not be made to defend their way of expressing themselve" and that Derek should leave them alone? Or are you perhaps saying that Derek "should not be made to defend" his way of expressing himself, and that therefore I should leave Derek alone? I suspect the latter, in which case you are applying your principle rather unevenly. If you are saying that we should not make moral rules on what people ought or ought not say, let me point out that you have just made one such rule yourself. > and to the extent that they are i suggest they are being subject to a > subtle, gentle but nevertheless invidious form of bullying. Your point being what? That it is ok to bully people as long as you are not "subtle" or "gentle" because the latter form of bullying is "invidious"? Or is your point merely that it is OK for Derek to "bully" Newbies, but not OK for others to "bully" Derek. I suspect you are unconsciously applying a double standard based on who you do or do not consider to be part of the cozy club. Derek is part of the club ... you think of him as someone you know, therefore it would be "invidious" if he were subject to bullying, but the bullying of outsiders by Derek does not matter. I must say one thing to Derek's credit: I don't think he would use this argument on his own behalf. From the way he struts around brandishing his club, boasting of this thuggery, and presenting himself as the biggest badass on the Newsgroup, I would imagine he thinks himself capable of taking care of himself. I would imagine he believes he can take as well as he gives. -- John Whelan

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Lee Fent wrote: > Ah, but you do know the vote is going on, you (being the vampires) are > called upon to vote. All can vote, assuming that they have the power > or prestige (i.e. votes, either card gained or title based). That's > how the cards work for us. You *really* think that the vampires just go and sit down in a room and tick a box on a ballot form? No, really? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:59:39 GMT, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: >On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 15:34:05 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> >wrote: >> >>So what you're saying is, "I won't answer unless you ask it nicely." >Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying, both then and now. Don't like >it? Learn to be civil. Kid, I could care less if you answer or not. If you don't answer, it's obvious that you're evading the issue because you have no counterarguments. If you DO answer, that's great. If you piss and moan like you have been, well, that's an answer in itself. It's certainly not going to make me be any more civil, especially to someone like you. Oh, by the way. If you're going to post the "i'm leaving forever because of Derek" type of message, it's not very good form to come back later and respond to Derek. Really ruins the dramatic impact. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Well, I think that we always just assumed that the only way to generate > intercept was by those cards (Enhanced Senses and its ilk), so we never > questioned it too hard. In retrospect I can see how this would confuse > someone, but that's the way we play. I don't know of any new players > that were confused by it, in several years no one managed to notice it, > you read a card, if you understand it's purpose you can play with it, > if not, then you question. Since it seemed to work fairly well, no one > bothered questioning it. You know that there are many ways of generating intercept without reaction cards, but I find it interesting that you would ignore a game mechanic like a card being a reaction card. I asked the store manager after you left about some of the rules. Although he was very tired, he said that the rules were exceptionally confusing to him and he didn't understand why they worked that way. He said that it was your own rule. It's your playgroup and you can play as you like, but when your own players are too confused by the rulings to want to play, then it would seem to me to be time to reexamine your rulings. > Yes, that is correct (your recall of the situation and details). We've > never had a problem with collusion. It's a risk we all run. If you'd > say, just for example, played Fame on Fredrick, then I might seek to do > you harm because of that. Not to the point that I allow your prey to > take you out, but rather in the form of "persuading" you to not do that > anymore. Since we have a stable group equilibrium, we don't have > collusion problems. Our problems usually come in the form of cross > game grudges, where when you beat all of my vampires into torpor in one > game, I bleed you unreasonably in the next. Since there isn't an > agreement, and I'm not doing it to help your predator out, I don't > think of it as collusion. It's the way it's been here for the longest > time. Oh, don't take it the wrong way. I wasn't accusing you of collusion, but rather I was asking if you think it is fun to be ganged up on. I ask that because it will happen to new players and they probably won't enjoy it as much. > > 3) How does instituting House Rules encourage new players to join your > > coterie? They buy the game. they read the rules. They build a deck > > which then falls on its face because of a house rule that they never > > heard of. Is it not enough that the new players have to learn a > > extremely complicated game, and then on top of that the mass of > > errata? > > > > Well, since most people here (perhaps not so in the future) have been > brought into a standing game where there are multiple people who play > by the rules, and since they usually learn by playing a few hands with > everyone helping them, there usually isn't a big moment of shock > involved. I think it is enough for new players to learn a complicated > game... but then of course, my copy of the V:TES Official > Clarifications, Rulings, and Errata is just over 1800 lines long. We > try not to introduce all the rules at once, but to do them in slow > little chunks. If there is a new player, no one pulls fancy stuff, we > stick to simple decks (demo style decks I mean) and play in a friendly > game. We don't attack people for no reason, we don't block hunting, or > other "rude" things. We try to point out where and when something can > be done so that the player is aware of the potentials. I find it strange that you think that there is some sort of social etiquitte for playing JYHAD (don't play stealth bleed or we gang up on you, don't block hunts because it is rude). The game in its current form is well balanced enought that these things are irrelavent. I implore you to try to play by the standard rules. It makes the game much more balanced. Try it and you will see. Heck, you may even have fun while you are doing it. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > John, you seem bound and determined to paint me as this horrible, > horrible person who is hellbent on torturing everyone with vicious, > nasty personal attacks. That is a bit excessive as it applies to you. As it relates to me, however, I make no arguments. Earlier, you sought to prove that I am a vengeful spiteful demagogue. Initially, I was unwilling to accept my destiny, and sought to evade the subject by deflecting the debate to the irrelevant subject of Jyhad. But you did not tolerate these evasions, and relentlessly pursued, until, crushed by the weight of your unerring logic, I slank off into the darkness to lick my wounds. There, I reflected on your wisdom, and came to accept the truth. But why fret? Surely if anyone is more than capable of dealing with the vengeful efforts of an Invidious Demagogue, it is you, the invincible impregnable Thug, who says what he likes without qualm or regret. > You have been frothing at the mouth over me for some time now. Yes. The froth drips from my fangs just as the blood drips from your club. But I cannot quite remember when the froth first appeared. Was it during your flamewar with Cantila? > I could waste some of my time trying to convince > you that such is not my purpose, I am not interested in your motives (despite your interest in mine). I dislike the sort of behavior you practice and loudly defend. I do not think it should be imitated, nor applauded and encouraged by those who enjoy the spectacle. You may do as you wish, but I merely advocate that others ascribe to higher standards. You may continue to zealously defend the virtues of Thuggery, as long as I am free to articulate the opposing view. > >> Well, most people aren't really so gosh-darn sensitive as all that. > > > >Some people aren't. Some people are. I know people who do not post > >because they cannot deal with the stress. Certainly, he who spends alot > >of time on internet needs thick skins to deal with some of the people > >encountered. This may be an unavoidable reality, but I don't believe that > >being one of those people who make usenet emotionally trying is something > >particularly to be proud of. > > Man who spend lot of time on Internet without thick skin generally > need dose of reality. Real world not have "undo" feature. I believe I just said that, more or less. The real world (like the internet) is an unpleasant place, and folks must learn to deal with it. This is an unavoidable reality, but .... (you know the rest, same as above). > Man who find USENET "emotionally trying" need to get off USENET, go to > park, see pretty girl or something, who knows? Whatever floats his > boat. Has been problem with BBS's, USENET, Internet forever - people > take computer too damn seriously. Need life outside machine. This is excellent advice. Does it contradict anything I said? > John, his entire response to my message consisted of: > > - a comparison of my social graces to a wet sock (nah, that isn't on a > personal level, is it?) Sounds like he is letting you know that your tone and manner are objectionable to him. Your response, as always, was to highten the level of abuse, like a shark that smells blood. > - a repetition that "our way works!", no counterexamples given Shockingly lazy! > - the usual silly challenge to "you should try it and see!" Ludicrous! > - a tangent about how he cannot afford cards Pathetic! > - a tangent about his wife and VetMed He has a wife? Oh the Depravity! I dare not even ask what a VetMed is. > - some miscellaneous flamery My God! Was it even worse than what you have listed already? > - a suggestion that I go jump off some tall git in the House of Lords Extremely irresponsible! Think of the tragic results, had you actually followed his advice! > - a declaration that nos/malk aren't too powerful, but again, no > counterexamples given WHAT! He said THAT about the NOSFERATU? Lend me your club, Derek, and let me at him. > - some more miscellaneous flamery. Why did you bother typing this list. Is it supposed to say something bad about him? All I see is the seering contempt for others that drips off of almost every word you type. And please don't post further arguments designed to show that he utterly deserves your contempt. > Again, I suspect that you don't actually read these threads in their > entirety before posting your rhetoric. I believe I read most of it. My opinion of your behavior has been formed over a rather longer period. > (rolls eyes) Go ahead, John, believe whatever you will. Thank you. I'll also say what I like. I presume you agree this prerogative applies to both of us. You being a Thug, and I being a Vengeful Demagogue, we both have our respective licences. > Oh, > and also you might want to look at the number of new posters who don't > rush about making silly claims and confrontational posts, ... who I > also leave completely alone! My goodness. How could that be? Wow! What an excellent point! You are absolutely right. This proves beyond a doubt that you are not guilty of Thuggery. And I've also just realized that Chapman is innocent! If he had really killed John Lennon, he would certainly have killed Paul, George, and Ringo as well, not to mention Yoko and Julian! John Whelan - Vengeful Spiteful Demagogue of New York

On Sat, 7 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > On Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:59:39 GMT, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: > >Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying, both then and now. Don't like > >it? Learn to be civil. > Kid, I couldn't care less if you answer or not. If you don't answer, > it's obvious that you're evading the issue because you have no > counterarguments. If Derek wants this to be more "obvious", then he needs to be civil. Derek's lack of civility is in and of itself an adequate reason for not responding to him, so Occham's Razor may be applied before other reasons are sought. > If you DO answer, that's great. If you piss and > moan like you have been, well, that's an answer in itself. It's > certainly not going to make me be any more civil, especially to > someone like you. Exactly! When Derek smells blood, he just becomes more vicious. Letting him know that you have drawn blood will only drive him into a frenzy of attack. Letting him know that he has succeeded in offending you will only fill him with contempt for your pathetic weakness. That's just the type of guy he is. > Oh, by the way. If you're going to post the "i'm leaving forever > because of Derek" type of message, it's not very good form to come > back later and respond to Derek. Really ruins the dramatic impact. Actually, posting an "I'm leaving forever because of Derek" type message is probably poor form. But there is nothing wrong with coming back later. No-one else will take your promise seriously, so neither should you. There was no "dramatic impact" in the first place, so it cannot be ruined. Derek will certainly try rub your face in it of course. -- John Whelan

John Whelan wrote in message ... >He has a wife? Oh the Depravity! I dare not even ask what a VetMed is. VetMed is short for Veterinary Medicine, which is the field of Veterinary Medicine, in which a practicioner would perform Veterinary Medicine on an appropriate subject for Veterinary Medicine. It's a doctor for animals. Depravity is a Unique Master that bestows +1 hand damage on the recipient. It also prevents them from recruiting allies and employing retainers. Look below: Type: Master Pool Cost: 1 Card Text: Unique. Put this card on a ready vampire you control. This vampire gets +1 strength with each strike and gets +1 stealth when attempting diablerie. He or she cannot recruit allies or employ retainers. Wife probably refers to a spouse, a partner in marriage, usually female. Not to be confused with the song "Childwife" by Thilo Von Westernhagen, which refers to some sort of other thing. I know things about cards. Mike Ooi Insane Prince of Houston, TX Home of the functionally-named Houston Texans NFL Team sh...@texas.net

On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 19:40:20 -0400, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: >your wisdom, and came to accept the truth. But why fret? Surely if >anyone is more than capable of dealing with the vengeful efforts of an >Invidious Demagogue, it is you, the invincible impregnable Thug, who >says what he likes without qualm or regret. Quite. Nor do I regret any of it, as I find it quite amusing that you seem to have completely lost your shit over the course of this message. =) I shall take my own advice, however, and not waste my time arguing the mindless parts with you. If you wish to froth, froth away. >the virtues of Thuggery, as long as I am free to articulate the opposing >view. Articulate whatever you want, John, if it makes you happy. Post it too, if you feel the need. It will be archived on dejanews forever for posterity... well, no, deja is hosed. But it WOULD HAVE BEEN! >> Man who spend lot of time on Internet without thick skin generally >> need dose of reality. Real world not have "undo" feature. > >I believe I just said that, more or less. The real world (like the >internet) is an unpleasant place, and folks must learn to deal with >it. This is an unavoidable reality, but .... (you know the rest, same as >above). > >> Man who find USENET "emotionally trying" need to get off USENET, go to >> park, see pretty girl or something, who knows? Whatever floats his >> boat. Has been problem with BBS's, USENET, Internet forever - people >> take computer too damn seriously. Need life outside machine. > >This is excellent advice. Does it contradict anything I said? Did it need to? Perhaps Lee could take this advice, stated far more simply. Ah, but I phrased it in an insulting manner,... I guess he won't read it. A shame, but as it doesn't involve MY blood pressure, it's not MY problem. >> John, his entire response to my message consisted of: >> >> - a comparison of my social graces to a wet sock (nah, that isn't on a >> personal level, is it?) > >Sounds like he is letting you know that your tone and manner are >objectionable to him. Your response, as always, was to highten the level >of abuse, like a shark that smells blood. I *am* a pool player, you know. >> - a repetition that "our way works!", no counterexamples given > >Shockingly lazy! I was assuming he wanted to debate, not just flame. Silly me. >> - the usual silly challenge to "you should try it and see!" > >Ludicrous! It is, in fact, ludicrous. It is almost never necessary to "try and see" variants, especially when it is ludicrously easy to spot the holes in the variants. People who resort to "try and see" as their initial line of defense are generally unable to defend their position in any other fashion. >> - a tangent about how he cannot afford cards > >Pathetic! Quite. Whether he can afford cards is not relevant to whether his rules 'work' or not. >> - a tangent about his wife and VetMed > >He has a wife? Oh the Depravity! I dare not even ask what a VetMed is. His marital status and his wife's major in college are also not relevant to whether his rules 'work' or not. >> - some miscellaneous flamery > >My God! Was it even worse than what you have listed already? well, i'm still looking for his counterexamples indicating that he might wish to debate instead of be a momo. >> - a suggestion that I go jump off some tall git in the House of Lords > >Extremely irresponsible! Think of the tragic results, had you actually >followed his advice! Tragic humor impairment noted. Oh well. I suspect the joke was wasted on the non-UKers anyway. >> - a declaration that nos/malk aren't too powerful, but again, no >> counterexamples given > >WHAT! He said THAT about the NOSFERATU? Lend me your club, Derek, and >let me at him. ...of course, if he had provided the counterexamples, it might have become an interesting debate. >> - some more miscellaneous flamery. > >Why did you bother typing this list. Is it supposed to say something bad >about him? All I see is the seering contempt for others that drips off >of almost every word you type. And please don't post further arguments >designed to show that he utterly deserves your contempt. (shrug) You attempted to claim "But he did not carry the debate to a personal level". I disproved your claim with examples from his first response demonstrating that it was, in fact, -totally- personal. Wasn't that simple? >> Again, I suspect that you don't actually read these threads in their >> entirety before posting your rhetoric. > >I believe I read most of it. My opinion of your behavior has been formed >over a rather longer period. What you believe and what I believe bear little resemblance, clearly. Your opinion is your own. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

John Whelan wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Frederick Scott wrote: > > > Derek is just expressing frustration with something I've seen a million > > times on gaming newsgroups: ... > > Though I've had my disagreements with Derek (and many here may > > think me the real wet sock of this group, if anyone is), he's just reacting > > in a very understandable way ... > What's this, some sort of "Good-Cop, Bad Cop" routine? No. I was just stating my guess at what this poster was doing that was grating on Derek. I was sticking my nose in, probably where it didn't belong, in a sincere attempt to get a little more constructive communicatation going. > Are you telling > the poster that he is not wanted on this NG, and that you appreciate > Derek's efforts to drive him off with belittlement and condescension? Nope. > Sounds like you would not act that way yourself, but you appreciate Derek > acting that way for you. Sorry, you got the wrong thing from it then. I just saw a parallel in my reaction to his frustration even if I wouldn't have stated it the same way. Naturally, I had to share my version with the newsgroup. > People are far more likely to be convinced of the error of their ways if > you do not attack their egos in the course of discussion. If White-Wolf > is successful at recruiting players, you are going to get alot of people > asking alot of questions that might seem stupid at first. It would be > best, I think, if we would try not to alienate them, and drive them off of > our cosy little internet club. That I agree with. Diplomacy is always good when dealing with the newer readers and players. It's just a bit a challenging at times, at least for me. Fred

James Coupe wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Lee Fent wrote: > > Ah, but you do know the vote is going on, you (being the vampires) are > > called upon to vote. All can vote, assuming that they have the power > > or prestige (i.e. votes, either card gained or title based). That's > > how the cards work for us. > > You *really* think that the vampires just go and sit down in a room and > tick a box on a ballot form? > > No, really? Well, you got to admit, there *is* a ballot box pictured on Delaying Tactics! I suppose in "real life" it's more like, "Those kindred voting 'for', please place a decaying, fetid corpse in the 'yes' pile. Those voting 'against' please one in the 'no' pile." That seems a little more in character. Fred

In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.001007...@amanda.dorsai.org>, John Whelan <jbwh...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000 legb...@my-deja.com wrote: > > > Where i suspect i may part > > company with John is over the question of whether there's a Right Not To > > Be Offended which is [whether you're advocating it or not] IMO a deeply > > worrying principle, ultimately corrosive of proper dialogue, not just on > > the NG but in public life generally. > > I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What exactly do you believe > we disagree about? I hope you are not trying to turn this into a > "free-speech" issue, because it has never been one. Derek has every right > to say what he chooses, and so do I. Derek has a right to abuse Newbies, > and others have a right to say nothing, or join in the abuse of the > Newbie, or stand up for the Newbie, or abuse Derek. Surely you are not > going to defend Derek's right express his opinions on Newbies for the > things they say on this NG, and oppose my right to express my opinion of > Derek for the things he says to Newbies. Actually it looks like we are not disagreeing at all, which is good! > > > If you look at the great periods of > > democracy in Periclean Athens or post-Glorious revolution England you > > will find the most APPALLING personal abuse flying around, because people > > weren't afraid to say what they thought, how they thought it. > > I believe strongly in freedom of speech, which I consider an absolute > necessity. It does not thereby follow that "appalling personal abuse" is > in and of itself a good thing, and that one must either ignore or applaud > it. It does not follow that there are no moral guidelines to consider > when one decides what to say or how to say it. The right to free speech > does *not* imply a right to demand that others not form, and expess, > unfavorable judgments of you based on what you say and how you say it i agree. My experience is that you get more done if you don't waste time unnecessarily offending people. As a tactic therefore it is usually better to be polite and to try to "work" people round to your point of view using empathy. However, there is a tendency as i'm sure you're aware to make politeness some sort of sine qua non for any kind of public discourse. This is dangerous IMO because it excludes impolite or just plain inept people from public discourse. Why that is a bad thing is probably best explored by Shakespeare in King Lear. > > We are obliged to respect the right of others to free speech. We are not > obliged to respect what they say. > > > People shouldn't be made to defend their way of expressing themselves, > > IMO, > > You really need to think about that one. If you do, I think you will > realize that it is not defensible. Are you saying that Newbies "should > not be made to defend their way of expressing themselve" and that Derek > should leave them alone? Or are you perhaps saying that Derek "should not > be made to defend" his way of expressing himself, and that therefore I > should leave Derek alone? I suspect the latter, in which case you are > applying your principle rather unevenly. Why no, i am suggesting that HOW a thing is said is much less important that WHAT is said. i don't believe i am being inconsistent about that, but i obviously haven't expressed it clearly enough in my previous posts. > > If you are saying that we should not make moral rules on what people ought > or ought not say, let me point out that you have just made one such rule > yourself. > > > and to the extent that they are i suggest they are being subject to a > > subtle, gentle but nevertheless invidious form of bullying. > > Your point being what? That it is ok to bully people as long as you are > not "subtle" or "gentle" because the latter form of bullying is > "invidious"? Or is your point merely that it is OK for Derek to "bully" > Newbies, but not OK for others to "bully" Derek. I suspect you are > unconsciously applying a double standard based on who you do or do not > consider to be part of the cozy club. Derek is part of the club ... you > think of him as someone you know, therefore it would be "invidious" if he > were subject to bullying, but the bullying of outsiders by Derek does not > matter. Well, if bullying [in the sense of ad hominem attempts to make someone look silly] is wrong, then so is counter-bullying. Again, i think i am being consistent about this. But actually i'm suggesting a different way of looking at this whole issue of Robust Language in public life, namely that it is a way of signalling that the speaker or poster feels strongly about something, or perhaps is pretending to feel strongly about something. So it's just another rhetorical device, in short, and we need to cut through it to the substance of what is being said. > I must say one thing to Derek's credit: I don't think he would use this > argument on his own behalf. From the way he struts around brandishing his > club, boasting of this thuggery, and presenting himself as the biggest > badass on the Newsgroup, I would imagine he thinks himself capable of > taking care of himself. I would imagine he believes he can take as well > as he gives. > > -- John Whelan All true, and i am certainly not arguing on his behalf. i am talking about what i see as a worrying trend away from substance in public discourse and towards style. But since, clearly, we agree about the essentials here, and also because it is not exclusively a Jyhad topic i will shut up now. [ quoted text not captured ]

I needed to defend or respond to, I'll be glad to do it. If you want to debate, fine, step up, we can talk about how it worked here, and why it's a valid interpretation. If you want to flame some more, please, have at me. I thought about it for a while, and since I'm fairly new to Usenet, or at least to this branch of it, I was put off by your attitude and comments. Then I realized that if you did that to me in public I'd be fairly amazed, so I figure what the heck, I don't care if you think I'm illiterate, or incapable of defending myself. I am neither, and for what it's worth, some of us non-UKers got the joke too. Not that it was all that funny, personally I felt it was a bit of a stretch, but since it's a play on words, they are all a stretch. For what it's worth, I could dig up each of the past things that I should have responded to, but I'm fairly lazy, so if you'll do me this favor, then we can have this debate. If not, then we won't. Lee Who's Laughing Now? (BTW that's not really a question, Derek, it's not aimed at you, so please don't feel like you have to respond to it. Not that I think it will prevent you, but hey, if I can be of service, you just let me know.) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:17:54 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: >have at me. I thought about it for a while, and since I'm fairly new >to Usenet, or at least to this branch of it, I was put off by your Be advised that the alt.* branch of USENET is MUCH more vitriolic. People there would have responded to your nothing-but-flame messages in kind, as opposed to snipping it and moving on. And you probably don't even want to see the comp.os.advocacy.* branch... or frankly, most of the comp.* branch. >attitude and comments. Then I realized that if you did that to me in >public I'd be fairly amazed, so I figure what the heck, I don't care if >you think I'm illiterate, or incapable of defending myself. I am >neither, and for what it's worth, some of us non-UKers got the joke >too. Not that it was all that funny, personally I felt it was a bit of >a stretch, but since it's a play on words, they are all a stretch. For ...as far as the joke goes, the word is correctly spelled "pier". this could change your perspective significantly on what joke was actually being made. >what it's worth, I could dig up each of the past things that I should >have responded to, but I'm fairly lazy, so if you'll do me this favor, >then we can have this debate. If not, then we won't. The ball is in your court, Lee. It isn't my problem - my points have long ago been made. Besides, I already did you a favor by providing specific message IDs. Take those, feed them into deja's search engine, and go from there. Or don't, and use this message as another means of evasion. >Lee >Who's Laughing Now? >(BTW that's not really a question, Derek, it's not aimed at you, so >please don't feel like you have to respond to it. Not that I think it >will prevent you, but hey, if I can be of service, you just let me >know.) *snort* tell me something - if it's not aimed at the person who you're posting to, why is it there in the first place? =) It's not profound, it means nothing, it's basically just an open taunt. Do you truly think using an open taunt as your .signature is going to earn you polite responses? =) [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <sv94us0gfbfq2dqs9...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 19:17:54 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >have at me. I thought about it for a while, and since I'm fairly new > >to Usenet, or at least to this branch of it, I was put off by your > > Be advised that the alt.* branch of USENET is MUCH more vitriolic. > People there would have responded to your nothing-but-flame messages > in kind, as opposed to snipping it and moving on. > > And you probably don't even want to see the comp.os.advocacy.* > branch... or frankly, most of the comp.* branch. > Thanks for the warning. > >attitude and comments. Then I realized that if you did that to me in > >public I'd be fairly amazed, so I figure what the heck, I don't care if > >you think I'm illiterate, or incapable of defending myself. I am > >neither, and for what it's worth, some of us non-UKers got the joke > >too. Not that it was all that funny, personally I felt it was a bit of > >a stretch, but since it's a play on words, they are all a stretch. For > > ...as far as the joke goes, the word is correctly spelled "pier". > this could change your perspective significantly on what joke was > actually being made. as opposed to Peer, yes, I know. > > >what it's worth, I could dig up each of the past things that I should > >have responded to, but I'm fairly lazy, so if you'll do me this favor, > >then we can have this debate. If not, then we won't. > > The ball is in your court, Lee. It isn't my problem - my points have > long ago been made. Besides, I already did you a favor by providing > specific message IDs. Take those, feed them into deja's search > engine, and go from there. Or don't, and use this message as another > means of evasion. > Who evaded? Anyway, It'll take time since I'll have to look them up. I'll just post a new branch for it. > >Lee > >Who's Laughing Now? > >(BTW that's not really a question, Derek, it's not aimed at you, so > >please don't feel like you have to respond to it. Not that I think it > >will prevent you, but hey, if I can be of service, you just let me > >know.) > > *snort* tell me something - if it's not aimed at the person who > you're posting to, why is it there in the first place? =) It's not Why do you have a quote from Darwin? It's there for my enjoyment. If you want to know what it's about (not that I think you do, but hell, I'm entitled), I'll explain. Everyone has had one of those days that it just feels like everyone and everything that you've met or had to deal with that day has ended up beating the living spit out of you. When I get those days, I just think to myself "Who's laughing now?" You would too if you lived my life, but since you lack my background and don't understand, you probably don't think like I do, something we're both very happy about. > profound, it means nothing, it's basically just an open taunt. Do you > truly think using an open taunt as your .signature is going to earn > you polite responses? =) Do you think it will? I could bother questioning yours, but since it's irrelevant to the main conversation, and I've already wasted enought bandwidth on my off topic bits, I won't. > > -- Derek > > "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." > - C. Darwin, 1871 > Lee Who's Laughing Now? [ quoted text not captured ]

Lee Fent wrote: > I needed to defend or respond to, I'll be glad to do it. If you want > to debate, fine, step up, we can talk about how it worked here, and why > it's a valid interpretation. Why *what's* a valid interpretation? If you mean the concept that a minion requires sufficient intercept merely to play a reaction card (such as Deflection) - as opposed to requiring the intercept to actually block - I'd be interested in seeing what text in any set of rules ever said anything like that. Fred

[SNIPPED OUT A BIG CHUNK TO MAKE WAY] Derek: Really? What ways? A well-built Nosferatu Minion Tap/Spying Mission deck would REALLY put a cramp in y'all's world, especially if you added Dominate skill cards and a few Conditionings just for laughs. And I don't even think you want to see what a good Nosferatu stealth-bruise-vote deck would do. Lee: Well, rush beats a stealth/bleed deck by design. You've got to have a minion to bleed me with, so if all your vampires are in torpor or forced to hunt, then you're Minion Taps are pretty much useless (due to low blood), and the Spying Missions never occur, since you're hunting or rescuing from torpor. Derek: Sure, you can TRY, but what will you do against one that's built well enough and played properly? No, I just don't see it. Perhaps your group just has got bored with it (we haven't seen Malk S&B in about a year around here - not only is it no fun to play, it's hard to win with) and is having fun, which is just fine. Lee: I'll agree that it really isn't much fun to play, but it is a valid deck archtype, and CAN win, just like rush. A well built deck pretty much plays itself, so I don't think that playing skill is very valid outside of true morons fouling up very simple plays. Deck building is another topic entirely. Derek: Kid, I can handle you, your big brother, and your granny too. I don't see a DAMN THING you can do to deal with a GOOD Nossie or Malk stealth deck under those rules, unless you build a deck that is designed to do nothing else but specifically stop it. Lee: Malks fall over to combat. Nosferatu are a little more difficult, but also less likely to have Dominate. Does this seem to be a repetive theme? A rush deck can sweep a stealth deck, since you're dependant on getting vampires up and keeping them up and ambulatory, something a rush deck seeks to prevent. I won't touch the rest of it except to say that I'm the smallest and youngest of my brothers, so I'm pretty much used to getting my ass kicked, you won't be the first or the worst. Derek: Well, first, you have to have the Deflections in hand. Second, you have to have an untapped vampire to do the Deflecting. Third, when the vote deck sits down behind you, all your Deflections are useless and you die miserably. Stealth bleed is still an extremely strong strategy in V:TES under the official rules... it just requires some competence to play, instead of your version, where I just need to be able to generate +3 stealth consistently for my Govern + Conditionings. Lee: And the player without the deflections? How does he deal with the bleed in your version? You had the chance to deflect before they played stealth in my version. If you looked at a Dom/Stealth deck and didn't take that option, you probably have a play problem. It doesn't take much to look at a 3 bleed that will probably go to stealth and decide to send it on down the line. And you also have to have the Govern in hand along with the Bleed Modifiers, just like with the deflections, luck of the draw is important to all decks, not just a defense or stealth/bleed deck. Derek: No you don't. Lost in Crowds + Cloak the Gathering = 3 stealth. If you have to generate 3 intercept for every bleed and *then* deflect it as well, your deck doesn't have room in it to do anything else other than defend. Lee: I think something got hosed in the explanation. You had the opportunity to deflect when the bleed is a 0 stealth, if you choose not to, then you better have a plan. You couldn't have played the Lost in Crowds or Cloak without me trying to block you, so I bypassed my chance to react to you. We see this as a different mode of "reacting" to an acting minion. Derek: OK, look at this example, played under the official rules. A comes to bleed B with his first of 3 minions, using Govern the Unaligned. (bleed of 3). B attempts to block. A plays "Lost in Crowds" to add 2 stealth. B says "OK, I fail miserably." A now must ask himself "Is my prey going to Deflect this?" prior to playing his Conditioning. He looks, and sees that the vampire B tried to block with has superior Dominate and 3 blood on it - enough to pay for a Deflection and stay untapped. Does B's attempt to block signal that he has no Deflections, or was he trying to trick A into adding stealth? If A guesses wrong, he will be helping his prey out by bleeding his grandprey for 6 at 2 stealth. No easy task for A. A doesn't play his Conditioning and says "No modifiers, only 3." (a wise choice, since he can just play the Conditioning on the NEXT bleed, and draw out 2 of B's Deflections at minimal risk). B now must ask himself "Should I Deflect this?" Sure, it's a bleed for 3, and that could hurt, but I only have one Deflection in hand, and what happens if the next one is for 6? Does he have that many bleed cards? Shit. Maybe he just doesn't have any modifiers, and he'll have to bleed for 1 with his next two minions, so I'll end up Deflecting a bleed for 1. Damn." As you can see, there is no "gimme" for either player under the official rules. If B has 3 Deflections in hand, of course, the choice is much easier, but he was either very lucky, or a fool, since anyone playing with THAT many Deflections to guarantee 3 in hand at all times will be piteously helpless before a vote deck. If A gets greedy and starts modifying every bleed, he certainly WILL oust his grandprey - but if he sees potential Deflections, he can change his strategy some to bleed for smaller amounts to force the Deflections out of his prey's hand. Lee: And? What? This isn't much different from the situation that we play with. Only now it's the defenders agony, since if he lets the Governing come in, he runs the risk of getting Conditioned. Or does he deflect right off the bat, and pass the buck, thus allowing player A to run him out of Deflections, and player A still has the Conditioning in hand. On a side note: what I meant when I said to try it and see, was asking you to try play our way and see if you thought that it really "unbalanced" the game. I wasn't using that as a defense versus your examples. We trade offense to your defense. I know that there were some examples that I didn't reply directly to, but the examples that I did reply to seemed to be the majority of your on topic statements. If there was an example you'd like responded to, point it out and I'll reply to it. If you want to delve into the off-topic stuff, then we can argue over whether or not I really do have $15 dollars to spend or not If you can't accept that I don't care enough to lie to you, then I guess you'll just have to know deep in your heart that I really do have $15 and it's all some elaborate trick to get your sympathy. Yeah, right. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 22:57:37 GMT, lf...@ionet.net (Lee Fent) wrote: >[SNIPPED OUT A BIG CHUNK TO MAKE WAY] > >Lee: >Well, rush beats a stealth/bleed deck by design. You've got to have a >minion to bleed me with, so if all your vampires are in torpor or >forced to hunt, then you're Minion Taps are pretty much useless (due >to low blood), and the Spying Missions never occur, since you're >hunting or rescuing from torpor. Rush beats S&B under the "stock" rules as well, but the idea is NOT to create a situation where nothing but Rush decks will handle sneak/bleeders. Again (as I stated elsewhere in my previous message), if you have to play deck "X" or ANTI-deck "X" to win, then something is wrong. And I don't see any way for you to deal with heavy stealth decks, since you can't play reaction cards without the intercept. (Since I originally posted that message, you clarified that vote reactions don't require one to have intercept... which has got to be TERRIBLY confusing to anyone playing. By your logic, if you don't know the vote is happening, how can you show up and Gaze Dreadly upon it?) >Derek: >Sure, you can TRY, but what will you do against one that's built well >enough and played properly? No, I just don't see it. Perhaps your >group just has got bored with it (we haven't seen Malk S&B in about a >year around here - not only is it no fun to play, it's hard to win >with) and is having fun, which is just fine. > >Lee: >I'll agree that it really isn't much fun to play, but it is a valid >deck archtype, and CAN win, just like rush. A well built deck pretty >much plays itself, so I don't think that playing skill is very valid >outside of true morons fouling up very simple plays. Deck building is >another topic entirely. I'm afraid the UK guys are likely to jump on you some for this, and I don't blame them. If you have a focused, one-trick-pony type of deck, then sure, it plays itself. But if you have a toolbox, little-bit-of-everything style of deck, then play skill starts to factor in enormously. Look at Rob Treasure's decks, which as Legbiter said come with a stock warning: "best played by Rob Treasure." They have all KINDS of crap in them, and DEFINITELY don't play themselves. But they also keep winning. Funny, that. Playing skill is much more than just not fouling up simple plays. It includes a number of complex factors which are far from "let's see, should I use the Legal Manip or the Social Charm?" It is pretty much agreed around here that an average deck in the hands of a good player is much more dangerous than a good deck in the hands of an average player. >Derek: >Kid, I can handle you, your big brother, and your granny too. I don't >see a DAMN THING you can do to deal with a GOOD Nossie or Malk stealth >deck under those rules, unless you build a deck that is designed to do >nothing else but specifically stop it. > >Lee: >Malks fall over to combat. Nosferatu are a little more difficult, but >also less likely to have Dominate. Does this seem to be a repetive >theme? A rush deck can sweep a stealth deck, since you're dependant >on getting vampires up and keeping them up and ambulatory, something a >rush deck seeks to prevent. I won't touch the rest of it except to i repeat, "unless you build a deck that is designed to do nothing else but specifically stop it". As above, if you have to play Rush to deal with S&B, then a rule is broken somewhere. Further demonstration below. >say that I'm the smallest and youngest of my brothers, so I'm pretty >much used to getting my ass kicked, you won't be the first or the >worst. This explains the defensiveness. >Lee: >And the player without the deflections? How does he deal with the >bleed in your version? You had the chance to deflect before they Someone without Deflections and without Rush is likely to take it up the ass if he hasn't included an alternative strategy. It is important, when designing any deck, to ask yourself: "how do i deal with huge bleeds? how do i deal with nasty votes? how do i deal with combat?" If you forgot to ask yourself question #1, then when Malk S&B sits behind you, you have nobody to blame but you. The most common one for people who are hosed is "Stop blocking", where the Malk guy jams up like a big pig on stealth cards after two turns and can't bleed for more than 1 anymore. A more effective version of the Malk deck includes a lot less stealth and a lot more toys - and is a lot more toolboxy. But it also never hand jams on stealth if someone doesn't block it, so it keeps moving right along. It can't consistently bleed for 6 anymore, but that doesn't hurt it at all. >played stealth in my version. If you looked at a Dom/Stealth deck and >didn't take that option, you probably have a play problem. It doesn't >take much to look at a 3 bleed that will probably go to stealth and >decide to send it on down the line. And you also have to have the But it won't be a 3 bleed. It'll be a 1 bleed with Conditioning in hand waiting. Bounce that 1 bleed? >Govern in hand along with the Bleed Modifiers, just like with the >deflections, luck of the draw is important to all decks, not just a >defense or stealth/bleed deck. OK... here's the crux of it all, and why I keep pointing out "WELL BUILT/WELL PLAYED". Under your rules, I would never, EVER bleed for more than 1 initially, reducing all your Deflections to so much wallpaper. Since you have to decide whether to Deflect before you know the total bleed, I will be bleeding your grandprey for 1 a few times, and then you will be out of Deflections. As soon as you decline to bounce my bleed for 1, I'll drop a Conditioning (that I've been able to hold in my hand the whole time at no risk to myself). Then I'll bleed for 1 again. If you don't bounce THAT one, I'll know you're out of Deflections, and every bleed card and bleed mod in my hand will hit the table on the next few actions. If you haven't run out of Deflections, I'll use the Governs to go backwards to my crypt and get out new vampires on the cheap - which also give me a few more bleed-for-1 actions to draw out your Deflections. Can you see how Deflection becomes a totally worthless card under your house rules? So now you're in the situation of: can't bounce, can't block, MUST be playing Rush or die. That's not good. The advantage totally lies with the Malk bleeder. The Nossies have a pretty solid advantage here too since they just drop Night Moves/Spying Mission and your Deflections are once again useless. (And being Nossies, they're much more durable in combat - Aid from Bats *OR* some Potence strikes of their own can really deter a Rush deck.) The tradeoff is that the Nossies can't bleed as quickly, of course. oh, also, luck of the draw is not all that important to Malk S&B. It has very few moving parts, and can generally rely on having those parts in hand at any given time. >Lee: >I think something got hosed in the explanation. You had the >opportunity to deflect when the bleed is a 0 stealth, if you choose >not to, then you better have a plan. You couldn't have played the >Lost in Crowds or Cloak without me trying to block you, so I bypassed >my chance to react to you. We see this as a different mode of >"reacting" to an acting minion. So noted in my responses above. But deflecting a 0 stealth bleed for 1 doesn't really cramp your prey's style very much, nor does it worry your predator that he'll accidentally oust your prey. >Derek: >OK, look at this example, played under the official rules. <example snipped, everyone's read it already> >As you can see, there is no "gimme" for either player under the >official rules. If B has 3 Deflections in hand, of course, the choice >is much easier, but he was either very lucky, or a fool, since anyone >playing with THAT many Deflections to guarantee 3 in hand at all times >will be piteously helpless before a vote deck. If A gets greedy and >starts modifying every bleed, he certainly WILL oust his grandprey - >but if he sees potential Deflections, he can change his strategy some >to bleed for smaller amounts to force the Deflections out of his >prey's hand. > >Lee: >And? What? This isn't much different from the situation that we play >with. Only now it's the defenders agony, since if he lets the >Governing come in, he runs the risk of getting Conditioned. Or does >he deflect right off the bat, and pass the buck, thus allowing player >A to run him out of Deflections, and player A still has the >Conditioning in hand. See above. Player B is screwed no matter WHAT under your rules, no real hope of survival. The example above is much more balanced, where BOTH players need to use some skill, thought, and table assessment to decide their play. Player A can still run him out of Deflections, but it takes some skill on his part, instead of just bleeding for 1 every time and whopping him with a Conditioning-mallet every time B fails to Deflect a bleed for 1. If Player A tries this under the official rules, B just hangs onto the bounce until it's a bleed that matters. >On a side note: what I meant when I said to try it and see, was asking >you to try play our way and see if you thought that it really >"unbalanced" the game. I wasn't using that as a defense versus your Except that it's easy to see that it DOES unbalance the game without having to play under it. Deflections being more than just wallpaper are vital to dealing with stealth-bleed decks, since Deflections are a lot more commonly seen and a lot more effective than Rush. >examples. We trade offense to your defense. I know that there were >some examples that I didn't reply directly to, but the examples that I >did reply to seemed to be the majority of your on topic statements. Might want to look at the other message, where the stuff I mention above got detailed out quite a bit more. S&B doesn't -have- to run "Govern, Condition, Lost, Faceless". Also, you might want to reassess how much pool you really NEED to bleed someone for to oust them. It's normally only about 12 or so... even less for people further down "the line". That's only four Conditionings, or 3 if you're sticking DOM skill cards in there. >If there was an example you'd like responded to, point it out and I'll >reply to it. If you want to delve into the off-topic stuff, then we >can argue over whether or not I really do have $15 dollars to spend or >not If you can't accept that I don't care enough to lie to you, then >I guess you'll just have to know deep in your heart that I really do >have $15 and it's all some elaborate trick to get your sympathy. >Yeah, right. Lee, if my motive were REALLY just to nail you to the wall (as John Whelan seems to think), I would have torn you a new asshole by now over that. Instead, I am carefully ignoring it, and will mostly do so one more time. Two things. First, I stand by my statements in the other message, that you having or not having $15 is not relevant as to whether or not your rules work. Second, you are FAR from being the only person who has, or has had in the past, money problems... so get off your high horse and get over yourself. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <Pine.SOL.4.21.001006...@green.csi.cam.ac.uk>, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > > Ask the UK guys, especially legbiter, about 2nd Tradition sometime. > > =) > > Asking Matt Green about Legbiter's 2nd tradition is likely to have you > killed. > Huh? Don't get it. Derek's right though, the entire Portsmouth crowd played 2nd tradition wrong for at least four months before LSJ put us all on the straight and narrow. I dimly recall him playing a few on me in a match at Portsmouth, but I didn't get that worked up about it did I? matt. > -- > James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D > "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. > I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin > with him and the way he makes me feel?" > Credit your sigs damnit! [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8376us83s6sdemal2...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: [SNIP] > Rush beats S&B under the "stock" rules as well, but the idea is NOT to > create a situation where nothing but Rush decks will handle > sneak/bleeders. Again (as I stated elsewhere in my previous message), > if you have to play deck "X" or ANTI-deck "X" to win, then something > is wrong. And I don't see any way for you to deal with heavy stealth > decks, since you can't play reaction cards without the intercept. > (Since I originally posted that message, you clarified that vote > reactions don't require one to have intercept... which has got to be > TERRIBLY confusing to anyone playing. By your logic, if you don't > know the vote is happening, how can you show up and Gaze Dreadly upon > it?) But rush isn't the only thing that can handle stealth/bleed. Any number of other decks can and do handle st/bl. Rush is just the accepted foil to st/bl. As far as the X or Anti-X goes, that traces into the metagame theories. You yourself said (at least, I think it was you, it could be someone else, if so, please over look the mistake) that combat decks were very popular in your area, but that immortal grapple isn't used that frequently. Are there many people using S:CE effects in combat? I'll bet not, since S:CE almost always causes a rise in the number of people using Immortal Grapple and Dog Packs. As to the vote, since we interrepted it as two separate events, it's logical to play the dread gaze after the vote is called, but before the voting is concluded. We thought of it like some one calls the vote by getting the floor (right to speak) at a conclave (this is an example, don't bust a nut). After the vote is voiced, it has to be decided on, so the Gaze and everything else is played after you have suceeded in getting to the floor. [SNIP] > I'm afraid the UK guys are likely to jump on you some for this, and I > don't blame them. If you have a focused, one-trick-pony type of deck, > then sure, it plays itself. But if you have a toolbox, > little-bit-of-everything style of deck, then play skill starts to > factor in enormously. Look at Rob Treasure's decks, which as Legbiter > said come with a stock warning: "best played by Rob Treasure." They > have all KINDS of crap in them, and DEFINITELY don't play themselves. > But they also keep winning. Funny, that. > I think this is more along the lines of know thy deck. If you built the deck, you know what your responses should be and how you want to win. Some decks win by attrition, slowly over the course of several dozen turns, others (st/bl) jump out and try to win in a flash. You have to play your deck, or have a very through understanding of it before you can let the deck work to it's fullest. Every time you play a deck you get more accustomed to how it works best, you may drop a card or add a card depending on how the deck is faring versus the opposition, that's tuning the deck, getting it to the point that it can play itself. I don't really think of that as a play skill, but rather a building skill since you're still changing the form of the deck. The lines blur there in the middle since it's intuitive to know the deck will produce a stealth card to get that vote by, but that you've got to give it another turn or two. [SNIP] > > Someone without Deflections and without Rush is likely to take it up > the ass if he hasn't included an alternative strategy. It is > important, when designing any deck, to ask yourself: "how do i deal > with huge bleeds? how do i deal with nasty votes? how do i deal with > combat?" If you forgot to ask yourself question #1, then when Malk S&B > sits behind you, you have nobody to blame but you. > I think this is pretty much a design item. If you didn't design your deck to either have some defense, be unstoppable by the given method, or accept that you will fall over to it, then you didn't think about it fully. Those are some of the most common activities in the game, and often the most common roads to victory. If you didn't include some thought about them in your design, you should go back and think again. Now I ask, is this relevant to whether or not the rules work? > The most common one for people who are hosed is "Stop blocking", where > the Malk guy jams up like a big pig on stealth cards after two turns > and can't bleed for more than 1 anymore. A more effective version of > the Malk deck includes a lot less stealth and a lot more toys - and is > a lot more toolboxy. But it also never hand jams on stealth if > someone doesn't block it, so it keeps moving right along. It can't > consistently bleed for 6 anymore, but that doesn't hurt it at all. > > >played stealth in my version. If you looked at a Dom/Stealth deck and > >didn't take that option, you probably have a play problem. It doesn't > >take much to look at a 3 bleed that will probably go to stealth and > >decide to send it on down the line. And you also have to have the > > But it won't be a 3 bleed. It'll be a 1 bleed with Conditioning in > hand waiting. Bounce that 1 bleed? > Again, this is mainly a slant view. Either your defensive or your aggressive. If you're aggressive, defelct it to your prey, let them take another one instead of you. The malk has to get cards out of their hand eventually, and there is no certainty that I will run out of ways to either stop him or deal with him before someone takes him out. [SNIP] > So now you're in the situation of: can't bounce, can't block, MUST be > playing Rush or die. That's not good. The advantage totally lies > with the Malk bleeder. The Nossies have a pretty solid advantage here > too since they just drop Night Moves/Spying Mission and your > Deflections are once again useless. (And being Nossies, they're much > more durable in combat - Aid from Bats *OR* some Potence strikes of > their own can really deter a Rush deck.) The tradeoff is that the > Nossies can't bleed as quickly, of course. > And under our rules (and under logic of the game) a card you don't use is a waste. Every time you come for a one bleed I will try to make you work for me. If I deflect you 3 times to my prey and he takes it, it's 1/4 of my job (by your ave of 12 to take a player out) done for me by you, and I've stopped you're work, a doubling effect (sorta). As for the Night Moves/Spying Mission, you can't stop the Night Moves, so we just accept that, but the spying mission can't be used (effectively) with a Night Moves, so we wait on a non-Night Move to use the Deflection. > oh, also, luck of the draw is not all that important to Malk S&B. It > has very few moving parts, and can generally rely on having those > parts in hand at any given time. > [SNIP] > So noted in my responses above. But deflecting a 0 stealth bleed for > 1 doesn't really cramp your prey's style very much, nor does it worry > your predator that he'll accidentally oust your prey. > Not as a singe event, but in series the 1 bleed Deflections add up. It's not unthinkable to have 8 deflections in your deck (based on Metagame environment), so it's normal to expect to see 4 by the time you're half way through your deck. Those 4 can make the difference between in or out for my prey. Consider that since the deflecting is part of my tactic, and since I have my real road to victory working with it, I'm probably already in posistion to oust. If you're being active, then it's possible to be that far into your deck before the malk that is hand jammed, so I'm not too concerned with it. The malk may get bleeds through, but it's not always important to block or deflect every bleed. [SNIP] > Two things. First, I stand by my statements in the other message, > that you having or not having $15 is not relevant as to whether or not > your rules work. Second, you are FAR from being the only person who [**] Original Introduction of the $15 comment by Derek Ray: Lee: ... I don't have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. Derek: you don't have $15 for a box of Jyhad? You can make a competitive deck out of one box. [**] I don't really think I'm a high horse, I'm just stating that your question is pointless. Either I do or I don't, it doesn't change anything. I will agree that it really has nothing to do with the rules, but then, why did you introduce it? [SNIP] Lee Who's Laughing Now? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:10:42 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <8376us83s6sdemal2...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >[SNIP] >> Rush beats S&B under the "stock" rules as well, but the idea is NOT to >> create a situation where nothing but Rush decks will handle >> sneak/bleeders. Again (as I stated elsewhere in my previous message), > >But rush isn't the only thing that can handle stealth/bleed. Any >number of other decks can and do handle st/bl. Rush is just the What decks do you have that can properly handle S&B done up well? I'm sorry, I just don't see it. The biggest reasons S&B doesn't do well in tournaments are: Deflection, and Rush. And the fact that players tend to "accidentally" let bad things happen to it, instead of making deals that might help it out. Under your system, Deflection is useless. How -do- you deal with it? >accepted foil to st/bl. As far as the X or Anti-X goes, that traces >into the metagame theories. You yourself said (at least, I think it >was you, it could be someone else, if so, please over look the mistake) >that combat decks were very popular in your area, but that immortal >grapple isn't used that frequently. Are there many people using S:CE >effects in combat? I'll bet not, since S:CE almost always causes a >rise in the number of people using Immortal Grapple and Dog Packs. That was me, and that was Atlanta, yeah. It's fairly interesting. We used to see a good chunk of S:CE, but we discovered that in one sense, it IS an effective defense - but in another sense, it's not. If all you're using is S:CE, a combat deck, whether or not it packs IG, is going to burn through you pretty damn fast. If your deck is sufficiently fast and the combat deck is your prey, then you'll beat it. If the combat deck is your predator, you're going to have a lot of trouble, since it isn't going to worry much about going forward. On a side note, last night's game had two decks playing with S:CE (one Majesty, one Giovanni) and mine had four IG's in it. I'm going to have to modify that statement to: we -see- it, we just don't see it in ridiculous quantities or much more than any OTHER form of defense. It has taken a slot directly alongside "maneuvers", "skin of steel", etc., so you're just as likely to see it as you are any of the others. >don't bust a nut). After the vote is voiced, it has to be decided on, >so the Gaze and everything else is played after you have suceeded in >getting to the floor. ...all I will say here is that rules ought to be a -touch- more consistent, not filled with interpretations for every single situation. =) >[SNIP] >I think this is more along the lines of know thy deck. If you built >the deck, you know what your responses should be and how you want to >win. Some decks win by attrition, slowly over the course of several >dozen turns, others (st/bl) jump out and try to win in a flash. You >have to play your deck, or have a very through understanding of it >before you can let the deck work to it's fullest. Every time you play >a deck you get more accustomed to how it works best, you may drop a >card or add a card depending on how the deck is faring versus the >opposition, that's tuning the deck, getting it to the point that it can >play itself. I don't really think of that as a play skill, but rather No, you're still missing the point, i'm afraid. Your statements are true to a degree - it IS important to know what your deck can do, and what you're likely to see from it, but actual PLAY skill and the ability to assess and manipulate the table are far more important than what you've got in your deck - and playing skill is something significantly different from tuning a deck. I got 3 VPs in a game last night with a mostly-Jyhad (and a few Dark Sovereigns Praxis votes and vampires) Brujah vote-and-bash deck that I had built a couple hours before. I don't think it ever did ANYTHING consistently, but the trick is to look at what you have in your hand, compare it to what you see on the table, and play accordingly. The other trick is also to be able to look a couple turns ahead and see the situation. I ousted my first prey with a KRC followed by Domain Challenge - that wouldn't have worked if I hadn't sacrificed one of my vampires first to bleed him and tap one of his blockers. It also did 4 to me and 6 to my grandprey, who was just about to oust someone at the time. I had been saving the DC for quite some time, and two turns ago I had made a deal with Arika's controller cross-table to rescue Arika from torpor if she would vote my way on any vote that would oust my prey and wouldn't oust herself. This sort of thing isn't "letting your deck play itself", especially when you have only 6 KRC's and 1 Domain Challenge in the whole deck. =) >I think this is pretty much a design item. If you didn't design your >deck to either have some defense, be unstoppable by the given method, >or accept that you will fall over to it, then you didn't think about it >fully. Those are some of the most common activities in the game, and >often the most common roads to victory. If you didn't include some >thought about them in your design, you should go back and think again. >Now I ask, is this relevant to whether or not the rules work? I dunno. You asked what happens under our rules if someone didn't have Deflection or Rush. I responded. >> But it won't be a 3 bleed. It'll be a 1 bleed with Conditioning in >> hand waiting. Bounce that 1 bleed? >> > >Again, this is mainly a slant view. Either your defensive or your >aggressive. If you're aggressive, defelct it to your prey, let them >take another one instead of you. The malk has to get cards out of >their hand eventually, and there is no certainty that I will run out of >ways to either stop him or deal with him before someone takes him out. Hmmm.. there are two MAJOR misconceptions here. First, if a Malk bleeder is looking at a hand consisting of: 2 Conditioning, 2 Lost in Crowds, 1 Faceless Night, 1 Govern, and 1 Deflection, he doesn't have to get a DAMN thing out of his hand. His hand looks fine as long as he leaves one guy untapped to use the Deflection (no Wake). Since his deck isn't terribly complicated, his hand is ALWAYS going to look something like this, unless he ends up burning a bunch of bleed without burning any stealth, and then he'll be a little lopsided. But this is usually painful for the first prey. All he NEEDS to do is sit and bleed you for 1 until you quit bouncing. That's also probably the only action he will take, just in the interests of running you out of Deflections. I'll be willing to bet LARGE sums of money that he has you out of Deflections on his 3rd bleed for 1, which could well be on the same turn if he has 3 minions out and is willing to tap out - because you are only playing one card, and you aren't even REMOTELY guaranteed to draw one back up. In fact, the odds say you WON'T draw it back up, so if you don't have them in your hand, you won't have them. So you'll have bled your prey for 2 (ouch), and you'll get nuked for 4 on the last action, and unless you can burn through a LOT of cards to get to more Deflections, you are going to get hit for a LOT on your next turn, possibly even ousted. This is why having functional Deflections is so important - each one can be used to pass on a semi-large bleed, instead of being wasted on bleeds for 1. The other misconception is that someone is going to be able to take him out that quickly. The only thing that's likely to save you in this instance is a Rush deck as the Malkavian's predator - but now we come back to the whole anti-X thing again, since we had to drag Rush in. >And under our rules (and under logic of the game) a card you don't use >is a waste. Every time you come for a one bleed I will try to make you Not always true. Sometimes it's just a card you don't use. >work for me. If I deflect you 3 times to my prey and he takes it, it's >1/4 of my job (by your ave of 12 to take a player out) done for me by >you, and I've stopped you're work, a doubling effect (sorta). Realistically, since these are 0 stealth bleeds for 1, your prey is likely to block them and just strike-hands for 1. Especially if I threaten to add stealth if he doesn't promise to do that. Figure that only 1 of those will actually get through. So all you've done is slow me down, without causing significant damage to your prey. You had better be able to do a LOT of damage yourself, since you're out of Deflections after using 3 of them that fast. >As for the Night Moves/Spying Mission, you can't stop the Night Moves, >so we just accept that, but the spying mission can't be used >(effectively) with a Night Moves, so we wait on a non-Night Move to use >the Deflection. You can't ever Deflect a Spying Mission bleed, since Spying Mission is burned AFTER all other effects. If you deflect the bleed, the Methuselah with the SM is no longer bleeding you, and card text on Spying Mission isn't satisfied - so it's not burned, and instead of bleeding you for 3, I'm bleeding your prey for 1. See where it starts to get ugly? Stealth is -very- powerful. There was no need to make it more powerful. Oh, by the way, can you play Telepathic Counter on bleeds that have been stealthed under your rules? >> So noted in my responses above. But deflecting a 0 stealth bleed for >> 1 doesn't really cramp your prey's style very much, nor does it worry >> your predator that he'll accidentally oust your prey. > >Not as a singe event, but in series the 1 bleed Deflections add up. >It's not unthinkable to have 8 deflections in your deck (based on Another misconception coming up. Yes, 8 Deflections is an appropriate amount, though - thank god y'all comprehend why no-card-limits isn't broken and we won't have THAT argument too. =) >Metagame environment), so it's normal to expect to see 4 by the time >you're half way through your deck. Those 4 can make the difference This is also a reasonable assumption, but note the bit about "halfway through your deck", which is probably 40 cards (i'm assuming 80 card library on average). Also note that you only see 7 of those cards to start with. >between in or out for my prey. Consider that since the deflecting is >part of my tactic, and since I have my real road to victory working >with it, I'm probably already in posistion to oust. If you're being >active, then it's possible to be that far into your deck before the >malk that is hand jammed, so I'm not too concerned with it. The malk >may get bleeds through, but it's not always important to block or >deflect every bleed. OK, here's the gotcha. You assume that you'll get halfway through your deck without being nailed to the wall. This assumption is incorrect. A Malk deck will have a minion out on turn 2, 2 minions on turn 3, and 3 minions on turn 4. He will already have taken 3 bleed actions against you by the end of turn 4, all of which will potentially have been for 3 or more - but any that you bounce to your prey will only be for 1. You will not be even CLOSE to halfway through your deck by the end of turn 4, so by your own logic you are OUT of Deflections now. On turn 5, he takes another 3 bleed actions against your defenseless butt, and i'm going to assume he gets a bad hand draw and can't make those total up more than 9. You are already in a screaming world of hurt and need to figure out something to do, and in one turn you likely can't cycle enough cards to get to another Deflection. This is why those early Deflections need to be non-wallpaper - if you were able to hang onto those for a bleed of 3-4 and then pass THAT on, it both defends you much better, and hurts your prey more. Especially if you trick your predator into adding stealth to it. Once you're showing well-timed Deflections, then your predator will actually consider doing other things besides "bleed for 1, 4 if you don't bounce..." every turn. >Original Introduction of the $15 comment by Derek Ray: >Lee: >... I don't have the time or money to be competetive in V:TES too. > >Derek: >you don't have $15 for a box of Jyhad? You can make a competitive deck >out of one box. >[**] > >I don't really think I'm a high horse, I'm just stating that your >question is pointless. Either I do or I don't, it doesn't change >anything. I will agree that it really has nothing to do with the >rules, but then, why did you introduce it? It was a side issue. I merely wanted to point out that boxes of Jyhad boosters run about $15, just in case your rules happen to be based partly on the "we don't have that many cards!" excuse that someone used here previously to justify their OWN rules changes. I poked you off your high horse because of the way you've responded to the situation, giving examples about your wife, VetMed, etc., various and sundry. We all have troubles. It's best just to say "it's too complicated to explain, but NO, i don't have it" instead of the long, dramatic stories. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 mgre...@my-deja.com wrote: > > Asking Matt Green about Legbiter's 2nd tradition is likely to have you > > killed. > > > Huh? Don't get it. The time you sat there being 2nd Traditioned again and again and again, just recently. I believe your line went to the effect of "At least sleaze in Magic doesn't take 2 hours." > Credit your sigs damnit! Yentl. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <6639uso9s175l7kvk...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What decks do you have that can properly handle S&B done up well? I'm > sorry, I just don't see it. The biggest reasons S&B doesn't do well > in tournaments are: Deflection, and Rush. And the fact that players > tend to "accidentally" let bad things happen to it, instead of making > deals that might help it out. Under your system, Deflection is > useless. How -do- you deal with it? > Well, lets look at the hand of the SB you list below, 2 Conditioning, 2 Lost in Crowds, 1 Faceless Night, 1 Govern the Unaligned, 1 Deflection. Great. How are you going to stop my weenie vote deck? I'll snag ya for 3 with a KRC, give you some loving with a Dramatic Upheaval, Parity Shift you, Banish your best bleeder, or any of the sundry other poliacts that can be any mehtus. Not much that the StBL going to do about it, and since it's popped out the vamps you describe below, they aren't probably voters since they're smallish. No intercept in hand, no reactions to political actions, probably going to hurt. And as you say, no one will really stop you from doing it to the StBl deck since it doesn't hurt them. [SNIP] > ...all I will say here is that rules ought to be a -touch- more > consistent, not filled with interpretations for every single > situation. =) Isn't that the actual rules? or is this a statement about them? I'm still reading the new rules, so take it easy on me. It's pretty obvious by my last post (different thread). For the life of me I can't understand why a reaction is different than intent to block, but that's okay, and OT here. [SNIP] > No, you're still missing the point, i'm afraid. Your statements are > true to a degree - it IS important to know what your deck can do, and > what you're likely to see from it, but actual PLAY skill and the > ability to assess and manipulate the table are far more important than > what you've got in your deck - and playing skill is something > significantly different from tuning a deck. > > I got 3 VPs in a game last night with a mostly-Jyhad (and a few Dark > Sovereigns Praxis votes and vampires) Brujah vote-and-bash deck that I > had built a couple hours before. I don't think it ever did ANYTHING > consistently, but the trick is to look at what you have in your hand, > compare it to what you see on the table, and play accordingly. The > other trick is also to be able to look a couple turns ahead and see > the situation. I ousted my first prey with a KRC followed by Domain > Challenge - that wouldn't have worked if I hadn't sacrificed one of my > vampires first to bleed him and tap one of his blockers. It also did > 4 to me and 6 to my grandprey, who was just about to oust someone at > the time. I had been saving the DC for quite some time, and two turns > ago I had made a deal with Arika's controller cross-table to rescue > Arika from torpor if she would vote my way on any vote that would oust > my prey and wouldn't oust herself. This sort of thing isn't "letting > your deck play itself", especially when you have only 6 KRC's and 1 > Domain Challenge in the whole deck. =) Were you playing the deck, or playing your opponents? I think we may be misunderstanding on terms and what each is. You have to know your deck, but you ultimately play the opponents. [SNIP] [ quoted text not captured ] This goes to my theory of if you're not actively persuing your path to victory, you're already dead. You should be using the card in your hand during your turn if no other time. I can't remember the last time I didn't use at least 1 and usually 2+ card up during my turn. Giving me 4 chances to replace that used deflection, which is a 40% (assuming 8 deflections in a 80 card deck) Some of the above comments can be valid here too, if I'm playing that Rush deck, I can attack him, instead of my prey, or I can vote damage to him and make it hurt that way. Anything that slows him further keeps me alive long enough to take my prey out. [SNIP] > Realistically, since these are 0 stealth bleeds for 1, your prey is > likely to block them and just strike-hands for 1. Especially if I > threaten to add stealth if he doesn't promise to do that. Figure that You don't consider that to be cheesy? It appears to be two players agreeing to a set of terms with the goal of removing a third player. I guess since we don't play with many people making deals here it's a little different. If I'm the grandprey I'm just as likely to kill the bleeder as strike for hands since everytime he deflects I either lose a blood from a vamp or a pool. It's not that I really want to fight him, but every blood is a blood. If I torporize your bleeder you won't do that again, or at least you'll know the outcome. > You can't ever Deflect a Spying Mission bleed, since Spying Mission is > burned AFTER all other effects. If you deflect the bleed, the > Methuselah with the SM is no longer bleeding you, and card text on > Spying Mission isn't satisfied - so it's not burned, and instead of > bleeding you for 3, I'm bleeding your prey for 1. A spying mission is totally useless if you can't hit me with the same vampire that spied on me with the NM. If I deflect it before you go to stealth you still can't use the SM. Why would I let the bleed come through when I know that the SM is hanging out waiting? > OK, here's the gotcha. You assume that you'll get halfway through > your deck without being nailed to the wall. This assumption is > incorrect. A Malk deck will have a minion out on turn 2, 2 minions on > turn 3, and 3 minions on turn 4. He will already have taken 3 bleed So now it's weenie malk st/bl. As long as we agree that that is the "ultimate predator" that we have to defend against, fine. So, in general he has at best around 14 blood of vampires up? Shall we agree on a 4/5/6? We'll assume that he got to start in at least 3rd posistion. > actions against you by the end of turn 4, all of which will > potentially have been for 3 or more - but any that you bounce to your > prey will only be for 1. You will not be even CLOSE to halfway > through your deck by the end of turn 4, so by your own logic you are > OUT of Deflections now. On turn 5, he takes another 3 bleed actions Again, you're assuming that neither I nor his predator have done anything to slow him down such as bum rush his 4 blood into torpor. Since in the hand listed above he can't choose to block with someone else, he's loosing the vampire I (or his Predator) want to get rid of most. Also, if he brought up a anything below a 7, then he can't have a voter up, so he's defenseless there. I don't have to deflect 3 bleeds on turn 5, I have to deal with whatever he can still muster at that point, not the same thing at all. > against your defenseless butt, and i'm going to assume he gets a bad > hand draw and can't make those total up more than 9. You are already > in a screaming world of hurt and need to figure out something to do, > and in one turn you likely can't cycle enough cards to get to another > Deflection. > > This is why those early Deflections need to be non-wallpaper - if you > were able to hang onto those for a bleed of 3-4 and then pass THAT on, > it both defends you much better, and hurts your prey more. Especially > if you trick your predator into adding stealth to it. Once you're > showing well-timed Deflections, then your predator will actually > consider doing other things besides "bleed for 1, 4 if you don't > bounce..." every turn. I can take that second round bleed for 4, since he can do that exactly twice with that first round vampire, Ohanna I assume, before she has to hunt or he has to have spent time/effort getting her blood to continue her activities on. Since he's playing weenie bleed, he can govern, but that reduces his vampires remaining blood by 1/5 (on average from above) and can toss that Conditioning on it for another 1/5 (a 40% reduction in strength so far) for a best return of 5 bleed. but much more likely to be a 4 bleed. Of course, if it is Ohanna, she's out, hunt city next round, which I can hopefully block and torpor her for it. Course, she does have stealth, but then that's stealth she can't use on me next turn. > boosters run about $15, just in case your rules happen to be based > partly on the "we don't have that many cards!" excuse that someone Actually we have scads of cards, but we also have 5 players building decks out of them, and have a ton of decks sitting premade (trying to rekindle the game in the town, so we have cheeser demo decks at the ready). Again, Probably not important to this conversation. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Lee Fent wrote: > > Realistically, since these are 0 stealth bleeds for 1, your prey is > > likely to block them and just strike-hands for 1. Especially if I > > threaten to add stealth if he doesn't promise to do that. Figure that > > You don't consider that to be cheesy? It appears to be two players > agreeing to a set of terms with the goal of removing a third player. I No, it's two players agreeing not to be stupid. It is very rare that bleeding my grand-prey is of use to me, or wasting cards on him is of use to me or that, as grand-prey, taking a big bleed from my grand-predator is of use to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:05:15 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: >In article <6639uso9s175l7kvk...@4ax.com>, > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> What decks do you have that can properly handle S&B done up well? I'm >> sorry, I just don't see it. The biggest reasons S&B doesn't do well >> in tournaments are: Deflection, and Rush. And the fact that players >> tend to "accidentally" let bad things happen to it, instead of making >> deals that might help it out. Under your system, Deflection is >> useless. How -do- you deal with it? > >Well, lets look at the hand of the SB you list below, 2 Conditioning, 2 >Lost in Crowds, 1 Faceless Night, 1 Govern the Unaligned, 1 >Deflection. Great. How are you going to stop my weenie vote deck? I ignore it, oust my prey, and move on. Weenie voters move quick, yes, but so do I, and a weenie vote deck is more of a threat to the table than my S&B - so don't expect your predator to leave YOU alone if he has intercept, or the table to vote with you on those Praxis Seizures. If you can move faster than me, so be it. If you can't, you'll just be watching me go. >I'll snag ya for 3 with a KRC, give you some loving with a Dramatic >Upheaval, Parity Shift you, Banish your best bleeder, or any of the That 16 pool you mention is what I refer to as "ignore buffer" for KRCs. If you want to Dramatic Upheaval in front of me, fine. The table will be on MY side if you try to Dramatic Upheaval with me and steal my prey, since a vote deck that does that is more of a threat than a bleed deck. With a weenie vote deck, you won't be Parity Shifting me since you'll have more pool (spent less for vampires). Banishment is mildly annoying, but not a major crisis. About the best thing you can do to affect me is drop KRC after KRC after KRC and try to do as much damage as I can. >sundry other poliacts that can be any mehtus. Not much that the StBL >going to do about it, and since it's popped out the vamps you describe >below, they aren't probably voters since they're smallish. No >intercept in hand, no reactions to political actions, probably going to >hurt. And as you say, no one will really stop you from doing it to the >StBl deck since it doesn't hurt them. If you're curious, I would include 4 Enhanced Senses and 2 Delaying Tactics in a S&B deck. =) And possibly a Rumor Mill as well ;) Remember when I said "toolbox"? >[SNIP] > >> ...all I will say here is that rules ought to be a -touch- more >> consistent, not filled with interpretations for every single >> situation. =) > >Isn't that the actual rules? or is this a statement about them? I'm this is a statement about your rules, and that reactions appear to be handled two different ways as far as "when you can play one". >still reading the new rules, so take it easy on me. It's pretty >obvious by my last post (different thread). For the life of me I can't >understand why a reaction is different than intent to block, but that's >okay, and OT here. > >[SNIP] > >> No, you're still missing the point, i'm afraid. Your statements are >> true to a degree - it IS important to know what your deck can do, and >> what you're likely to see from it, but actual PLAY skill and the >> ability to assess and manipulate the table are far more important than >> what you've got in your deck - and playing skill is something >> significantly different from tuning a deck. *snip self* >> my prey and wouldn't oust herself. This sort of thing isn't "letting >> your deck play itself", especially when you have only 6 KRC's and 1 >> Domain Challenge in the whole deck. =) > >Were you playing the deck, or playing your opponents? I think we may >be misunderstanding on terms and what each is. You have to know your >deck, but you ultimately play the opponents. Both. I was manipulating my opponents to a small degree with deal-making, and I was making the ABSOLUTE BEST use of what my deck had provided to me at that point in time. Was it deck-building skill? No. Was it just good play? yes. It almost looks like you agree, in your last sentence: my point is that play skill is MUCH more important than deck-building. >> The other misconception is that someone is going to be able to take >> him out that quickly. The only thing that's likely to save you in >> this instance is a Rush deck as the Malkavian's predator - but now we >> come back to the whole anti-X thing again, since we had to drag Rush >> in. > >This goes to my theory of if you're not actively persuing your path to >victory, you're already dead. You should be using the card in your >hand during your turn if no other time. I can't remember the last time Wow, that's a horrible, horrible idea. If your hand is "good", why would you want to use any of the cards in it to no purpose? I've seen people lose a game they should've won by trying to frantically use up cards in their hand without a good reason to do so. Just because you have the bleed cards in your hand doesn't mean you should bleed for more than 1. And just because you have the Conditioning in your hand doesn't mean you should drop it on the first bleed. >I didn't use at least 1 and usually 2+ card up during my turn. Giving >me 4 chances to replace that used deflection, which is a 40% (assuming >8 deflections in a 80 card deck) Some of the above comments can be As an idle note here, assuming 7 cards in your hand and 1 Deflection already played, we get 7 deflections in a 72 card deck. The odds of you getting it back are 35%, which frankly, as your predator, I like a LOT. The odds of you getting the NEXT one are significantly less, and you're going to need more than 1 per turn to deal with my bleeds. Looking at your numbers, I'm going to hope that you didn't just look at 8/80 = 10% x 4 = 40%, because that's not the way the math actually works -- the numbers just happen to fit. =) >valid here too, if I'm playing that Rush deck, I can attack him, >instead of my prey, or I can vote damage to him and make it hurt that >way. Anything that slows him further keeps me alive long enough to >take my prey out. Well, it's a given that a bleed deck behind a Rush deck usually turns into a vicious little one-on-one until either the Rush deck is ousted, or the bleed deck has no vampires. It usually depends on who prepared better - a bleed deck that has combat defense usually wins, or a Rush deck with enough Rush actions usually wins. >[SNIP] > >> Realistically, since these are 0 stealth bleeds for 1, your prey is >> likely to block them and just strike-hands for 1. Especially if I >> threaten to add stealth if he doesn't promise to do that. Figure that > >You don't consider that to be cheesy? It appears to be two players >agreeing to a set of terms with the goal of removing a third player. I I don't consider it cheesy at all, no. It goes like this: My motivation: Oust your butt and prevent you from ousting him. His motivation: Oust his prey while not being ousted by either you OR me. His goal doesn't involve you at all. And keep in mind that I'm not trying to make a deal as much as I am THREATENING a deal. I *will* add stealth if necessary, and if he agrees to strike-hands and then torporizes me, the next vampire Deflected that way not only will add stealth, but he will add Conditioning as well for a little return slap. And then I will make the offer of a deal again. =) >guess since we don't play with many people making deals here it's a >little different. If I'm the grandprey I'm just as likely to kill the >bleeder as strike for hands since everytime he deflects I either lose a >blood from a vamp or a pool. It's not that I really want to fight him, >but every blood is a blood. If I torporize your bleeder you won't do >that again, or at least you'll know the outcome. A blood off a vampire is much less than a pool. If you are going to torporize my guys, thereby removing pressure from your own predator and giving him a free hand to mug you silly, then I'm just going to add stealth and save my own guys, since you appear to be beyond hope. >> You can't ever Deflect a Spying Mission bleed, since Spying Mission is >> burned AFTER all other effects. If you deflect the bleed, the >> Methuselah with the SM is no longer bleeding you, and card text on >> Spying Mission isn't satisfied - so it's not burned, and instead of >> bleeding you for 3, I'm bleeding your prey for 1. > >A spying mission is totally useless if you can't hit me with the same >vampire that spied on me with the NM. If I deflect it before you go to >stealth you still can't use the SM. Why would I let the bleed come >through when I know that the SM is hanging out waiting? Again, if you have THAT many Deflections to bounce bleeds for 1, then you go. Just so you know, a well-built Night Moves/Spying Mission deck usually has about 6 minions out after 5 turns, none of which are over 4-cap, some of which are Embraces, and has TONS of pool. Its defense is having too much pool to be got rid of easily. Also, here's another gotcha: when you bounce my bleed of 1, I will just drop a Spying Mission on YOUR prey, making it a bleed of 0 that I can use later when I oust you. >> OK, here's the gotcha. You assume that you'll get halfway through >> your deck without being nailed to the wall. This assumption is >> incorrect. A Malk deck will have a minion out on turn 2, 2 minions on >> turn 3, and 3 minions on turn 4. He will already have taken 3 bleed > >So now it's weenie malk st/bl. As long as we agree that that is >the "ultimate predator" that we have to defend against, fine. So, in >general he has at best around 14 blood of vampires up? Shall we agree >on a 4/5/6? We'll assume that he got to start in at least 3rd >posistion. Weenie malk s&b is a bunch of 2 and 3 caps with some skill cards. 4-5-6 is medium vamp size. I was thinking Roland, Didi, and Ozmo, myself, by the way - although it would be Roland, Didi, and Zebulon since Ozmo is cursed in Atlanta and goes boom lots. >> actions against you by the end of turn 4, all of which will >> potentially have been for 3 or more - but any that you bounce to your >> prey will only be for 1. You will not be even CLOSE to halfway >> through your deck by the end of turn 4, so by your own logic you are >> OUT of Deflections now. On turn 5, he takes another 3 bleed actions > >Again, you're assuming that neither I nor his predator have done >anything to slow him down such as bum rush his 4 blood into torpor. AGAIN, the "anti-X" comes in. You keep bringing the Rush deck up. If you have to play anti-X, something is busted. >Since in the hand listed above he can't choose to block with someone >else, he's loosing the vampire I (or his Predator) want to get rid of >most. Also, if he brought up a anything below a 7, then he can't have >a voter up, so he's defenseless there. I don't have to deflect 3 >bleeds on turn 5, I have to deal with whatever he can still muster at >that point, not the same thing at all. If Rush isn't involved, you'll have to deflect 1 on turn 3, 2 on turn 4, and 3 bleeds on turn 5. 16 pool is MORE than sufficient to ignore anything my predator does, especially since I have a Deflection in hand and an untapped vampire every turn (from influencing him out). >> This is why those early Deflections need to be non-wallpaper - if you >> were able to hang onto those for a bleed of 3-4 and then pass THAT on, >> it both defends you much better, and hurts your prey more. Especially >> if you trick your predator into adding stealth to it. Once you're >> showing well-timed Deflections, then your predator will actually >> consider doing other things besides "bleed for 1, 4 if you don't >> bounce..." every turn. > >I can take that second round bleed for 4, since he can do that exactly >twice with that first round vampire, Ohanna I assume, before she has to We're not counting turns the same way. 1 minion out at the end of turn 2, minimum of 5 transfers possible if you go first. See above where I lay out the deflections you need to deal with. >hunt or he has to have spent time/effort getting her blood to continue >her activities on. Since he's playing weenie bleed, he can govern, but Who cares? =) If Ohanna bleeds you for 8 over 2 turns, someone can block her hunt, burn her with agg, and I won't bat an eye. Of course, it's not Ohanna doing this in our example above, but the point still stands - 8 pool damage from a 2 pool cost vampire is what we like to call "a good trade". I also have the Crypt Machine, which hauls out 4-cap after 4-cap with Dominate and Governs, and just flings them ALL at my prey as bleeds of 1 with Conditioning in hand. And 0 stealth. The concept is "This vampire cost me 1 pool, and as long as it has 1 blood, it can play Conditioning." It's really, really nasty to get caught in front of, especially when you look back and there are 6 ready 4-caps looking at you with big old "I have Dominate" smiles on their faces - and you realize that I don't care if any of them die or not. =) >that reduces his vampires remaining blood by 1/5 (on average from >above) and can toss that Conditioning on it for another 1/5 (a 40% >reduction in strength so far) for a best return of 5 bleed. but much >more likely to be a 4 bleed. Of course, if it is Ohanna, she's out, >hunt city next round, which I can hopefully block and torpor her for >it. Course, she does have stealth, but then that's stealth she can't >use on me next turn. Um, the only time a vampire's blood matters is when it has 0, and has to hunt. Thinking that the first 2 blood off of Didi Myers is a "40% reduction in strength" is a VERY inaccurate assumption. In fact, it is a 0% reduction in strength, since Didi can do it again just as well NEXT turn. NOW, since Didi only has one blood, it is a 50% reduction in strength as she can only bleed for 3, not 6. But it took 80% of the blood to be removed from the vampire to provide for a 50% reduction in offensive strength. Again, the direct-math approach just doesn't fly here, and it's good to keep in mind. I've heard about a deck that uses Info Highway to drag out multiple Inner Circle members, who he then Minion Taps down to 2 blood and then uses very few discipline cards that cost blood - and if they run out of blood, they just hunt! His theory is "Who cares? It's 4 votes, +2 bleed, and it cost me 2 pool, a Minion Tap, and 2 turns of transfers." It's not foolproof, of course, but it's certainly not a BAD approach - since again, that's over 80% of the blood removed from an IC member, and they're still at 100% offensive strength. [ quoted text not captured ]

[Snip] Derek, Since neither of us has proven much of anything and we're down to some fine tooth debate, do you want to move this off the NG? I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion, but since we're the only ones to post much in the past couple of days, I think we're wasting people's bandwidth. If you do, let me know (mailto:lf...@ionet.net). I'll wait a while, and if nothing, then I'll reply to this post like normal. Rather, not like Normal, since I'm neither dead nor insane. Sorry about the pun, it couldn't be helped. Lee, [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8s7qui$7o0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, lf...@ionet.net wrote: > [Snip] > > Derek, > Since neither of us has proven much of anything and we're down to > some fine tooth debate, do you want to move this off the NG? I > wouldn't mind continuing the discussion, but since we're the only ones > to post much in the past couple of days, I think we're wasting people's > bandwidth. Actually, I am rather enjoying this tete a'tete. If you would like commentary. I will comment that you two have gone way past the intercept plus reaction vs. just-reaction card debate, and into some twilight zone of stealth bleed nastiness. The truth of the matter is that if you cannot play deflections unless you have enough intercept to block, then you have zero chance of winning if someone shows up with dedicated stealth bleed. As defense no longer works, then speed becomes the only factor in the game. Therefore large vampires can no longer be played with any reasonable strength, as there is guaranteed to be intercept on the table to try (and fail) to create defenses. So now 5th trads and Minion taps only work for the Nossies and the Malks. So now, you have to play with intercept in your deck because there is no other defense (except for vote defense, which is handled in an illogical manner under your intercept to play reaction cards except for vote reactions). So now you can't really play with a toned deck if you want to play defense, because you have to water it down with intercept. And all you do with all that intercept is just jam up on it as it clogs your hand, if there isn't mass amounts of stealth around. So now to Deflect or Telepathically Counter any of your bleeds, I have to generate enough intercept but if I cannot then these cards jam my hand up. So now to counter a S+B deck I have to either be preyed on by them or hopelessly jam up on all the intercept that I have in my hand. So if my predator is a Stealth-Bleeder, the first thing he does is flush all the defense out of your hand, then hit you with the Conditionings, or if my predator is not a Stealth-Bleeder then he comes at you and you jam on all the intercept that you were going to use against a stealth bleeder. All of this has already been said, but, unfortunantly, specific counter examples have been brought up that only address the individual situations rather that the game altering mechanism of reactions requiring intercept to play them. Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <8s7t76$9j4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, [ quoted text not captured ] I agree on everything Norman said, except that "So if my predator is a Stealth-Bleeder, the first thing he does is flush all the defense out of your hand, then hit you with the Conditionings" isn't a valid. The predator could do the same thing with someone that has Deflections (bleed for 1 all the time till he has no deflections left and then hit with Conditioning) AND the whole purpose with having all the intercept and delfects in ur deck si to have enough to stop most bleeds, just like the purpose with a deflection deck is. It would work, although not to 100%, but no deflection deck does that either so the argument is silly. However one serious aspect here is that if I want to deflect the bleeds I need intercept cards in my hand as well. Which means that I can max deflect 3 per round or so, and if I do my hand is constantly consisting of only intercept and deflect, letting me take no actions of my own when it's my turn. Must be quite boring. A bleeder on the other hand, can do both a bleed with stealth AND a bleed of more than 1, with one single card (bonding), while deflecting it would need 2 cards. That's where there's a BIG problem I think. The bleeder has an obvious advantage since he can bleed twice as much asanyone can deflct with the same hand jam. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > Quite. Nor do I regret any of it, as I find it quite amusing that you > seem to have completely lost your shit over the course of this > message. =) Always happy to amuse. But how did you know? -- John Whelan

> I agree on everything Norman said, except that "So if my predator > is a Stealth-Bleeder, the first thing he does is flush all the defense > out of your hand, then hit you with the Conditionings" isn't a valid. If you are playing S+B and you see your prey has Superior Auspex, inferor Dominate or superior Dominate. What you want to do is to pepper them with as many bleeds of 1, untill you feel that you have flushed out all of their defense. This is standard S+B strategy. Combatting this strategy becomes exceptionally difficult in Lee Fent's Playgroup. Normally, you just had to hold onto a Deflection. But now, you have to hold onto a deflection and all the intercept that you think the S+B'er will play stealth. Am I clear now as to why the intercept plus reactions are a sure-fire way to scuttle deck defense. :) Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp [ quoted text not captured ]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 X_Ze...@email.msn.com wrote: > Actually, I am rather enjoying this tete a'tete. <AOL> I too am enjoying reading it, but just don't have anything directly relevant to contribute as a long post to it. [ quoted text not captured ]

Batter Up! [SNIP] > I ignore it, oust my prey, and move on. Weenie voters move quick, > yes, but so do I, and a weenie vote deck is more of a threat to the > table than my S&B - so don't expect your predator to leave YOU alone > if he has intercept, or the table to vote with you on those Praxis > Seizures. > > If you can move faster than me, so be it. If you can't, you'll just > be watching me go. Sorry, in the model I imagined, I am your prey. I was talking about my way of dealing with your S&B. I'm also not so certain about the table fearing me more than you. Light intercept hoses me, very little hoses your "tuned" deck. Very few moving parts and whatnot. I think those were your statements. Who are you afraid of now? I think the tables I play at would support the weenie votes, since during the time that I'm taking you out, they're slowly moving towards their voters, and weakening me all that much more. It may very well be a war of mutual ousting since I may defeat you only to find that I lack to voting power to roll over anyone else. [SNIP] > That 16 pool you mention is what I refer to as "ignore buffer" for > KRCs. If you want to Dramatic Upheaval in front of me, fine. The > table will be on MY side if you try to Dramatic Upheaval with me and > steal my prey, since a vote deck that does that is more of a threat > than a bleed deck. With a weenie vote deck, you won't be Parity > Shifting me since you'll have more pool (spent less for vampires). > Banishment is mildly annoying, but not a major crisis. I think banishment may be a little more effective than you give it credit for. First, it halts a vampire of yours for a complete turn (from my vote to your influence), if you've been using that vampire to Govern or whatever, then it's possible that you won't get the vampire up for more than a round. Which is a major loss of firepower when I banish a vampire or two (1/3 to 2/3's of your minions). With S&B, every round counts, it is a fairly speed intensive deck, so a halt of even a round may be fatal for the deck. > About the best thing you can do to affect me is drop KRC after KRC > after KRC and try to do as much damage as I can. I don't have to do as much, I'm on weenies remember. But still the point is valid, I must equal or out accelerate you, otherwise the damage you can deal out will overwhelm the buffer that a weenie deck provides. However, what does this have to do with whether or not intercept before catching at stealth actions is a playable house rule? [SNIP] > Both. I was manipulating my opponents to a small degree with > deal-making, and I was making the ABSOLUTE BEST use of what my deck > had provided to me at that point in time. Was it deck-building skill? > No. Was it just good play? yes. It almost looks like you agree, in > your last sentence: my point is that play skill is MUCH more > important than deck-building. I can agree that Play skill is valuable, but I don't agree that it is "MUCH more important". By that logic, I can take a poorly constructed deck, hand them to a Great player and expect to see them perform well (not strictly win or oust). You've got to have a deck that can win before any degree of skill matters. Have you ever accidentally switched your crypt with another deck of yours, and then sat down to play? That's what a badly constructed deck performs like. > Wow, that's a horrible, horrible idea. If your hand is "good", why > would you want to use any of the cards in it to no purpose? How about I guess at this one. If your hand is good, shouldn't you be doing something with it? I don't think it's a horrible idea, it is an idea that varies wildly with the deck that you're playing. A defender deck or one that is waiting to see if there are deflections shouldn't burn cards aimlessly, but a rush deck or a vote deck is burning them like crazy being active as all get out. Different decks, different modes of play. > I've seen people lose a game they should've won by trying to > frantically use up cards in their hand without a good reason to do so. > Just because you have the bleed cards in your hand doesn't mean you > should bleed for more than 1. And just because you have the > Conditioning in your hand doesn't mean you should drop it on the first > bleed. Umm, okay. I shall now meditate on the Tao of card games.... [Yanked the math section since I don't think that either of us should be arguing about it considering there is strong chance that we don't know what we are talking about, and there is a very bad potential for some seriously OT discussion about probability mathematics.] [SNIP] > I don't consider it cheesy at all, no. It goes like this: > > My motivation: Oust your butt and prevent you from ousting him. > His motivation: Oust his prey while not being ousted by either you OR > me. > > His goal doesn't involve you at all. And keep in mind that I'm not > trying to make a deal as much as I am THREATENING a deal. I *will* > add stealth if necessary, and if he agrees to strike-hands and then > torporizes me, the next vampire Deflected that way not only will add > stealth, but he will add Conditioning as well for a little return > slap. And then I will make the offer of a deal again. =) Again, since we don't have much in the way of deals here, that's not a valid solution. Beyond that, I did strke for hand damage, it was just aggravated. And nothing is enforcing that little deal. Nothing prevents me from rushing back, or voting damage to you for your little bleed retaliation. I think the reason we don't have any deals is that several of us are friends, and it pretty much sucks to sit down and get beat by a cluster of people playing hard with you, but nice with each other. I mean when Norman visited, he sat down against two guys that have been friends their entire lives. He probably wouldn't have enjoyed having his ass beaten by two decks at one. Which, by our misinterpretation of the directed bleed rule, would have easily been allowed. [SNIP] > Again, if you have THAT many Deflections to bounce bleeds for 1, then > you go. Just so you know, a well-built Night Moves/Spying Mission > deck usually has about 6 minions out after 5 turns, none of which are > over 4-cap, some of which are Embraces, and has TONS of pool. Its > defense is having too much pool to be got rid of easily. > > Also, here's another gotcha: when you bounce my bleed of 1, I will > just drop a Spying Mission on YOUR prey, making it a bleed of 0 that I > can use later when I oust you. Which is a SM that isn't going to bother me. The fact that you bled for 0 is irrelevant. > AGAIN, the "anti-X" comes in. You keep bringing the Rush deck up. If > you have to play anti-X, something is busted. Fine, replace the words "rush his 4 blood into torpor" with Banish Ozmo/Roland/Didi/Whomever, is that better for you? Do I really need to list all the ways to neutralize a vampire everytime? If so I'm just gonna make a standard disclaimer and paste it in every time. Ugh. > If Rush isn't involved, you'll have to deflect 1 on turn 3, 2 on turn > 4, and 3 bleeds on turn 5. 16 pool is MORE than sufficient to ignore > anything my predator does, especially since I have a Deflection in > hand and an untapped vampire every turn (from influencing him out). Well, like you enjoy pointing out to me. You have one deflection, your predator has no reason to bleed me, and you can only do that once without some luck. Only one of the 3 vamps you listed is capable of doing more than one bounce per round (Didi), so you can stop 1 of 1 (2nd round), 1 of 2 (3rd round), 1 of 3 (4th round). Since your predator is free to bleed you at will (you ARE S&B after all) Not much in the way of fearsome blockers, no real combat cards, and no real desire to tangle up vampires in combat and risk them anyway, and to crown it, you're very speed dependant, so you can't really afford to leave a vampire untapped just to deflect or block. Ya know, I sorta like using your arguements against you, makes me feel all tingly. :P [SNIP] > Who cares? =) If Ohanna bleeds you for 8 over 2 turns, someone can > block her hunt, burn her with agg, and I won't bat an eye. Of course, > it's not Ohanna doing this in our example above, but the point still > stands - 8 pool damage from a 2 pool cost vampire is what we like to > call "a good trade". Given, but she didn't get through in speed mode, she can't go to stealth without help. But with timing and some patience, I'll give it to you. > I also have the Crypt Machine, which hauls out 4-cap after 4-cap with > Dominate and Governs, and just flings them ALL at my prey as bleeds of > 1 with Conditioning in hand. And 0 stealth. The concept is "This > vampire cost me 1 pool, and as long as it has 1 blood, it can play > Conditioning." It's really, really nasty to get caught in front of, > especially when you look back and there are 6 ready 4-caps looking at > you with big old "I have Dominate" smiles on their faces - and you > realize that I don't care if any of them die or not. =) Is that the one that you have posted on the website? Please. Light intercept stops it dead since it can't govern effectively anymore, and bonding isn't that spectacular. You know that, what was the point of this? > Um, the only time a vampire's blood matters is when it has 0, and has > to hunt. Thinking that the first 2 blood off of Didi Myers is a "40% > reduction in strength" is a VERY inaccurate assumption. In fact, it Actually it is a precisely accurate statement. She is in fact at 40% of her max. Her ability to attack is unblemished, so in your speed S&B, she is just as useful to you until she reaches a lower point, but for blocking/deflecting she's rapidly loosing her ability to cope. [SNIP] > I've heard about a deck that uses Info Highway to drag out multiple > Inner Circle members, who he then Minion Taps down to 2 blood and then > uses very few discipline cards that cost blood - and if they run out > of blood, they just hunt! His theory is "Who cares? It's 4 votes, +2 > bleed, and it cost me 2 pool, a Minion Tap, and 2 turns of transfers." > It's not foolproof, of course, but it's certainly not a BAD approach - > since again, that's over 80% of the blood removed from an IC member, > and they're still at 100% offensive strength. I have a deck called big-guns, a counter to certain unfounded claims that I can only build weenie decks. It functions along very similar lines, using Govern/Scouting/Enchant Kindred to add blood to it's younger members, and minion taps to bring that back in. The deck performs amazingly well since I intended to lose with it, so every win is a shocker to me. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:35:49 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Batter Up! More like Whack-a-Mole, really. >[SNIP] >> I ignore it, oust my prey, and move on. Weenie voters move quick, >> yes, but so do I, and a weenie vote deck is more of a threat to the >> table than my S&B - so don't expect your predator to leave YOU alone >> if he has intercept, or the table to vote with you on those Praxis >> Seizures. >> >> If you can move faster than me, so be it. If you can't, you'll just >> be watching me go. > >Sorry, in the model I imagined, I am your prey. I was talking about my *frown* OK, most if not all of my situations assume that you're my predator or, in a couple instances, cross-table somewhere. If you are my prey, things are much different. >way of dealing with your S&B. I'm also not so certain about the table >fearing me more than you. Light intercept hoses me, very little hoses >your "tuned" deck. Very few moving parts and whatnot. I think those Light intercept MAY hose you a little bit, but weenie decks generally ignore intercept by just having way too many minions to actually stop. Weenie vote decks especially so - the non-Praxis weenies call KRCs to draw out intercept, and the Princely weenies do the dirty work at the end (Parity Shift, etc.) And weenie Presence can often force through an early Praxis just by the intercept and votes not having hit the table yet. >were your statements. Who are you afraid of now? I think the tables I >play at would support the weenie votes, since during the time that I'm >taking you out, they're slowly moving towards their voters, and >weakening me all that much more. It may very well be a war of mutual >ousting since I may defeat you only to find that I lack to voting power >to roll over anyone else. Keep in mind that if you let a weenie vote deck get a bunch of Princes out, for whatever reason, it is already more than halfway on its road to sweeping. Most people are aware of this, and are understandably very hesitant to aid/abet a weenie vote deck in any form. Also, more people pack bounce than intercept - so in the situation you describe, the table is likely to look at you as "pool soak", and get on with the business of getting their own VPs while the two of us beat each other up. If you turn to the right, it DOES become an individual duel and you have an advantage since your prey is ignoring you, while your predator is attempting to oust me. But if you do this, then you will not gain any VPs yourself, as you -will- be rolled over by my predator, and your prey will have built up plenty of defense. Whereas, if you moved forward as fast as possible, you could potentially gain a VP before I ousted you, which would really damage my OWN chances - as the S&B's whole idea is "move really fast". >> That 16 pool you mention is what I refer to as "ignore buffer" for >> KRCs. If you want to Dramatic Upheaval in front of me, fine. The >> table will be on MY side if you try to Dramatic Upheaval with me and >> steal my prey, since a vote deck that does that is more of a threat >> than a bleed deck. With a weenie vote deck, you won't be Parity >> Shifting me since you'll have more pool (spent less for vampires). >> Banishment is mildly annoying, but not a major crisis. > >I think banishment may be a little more effective than you give it >credit for. First, it halts a vampire of yours for a complete turn >(from my vote to your influence), if you've been using that vampire to >Govern or whatever, then it's possible that you won't get the vampire >up for more than a round. Which is a major loss of firepower when I >banish a vampire or two (1/3 to 2/3's of your minions). With S&B, First, the math is an inaccurate representation - it may be two-thirds of my minions, but every minion bleeds for a lot. Second, Banishment is actually much less effective in this situation, because my vampires will tend to have most of their blood still on them. Spending 2 transfers to regain a medium vamp is no big deal even if you Banish him again, because then he will just come back out for free and the next guy will too. You'll have to wait for the vampires to get down on blood some, which means they'll already have DONE their damage. Third, how many Banishments are you packing in that deck? It's not THAT useful a card, especially against weenies - and weenies are pretty damn common. >every round counts, it is a fairly speed intensive deck, so a halt of >even a round may be fatal for the deck. Well... when its prey turns around and starts fighting backwards, it helps that speed problem a lot. Its biggest worry is being Deflected repeatedly and outraced in front. That, or having the living hell beaten out of its vamps. >> About the best thing you can do to affect me is drop KRC after KRC >> after KRC and try to do as much damage as I can. > >I don't have to do as much, I'm on weenies remember. But still the Keep in mind that I was assuming you were my predator. >point is valid, I must equal or out accelerate you, otherwise the >damage you can deal out will overwhelm the buffer that a weenie deck >provides. However, what does this have to do with whether or not >intercept before catching at stealth actions is a playable house rule? This whole digression into S&B points out just how powerful S&B can actually be, and that the two primary defenses are Deflection and Rush. "Not blocking" is a third. I feel I have already demonstrated that Deflection is wallpaper under your house rules - and now I am showing why there is no consistent alternative but Rush. S&B does not do well in tournaments because Deflection is also a reasonably effective counter to any strategy based on bleeding, and S&B can do nothing BUT bleed - therefore is often hosed since Deflection is quite common. >I can agree that Play skill is valuable, but I don't agree that it >is "MUCH more important". By that logic, I can take a poorly >constructed deck, hand them to a Great player and expect to see them >perform well (not strictly win or oust). You've got to have a deck >that can win before any degree of skill matters. Have you ever >accidentally switched your crypt with another deck of yours, and then >sat down to play? That's what a badly constructed deck performs like. The example you give to disprove the "logic" is, in fact, what actually happens. I will refer to a recent anecdote where a good player picked up an unopened starter box of Jyhad, sat down to a game with several other players, removed some of the crypt vampires and some of the library cards... and swept the table. An unopened box of starters qualifies as "poorly constructed deck", to me. It sure as hell ain't a natural table-sweeper, and it probably can't do any given trick more than once. The value that play skill adds is much more than you think. (Switching crypts with another deck isn't poorly constructed, it's simply UNPLAYABLE since you can't use any of your cards. If I swapped crypts from a Ventrue and Brujah vote deck, I'd be completely screwed since nothing except the occasional Presence card, and the generic votes, would be useful.) >> Wow, that's a horrible, horrible idea. If your hand is "good", why >> would you want to use any of the cards in it to no purpose? > >How about I guess at this one. If your hand is good, shouldn't you be >doing something with it? I don't think it's a horrible idea, it is an See above, where it says "to no purpose". If you have left all your vampires untapped and I have only one stealth card, I am likely to only attempt one bleed (for lots) that turn, despite my good hand. (yes, I prefer to see lots of bleed and not much stealth in my hand when playing S&B, as most people defend by just refusing to block, hoping to jam the bleeder up on stealth) >idea that varies wildly with the deck that you're playing. A defender >deck or one that is waiting to see if there are deflections shouldn't >burn cards aimlessly, but a rush deck or a vote deck is burning them >like crazy being active as all get out. Different decks, different >modes of play. Right. So you can't guarantee that you'll be able to get through half your deck (to draw up and use 4 Deflections, remember) by turn 5, as you were claiming? That was MY point. If you are flailing about just playing cards left and right, it's entirely possible you won't even have a vampire left that CAN deflect, much less the untap in hand to do it. >> I've seen people lose a game they should've won by trying to >> frantically use up cards in their hand without a good reason to do so. >> Just because you have the bleed cards in your hand doesn't mean you >> should bleed for more than 1. And just because you have the >> Conditioning in your hand doesn't mean you should drop it on the first >> bleed. > >Umm, okay. I shall now meditate on the Tao of card games.... You have chosen me to be your guide upon the path of Tae Kwon Leep. (bonus point to whoever remembers where THAT's from) >[Yanked the math section since I don't think that either of us should >be arguing about it considering there is strong chance that we don't >know what we are talking about, and there is a very bad potential for >some seriously OT discussion about probability mathematics.] Actually, I *do* know what I'm talking about here, and I even went so far as to verify the math with another source beforehand. =) It -does- happen that the real math works out to close to what you thought it was, but I figured I'd better point it out lest you commit other, more wildly different errors in the future. =) Don't worry too much about the off-topic discussion - probability math plays a strong part in V:TES, especially such questions as "How many of card X must I include in a 60-card library to give me a reasonable chance of getting one on the top 8 cards of the deck?"... usually asked about things like Tomb of Ramses, Parthenon, or Info Highway. >> His goal doesn't involve you at all. And keep in mind that I'm not >> trying to make a deal as much as I am THREATENING a deal. I *will* >> add stealth if necessary, and if he agrees to strike-hands and then >> torporizes me, the next vampire Deflected that way not only will add >> stealth, but he will add Conditioning as well for a little return >> slap. And then I will make the offer of a deal again. =) > >Again, since we don't have much in the way of deals here, that's not a >valid solution. Beyond that, I did strke for hand damage, it was just >aggravated. And nothing is enforcing that little deal. Nothing Oh, it's VERY valid, believe me. Just because you aren't using it doesn't mean it's not valid, and it doesn't mean that I won't make the same offer if I were to walk into your group, knowing nobody, and sit down in that situation. (in fact, I will make that offer EVERY time.) No, nothing is enforcing that little deal at all. We had a long discussion here recently about "deal-breaking", and advantages v. disadvantages of doing so. If you choose to strike-hands aggravated, you have provided me plenty of warning as to your intentions, and I will do what I said before - modify the next one with stealth and a bleed mod, and then point out that I could easily be convinced to quit doing that if you were to quit putting my guys in torpor and let me put pressure on your predator. If you continue to insist that you're going to torporize anyone that your predator bounces your way, then I'll be forced to oust you OR my prey, whoever goes first... and it will be damned poor play on your part, frankly. >prevents me from rushing back, or voting damage to you for your little >bleed retaliation. I think the reason we don't have any deals is that Nothing prevents you from doing so, no. But it is a very stupid play to be attempting to beat up your grand-predator in this fashion, when the best course of action for you is to simply agree to block, punch for 1, and let him continue putting pressure on your predator, allowing you to put much more pressure on your OWN prey and hopefully gain a VP. >several of us are friends, and it pretty much sucks to sit down and get >beat by a cluster of people playing hard with you, but nice with each >other. I mean when Norman visited, he sat down against two guys that You are misinterpreting the situation. I will only make deals at the table which have a direct benefit to me during the game - I don't give a damn who I'm friends with or who I know outside the game. The example I mentioned before was me pulling a snow job on one of my good friends in order to oust ANOTHER one of my friends, and put myself in position to hopefully get my CLOSEST friend. I will play hardball with anyone as long as it benefits me in-game to do so. =) >> Also, here's another gotcha: when you bounce my bleed of 1, I will >> just drop a Spying Mission on YOUR prey, making it a bleed of 0 that I >> can use later when I oust you. > >Which is a SM that isn't going to bother me. The fact that you bled >for 0 is irrelevant. At one point you claimed that all my bleeds of 1 that you keep bouncing to your prey will just be doing your work for you. Do you now renounce that claim? (Trust me, I will have PLENTY of Spying Missions in the deck for you as well.) >> AGAIN, the "anti-X" comes in. You keep bringing the Rush deck up. If >> you have to play anti-X, something is busted. > >Fine, replace the words "rush his 4 blood into torpor" with Banish >Ozmo/Roland/Didi/Whomever, is that better for you? Do I really need to >list all the ways to neutralize a vampire everytime? If so I'm just >gonna make a standard disclaimer and paste it in every time. Ugh. So far every time you bring up a "way to neutralize a vampire", I respond and refute it. Banishment is a TEMPORARY solution to a problem, even more so if you happen to be my prey while you're doing the Banishing. >> If Rush isn't involved, you'll have to deflect 1 on turn 3, 2 on turn >> 4, and 3 bleeds on turn 5. 16 pool is MORE than sufficient to ignore >> anything my predator does, especially since I have a Deflection in >> hand and an untapped vampire every turn (from influencing him out). > >Well, like you enjoy pointing out to me. You have one deflection, your >predator has no reason to bleed me, and you can only do that once >without some luck. Only one of the 3 vamps you listed is capable of >doing more than one bounce per round (Didi), so you can stop 1 of 1 >(2nd round), 1 of 2 (3rd round), 1 of 3 (4th round). Since your You are assuming that my predator is also heavy bleed. It is far more likely that he is not - that he is, in fact, something else entirely. What it is doesn't matter much, as unless he's heavy bleed, one Deflection per turn will suffice. >predator is free to bleed you at will (you ARE S&B after all) Not much >in the way of fearsome blockers, no real combat cards, and no real >desire to tangle up vampires in combat and risk them anyway, and to >crown it, you're very speed dependant, so you can't really afford to >leave a vampire untapped just to deflect or block. Ya know, I sorta >like using your arguements against you, makes me feel all tingly. :P Especially when you misstate them. I don't need to -afford- to leave a vamp untapped - I have one untapped on turns 2, 3, and 4 because I just influenced him out, and he comes out untapped and I can't take any actions with him. =) You missed that bit. And again, if he isn't a heavy bleeder or a Rusher, then I don't need to look backwards very much. I'm doing enough damage forwards that I can soak for awhile. >[SNIP] > >> Who cares? =) If Ohanna bleeds you for 8 over 2 turns, someone can >> block her hunt, burn her with agg, and I won't bat an eye. Of course, >> it's not Ohanna doing this in our example above, but the point still >> stands - 8 pool damage from a 2 pool cost vampire is what we like to >> call "a good trade". > >Given, but she didn't get through in speed mode, she can't go to >stealth without help. But with timing and some patience, I'll give it >to you. She doesn't need stealth - she's disposable. If you only have one untapped vampire, I'll even sacrifice her and a Conditioning to make you tap your guy, so I won't have to worry about anything but Wakes from there forward. >> I also have the Crypt Machine, which hauls out 4-cap after 4-cap with >> Dominate and Governs, and just flings them ALL at my prey as bleeds of >> 1 with Conditioning in hand. And 0 stealth. The concept is "This > >Is that the one that you have posted on the website? Please. Light >intercept stops it dead since it can't govern effectively anymore, and >bonding isn't that spectacular. You know that, what was the point of >this? I believe the deck on the website is an earlier version - I need to update it and send on to our webmonster. The later versions don't have a whole lot of Bonding at all, almost all Conditionings. The Bondings were removed as soon as I realized that it's much easier to just bleed for 1 and let people waste their Wakes and such trying to guess when the Conditioning would fall. Light intercept would stop it dead if Seduction didn't exist. It's pretty easy to just Seduce the only vampire with Auspex near you for your first Govern, and after that it pretty much rolls on its own. And light intercept is a much different thing from full intercept. Stop it once and it'll just Govern again later. Also, this deck has been extensively tested. It has three tourney appearances and two finals appearances (in both finals, it got MUGGED by the table out of self-defense), and it has PLENTY of sweeps to its credit in casual play. A friend of mine built a 60-card version, and hauls it out every so often, where it tends to, well, sweep tables. It's been stopped dead twice - once by Potence Rush behind it, and once by heavy Gangrel untap in front of it, which is what happened to it in its first tourney appearance. I believe you underestimate the ability of a focused deck to focus. The point of this was to show just how nasty multiple big bleeds can be, esp. the bleed-for-1, oops-a-conditioning type. And this is under the official rules, where they can wait and Deflect *after* the Conditioning. >> Um, the only time a vampire's blood matters is when it has 0, and has >> to hunt. Thinking that the first 2 blood off of Didi Myers is a "40% >> reduction in strength" is a VERY inaccurate assumption. In fact, it > >Actually it is a precisely accurate statement. She is in fact at 40% >of her max. Her ability to attack is unblemished, so in your speed >S&B, she is just as useful to you until she reaches a lower point, but >for blocking/deflecting she's rapidly loosing her ability to cope. THAT is a technically accurate statement. She is 40% down from her maximum capacity. However, this does not translate into a 40% reduction in strength. Her ability to attack IS unblemished. I am not blocking anything in this deck, so her ability to block is irrelevant. I am deflecting, but generally my deflectors (as stated above) will be vampires who have just been influenced out, so she is not deflecting either. She is still, for all intents and purposes, doing just fine. Math is wonderful. But math is just numbers, and mistaking the number representing a thing for the thing itself is often a bad woops. [ quoted text not captured ]

Why are you wacking moles? Are they in your garden? Sorry, forgot, you live in Atlanta... big city, probably no garden where you live at. :) [SNIP] > *frown* OK, most if not all of my situations assume that you're my > predator or, in a couple instances, cross-table somewhere. If you are > my prey, things are much different. Okay, let's agree on a test table. Are you my predator or prey? I'll take the weenie vote deck since we know that your S&B should in theory loose to a Rush Deck. We'll work out the rest of it as needed. [SNIP] > First, the math is an inaccurate representation - it may be two-thirds > of my minions, but every minion bleeds for a lot. And you've lost the critical speed you need to avoid my miring you down since I'm popping up minions like daisies after a rainstorm. Yes, your average minion hits for a lot, but you need to hit 2 or 3 times per turn to make it work for you, which you may not be able to do after the banishment. > Second, Banishment is actually much less effective in this situation, > because my vampires will tend to have most of their blood still on > them. Spending 2 transfers to regain a medium vamp is no big deal > even if you Banish him again, because then he will just come back out > for free and the next guy will too. You'll have to wait for the > vampires to get down on blood some, which means they'll already have > DONE their damage. Well, consider that you popped Roland up, deflected with him, and tried to bleed with him, got through on a conditioning, he's down two blood. I banish him, now you have to choose to bring up Did or Roland, but not both, so you're still at one minion next round, when I banish that one. I mean a few banishments can make the difference in a S&B's life, and early in the game, aimed at my predator, while not getting a praxis out, who's gonna care? > > Third, how many Banishments are you packing in that deck? It's not > THAT useful a card, especially against weenies - and weenies are > pretty damn common. I think that it is that useful, but it is better targetted at mid vamps than weenies, which is what you're playing if I remember correctly. Add to that the deal that weenie decks are fairly rare here, having gotten a bad rap for being "out of flavor". Remember, we're not playing tournaments, we're playing for "fun." Whatever that may mean. > This whole digression into S&B points out just how powerful S&B can > actually be, and that the two primary defenses are Deflection and > Rush. "Not blocking" is a third. I feel I have already demonstrated > that Deflection is wallpaper under your house rules - and now I am > showing why there is no consistent alternative but Rush. When did you start doing that? I missed it. :) > S&B does not do well in tournaments because Deflection is also a > reasonably effective counter to any strategy based on bleeding, and > S&B can do nothing BUT bleed - therefore is often hosed since > Deflection is quite common. Okay, in tournaments, I'll defer to your greater experience, having never played VTES in a tournament, I sorta have to defer. > The example you give to disprove the "logic" is, in fact, what > actually happens. I will refer to a recent anecdote where a good > player picked up an unopened starter box of Jyhad, sat down to a game > with several other players, removed some of the crypt vampires and > some of the library cards... and swept the table. An unopened box of > starters qualifies as "poorly constructed deck", to me. It sure as > hell ain't a natural table-sweeper, and it probably can't do any given > trick more than once. Are you saying a starter pack, or a box of starters? I would wonder more about my deck being beaten by a starter more than about the player behind it. I think that situation may highlight a different problem than the one that you were wanting to illustrate. I'm not trying to down the player here, but we all know the random crap that is in a starter. > See above, where it says "to no purpose". If you have left all your > vampires untapped and I have only one stealth card, I am likely to > only attempt one bleed (for lots) that turn, despite my good hand. > (yes, I prefer to see lots of bleed and not much stealth in my hand > when playing S&B, as most people defend by just refusing to block, See, we're much more defensive here, probably because we don't rely on deflections to work always, so we don't "hope" that you'll jam up on stealth. That's a little too passive for me, and most of the other people here too. > Right. So you can't guarantee that you'll be able to get through half > your deck (to draw up and use 4 Deflections, remember) by turn 5, as > you were claiming? That was MY point. If you are flailing about just Okay, I was thinking of an extreme circumstance, just like you were. I've looked at some of the decks that you have listed, and I can see the difference and why you think the way you do about our decks here. Since we have a communal card pool, we tend to stick pretty close to a 4cl, not because we think it's fair, but because we try to leave enough of a card for someone else to make a deck involving it. So, since we can't be certain of having 15 Govern the unaligneds or 8 deflections in a deck, we tend to include multiple ways to intercept/deal with bleeds. Decks running 6 Telepathic Counters and 4 Deflections are more common than a deck running 10 Deflections. [SNIP] > You have chosen me to be your guide upon the path of Tae Kwon Leep. Shoa-pop! Boot to the Head. How many points did I get? :) [Letting math slide again.] > Oh, it's VERY valid, believe me. Just because you aren't using it > doesn't mean it's not valid, and it doesn't mean that I won't make the > same offer if I were to walk into your group, knowing nobody, and sit > down in that situation. (in fact, I will make that offer EVERY time.) I don't think you're using valid in the same sense I am. From Webster Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful To our group it's not a valid solution, if I play at your group, I'll try to remember that I can make deals, here we don't make deals, so it is a possible solution, it is not valid in our context. (for us, not you.) > Nothing prevents you from doing so, no. But it is a very stupid play > to be attempting to beat up your grand-predator in this fashion, when > the best course of action for you is to simply agree to block, punch > for 1, and let him continue putting pressure on your predator, > allowing you to put much more pressure on your OWN prey and hopefully > gain a VP. Which happens to allow you to gain 6 pool and a victory point, just like you said. So now, after being passive to you, he's got that much tougher of a road to hoe, and you're just that much stronger. I guess since we always try to sweep the table, we view everyone as eventual prey, so nothing is done to help anyone in anyway if it can be avoided. Which also explains why people move as a group to deal with a bleed deck, self preservation. [SNIP] > At one point you claimed that all my bleeds of 1 that you keep > bouncing to your prey will just be doing your work for you. Do you > now renounce that claim? (Trust me, I will have PLENTY of Spying > Missions in the deck for you as well.) How are these statements incompatible? I don't really care if you play a SM on a bleed vs my prey, doesn't hurt me, but it doesn't help you until after you take me out, which may never occur. Again, you assume that you'll have SM left, a feature of your design school. Ours doesn't allow for that comfort, so we choose to use them when needed and relevant, not spuriously on grand-prey. > So far every time you bring up a "way to neutralize a vampire", I > respond and refute it. Banishment is a TEMPORARY solution to a > problem, even more so if you happen to be my prey while you're doing > the Banishing. So far you keep clinging to the X/Anti-X theory, I respond and refute it. :P > You are assuming that my predator is also heavy bleed. It is far more > likely that he is not - that he is, in fact, something else entirely. > What it is doesn't matter much, as unless he's heavy bleed, one > Deflection per turn will suffice. You're assuming that your predator is not doing anything as effective as bleeding you. One deflection stops a bleed, but not a vote, not a rush or anything. Deflection only helps with bleeds (duh). So, you're 4 Enhanced Senses and 2 Delaying Tactics can stop a total of 6 votes, or 4 normal against you. What are you going to do after that? > Especially when you misstate them. I don't need to -afford- to leave > a vamp untapped - I have one untapped on turns 2, 3, and 4 because I > just influenced him out, and he comes out untapped and I can't take > any actions with him. =) You missed that bit. No, you don't, but you do need to consider what your predator is doing to you. No wakes in hand (with the original hand you described, again an extreme hand, no bad cards, nothing that is not directly useful, and no way to react except with a deflection, which is only useful against bleeds. > And again, if he isn't a heavy bleeder or a Rusher, then I don't need > to look backwards very much. I'm doing enough damage forwards that I > can soak for awhile. Ummm, you think? Again, here we play more defensive, so we're always looking back, very few people will tap out here unless they have wake/rat/guard etc etc in hand to cope with an incidental attack. > I believe the deck on the website is an earlier version - I need to > update it and send on to our webmonster. The later versions don't > have a whole lot of Bonding at all, almost all Conditionings. The > Bondings were removed as soon as I realized that it's much easier to > just bleed for 1 and let people waste their Wakes and such trying to > guess when the Conditioning would fall. > > Light intercept would stop it dead if Seduction didn't exist. It's > pretty easy to just Seduce the only vampire with Auspex near you for > your first Govern, and after that it pretty much rolls on its own. > And light intercept is a much different thing from full intercept. > Stop it once and it'll just Govern again later. Seduction stop blocking, and with a bunch of 4 (without the 8 dominate cards you list) only on younger vampires, Telepathic C is still valid, and will reduce that 6 bleed to four, and if you're bleeding, you're not spewing out other 4 bloods. Admittedly if looks like a powerful deck (I overlooked the Seductions before), but not here, it's not a possible deck with the environment here. I mean come on, for us, it's totally wasted, it has 5 different cards that are in numbers equal to or greater than 8. It's a 75 card deck for luck's sake. > Math is wonderful. But math is just numbers, and mistaking the number > representing a thing for the thing itself is often a bad woops. And just think, using the wrong numbers to represent the right thing is just as bad of a whoops. What's the chance of you rolling a 6 on a die? Lee Who's Laughing Now? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Lee Fent" <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8sfpbc$3il$1...@nnrp1.deja.com... > > And again, if he isn't a heavy bleeder or a Rusher, then I don't need > > to look backwards very much. I'm doing enough damage forwards that I > > can soak for awhile. > > Ummm, you think? Again, here we play more defensive, so we're always > looking back, very few people will tap out here unless they have > wake/rat/guard etc etc in hand to cope with an incidental attack. Just out of curiosity...what would happen if you started bluffing about having wakes/untap in hand, and started tapping out every single turn? Or not even bluffing...just start taking actions all the time and when they try to figure out what you're up to, just smile? Do you think your friends would: a) assume that you still had wakes in hand? b) start taking more actions to try to oust you? c) other? Discuss. :) This is how a number of the people I play with play (defensive), and I think I (and a few other players) confuse them, because they don't understand the strategy, that being to take as many actions as possible, and worry as little about defense as necessary. I don't always remain completely defenseless, but sometimes I have nothing in hand to defend with, tap out anyway, and my predator still does nothing more than a bleed for 1 or 2 to me because he's worried about what I've got waiting. For example, let's say I'm playing a Tremere 2nd-round combat & bleed deck. Go ahead and just bleed a lot during my turn. As I understand your house rules and playgroup interaction, I could sit with a WwEF in my hand and a Deflection, and deflect the first bleed that came at me, before any stealth was added. If I do this to the first bleed coming my way, and maybe another one that turn or the next, would the predator assume then that I'm never entirely defenseless, and thus hold back, or would he just go whole hog, seeing that I'm tapping out every turn? Just a couple of thoughts for consideration. Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:44:30 GMT, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: >Okay, let's agree on a test table. Are you my predator or prey? I'll >take the weenie vote deck since we know that your S&B should in theory >loose to a Rush Deck. We'll work out the rest of it as needed. *shrug* A true "test table" would include three other decks as well. Unfortunately, the only real "test" is to see how things do against a variety of decks - one table really isn't all that sufficient, as either you may be near a deck that just can't do anything, or a deck that can do EVERYTHING. I think we have to stay with individual deck back-and-forth. So far i've been assuming you were my prey, since that was where yours came from. >> First, the math is an inaccurate representation - it may be two-thirds >> of my minions, but every minion bleeds for a lot. > >And you've lost the critical speed you need to avoid my miring you down >since I'm popping up minions like daisies after a rainstorm. Yes, your Note that weenie vote decks don't bounce bleeds too good, so I don't give a damn how many minions you have who can't block or bounce =) >average minion hits for a lot, but you need to hit 2 or 3 times per >turn to make it work for you, which you may not be able to do after the >banishment. banishment, banishment, banishment - I submit that you simply don't have that many banishments in your deck, and that you have NO guarantee of drawing them up early on, WITH the votes available to pass one. If you -do- have that many banishments in your deck, how do you ever plan on ousting your prey? Bonking down his vampires is fine and all, but you have to actually get rid of his pool sometime. I can make the claims that an S&B will always be able to bleed for X at a certain amount of stealth, because it *can*. It has that many of the cards in the deck, and it doesn't hurt it any. But a weenie vote deck with 10 Banishments? (shakes head) Not very likely. >Well, consider that you popped Roland up, deflected with him, and tried >to bleed with him, got through on a conditioning, he's down two blood. >I banish him, now you have to choose to bring up Did or Roland, but not >both, so you're still at one minion next round, when I banish that >one. I mean a few banishments can make the difference in a S&B's life, >and early in the game, aimed at my predator, while not getting a praxis >out, who's gonna care? First, your prey will. He wants me around to put pressure on you, so that you have to keep going backwards. Second, one early Banishment does NOT make a difference in an S&B's life. The vampire come back and it just moves a little slower. Third, you are going to have to be one very, very lucky person to have two Banishments in your opening hand - that, or you've put 10 in the deck, which is really a total waste of card space. I repeat, Banishment is NOT THAT EFFECTIVE in large quantities. A single Banishment, well-timed, is VERY effective - but just Banishing guys who are down 2 blood isn't going to cut it, and won't matter in the long run. Waiting 'til Ozmo runs himself out of blood and has to hunt next turn, and THEN Banishing him... that's effective. But it's also not suitable for your purposes since by then he's probably bled for 15. >> Third, how many Banishments are you packing in that deck? It's not >> THAT useful a card, especially against weenies - and weenies are >> pretty damn common. > >I think that it is that useful, but it is better targetted at mid vamps >than weenies, which is what you're playing if I remember correctly. Yes, but what if you run into weenies? You'll have a huge chunk of your deck be useless in that case, and you'll be randomly Banishing all over the place just to get the things out of your hand, when you'd much prefer to be KRC'ing. >Add to that the deal that weenie decks are fairly rare here, having >gotten a bad rap for being "out of flavor". Remember, we're not >playing tournaments, we're playing for "fun." Whatever that may mean. going back to the long-ago original point that having to use social pressure to keep one's house rules valid is usually a good indicator that one's rules are foo-foo'd. >> S&B does not do well in tournaments because Deflection is also a >> reasonably effective counter to any strategy based on bleeding, and >> S&B can do nothing BUT bleed - therefore is often hosed since >> Deflection is quite common. > >Okay, in tournaments, I'll defer to your greater experience, having >never played VTES in a tournament, I sorta have to defer. ...now do you see why making Deflection wallpaper is a bad thing? >Are you saying a starter pack, or a box of starters? I would wonder >more about my deck being beaten by a starter more than about the player >behind it. I think that situation may highlight a different problem >than the one that you were wanting to illustrate. I'm not trying to >down the player here, but we all know the random crap that is in a >starter. One starter pack. You can down or not down the player all you want, and we DO all know the random crap that's in a starter, but I find that it indicates quite effectively just how much skill matters - something that's been well known for awhile now. Unless a deck is deliberately crippled, a good player can always make the most out of what it provides. >> See above, where it says "to no purpose". If you have left all your >> vampires untapped and I have only one stealth card, I am likely to >> only attempt one bleed (for lots) that turn, despite my good hand. >> (yes, I prefer to see lots of bleed and not much stealth in my hand >> when playing S&B, as most people defend by just refusing to block, > >See, we're much more defensive here, probably because we don't rely on >deflections to work always, so we don't "hope" that you'll jam up on >stealth. That's a little too passive for me, and most of the other >people here too. I think you misunderstand the strategy. If, as last night, I'm playing my Gangrel Anti knock-your-block-off deck (torporized and diablerized a full Don Cruez the turn he came out! =), then I don't have access to bounce OR intercept. I had a Malk Anti stealth-bleed deck behind me. If I don't block, he'll use up his bleed cards and modifiers fairly quickly, and have nothing left in his hand but stealth, which he won't be able to play because I'm not blocking. So fairly quickly, he won't be able to bleed me for more than 1 a turn and won't be able to cycle his hand to get to other bleed cards. It's passive defensively, but it does permit you to be completely offensive on your own turn, since you know you won't be blocking anything. So now you're moving faster, and your predator is moving slower... hmm. One of the biggest problems newer players face is the tendency to be defensive and try to stop everything. It can't be done. Offense always wins. Stealth will always eventually beat intercept. Bleed will always eventually beat bounce/reduction. Combat will always eventually beat S:CE. It's been designed this way. So the trick is learning what to TRY to stop. >> Right. So you can't guarantee that you'll be able to get through half >> your deck (to draw up and use 4 Deflections, remember) by turn 5, as >> you were claiming? That was MY point. If you are flailing about just > >Okay, I was thinking of an extreme circumstance, just like you were. (head shake) Mine aren't extreme though. Everything I've listed is pretty much standard for an S&B deck, because it really is a one-trick pony - it doesn't have that many different cards in it, so your hand usually DOES look like that. >I've looked at some of the decks that you have listed, and I can see >the difference and why you think the way you do about our decks here. >Since we have a communal card pool, we tend to stick pretty close to a All I can say here is "If it works for you." I can't see it, myself, and I'd even be willing to debate "works for you", because by pooling all the cards up like that and deliberately leaving "some for everyone"... (shrug) Anyway. >4cl, not because we think it's fair, but because we try to leave enough >of a card for someone else to make a deck involving it. So, since we >can't be certain of having 15 Govern the unaligneds or 8 deflections in >a deck, we tend to include multiple ways to intercept/deal with >bleeds. Decks running 6 Telepathic Counters and 4 Deflections are more >common than a deck running 10 Deflections. auspex AND dominate? Malkavians! =) >[SNIP] >> You have chosen me to be your guide upon the path of Tae Kwon Leep. > >Shoa-pop! Boot to the Head. How many points did I get? :) Uh, Yeah! It's ME! You know... Ed Gruberman? >[Letting math slide again.] > >> Oh, it's VERY valid, believe me. Just because you aren't using it >> doesn't mean it's not valid, and it doesn't mean that I won't make the >> same offer if I were to walk into your group, knowing nobody, and sit >> down in that situation. (in fact, I will make that offer EVERY time.) > >I don't think you're using valid in the same sense I am. From Webster > >Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and >meaningful That's the sense I'm using it in. >To our group it's not a valid solution, if I play at your group, I'll >try to remember that I can make deals, here we don't make deals, so it >is a possible solution, it is not valid in our context. (for us, not >you.) When I'm sitting way over here, playing with my own group, it's not relevant, no. If I come to your group, it becomes much more relevant and meaningful, because I'm going to offer that deal BEFORE I decide whether or not to add stealth to the bleed. I should quit calling it a deal, since it's more of a threat/blackmail. And if you are my prey, your grandprey is going to be revising his opinion of deals very quickly when a bleed of 3 at stealth is pointed down his throat - and he still has to defend against you on YOUR turn. I would be very surprised if I couldn't convince your prey that it was in his own best interest to block and punch for 1 as opposed to trying to toast my vampire. Perhaps I'm giving your playgroup more credit than they deserve, but I find that "doesn't make deals" is never an absolute. =) >> Nothing prevents you from doing so, no. But it is a very stupid play >> to be attempting to beat up your grand-predator in this fashion, when >> the best course of action for you is to simply agree to block, punch >> for 1, and let him continue putting pressure on your predator, >> allowing you to put much more pressure on your OWN prey and hopefully >> gain a VP. > >Which happens to allow you to gain 6 pool and a victory point, just >like you said. So now, after being passive to you, he's got that much So let's see... he makes a deal that gives his grand-predator a VP, and gives himself a VP, as opposed to refusing the deal and getting ousted, giving himself 0 VPs. How is this bad for him? >tougher of a road to hoe, and you're just that much stronger. I guess And HE's just that much stronger, since he's had little to no pressure from you all this time, and he probably just got 6 pool and a VP himself. >since we always try to sweep the table, we view everyone as eventual >prey, so nothing is done to help anyone in anyway if it can be >avoided. Which also explains why people move as a group to deal with a >bleed deck, self preservation. How is winning 4-1 different from winning 5-0? >> At one point you claimed that all my bleeds of 1 that you keep >> bouncing to your prey will just be doing your work for you. Do you >> now renounce that claim? (Trust me, I will have PLENTY of Spying >> Missions in the deck for you as well.) > >How are these statements incompatible? I don't really care if you play Well, you said that I would be damaging your prey, which by playing a SM on them, I won't be. This seems to point up a bit of contradiction. >a SM on a bleed vs my prey, doesn't hurt me, but it doesn't help you >until after you take me out, which may never occur. Again, you assume Doesn't help YOU either. It's a making-the-best-of-what-I-have decision, and if you deflect, since I can't damage you, I might as well not HELP you. >that you'll have SM left, a feature of your design school. Ours So you force newcomers to your group to design decks after your fashion? If I came to your group, I would bring my style of deck. A Night Moves/Spying Mission deck that I brought would DEFINITELY have SM's left - and under your house rules, it would be almost impossible to stop. >doesn't allow for that comfort, so we choose to use them when needed >and relevant, not spuriously on grand-prey. Uh... it's FAR from spuriously. If I think I can oust you, it doesn't hurt me at all to set up the next guy down the line so I can maybe get two of you in the same turn eventually. If I never get you, oh well. -shrug- At least I didn't HELP you. >> So far every time you bring up a "way to neutralize a vampire", I >> respond and refute it. Banishment is a TEMPORARY solution to a >> problem, even more so if you happen to be my prey while you're doing >> the Banishing. > >So far you keep clinging to the X/Anti-X theory, I respond and refute >it. :P But you need to be trying to do it without imagining these crazy decks with 10-12 Banishments in them and 2 in your opening hand. =) >> You are assuming that my predator is also heavy bleed. It is far more >> likely that he is not - that he is, in fact, something else entirely. >> What it is doesn't matter much, as unless he's heavy bleed, one >> Deflection per turn will suffice. > >You're assuming that your predator is not doing anything as effective >as bleeding you. One deflection stops a bleed, but not a vote, not a >rush or anything. Deflection only helps with bleeds (duh). So, you're And we come back to rush! =) >4 Enhanced Senses and 2 Delaying Tactics can stop a total of 6 votes, >or 4 normal against you. What are you going to do after that? (shrug) i'll ignore them, probably. I believe in pool gain as a defense. I will have a few Blood Dolls in this deck, and the bigger guys will be donating some of their blood back to me. Probably a Hunting Ground as well, since this is a clan deck and the vamps ARE spending blood. And I get 6 for ousting someone, and I doubt I'll get out more than about 4 vamps total... so I'll have quite a big pool buffer. Again, you don't need to be actively defending all the time - especially since a vote deck, in general, does 3 per vote (KRC being the most common). Bleed decks have the capacity to do lots more, so I defend against bleed and figure "pool gain" for vote. >> Especially when you misstate them. I don't need to -afford- to leave >> a vamp untapped - I have one untapped on turns 2, 3, and 4 because I >> just influenced him out, and he comes out untapped and I can't take >> any actions with him. =) You missed that bit. > >No, you don't, but you do need to consider what your predator is doing >to you. No wakes in hand (with the original hand you described, again >an extreme hand, no bad cards, nothing that is not directly useful, and >no way to react except with a deflection, which is only useful against >bleeds. Well, actually, the 2 Governs aren't all that useful if I don't have a big DOM vampire available. But it's likely to be what I see, so I included them in the hand. Sure, I can bleed forward with them, but that risks unpleasant Deflections. And it's not extreme, frankly. It's what your hand tends to look like when you're playing S&B. Wakes ARE in the deck (1 for each Deflection), I just didn't include one in the hand because, again, I didn't want it to be an "extremely good" hand. I also didn't include a Blood Doll, if you notice. What my predator is doing to me largely becomes irrelevant. If I draw up a way to stop a vote, that's kinda neat - if not, that's what all that pool there is for. 16 pool takes a LONG time to burn through when you're going 3 at a time. >> And again, if he isn't a heavy bleeder or a Rusher, then I don't need >> to look backwards very much. I'm doing enough damage forwards that I >> can soak for awhile. > >Ummm, you think? Again, here we play more defensive, so we're always >looking back, very few people will tap out here unless they have >wake/rat/guard etc etc in hand to cope with an incidental attack. I don't care if they're tapped or not. I have stealth for when they DO try to block. And yes, I do think that 16 pool is quite a bit to have to wade through for ANY deck that can't bleed for 6 at a time. God forbid you're playing a Rush deck and don't end up with any Rush actions - your bleeds for 1 will take FOREVER to get through me, and if you think i'm blocking them, you're crazy. :) >> Light intercept would stop it dead if Seduction didn't exist. It's >> pretty easy to just Seduce the only vampire with Auspex near you for >> your first Govern, and after that it pretty much rolls on its own. >> And light intercept is a much different thing from full intercept. >> Stop it once and it'll just Govern again later. > >Seduction stop blocking, and with a bunch of 4 (without the 8 dominate >cards you list) only on younger vampires, Telepathic C is still valid, The 8 Dominate masters are crucial to that deck. A vampire without superior DOM will not be using superior Govern, and will not be using superior Seduction as a result -- so he'll be bleeding forward at 0 stealth. >and will reduce that 6 bleed to four, and if you're bleeding, you're >not spewing out other 4 bloods. Admittedly if looks like a powerful The FIRST action the deck should take is to Govern to a second vampire. The second and third actions the deck should take are to Govern out the rest of my crypt. I just paid 7 pool for four 4-caps, two with inferior and two with superior Dominate. EVERYONE bleeds from here on in, and I pick up new vampires as I can get them into my uncontrolled region and get a Govern in hand. The biggest weakness is trying to get 2 Dominate masters into my hand in the first 3 turns. (I believe I actually use 10 of them in the current version.) I learned the first couple times I played the deck - it is a VERY bad misplay to be bleeding and not be Governing backwards early on, no matter how tempting that early bleed of 6 is. >deck (I overlooked the Seductions before), but not here, it's not a >possible deck with the environment here. I mean come on, for us, it's >totally wasted, it has 5 different cards that are in numbers equal to >or greater than 8. It's a 75 card deck for luck's sake. (shrug) It's possible here. What if someone donated a whole bunch of cards to you? :) What would you do then? :) >> Math is wonderful. But math is just numbers, and mistaking the number >> representing a thing for the thing itself is often a bad woops. > >And just think, using the wrong numbers to represent the right thing is >just as bad of a whoops. What's the chance of you rolling a 6 on a die? Good thing my numbers are right! :) I didn't know there were dice in V:TES, though, and rolling a 6 on a die is a very simple probability to calculate. Although it's just as simple to realize that a vampire with 3 blood is just as effective as a vampire with 5 blood if they're only spending 1 blood (Conditioning) for each action. =) [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > I will refer to a recent anecdote where a good > player picked up an unopened starter box of Jyhad, sat down to a game > with several other players, removed some of the crypt vampires and > some of the library cards... and swept the table. An unopened box of > starters qualifies as "poorly constructed deck", to me. It sure as > hell ain't a natural table-sweeper, and it probably can't do any given > trick more than once. It is probably worth noting that the table in question was a table of a sealed deck tournament - the other players had the advantage of having extra booster packs (2 or 4) and having tuned their decks down - taking out the useless cards. While certainly a disadvantage, it's not quite the same thing as sitting down amongst a table of true "constructed" decks. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Deja Fu - http://www.math.sc.edu/~sjohnson | The feeling that things have Graphics Specialist and V:TES Rulemonger | been this FU'ed before.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:13:15 -0400, "L. Scott Johnson" <sjoh...@math.sc.edu> wrote: >It is probably worth noting that the table in question was a table of >a sealed deck tournament - the other players had the advantage of >having extra booster packs (2 or 4) and having tuned their decks down - >taking out the useless cards. > >While certainly a disadvantage, it's not quite the same thing as sitting >down amongst a table of true "constructed" decks. So noted for future reference. =) That actually brings it a bit more in line with a 'realistic' example of a poorly constructed deck (one with multiple useless cards) compared to not-as-poorly constructed decks. =) -- Derek "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - C. Darwin, 1871

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:09trus49r58krt9nm...@4ax.com... > LSJ wrote > >While certainly a disadvantage, it's not quite the same thing as sitting > >down amongst a table of true "constructed" decks. > > So noted for future reference. =) That actually brings it a bit more > in line with a 'realistic' example of a poorly constructed deck (one > with multiple useless cards) compared to not-as-poorly constructed > decks. =) Though I recently introduced a friend to the game, and he sat down with a box of Jyhad boosters, I assisted him in constructing a "big Ventrue" deck, and he pulled off a place-switching vote, and swept the table against two relatively tuned decks and another relatively new player who missed seeing the errata on Army of Rats...oooh...he wasn't pleased. :) Xian -- I'd tell the world and save my soul, But rain falls down and I feel cold. A cold that sleeps within my heart, It tears the earth and sun apart. --_Shellshock_, New Order www.waste.org/~xian

On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Derek Ray wrote: > to calculate. Although it's just as simple to realize that a vampire > with 3 blood is just as effective as a vampire with 5 blood if they're > only spending 1 blood (Conditioning) for each action. =) Where "effective" is defined as "the ability to play this card at this moment in time", of course. The amount of blood a vampire has can affect a number of things. A 5 blood vampire won't have to hunt so soon, for example. A 5 blood vampire has more "protection" from "slap you for hands". etc. -- James Coupe | PGP Key 0x5D623D5D "And all the while I'm thinking things that I can never share with him. I'm a bundle of confusion, yet it has a strange appeal. Did it all begin with him and the way he makes me feel?"

In article <isirus49p1hi7f8ba...@4ax.com>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I think we have to stay with individual deck back-and-forth. So far > i've been assuming you were my prey, since that was where yours came > from. Fine, I am your prey then. > banishment, banishment, banishment - I submit that you simply don't > have that many banishments in your deck, and that you have NO Let's see here, how about something like this. 10 Banishments 10 KRC 9 Praxis 8 Voter Con 8 Majesty 5 Presence 5 Aire of Elation 5 Consang Condem 5 Bewitching 3 Wake with 2 Delaying Tactics 2 Elder Intervent 2 Effective Management 1 Sudden Reversal Shows 10 Banish, and still a fairly effective voter weenie deck. > guarantee of drawing them up early on, WITH the votes available to Pretty good chances of having a banishment and a praxis or a bewitching in the first 9 cards. Hrmmm. > deck with 10 Banishments? (shakes head) Not very likely. Well, appearently it's at least possible. > First, your prey will. He wants me around to put pressure on you, so > that you have to keep going backwards. My prey has to decide between the two evils behind him. You know, just for the record, every time you have to pay two more blood to bring that recently banished vampire up, it's the same as if I'd bled you for two, which your predator is loving, since your theory of buffer as defense is going down the pot rapidly. > going back to the long-ago original point that having to use social > pressure to keep one's house rules valid is usually a good indicator > that one's rules are foo-foo'd. No, going to the original statement of we play for fun, not to win. Win or lose we try to have fun. > One starter pack. You can down or not down the player all you want, > and we DO all know the random crap that's in a starter, but I find > that it indicates quite effectively just how much skill matters - > something that's been well known for awhile now. Unless a deck is > deliberately crippled, a good player can always make the most out of > what it provides. Thanks for fully explaining the situation. Looks like you're not above leaving bits out to try to make a point. > anything. So now you're moving faster, and your predator is moving > slower... hmm. I don't really see how this can be that drastic. In S&B you need the B most, you only need the S to be one greater than the prey's intercept. And you should always have some way to pitch hands or cards, in any deck. That's just a concept, otherwise you run the chance of having serious hand jam, regardless of deck type. > All I can say here is "If it works for you." I can't see it, myself, > and I'd even be willing to debate "works for you", because by pooling > all the cards up like that and deliberately leaving "some for > everyone"... (shrug) Anyway. Fair enough, it's too close to a philosophy of life arguement anyway. > auspex AND dominate? Malkavians! =) Tremere or ! Tremere :) > That's the sense I'm using it in. Nah, it's not meaningful here. It is there. Valid for you, not for me. See how that works? :) > When I'm sitting way over here, playing with my own group, it's not > relevant, no. If I come to your group, it becomes much more relevant > and meaningful, because I'm going to offer that deal BEFORE I decide > whether or not to add stealth to the bleed. I should quit calling it Wow, you decide to add stealth before they decide if they want to block? Cool, I think that a house rule too. Yes, I know that is not what you meant, but what you read can be taken that way. I couldn't resist taking the poke at you. :) > a deal, since it's more of a threat/blackmail. And if you are my > prey, your grandprey is going to be revising his opinion of deals very > quickly when a bleed of 3 at stealth is pointed down his throat - and > he still has to defend against you on YOUR turn. Erk? I think you skipped a generation. > So let's see... he makes a deal that gives his grand-predator a VP, > and gives himself a VP, as opposed to refusing the deal and getting > ousted, giving himself 0 VPs. How is this bad for him? No promise of a VP for himself in any event, you can't make assumptions based on what he may or may not be able to do. Frankly the game could end with him having 4vp and you having 1 just as easily. > How is winning 4-1 different from winning 5-0? Umm, by a victory point? :) > (shrug) i'll ignore them, probably. I believe in pool gain as a > defense. I will have a few Blood Dolls in this deck, and the bigger > guys will be donating some of their blood back to me. Probably a Which further weakens them blah blah blah... you can guess my arguement here. Wait a few rounds, banish, dealt 4 blood of "damage" to you to get him back. I know, it's blood you pulled off of him, but it's wasted transfers too, and your predator has taken 3 of those 4 you pulled off of him in bleeds already... > What my predator is doing to me largely becomes irrelevant. If I draw > up a way to stop a vote, that's kinda neat - if not, that's what all > that pool there is for. 16 pool takes a LONG time to burn through > when you're going 3 at a time. If I have Three vamps able to act a turn? Say 1 KRC, 1 Banish, and 1 Aire? About two turns... Assuming that you bring the banished back up. Hrmm, seems like a long time to me :) > (shrug) It's possible here. What if someone donated a whole bunch of > cards to you? :) What would you do then? :) I'd do a little dance? And still make decks the same way. Someone would have to donate a large number of cards before we can all make 10/deck type decks. There are 5 people making decks from the same pool, and most of us have two or three decks. > V:TES, though, and rolling a 6 on a die is a very simple probability So, what's the probability of drawing 1 out of 72? Hrmm? For the die rolling a given number it's about 16%. I'm wondering where your 35% chance to draw a given card from 72 came from. Even give that you are 7 times more likely since you have 7 of the card in there... Lee Who's Laughing Now? Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

In article <8sn5hu$5bi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Lee Fent <lf...@my-deja.com> wrote: > So, what's the probability of drawing 1 out of 72? Hrmm? For the die > rolling a given number it's about 16%. I'm wondering where your 35% > chance to draw a given card from 72 came from. Even give that you are > 7 times more likely since you have 7 of the card in there... You're not seven times more likely, since there's a possibility you might draw more than one in your draw, which is -- for the purposes of this probability discussion -- equivalent to drawing just one. I went and dug through some references to find the paragraph this whole discussion refers to. >I didn't use at least 1 and usually 2+ card up during my turn. Giving >me 4 chances to replace that used deflection, which is a 40% (assuming >8 deflections in a 80 card deck) Some of the above comments can be Let's assume that you have, indeed, played or discarded four cards during your turn, one of which was a Deflection. You will now be replacing four cards from a deck of 73 (80 cards - a 7 card hand) containing 7 Deflections. For each card you draw, the chance of it NOT being a Deflection is equal to the number of cards left in the deck that are not Deflections divided by the total number of cards in the deck. Thus, the chance of you NOT getting a Deflection in four draws is: 66/73 * 65/72 * 64/71 * 63/70 = .662 Therefore, the chance of you getting at least one is 1 - .662 = .338 = 34%. -- William Burke, passenge...@hotmail.com. HTH. HAND. * <--- Perth Support peer pressure -- kick a lemming off a cliff. Go Slugs! Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Lee Fent wrote: > You know, just for the record, every time you have to pay two more > blood to bring that recently banished vampire up, it's the same as if > I'd bled you for two, which your predator is loving, Which is exactly why a lot of people *don't* do it. The idea is to keep your predator off you, not allow your grand-predator to oust them more quickly. If you let your grand-predator get an easy ride, he just has more cards to kill you with. > since your theory > of buffer as defense is going down the pot rapidly. And by so doing, you waste cards that could have been used to destroy your prey. By all means, Banishing your predator's vampires is a good thing, but over-use of it is foolish. e.g. getting rid of Beast can save your skin, just so long as it doesn't mean that your predator now has no vampires and your grand-predator has an oust secured. [ quoted text not captured ]